Catholic and evangelical scholars have dreaded his appearance for centuries. Unfortunately, time for avoiding Peter the Roman [Petrus Romanus] just ran out. Michael K. Lake, Th.D.
Yes, essentially it’s a commercial,(sorry) but apparently the new Book PETRUS ROMANUS is an exhaustive study
on the next Pope following THIS one…Thoughts?
'Waiting for ‘KingKai’ to shoot this theory down at once, (Blasphemy! Fairy Tales!)…lol j/k.
A thread about catholic voodoo, that’s a first!
Let’s see- the end is near, because a medieval prophecy apparently foresaw every pope.
And the very last one will come after Raitzinger and he’ll be an asshole and the world …will … be… J-U-D-G-E-D.
What, the last verse says: Id est merda taurorum, lollum magna!?
Maya, Nostradamus, viking aliens…I hope people will remember this one falling apart in a few years and become a bit more skeptical after that.
Karado isn’t saying he takes this goofiness seriously?
Well, That would depend solely on St. Malachy’s previous track record…wouldn’t it?
Excramentum tauris etiam bonem stercorat, “Schwarzfahrer”.
Petrus Romanus, if he arrives, may not be such a bad guy. Maybe he will expose the church for what it really is, and people will turn away from it and towards The Father.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Petrus Romanus, if he arrives, may not be such a bad guy. Maybe he will expose the church for what it really is, and people will turn away from it and towards The Father.[/quote]
Why do you think that it’s either you are with the Church or the Father? You do know the Church holds the Father’s authority on earth and can bind and loose on earth and it is bound and loosed in Heaven?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Petrus Romanus, if he arrives, may not be such a bad guy. Maybe he will expose the church for what it really is, and people will turn away from it and towards The Father.[/quote]
Why do you think that it’s either you are with the Church or the Father? You do know the Church holds the Father’s authority on earth and can bind and loose on earth and it is bound and loosed in Heaven?[/quote]
Christ gave Peter that authority. Not Simon Magus, the real first pope, who called himself Peter. Peter wasn’t even in Rome when the papacy was established.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Petrus Romanus, if he arrives, may not be such a bad guy. Maybe he will expose the church for what it really is, and people will turn away from it and towards The Father.[/quote]
Why do you think that it’s either you are with the Church or the Father? You do know the Church holds the Father’s authority on earth and can bind and loose on earth and it is bound and loosed in Heaven?[/quote]
Christ gave Peter that authority. Not Simon Magus, the real first pope, who called himself Peter. Peter wasn’t even in Rome when the papacy was established.[/quote]
You’re right, Peter wasn’t in Rome when the Papacy was established he was in Caesarea Philippi. And, the Papacy wasn’t established in Rome. It was established in the town of Caesarea Philippi, by Jesus. 
And, why would someone call themselves Peter…you do know that no one in antiquity called themselves Peter, except Simon Bar’Jona?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Petrus Romanus, if he arrives, may not be such a bad guy. Maybe he will expose the church for what it really is, and people will turn away from it and towards The Father.[/quote]
Why do you think that it’s either you are with the Church or the Father? You do know the Church holds the Father’s authority on earth and can bind and loose on earth and it is bound and loosed in Heaven?[/quote]
Christ gave Peter that authority. Not Simon Magus, the real first pope, who called himself Peter. Peter wasn’t even in Rome when the papacy was established.[/quote]
You’re right, Peter wasn’t in Rome when the Papacy was established he was in Caesarea Philippi. And, the Papacy wasn’t established in Rome. It was established in the town of Caesarea Philippi, by Jesus.
And, why would someone call themselves Peter…you do know that no one in antiquity called themselves Peter, except Simon Bar’Jona? [/quote]
And Simon Magus. After he established the universal church (Catholicism) in Rome. Why would he declare his name ‘Peter’? Gee, I wonder. To aid in the Deception?
Christ never called Peter the “pope”. He specifically stated that we are supposed to call no man ‘father’. ‘Pope’, ‘padre’, ‘pastor’ all mean ‘father’.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
And Simon Magus. After he established the universal church (Catholicism) in Rome. Why would he declare his name ‘Peter’? Gee, I wonder. To aid in the Deception?[/quote]
No, Simon Magus never called himself Peter. He wrote the Acts of Peter. But that’s to the extent of that.
[quote]Christ never called Peter the “pope”. He specifically stated that we are supposed to call no man ‘father’. ‘Pope’, ‘padre’, ‘pastor’ all mean ‘father’.
[/quote]
No one ever asserted that Jesus called Peter, Pope. Why would he need to call Peter, Pope?
Except Jesus called Abraham father. So, there goes your theory.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< And Simon Magus. After he established the universal church (Catholicism) in Rome. Why would he declare his name ‘Peter’? Gee, I wonder. To aid in the Deception?
Christ never called Peter the “pope”. He specifically stated that we are supposed to call no man ‘father’. ‘Pope’, ‘padre’, ‘pastor’ all mean ‘father’.
[/quote]You’ll just have to excuse Christopher. He has been absent from school the last couple days and you have not yet properly set about reviewing your curriculum with him. He didn’t bring your apple but that’s okay, I have two.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
And Simon Magus. After he established the universal church (Catholicism) in Rome. Why would he declare his name ‘Peter’? Gee, I wonder. To aid in the Deception?[/quote]
No, Simon Magus never called himself Peter. He wrote the Acts of Peter. But that’s to the extent of that.
