Confusion abounds. Let’s see if we can’t help clear things up a bit.

Apparently it is being argued that Peter’s denial of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His Sorrowful Passion is somehow proof that “the Pope can be an apostate.”

Oy… 🤦🏻‍♀️

The Pope is Christ’s VICAR on earth, and the visible head and principal of unity of the Church Militant.

So far so good?

So, therefore, two things:

Christ had no need of a VICAR while He was CORPOREALLY PRESENT ON EARTH, which He was until the Ascension, forty days after the Resurrection.

Further, the Petrine promise in Matthew 16 is in the FUTURE tense. Will build. Will give. Shalt bind.

Why? Because, as we all know, the Church was “born” at Pentecost, in the Upper Room, ten days after the Ascension. Since the Church Militant didn’t exist until Pentecost, there was no way that Peter could have been its visible head before it existed.

So, as we can clearly see from just obvious logic which is accessible to all, when Peter denied Our Lord after the Last Supper (out of cowardice, let it be mentioned), that was fully fifty-three days before Peter possessed the MUNUS of the Papacy, bestowed upon him by Our Lord, one can safely assume, at the same time as the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles and Mary, and the tongues of fire appeared and the Church Militant was brought into existence.

So no, Peter was not an apostate, or anything even close, while he was the Pope. Obviously.🤦🏻‍♀️

I hope this helps.

Pray for Pope Benedict, the one and only living Pope whether he likes it or not, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church.

UPDATE: Eagle-eyed readers jogged my memory of this post from last year about a super-cool rare image of the “birth of the Church from the side of Christ Crucified.” Excellent catch!!