Here is a OnePeterFive article with the schismatic and heretical title: “Peter” and “Satan”: the Two Names of the Pope. The assertion in the title misuses a Gospel passage to cause the faithful to mistrust and reject the Roman Pontiff. In this article, I will address that passage, as well as others, used to attack Saint Peter so as to be able to denounce Pope Francis and other recent Popes.

[Matthew]
{16:21} From that time, Jesus began to reveal to his disciples that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and to suffer much from the elders and the scribes and the leaders of the priests, and to be killed, and to rise again on the third day.
{16:22} And Peter, taking him aside, began to rebuke him, saying, “Lord, may it be far from you; this shall not happen to you.”
{16:23} And turning away, Jesus said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan; you are an obstacle to me. For you are not behaving according to what is of God, but according to what is of men.”

[Mark]
{8:31} And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
{8:32} And he spoke the word openly. And Peter, taking him aside, began to correct him.
{8:33} And turning away and looking at his disciples, he admonished Peter, saying, “Get behind me, Satan, for you do not prefer the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.”

Jesus taught that He himself would have to suffer, die, and after three days rise again. The Apostles did not immediately understand this teaching. Peter took a human point of view, saying that such a thing should not happen to Jesus. Then the response of the Lord was “Get behind me, Satan.” This expression indicated that Peter was not taking a holy spiritual point of view, preferring the things that are of God, but rather taking the point of view of fallen sinners, preferring the things that are of men. The word “Satan” is from a word meaning “Adversary”. Peter was taking a point of view that was adversarial to the Gospel, which is based on the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

First, it is a misinterpretation in the extreme to use this verse to claim that Popes can be diabolical, or can be on the side of Satan and against the true Faith. We all make the mistake sometimes of taking a worldly point of view, or of thinking and acting with excessive self-interest. This occurs because we are fallen sinners, who live in a sinful world.

Second, Peter was not yet the Roman Pontiff at the time of that Gospel verse. Peter’s pontificate began at the Ascension of Christ. Not until Jesus departed from his visible Ministry did the Church need a visible Head of the Church in the Roman Pontiff.

See my previous post: Did Saint Peter fail in faith when he denied Christ? That post proves from magisterial documents, including an Ecumenical Council and two Roman Pontiffs, as well as the opinion of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, that Saint Peter the Apostle was NOT the Vicar of Christ and Roman Pontiff UNTIL Christ ascended to Heaven.

But the offensive article at OnePeterFive claims the following:

Title of Article: “Peter and Satan: the Two Names of the Pope”

“And yet, on the other hand, how are we to reconcile “Blessed” and “Satan” ? How is it conceivable that he who is for our Lord Himself a “rock of offence” should yet be the Rock of His Church which the gates of Hell cannot shake? Or that one who thinks only the thoughts of men can receive the revelation of the heavenly Father and can hold the keys of the Kingdom of God?

How can this be? It can’t be. Any personal or private interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with the teachings and especially the dogmas of the Church cannot be true. No Roman Pontiff can be a rock of offense, or be properly called “Satan”, or be so faithless as to think “only the thoughts of men”. Each Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith as well as the other papal charisms. And no Pope can contradict or undermine the indefectibility of the Church.

The article continues: “There is only one way to harmonize these passages which the inspired Evangelist has, with good reason, placed side by side. Simon Peter as supreme pastor and doctor of the Universal Church, assisted by God and speaking in the name of all, is the faithful witness and infallible exponent of divine-human truth; as such he is the impregnable foundation of the house of God and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven. The same Simon Peter as a private individual, speaking and acting by his natural powers and merely human intelligence, may say and do things that are unworthy, scandalous and even diabolical. But the failures and sins of the individual are ephemeral, while the social function of the ecclesiastical monarch is permanent. “Satan” and the “offence” have vanished, but Peter has remained.”

Neither Peter, nor any of his successors, can be both pastor and teacher of the Church and at the same time a “diabolical” private individual who intends or seeks to destroy the Church or the Faith. It is impossible that Peter, or any of his successors, would ever be both the Rock on which the Church is founded and a rock of offense. It is not possible for a successor of Peter to be diabolical in any way that relates to the Faith or the Church. For Peter is the Rock on which the Church is founded, while Christ is also the eternal Rock and cornerstone of the Church. For Peter is the visible Head of the Church, while Christ is the eternal Head of the Church, His Body. But the Church does not have two heads, like a monster, but only one Head. Instead, “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head” of the one Church. There is a mystical unity between Christ and Peter, between Christ and each Roman Pontiff, no matter how holy or sinful that Roman Pontiff may be. So there is one Head of the Church, and one Rock: Christ and His Vicar. Therefore, it is not possible for any Pope, not even the so-called “bad Popes”, not even the most sinful of the Popes (whoever that would be), to fail in faith, or to oppose the Faith, or to intend to harm the Faith or the Church or the faithful. Such a claim contradicts the charism of truth and never-failing faith, as well as the very structure of the indefectible Church, designed by Christ.

A Pope can sin, even gravely, and can possibly end up in Hell. But a Pope is not permitted by the prevenient grace of God to commit certain sins during his Pontificate, those that are opposed to the charism of truth and never-failing faith or the other papal charisms, those that are incompatible with the indefectibility of the Church, all of which was promised by Christ. This does not contradict the free will of the Pope for two reasons. First, a Pope must freely accept his office, along with its requirements and charisms, and he can freely resign at any time. Second, God has gifted human persons with free will, and has also set its limits. Everyone is subject to prevenient grace, which is God operating, not cooperating.

We cannot conclude from the “Get behind me, Satan” passage, or from Peter’s denial of Christ at the Passion, or from the “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” passage, that the Roman Pontiff can fail gravely in faith. It is not possible for a Roman Pontiff, even apart from his official acts as Pope, to be diabolical, to intend to destroy the Church or the Faith, or to in any way set himself personally, or by his Apostolic See, against the Faith. For the charism of truth and never-failing faith protects both the exercise of the Keys of Peter over doctrine and discipline, as well as the personal faith of the Roman Pontiff.

The 1P5 article ends on a positive note: ” ‘Satan’ and the ‘offence’ have vanished, but Peter has remained.”

It is not clear what the author intended by that last sentence. Perhaps he admits that the situation where Jesus said “Get behind me, Satan” to Peter does not apply to the Roman Pontiffs. But it is also clear that OnePeterFive titled and presented this article in order to be able to accuse any Roman Pontiff they wish, particularly Pope Francis, of being diabolical and an adversary to the Faith. This has become clear across many different 1P5 articles, such as those that accuse the Church Herself of being led by a “pornocracy” across three different long periods of time. All such claims are schismatic and heretical.

Those Catholics who openly oppose and attack the Roman Pontiff, and who litter the internet with every possible accusation against Pope Francis and other Popes, Vatican II and other Councils are helping Satan to attack the Body of Christ. Among these adversaries to the Church are several notable “Catholic” online publications, those that have accused the Roman Pontiff of apostasy, idolatry, heresy, and more, as well as several Cardinals or Bishops, some other members of the clergy, and many laypersons.

Ronald L Conte Jr