Catholics back up their doctrines. @FaithWithMase just stomps his foot.

15 reasons why PETER is the “Rock”, in order:

• Jesus spoke Aramaic.

• The Aramaic word for “rock” is “kepha”.

• So Jesus actually said, “You are “Kepha”, & upon this “kepha” I will build My Church.”

• You KNOW that because when Peter is referred to by his ACTUAL NAME in the NT he’s called “Kephas” (or “Cephas”): John 1:42, 1 Cor 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Gal 2:9 (KJV); + Gal 2:11, Gal 2:14 in Douay-Rheims.

• Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Aramaic (see Sts. Papias & Irenaeus (2nd century) & Eusebius’ history).

• When (presumably) Matthew translated his Gospel → Greek, he knew his Greek readers might not know the word “kepha” MEANT “rock”. So to make the “rock” image clear, he used the Greek word for rock, “petra”: “upon this ‘petra’ I will build My Church.”

• “Petra” is feminine; Peter was a man. So Matthew had to take “petra" & masculinize it to “Petros” (-‘os’ = masculine ending). He HAS to use “petra” for rock so his Greek readers will understand; he CAN’T use the feminine “petra” for Peter’s name.

• The claim that “petra” means “rock” but “Petros” means “stone” was true in ATTIC Greek—NEVER in KOINE Greek, the Greek of the NT (entirely different dialect). In Koine Greek, both “petra” & “petros” meant “rock” (see next tweet).

• And by Jesus’ time, any distinction between “petra” & “Petros” had ceased to exist EVEN IN Attic Greek. Between the 8th & 4th centuries BC they were used as “rock” & “stone” in Attic Greek poetry, but that distinction had long disappeared by the time Matthew was translated into Greek (Koine Greek having become more popular it in the 4th century BC & continuing in widespread use until the 5th century AD). Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit the words “petra” & “petros” were synonyms in 1st century Greek (see next tweet).

• If Matthew had wanted Peter to mean “stone”, not “rock”, he would’ve used the Greek word for stone: “lithos”, or even clearer, “psephos”, which means “small stone” (e.g., Rev 2:17).

• Jesus uses the second-person personal pronoun “you” (singular) 7 times in these 3 verses. The context is clearly one of communicating a unique AUTHORITY to Peter here—& to Peter alone.

• Insisting on “stone” vs. “rock” is asserting that Jesus said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh & blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, *you are an insignificant stone*, & on this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” So what Jesus is ACTUALLY doing is giving Peter—the MAN, not his “faith”, not his “confession”—a 3-fold blessing:
1) “Blessed are you...”
2) “…upon this rock I will build…”
3) “I will give unto you the keys…”
What He is NOT doing is blessing him, then undermining that authority, then blessing him again.

• The “rock” obviously CANNOT be Christ because He’s the builder (“upon this rock I will build My Church.”). Christ, rather, is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt 7:24)—the builder, the cornerstone, the foundation of the Faith—but Peter is His foundation for the Church.

• And you know that because (looking at the grammar) with “You are Kepha, AND upon this kepha”, “THIS kepha” must refer back to the closest noun. To say “this kepha” refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s “confession” 3 verses earlier, is to completely ignore the sentence’s structure. He DIDN’T say, “You are “Kepha”, BUT upon THIS [other] “kepha” I will build my Church.”👇 • Metaphors in the Bible have different meanings in different places:
→God is called “rock.”*
→Abraham is called “rock”**
→Jesus is called “the supernatural Rock”***
→Paul said, “I have laid the foundation [of FAITH, where he’d been—Christ having laid the foundation of the Church, Peter], & another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”****
But Paul refers here to Jesus as the foundation of the FAITH, which Paul advanced; Peter the “rock” is the foundation of the CHURCH.👇

