Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

The first thing a Catholic learns when they open their Bible is they cannot buy their way out of hell fire.

When a Catholic looks in the Bible they will not find purgatory. They will not find priests taking money to say a Mass to get souls out of the fires of hell. The Catholic church is popular because many do not want much out of religion and the Catholic church offers them the little they want. Yet many do want more of God and to obtain it they must leave the Catholic church. In the past 30 years it is estimated over 150 million Catholics have left the Catholic church seeking more of God from other religions. Catholicism remains popular because a Catholic can sin all the way to purgatory and someone can buy their way out of hell fire right into heaven. Over 150 million Catholics read the Bible and could not find purgatory and giving priests money to say a Mass to get souls out of the flames of hell fire. If a Catholic will open their Bible and search they will not find these either. No where in the New Testament is there a priest who takes money to say a Mass to get souls out of hell. Maybe God has been dealing with you showing you the Catholic church is not right? Now is the time to accept God's will and leave.

One of the good things about Catholics is their desire to help people. So if a loved one dies and they did not live a holy life it is understood they must go to Purgatory and suffer in hell fire until a priest can get them released to go to heaven. Catholics are very loving and ready to give large sums of money to help these poor souls. They really believe that by buying a Mass for these dead souls in Purgatory they will be released from hell fire to go to heaven. This is great love for people no doubt about that. But, all this love and all this money will never save a soul who has died lost and is in hell fire torment. The Catholic church has used the love and affection of its members to make billions of dollars in profit saying a Mass for loved ones. This has been fraud for many centuries. The Catholic church developed this money scheme to milk loving Catholics who cared for a deceased loved one. According to Catholicism, its members can pay money to the priests and empty purgatory hell fire of all Catholics. This is not true and it has not been true for 1600 years. Why do good and honest people put up with this scheme from the Catholic church? They do so because they are scared of the Catholic church and its priests. Those Catholics who look into the Bible will not find Purgatory, priest collecting money to say a Mass, or the Catholic church. This is why a person should not be a Catholic.

Thousands of Catholics each year are leaving the church of Rome. Why? They are leaving because they no longer believe the Catholic church is the true Church of the Bible. They discover the Catholic church is filled with falsehood, lies, and deceptions. They learn it has no biblical authority for its religious rituals and the majority of its teachings are perversions of scripture. When they look for the Catholic church in the New Testament of the Bible they cannot find it at all. When they look for the rituals practiced they cannot find them. When they search for a pope or priest performing the Mass they cannot find one. When they look for Jesus Christ to be a Catholic they are shocked he was not a Catholic and never attended a Catholic church. When a Catholic takes a good look in the Bible he/she will learn they have been in a false religion all along and brainwashed to believe they were in the true one and only. True Christianity is not Catholic. Christianity existed 295 years before the Catholic church was founded.

Catholics are right to leave the Catholic church. After all they must save their souls and if the Catholic church does not have the true Gospel message of salvation that will save sinners THEY SHOULD ESCAPE and quick! Of course the priest will try numerous tricks to keep Catholics in the church.

The second thing a Catholic learns is that Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic Church.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will never find Jesus in or near a Catholic church. When they open their Bible they will learn that Jesus was not a Catholic and was not the founder of the Catholic religion. They learn the word "Catholic" is not in the Bible. They then learn the Catholic church took up the name "Catholic" from Latin which means "universal." The Catholic church claims it is "universal" or world wide. It claims it is the oldest and ONLY WORLD WIDE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANITY STARTED BY JESUS CHRIST. When Catholics discover this is false, that Jesus started a Jewish religion, they soon learn the Catholic church is not Jewish at all but is Gentile owned, Gentile operated, and a Gentile controlled business enterprise whose product is paganized religion. When Catholics open their eyes and see that the Catholic church has adopted many pagan and heathen celebrations and practices and adapted these to Christian teachings, they know they have to leave. No, they know they have to run! It is right here, they know Jesus Christ was not the founder of the Catholic church. Because Jesus would not start a Church and then allow the gates of hell to conquer it by adopting pagan religious practices. No, Jesus would keep his Church pure and free from all evil and sin. The Catholic church is not such a Church. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church and Catholics learn they must leave it immediately.

