“As to Peter, biblical criticism has shown before now that he had probably no more to do with the foundation of the Latin Church at Rome, than to furnish the pretext so readily seized upon by the cunning Irenaeus to benefit this Church with the new name of the apostle – Petra or Kiffa, a name which allowed so readily, by an easy play upon words to connect it with Petroma, the double set of stone tablets used by the hierophant at the initiations, during the final Mystery. In this, perhaps, lies concealed the whole secret of the claims of the Vatican.
As Professor Wilder happily suggests: “In the Oriental countries the designation פּתר, Peter, (in Phoenician and Chaldaic, an interpreter), appears to have been the title of this personage, (the hierophant). There is in these facts some reminder of the peculiar circumstances of the Mosaic Law…and also the claim of the Pope to be the successor of Peter, the hierophant or interpreter of the Christian religion.” As such, we must concede to him, to some extent, the right to be such an interpreter.
The Latin Church has faithfully preserved in symbols, rites, ceremonies, architecture, and even in the very dress of her clergy, the tradition of the Pagan worship – of the public or exoteric ceremonies, we should add; otherwise, her dogmas would embody more sense and contain less blasphemy, against the majesty of the Supreme and Invisible God.
An inscription found on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept, of the seventh dynasty, (2250 B.C), now proved to have been transcribed from the seventeenth chapter of the Book of the Dead, (dating not later than 4500 B.C), is more than suggestive. This monumental text contains a group of hieroglyphics, which, when interpreted, read thus: PTR – Peter; RF – ref; SU – su.
Baron Bunsen shows this sacred formulary mixed up with a whole series of glosses and various interpretation on a monument forty centuries old. “This is identical with saying that the record, (the true interpretation), was at that time no longer intelligible. We beg our readers to understand”, he adds, “that a sacred text, a hymn, containing the words of a departed spirit, existed in such a state about 4,000 years ago…as to be all but unintelligible to royal scribes.
That it was unintelligible to the uninitiated among the latter is as well proved by the confused and contradictory glossaries, as that it was a “mystery” word, known to the hierophants of the sanctuaries, and, moreover, a word chosen by Jesus, to designate the office assigned by him to one of his apostles. This word, PTR, was partially interpreted, owing to another word similarly written in another group of hieroglyphics, on a stele, the sign used for it being an opened eye.
Bunsen mentions as another explanation of PTR – “to show”. “It appears to me”, he remarks, “that our PTR is literally the old Aramaic and Hebrew ‘Patar’, which occurs in the history of Joseph as the specific word for interpreting; whence also Pitrum is the term for interpretation of a text, a dream.”
H. P. Blavatsky