They got it from the Bible:
• When Gabriel→Mary, she was married (then, the ‘betrothal’ WAS the marriage)
• His prophecy is ALL FUTURE TENSE: “thou SHALT conceive…”
• Mary asks, “How…?” Only a married woman WHO’D TAKEN A PERPETUAL VOW OF VIRGINITY would need to ask that.👇

https://twitter.com/patrick30887310/status/1825950816035045701

Gabriel places EVERYTHING he says prior to Mary’s response—& even after—in the future tense. The future tense is used seven times, & yet an already-married Mary asks “How” she is to get pregnant—AND BEFORE he gives ANY indication that the conception would be supernatural.👇

9 reasons how we know Jesus had no blood brothers:

• First, “brother” (Greek *adelphos*, plural *adelphoi*) can mean blood brothers, an extended relative, or just a fellow Christian. Just as Abraham & Lot were called “brothers” (Gen 14:14) when they were actually uncle & nephew, the “brethren” of Jesus (Matt 12:47) and the “brethren” of believers in 1 Corinthians 15:1 are both called *adelphoi*

• Using the etymology of *adelphos* (“from the same womb”) as its definition is literally called the “etymological fallacy”: misusing a term’s linguistic origin with its common usage (see next tweet)

• The Bible itself proves that “brother” in Scriptural & Semitic use is not only applied to blood brothers & step-brothers, but is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen. 13:8; 14:14, 16; Lev. 10:4; 1 Par. 15:5-10; 23:21, 22).

• James and Joseph are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3), but in the crucifixion accounts they had a different mother: “And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and *Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph*, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)

• Comparing John 19:25 with Matt. 27:56 & Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47 & 16:1), we find that Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, called the sister of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), is the same as Mary the mother of James & Joseph.

• So regarding “James & Joseph & Simon & Jude”:
• James & Joseph are the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25);
• Simon, according to the second-century historian Hegesippus, was also a son of Clopas;
• and Jude identifies himself at the beginning of his letter as a “brother of James” (most likely the one one above, & therefore another son of Clopas). If he had been the blood brother of Jesus, he would’ve identified himself as such.

• These “brothers” are never once called the “children of Mary”, although Jesus Himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

• Throughout the New Testament, Mary appears as the “Mother of Jesus”—and of Jesus alone.

• No “brothers” are mentioned in the trip to Jersusalem when Christ was 12.

• At His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. There would be no reason to recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons, whether they believed in Him or not.

Bonus #1: Matthew 1:25: “And he did not know her until (Gr: *heos*) she brought forth her firstborn son.” “Until”in biblical times meant that some action did not happen up to a certain point. It did NOT imply that the action happened later. “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23) does NOT mean she had children after she was dead.

Bonus #2: Jesus being Mary’s “first-born” doesn’t mean there were other children that followed Him. For the ancient Jews “first-born” meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). So, the first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child. Bonus #3: Our tour guide in the Holy Land was a man born in Nazareth, raised in Nazareth, who lived in Nazareth, & ran his business from Nazareth. He said, “Anyone who claims that the word ‘brother’ in this part of the world, even 1000s of years ago, was EVER restricted to ‘blood brother’ simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

• The photos in the next tweets show all the times the APOSTLES THEMSELVES referred to “the books the Catholics ADDED”.
• The Apostles didn’t use the Hebrew Scriptures, any more than they spoke Hebrew in conversation. They used the ‘Septuagint’, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
• In Jesus’ time it was a Greek-speaking world, so 72 Hebrew scholars—six from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel—translated the OT into Greek.
• We know the Apostles used the Septuagint because Protestant authors Archer & Chirichigno list 340 times when the Apostles cite the Septuagint directly—but only 33 times when they cite the Hebrew (‘Masoretic Text’)(they can tell from the words/syntax)
• THE SEPTUAGINT CONTAINED ALL SEVEN BOOKS “the Catholics ADDED”.
• The Septuagint had become accepted as AUTHORITATIVE by the Jews of Alexandria and then by all Jews in Greek-speaking countries.
• Protestants claim that the Hebrew canon was “closed” at the time of Christ. But the Jews did not close their canon until the end of the first/early second centuries AD, well after the explosion of Christianity. At that point, given all of the above, especially the Apostles use of it, it didn’t matter what they thought—for obvious reasons.
• It’s obviously hypocritical to claim that ANY book of the Bible, if not quoted in the New Testament, doesn’t belong in the Old Testament, since “12 of the 39 protocanonical [accepted] books of the Old Testament remain without quotations in the New. These twelve are: Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah.” (cf. Gleason Archer and C.G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, xvii). (Depending on who you read, some say anywhere from 7-12 books fit this category.) All the times the APOSTLES THEMSELVES referred to “the books the Catholics ADDED”. Keep scrolling down.