The third thing a Catholic learns, is they do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior when the Eucharist wafer is placed on their tongue.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find the small wafer as pictured on the left. They will not find anyone sticking out their tongue to have the wafer placed there by a Catholic priest. Catholics are taught that when they go forward at the end of the Mass, they do so to receive the flesh of Jesus. The devout Catholic presents him/her self before the priest, open their mouth, stick out their tongue, and he deposits the flesh of Jesus in the form of this wafer. The Catholic is now told he has eternal life because he has eaten the flesh of Jesus. Salvation in the Catholic church is totally and completely in the Mass. They do not preach Acts 2:38 and the necessity of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and through Christ alone. According to the Catholic religion, a person must attend Mass, believe the pope is the vicar of God, accept the Catholic church as the one and only true Church, and then receive the Eucharist on the tongue to be saved. But when a Catholic searches the Bible for the Mass and the Eucharist wafer they cannot find them. They discover the Catholic church has never followed the Biblical Lord's Supper (Communion or Passover). In fact they will learn the Catholic church does not follow the New Testament at all in the Communion observance of the Lord's flesh and blood.

The Catholic church departed from the ancient practice of Jerusalem and the Eastern churches of Asia in observing the Lord's Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. The church of Rome has tried to destroy this ancient Passover observance since 325AD and the Council of Nicaea. At issue here is if the Church Jesus founded observed an annual celebration of his death on the annual Jewish Passover as he commanded (do this in remembrance of me--which includes the Cup, the unleavened bread, and washing of feet). Any Catholic who studies history will learn the early Christians did indeed celebrate the Lord's Passover on an annual basis on the same day the Jews observed their Passover. This practice was brought to Asia not only by the Apostle Paul, but the Apostle John and the Evangelist Philip.

The Asian Christian Churches followed the ancient custom of Jerusalem, celebrating the annual day of the death of Jesus on the Jew's Passover evening. This is certified by no less then such great men of God as Polycarp and Polycrates both of Ephesus. The whole of the Asian Churches held the eve of the 14th of Nisan as the annual celebration of the Lord's Passion on the same day the Jews observed their annual Passover. All the Asian Churches held a conference and refused to change to practice Easter and sent a letter to Victor Bishop of Rome, who then wrote letters to all the Bishops of the world to excommunicate them from the Christian Church (although he had no such power). The response of Polycrates (190AD) is documented history. The Catholic church at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, formerly adopted the practice of observing the Easter resurrection of Jesus AND NOT HIS DEATH! Jesus instituted the memorial of his death in the new Passover and sealed this as an annual celebration. He sealed the memorial of his resurrection in New Testament baptism.

Out of the Council of Nicaea came the Catholic law not to observe the Lord's Passover on the day, evening, and time he instituted it. The Bishops at the Council switched over to celebrate the Easter resurrection and held this as an annual day. Easter is now an annual day while the Lord's Communion was moved inside newly adopted pagan mystery Mass. The Mass is held many times a day contrary to what Jesus instituted for the Communion Passover. When a Catholic sees this, they know Rome and the Council of Nicaea falsified the command of Jesus to observe the annual Passover held in honor of his death as the Passover Lamb. A Catholic has every right to leave the Catholic church and go back to what Jesus instituted and he did not institute the Mass. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church or its Mass.

So, the Eastern Asian Churches continued the Jerusalem practice of the Lord's Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. The Western and African churches controlled by Rome began to observe the resurrection which they called Easter (Easter is the spring pagan goddess Eostre). Those who celebrate Easter are observing a pagan holiday manufactured by the papacy.

It is here that Catholics learn the Catholic church adopted a pagan name for the resurrection of Jesus. This is shocking to Catholics when they see it. It is shocking to Catholics to learn that no Church in the Bible ever observed the day of the resurrection on an annual basis: but instead observed it on the occasion of each and every baptism of a convert. But the Churches did observe the Lord's Passover on the same day the Jews celebrated their Passover.

When Catholics learn the Councils were not holy meetings of the True Apostolic Church, they want out and leave. Over 500 million people world-wide have rejected the claims of the Catholic church. When a Catholic has Bible study and learns what the true Church really believed and practiced, they see the real Church Jesus established. They will eagerly accept the Lord's Communion and observe it because it is the Thanksforgiving Feast of the Lord's Passover. They are willing to give up the paganism of Easter. It is right here that the Catholic learns the bread and wine are only symbols and do not turn into the real flesh and blood of Jesus. When they learn they cannot receive Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue, they will leave the Catholic church. When they come to the truth that the Catholic Eucharist is a falsehood they will never stick out their tongue again to receive it. Catholic priests, monks, archbishops, cardinals, and popes will shudder of this, but no one in the Bible received Jesus Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue and receiving a wafer that is said to be the real flesh of Jesus. When a Catholic gets a firm grip on the Word of God and understands the true Passover of the Lord Jesus they will never return to a Catholic church ever again.

The fourth thing a Catholic learns is the Mass is not found in the Bible any where.

