Should the Pope move the Holy See to a new place in order to save Rome?

Speyer cathedral

Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the Church while Peter was in the Holy Land.

The Holy Spirit came upon the 12 disciples in Jerusalem on Pentecost when the Church was created.

Later the disciples fled to Antioch, and Peter was the first bishop of that ancient city. The first place where they called themselves Christians as well.

Only then Peter and many others went to Rome, the center of then known world. There are many historical reasons why it happened. However, it is not an order of Jesus, rather a historical decision of Peter and the people around him.

I wouldn't go further in the history of Rome that knows ups and downs.

There are at least two major prophecies that Rome will be destroyed. St Malachi's prophecy of the popes, and Fatima the third secret vision published in the year 2000. Is it possible the prophecy to be avoided, millions of innocent lives spared, by simply moving the see outside Rome? And starting a new page in the history of the Catholic Church? There are more prophecies that speak about the destruction of Rome. Here I post only the two biggest ones.

A part of the Third secret of Fatima as published by the Vatican in the year 2000
for the full text en.wikipedia.org...átima#Third_secret

"...And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions..."

The Prophecy of the Popes from St Malacy

en.wikipedia.org...
Petrus Romanus

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit. Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus, quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & judex tremendus judicabit populum suum. Finis.

This may be translated into English as:

In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop]. Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge[a] will judge his people. The End

If the prophecies are so categorical, and these two are not the only ones, why not the pope simply move out of Rome?

Where could the Holy See go? I think many countries will gladly grant a piece of land no bigger than the UN territory in New York, for the purpose of operation of the next popes amid their countries. It would be an immense honor and spiritual wealth.
Brazil comes to mind first, being the world's biggest catholic country.


Speyer cathedral, Germany

However, I perceive the old German cities with their medieval cathedrals as the choice of this or next popes. Prophecies dating back centuries say that a Holy Monarch will rise as descendant of both French and German dynasties, and will unite all Europe, reaching to Jerusalem. Followed by an era of peace filled with spiritual life. That will happen before the rise of the Antichrist, who will ultimately kill the Great Monarch.

It is logical to reinvigorate therefore the roots of a thousand years Christianity in Europe that created the Western culture the way we know it.


Speyer cathedral

It is more than just a technical move. It will open a new chapter for the world's biggest Christian Church.

Pope Francis has larger views than many, views that stretch decades even centuries in the future...He already said, the world needs new energy sources different from oil (carbon) in his ecological encyclical Laudato Si. He said that for a second time at a conference of oil companies’ CEOs held in the Vatican in 2019. How does the pope know? Sure he is briefed much more than the information we could find on internet. New energy sources mean new Physics laws that are already operated in secret labs. It is no more a secret the existence of UFO that the Pentagon admitted it observed them often.

We see how the youngsters in Germany voted en masse for the Green party, fed up with empty promises of the ruling parties and wanting a new start for the common good of both their country and the planet...

The European traditions date centuries back in a Christian Europe. What we see in today’s EU is attempt to bring together a diverse family united by common historic, cultural and religious ties. That process stretches many centuries ago. Let remember the Hanseatic League and others... It is never too late to learn from history.

For example, the Northern countries today have a remarkably good social model, combing everything good from two or three systems, including the traditional monarchy.


Speyer cathedral, Germany

So I am strongly in favor of a German based Holy see that will create the spiritual conditions for the rising of the Holy Monarch. Among the many possible cathedrals, Speyer cathedral bears the mark of the history for being the burial place of many German emperors, and having the grand Romanesque architecture. None the least, the relatively small city of Speyer and the beautiful location near Rhine river, with large available place for pilgrimages and open air masses, makes the place especially convenient for hosting the Holy See.

Of course other options do exist, like the cathedral of Aachen where the tomb of Charlemagne is preserved, or any other major cathedral.


Aachen cathedral, Germany


Cologne cathedral, Germany


Fatima basilica, Portugal

And as I said in the beginning, the choice might be not Europe as well. Brazil has its biggest shrine in Aparecida with basilica slightly lesser than St Peter's in Rome.


The Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida, Brazil

And what will happen to St Peter's basilica? It will remain as it is today, a center for pilgrimages and religious / cultural tourism. It will be spared for the generations to come, by the wise move of this or the next pope to avoid the worst from the prophecies, and to continue with a fresh start at a new place.


St Peter's basilica, Rome

Let also remember that the current St Peter's basilica is relatively new, built upon the place of an ancient one. In other words, the Church has the power to decide and change things. The easier part will be the moving of offices and the holy bones of St Peter... and what is the difficult part? The difficult part are those words above said about Rome. It is not only the choice of martyrdom of pope Francis or his successor, and unknown number of cardinals, bishops, priests and common people...

a reply to: 2012newstart

I appreciate the effort and thought you have put in to this thread and topic. Though if decisions by huge organisations both religious and non are to begin making decisions based on the guess work of ancients then this world has gone more insane than I previously surmised.

a reply to: IAMALLYETALLIAM

the world is insane enough. Just see the latest news from China sea, from Syria, Iran...to mention a few. We are at the brink.

For me, the prophecy is the window to the future. If the key is being held by the pope, as Fatima says, then let it be so. Pope Francis already said, he is willing to be martyr. I believe he speaks only of himself and not of the hundreds of thousands citizens of Rome who will be affected too, as the prophecies say. Why Rome is so significant, being the ancient capital of the known world, it will take me too much time that I do not have. And I am sure one can find enough sources on internet.

Whether the prophecy can be avoided? It is not a dogma. The future is in our hands. In this case, in the hands of the pope.

a reply to: 2012newstart

I am sure you are aware that not all prophecies, in fact I would estimate an insignificantly tiny percentage actually come to fruition so my point is they are no basis for decision making regarding large scale change.

And thankyou, I am quite familiar with Rome and it's significance in world history. You need spend the time you do not have educating me on this.

a reply to: IAMALLYETALLIAM

Thank you.

Fatima is confirmed by all popes after it, the children seers are canonized, and it was the best kept secret of Vatican in 20th century. Whether it is released in its entirety or there is more, I will not comment here, I did that before. With that backing of the world's biggest Church, one could imagine the importance the people in Vatican put on those simple words.

Malachy prophecy is another big story, and surprisingly enough they do match with Fatima, separated by centuries adverse history. What more to add?

The decision is within pope Francis and his close circle of advisers, who may want indeed to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the Church, but is that their best choice? Or should they (and we) wait for the next pope to be elected, who by the fact of his election will outlive the "last pope" of St Malachy, thus hoping the prophecy will be gone by that? I wouldn't bet on only that. If someone asks me, the Holy See should have been moved by now. Today's options could make it happen in a month or so. And I write that here, so someone over there to read it. It is better to sound stupid, rather than to pay tribute post factum to the Great Roman Church that was destroyed by....(does it matter by who exactly?) Even CIA warned the Vatican about terrorists' plans.

Yep, the pope is our last one.........

Tossed in alive...........after the tribulation.....idkk

a reply to: 2012newstart

IF the jihadists attack the Church in Rome then Mecca shall be nuked off of the face of the earth, it will be so radioactive that it shall smoke for century's perhaps igniting oil beneath there false holy city, it may not happen immediately but it will happen, there are too many whom will see such an attack upon Rome as needing a response, there are also those whom will try and fail to point the blame at Israel instead.

There are those whom are not under the influence of the BEAST lovers that have espoused Islam and trodden down Christianity under the guise of Secularism, those that are guilty of that secularism are already members of the kingdom of the beast and they shall pay the lord the price he has warned them in due course.

a reply to: 2012newstart
It's been tried. The papacy spent the best part of the fourteenth century living at Avignon, and you should look up the history of that period.
The Pope is bishop of Rome, by definition, and there's no getting round that. The real question is whether the bishop of Rome, as such, ought to be claiming the right to rule over the church as a whole.
It all goes back to the Lombard invasion of Italy in the eightth century. This meant that the bishop was now geographically isolated from the eastern bishops who were his ecclesiastical equals and the Emperor who had been his political superior.
"Look, I am now the only important bishop in this isolated corner of the world. If I redefine this isolated corner as "the world", that makes me more important than any other bishop." That is the historical basis of papal authority. That, and claiming a right of independence based on the incidental disappearance of royal authority in his locality.
Part of the solution would be to restore the church to the corporate leadership if the bishops as a whole. But now there is the additional problem that the conduct of authority by the priesthood has been distorted by pride of caste, the sense of being different from the laity. How can that be overcome?