“Deuterocanonical References
in the New Testament” (Jimmy Akin)

cin.org/users/james/fi…

Feser (1): “Among the many reasons why capital punishment ought to be preserved, the *most fundamental* one is that for extremely heinous crimes, *no lesser punishment could possibly respect this Catholic principle that a punishment ought to be proportional to the offense*.”👇 Feser (2): “Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime.”👇

St. Thomas Aquinas calls this very virtue Eutrapelia:

“Augustine says (Music. ii, 15): ‘I pray thee, spare thyself at times: for it becomes a wise man sometimes to relax the high pressure of his attention to work.’ Now this relaxation of the mind from work consists in 👇

https://twitter.com/ascent_of/status/1525543849753464833

“...playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times. Moreover the Philosopher [Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 8] assigns to games the virtue of eutrapelia.

Now just as weariness of the body is dispelled by resting the body, so👇

“I am Catholic, but I think majority opinion is what matters” means nothing other than “I don’t understand Catholicism.”

https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/1521345901960343552

“The official teachings of the Catholic Church oppose all forms of abortion.”

“Since the 1st century, the Church has affirmed that every procured abortion is a moral evil, a teaching the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares ‘has not changed and remains unchangeable.’”👇

This (literal) heresy she’s espousing in that thread concerns the famous “Fundamental Option”. It perverts Augustine & was formally condemned by Pope Paul VI (who was no Trad): “Mortal sin does not consist only in resistance to the commandment of charity. It is equally found in👇

https://twitter.com/nelwyntoes/status/1516576301406162955

“...this opposition to authentic love which is included in *every deliberate transgression of each of the moral laws*.” Augustine’s statement “Love & do what you will” does NOT mean “I love God (subjectively defined) so I can do whatever I want (& it won’t be a sin).” It means👇

.@FrMatthewLC’s Never-Ending Lies—as a thread:

(1): You’d think after that first CFN article came out he’d stop telling lies—& yet, they persist. If you do nothing else, just read the 2nd paragraph (“Disclaimer”). It’ll tell you everything you’ll ever need to know about him:👇 catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2022/02/2…

@FrMatthewLC’s Never-Ending Lies (50): “Someone said recently that Fr. Matthew is never going to change. No one should expect him to. He’s already demonstrated repeatedly that:

•He doesn’t understand, or want to acknowledge, an accurate definition of Medical Testing.👇 •He doesn’t understand, or care, that the basic research he referenced is not Medical Testing.
•He doesn’t understand our moral premise against the vaccines.
•He doesn’t understand how clinics operate.
•He doesn’t understand what a hospital affiliation represents.👇

Decree of Pope Francis Confirming the Use of the 1962 Liturgical Books [for the FSSP]

Published 11 February 2022

“The Holy Father Francis, grants to each and every member of the Society of Apostolic Life “Fraternity of Saint Peter”, founded on July 18, 1988 and👇 “...declared of “Pontifical Right” by the Holy See, the faculty to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, and to carry out the sacraments and other sacred rites, as well as to fulfill the Divine Office, according to the typical editions of the liturgical books, namely the Missal,👇

“The Pope made it clear that institutes such as the FSSP are not affected by the general provisions of the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes, since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions.”👇 “...The Pope subsequently sent a decree signed by him and dated February 11, confirming for the members of the Fraternity the right to use the liturgical books in force in 1962, namely: the Missal, the Ritual, the Pontifical and the Roman Breviary.”