When a Catholic opens the Bible they will not find the Mass. They will not find a crucifix used by the New Testament Church. They will not find a Catholic style altar at all. All Catholics know the center of the Catholic religion is the Mass. It is the ritual artificial re-crucifixion of Jesus by a priest as he takes the cup of wine and presents it to a crucifix of Jesus on the cross and recites a prayer in Latin. Concluding his prayer the wine magically is turned into the blood of Jesus. He then gulps this down and does not share a drop with the members attending. Where did this practice originate that only priests can drink from the Cup? Paul did not teach this to the Corinthians! Next the priest picks up the IHS wafer and holds it high before the crucifix as he mumbles another prayer in Latin. Usually there is music and a song immediately after the consecration that turns the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is to embellish the moment of the occasion and give it a sense of holiness. The priest then summons the faithful to come forward and receive Christ as Savior. Believing they are receiving Christ as Savior they flock to the front and stick out their tongue to receive Jesus.

But when a Catholic looks into the Bible for this mystery ritual Mass they will not find it. They learn the Mass is nothing but a borrowed pagan ritual from the temple of Jove. They learn there is no Mass found anywhere in the New Testament. They cannot find a single person sticking out their tongue to receive Christ as their Savior. They cannot find a Latin Mass. They cannot find a priest drinking the cup of wine all to himself. These things are not in the Bible any where. The New Testament records everything about the Christian Church. And the Catholic Mass is not found there. One Catholic woman said: "when I tried to find the Mass in the Bible and it was not there, I knew in my heart I had been deceived."

What is the Mass? It is an artificial sacrifice. It is a mock sacrifice. It is the priest recrucifying Jesus in the emblems of the Eucharist and the Cup. Where in the Bible are we to think that observing the Lord's Communion or Passover memorial we are recrucifying Jesus on the Cross? It is not there! When a Catholic looks in the Bible for a priest to hold in his hands the Eucharist wafer and turn it into the flesh of Jesus, he/she will not find it. When they look in the Bible for a place where a priest blesses the cup and turns it into the blood of Jesus he/she cannot find it. This is shocking! Why is the Catholic church doing something that is not in the Bible . Why are they performing a ritual that no Apostle or Minister of the Christian Church did? Why is the central religious ritual of the Catholic church completely missing from the Bible? It is not there. The Catholic who learns this discovers also that the daily multiple Mass observance to recrucify the Lord Jesus is not in the Bible. Yes, the Mass is a recrucification of Jesus every time the priest holds it. There must be fresh flesh and fresh blood of Jesus in the Catholic church several times a day or the Catholic church has no Mass. How many times a day in all the Catholic churches throughout the world is Christ recrucified every day? In the Bible those who crucify to themselves Christ afresh are accursed. There is not one Mass to be found any where in the Bible. Just because the Catholic church points to Jesus observing the Jewish Passover does not make it a Mass. Jesus observed the Passover and then instituted his own annual Passover. He did not institute the ritual of the Mass as the Catholic church practices today. And what of washing feet which Jesus did and commanded of his Apostles. Why, in over 1,700 years has the Catholic church NEVER PRACTICED WASHING OF FEET at the Communion as Jesus established? It does not because the Mass is not a true representation of the annual Passover Memorial Jesus instituted. At no time did Jesus hint or indicate his Memorial was to be a daily ritual. When Catholics learn this, they know in their heart of hearts this is not the true Church.

What is the fifth thing a Catholic learns is there is no confession booth in the Bible.

They discover the confession booth is all a fraud and a sham. They cannot find it any where in the Bible either. The Catholic church just made up religious stuff and got people to believe it. People who never read the Bible to check if what they are doing is even in there. When a Catholic searches the Bible for the confession booth and cannot find it they know going to a priest to confess their sins was nothing but the way the Catholic church learns everything sinful that is taking place in a person's life or home. They learn the priest has used the confessional to extract sex stories out of young girls and boys. Many altar boys were homosexualized using the confession booth as a tool of contact and seduction by the priest. What is so shocking about this instrument of the church is that no where are Christians told they must go to a New Testament Minister or Preacher to confess their sins to receive forgiveness. When the Catholic learns they can go straight to God in their own prayer, at home, in the car, at work, or at a place of worship: they have no need for a confessional ever again. And, how is it that a sinful priest can tell a sinner to say five hail-Marys and put some money in the poor box and this is the penance for their stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, gambling, homosexuality, lesbianism, drug use, and other sins? How can a priest guilty of most of the same sins who has not confessed himself to some other sinful priest, going to be able to grant indulgences and pardons? When a Catholic really thinks about this, they know they were members of a church that was not the Christian Church of the Bible. They know they must read their Bible and find a Church that matches the Church of the Bible.