a reply to: DISRAELI

The true story behind it all is that some places were uninhabital around 200 yrs ago,some areas were hit hard others not so much,how the english and Spain took over the Americas,all the natives were barely alive,they came in and decimated them, the popes and soldiers,then stole their property,the church is an extension of Roman Empire still doing what they do best,lie and cheat

the Catholic Church will soon have an official 'Seat' in the City of Jerusalem... whether the Pope decides to move some official Vatican authority or Catholic Church legal matters to Jerusalem is just guesswork...

I suspect that a 'chimera' Church (such as a 'Chrislam' hybrid) will indeed 'stand' in the designated holy-place in the City of Jerusalem

Rome however is outside of Vatican City, making the Pope the Bishop of Rome a ceremonial position rather than a practical position of representation for the Catholics of the city

prophecy has it the future Pope will be shot with arrows beneath a hewn wood cross, as he flees Rome

prophecy also has it that the AC or maybe even the 'Image to the Beast' speaks blaspheme in the Wing of the Temple (or holy place in Jerusalem …? dome-of-the-rock ?))


peeling the onion exercise

a reply to: 2012newstart

Rome is in the country Italy....the Vatican IS it's own country.

Countries don't pickup and move. The Vatican is a separate nation, not a city.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: 2012newstart

Rome is in the country Italy....the Vatican IS it's own country.

Countries don't pickup and move. The Vatican is a separate nation, not a city.

Technically, it is a city-state.... located within another city.
Wiki: Vatican City

In OP I explain how Peter wasn't originally appointed by Jesus as a "bishop of Rome" rather as the stone upon which the Church would be built...(Matthew 16:18).And yes the popes have been in Avignon. Prophecy says a pope will have to flee Rome, and shortly after he will be killed in a foreign country.

So why not to preempt the prophecy then? That's the entire idea of posting this thread.

The pope is not a bishop only inside the Vatican. Not only in Rome. He is the first bishop and his mandate spreads throughout the Catholic Church, and the whole world. Regardless of what exact title he will bear, the titles changed in time. He is in his power to change the place he resides. (in the summer he resides in castel Gandolfo). Even if there were rules by previous popes that the pope must stay in Rome, every next pope is absolutely free to change these rules, including rules that he himself has created. For example, there was a period of time, between Pius IX and John XXIII, when the popes didn't go out of the Vatican. St John XXIII first broke that rule. We all know how much St John Paul II traveled around the world. More than the distance to the moon...

originally posted by: 2012newstart
In OP I explain how Peter wasn't originally appointed by Jesus as a "bishop of Rome" rather as the stone upon which the Church would be built...(Matthew 16:18).

Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (Notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church) regarding this subject?

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?

Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

Apostolic Succession is the man-made doctrine that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the Roman Catholic Church, the bishops as a group are said to be successors of the apostles, and the pope is claimed to be the successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole Church. Not a Bible teaching.

Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?

Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’” (If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)

Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?

Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

End of story. Or should I say, end of this particular false story of Peter being “this rock” mentioned at Matt. 16:18 (and all the derived storylines starting from that interpretation such as Apostolic Succession).

2 Timothy 4:3,4, NW: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.”

So never mind me. Sorry to distract you from that, please continue your demonstration of the reliability and usefulness of Scripture over the prophecies, predictions, teachings and traditions of men. Just keep in mind:

“If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.” (1 Timothy 6:3,4)

“But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.” (Jude 10)

a reply to: whereislogic

in all those verses, Jesus never ever said that Peter must be in Rome. It was a decision taken by Peter long after the Ascension of Jesus. He was first in Jerusalem, and then in Antioch.

There is nothing dogmatic that binds the pope to stay in Rome.
Prophecies say, Rome will be destroyed. How then the next popes will remain in Rome after that?
And if so, why don't they spare the city by moving out Before it is destroyed?

Does it really matter in the end? Peter himself said it will all burn with such heat that the very elements would melt. This world is temporal, as the preacher said Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
a reply to: 2012newstart