@jcremer @Chris_SmithsJ THAT’S his source??? It specifically states that the purpose of the article is as follows: “The target of this essay is to trace the evolution of this enigmatic scene [as in ARTWORK] in Italy.” @jcremer @Chris_SmithsJ It even quotes Celano WHO HE CLAIMS HE’S READ: “She commands them to lead her, sick as she is, to the enemy, preceded by a *silver and ivory case in which the body of Christ is kept*.”

During WWII, a Jewish man fled Austria to France & took shelter in Lourdes for 5 weeks. Moved by the hospitality shown to him, he promised St. Bernadette & Our Lady that if he made it to America he’d write a book about their story. He did, & the book is The Song of Bernadette.👇 The book was subsequently made into an Academy award-winning film.

Today in the pre-55 calendar is St. Bernadette’s feast day.

On his blog, @FrMatthewLC has admitted he didn’t use the FDA’s Medical Testing definition, nor that of a medical dictionary, but rather HIS OWN “broad sense” 🙄 definition to deliberately include what is BY DEFINITION not Medical Testing. This thread refutes the rest of his post: .@FrMatthewLC’s new lies (1): “[Casey] uses non-standard definitions of terms like medical testing & lying, & insists they are the only ones.”

It’s the *FDA’s* Medical Testing definition—confirmed by the professional Medical Tester.

And “lying” was never used—much less defined.

Reminder: vaccine Religious Exemptions are RELIGIOUS, not “conscience” 1) because our premise is based on Traditional Catholic teaching & 2) JP2’s Donum veritatis, which gives us this right, FORBIDS conscience appeals. Ignore anyone who says otherwise—they still don’t get it. Donum veritatis: “...because the [religious] arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him...[the theologian] cannot give his intellectual assent...[but] appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent.”

Dr. Janet Smith, Professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:

“NONE of these [CDF vaccine] documents have the degree of magisterial authority to require assent; they are all low-level documents or non-magisterial statements that cannot impose obligations on Catholics.” Janet Smith (@avidkayaker50) is the author of “Why Humanae Vitae was Right” & “Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later”. Over a million copies of her recorded talk “Contraception, Why Not” have been distributed in the last twenty-five years.

“Anne de Gaulle was the youngest daughter of General Charles de Gaulle. She was born in Germany, where her father was stationed with the Army of Occupation in the Rhineland. She was born with Down Syndrome, & in a time where disabled children were sent to institutions, she...👇 “...lived with her family until her death.
 
There was one sacred rule in the de Gaulle household: Anne was never to be made to feel different or less than anyone else. Charles de Gaulle was noted for his reserve & even with family members he was usually not very demonstrative.👇

“St. Peter Martyr was a Dominican who preached against the Cathars. He was so effective that the Cathars hired an assassin who in 1252 killed Peter with an axe or large blade to the head. When he was struck in the head, Peter dipped his fingers in his own blood and wrote ...👇 “...’Credo in Deum’ on the ground as he recited the Apostles Creed before [his assassin stabbed him in the heart]. His assassin converted and is now venerated as a Blessed. Peter himself was canonized with blinding speed the very next year by Innocent IV ...👇

Pope Benedict XV: “Therefore, she redeemed with Christ the human race.”

Pope Leo XIII: "For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us.”

Pope Pius X: “Mary has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption...”
cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/1… Pope Pius XI: “O Mother of piety & mercy, who as Co-Redemptrix stood by your most sweet Son suffering with Him when He consummated the redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, preserve in us, we beg, the precious fruits of the Redemption & of your compassion.”

“Has the discipline in the Church sunk so low that such a dubium [on blessing gay unions] could even be entertained by the CDF? How about a dubium on whether the Church has the power to bless ‘unions’ of couples living in adultery, or ‘unions’ of couples living out of wedlock?”👇 “The implicit premise is that ‘homosexual unions’ are entitled to a certain respect not accorded to adulterous/extramarital unions between male & female. But why? Why is there no talk of a ‘sincere desire’ to ‘welcome & accompany’ those involved in illicit heterosexual unions?”👇