[quote]Christ never called Peter the “pope”. He specifically stated that we are supposed to call no man ‘father’. ‘Pope’, ‘padre’, ‘pastor’ all mean ‘father’.
[/quote]
No one ever asserted that Jesus called Peter, Pope. Why would he need to call Peter, Pope?
Except Jesus called Abraham father. So, there goes your theory. [/quote]
If Christ didn’t name Peter the pope, then He didn’t institute the papacy.
Why would a Babylonian magician, who was revered as a god by many in Rome (So many that they built a statue in his honor) write the Acts of Peter? What possible motive would he have to write a book about someone who he considered to be of lesser status?
To aid in the Deception!
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If Christ didn’t name Peter the pope, then He didn’t institute the papacy.[/quote]
Christ didn’t name Peter the Pope because Pope isn’t a name, it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father, just as I call the See of Egypt, Pope. That being said Jesus did make Peter the head shepherd on earth.
…wait you do know that there are multiple Popes at the same time, right? Tradition dictates that you can call all bishops and senior clergy, Pope. I call my neighbor my pope priest since he is the dean of the diocese.
Sorry, I have to retract my statement. Simon Magus was mentioned in the Acts of Peter, not that he wrote it (likely Leucius Charinus wrote it*). I really don’t see any documented sources that have Simon Magus claiming to be Peter or any documented sources of antiquity that have anyone except Simon Peter being called Peter.
Unless you have some kind of documented source to prove your assertions I’m going to have to assume you’re just fibbing, now.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
it’s a proper title gave to him by the faithful informally at the time because he’s our spiritual father[/quote]
Again. My point exactly. How could Christ’s faithful followers completely ignore His direct order to “call no man father”?
Simon Peter would never have accepted that title!
Those were Simon Magus’ followers, who revered him as a god, who named him ‘father’!
Peter went to Rome to oppose this Devil, and was crucified upside down on Vatican Hill for opposing the views of the Universal (Catholic) Church. He was crucified upside down at his own request in order to never be confused with Christ!
Now tell me; Why would the one true Church be located on Vatican Hill instead of in Caesarea Philippi?
Do you think that Christ literally meant that He was going to build a church on top of him? Or do you think maybe it was Simon Magus symbolizing his victory over all those who oppose him?
Magus was a Babylonian pagan. The Revelation calls the church “Babylon” for a reason. It was founded on Babylonian paganism, and that’s why there are so many pagan rituals and practices mixed into it.
Revelation 16
[quote]I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She had a gold cup in her hand filled with everything vie and with the impurities of her prostitution. On her forehead a cryptic name was written:
BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH
Then I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and on the blood of the witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished[/quote]
The vision, and the explanation, both describe the Catholic church very well.
Wellllll, IDK ''bout that Jaypierce, that’s from an assumption that John was writing about
some 21’ST Century Scenario in the first place…Maybe,MAYBE but not Likely.
This Petrus Romanus subject is interesting, then again I’m not ‘locked and loaded’ into the relatively new
Dispensationalist Philosophy yet…The “Beast” of Revelation was LIKELY Nero, and what he did to Christians
was epic and horrendous…Something that, according to Scripture, will NEVER happen again (on that scale anyway).
Which is kind of a relief actually, when one thinks about it from a Partial Preterist P.O.V.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Revelation 16
[quote]I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She had a gold cup in her hand filled with everything vie and with the impurities of her prostitution. On her forehead a cryptic name was written:
BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH
Then I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and on the blood of the witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished[/quote]
The vision, and the explanation, both describe the Catholic church very well.[/quote]
Actually the WHore of Babylon is Jerusalem. It even says that its where our Lord was crucified!
[quote]Karado wrote:
Wellllll, IDK ''bout that Jaypierce, that’s from an assumption that John was writing about
some 21’ST Century Scenario in the first place…Maybe,MAYBE but not Likely.
This Petrus Romanus subject is interesting, then again I’m not ‘locked and loaded’ into the relatively new
Dispensationalist Philosophy yet…The “Beast” of Revelation was LIKELY Nero, and what he did to Christians
was epic and horrendous…Something that, according to Scripture, will NEVER happen again (on that scale anyway).
Which is kind of a relief actually, when one thinks about it from a Partial Preterist P.O.V.[/quote]
21st Century? The Catholic church has been established in Rome since the first century and continues to this day!
Nero was certainly horrible, but the Revelation definitely describes Babylon as a great city.
The Beast in this case is Rome, and the Vatican is the whore. Look at the color representations as well. Romans were pretty big on red, and the senior clergy of the church favors purple and scarlet.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Revelation 16
[quote]I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She had a gold cup in her hand filled with everything vie and with the impurities of her prostitution. On her forehead a cryptic name was written:
BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE VILE THINGS OF THE EARTH
Then I saw that the woman was drunk on the blood of the saints and on the blood of the witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished[/quote]
The vision, and the explanation, both describe the Catholic church very well.[/quote]
Actually the WHore of Babylon is Jerusalem. It even says that its where our Lord was crucified!
[/quote]
I just read it again and couldn’t find that reference. A little help?
Better yet here’s an article. It compares old and new testament scripture