The sixth thing a Catholic learns is there is no Pope in the Bible and Peter was not the first Pope.

A Catholic who opens the Bible will discover there is no pope. Yes, they learn the claim Peter was the first pope is false. They will not find a pope in the Bible, and what's more they will not find the pope's fish hat or his fancy gold worn by Peter. No, they will discover the Pontiff title is another religious title stolen from the high priest of the temple of Jove. They learn Peter never was a pope and never was the recognized leader of the Christian Church. Indeed, he was given the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 but these when used on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), in Samaria (Acts 8), and in Caesarea (Acts 10), afterward ceasing to be needed. He opened up the Kingdom gates of the Church to the whole world. He was not given the keys as a signal he held the position of Pope. Once the gates to the Kingdom were opened no man could shut them. No where in the Bible did Peter pass these keys on to a successor.

Who was the man who presided over the New Testament Church? Was it Peter? No! It was Jacob (James) the firstborn son of Mary by Joseph after Jesus was born. This half-brother of the Lord arose and took over the leadership of the Church and we find him in that position in Acts 15. Peter never was the head of the Christian Church so he could not have been the first pope of a fictitious Catholic church. How come, if Jesus is the founder of the Catholic church he is not the first pope? Most Catholics never seem to get out of the Catholic box far enough to ask themselves some important questions. The invention of a Gentile pope to run the Catholic church was in the fourth century.

All the pre-Nicene books were rewritten in such a way to create a legacy of supposed Western or Latin Roman pontiffs who ruled the entire Christian Church world. The title of Pontiff comes from Latin paganism. The title Pontiff is not in the Bible any where (it is another Catholic falsehood).

There are men mentioned in the history of the Catholic church as popes who may have never existed. They can be proven to exist only in the post Nicene books written to reinforce Rome's claim to legitimate power and control over the Christian Church. The falsehood of the donation letter supposedly written by Constantine is an example of forgery and fraud within the Catholic church.

The whole idea, theory, and development of a succession of Latin pontiff popes from Peter to the present pope is all a massive fraud. There is no pope in the Bible and there never was a pope over the true Christian Church. Jesus reigns as King over the Church and his Ministers act as his ambassadors throughout the nations. This you will find in the Bible. You will not find a religious system with nuns, monks, archbishops, cardinals, prelates, and popes. A Catholic will not find a religious hierarchy of ascending ranks from laity to the pope as is found in the Catholic church. When a Catholic learns there is no pope in the Bible, they know once more they had been deceived by religious trickery and mental seduction. They know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Take a look on the left at an ancient image of the fish god Dagon found in Mesopotamia. Look at his fish hat and that of the pope above. Any Catholic can see the Catholic church has adopted Dagan idolatry in hats to embellish their popes and priests and make them look religious to the world. The popes of Rome need to jerk that fish hat off, throw it down, stomp on it, and take it out and burn it. The pope should issue a Papal Bull it is never to be worn again by any pope or priest. Will they do it? No they will not do it and this is the reason the Catholic must run from the Catholic church and never look back. The Catholic church is not going to correct any of this falsehood, rituals, or heresies. It is a paganized Christian religion that has entrenched itself in many nations by bloodshed, threats, violence, and deception.

The seventh thing a Catholic learns is the 12 Apostles and New Testament Saints were not Catholic.

When a Catholic opens their Bible and tries to find the 12 Apostles and the Saints attending a Catholic church they will not find it. They learn from Bible study that all the New Testament Apostles and Saints were not Catholic. They learn the Catholic church surrounds themselves with images and idols of the Apostles and New Testament Saints to deceive members that the 12 Apostles and Saints were Catholic. It makes members think if these were all Catholic then they should be Catholic also. When they look at the images of the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, they are led to believe these chose the Catholic church because it is God's church. They never stop to think these images are put around a Catholic church to make people think it is the Church of God when it is not. Idols and images around a Catholic church is one of the biggest deceptions of the priests of Rome. It is an important tool used by the Catholic church to deceive the minds of members. The members are forced to think in a box. They never consider these were never Catholics. But when they open the Bible and see these were not Catholic their eyes come open and they see the Catholic church is not the Church of the Bible.

A Catholic who studies will learn there are no nuns, monks, priests, or popes in the Bible. They learn Mary was not worshiped. They learn she held no special position other then the Mother of the Messieh. They learn the Catholic church invented a white religion that is racist and portrays Mary, Joseph, Jesus as white people when they were black or brown. They learn that Rome deceives not only with false doctrine but with pictures, idols, and icons. They learn that the veneration, worship, and prayers to saints is not in the Bible. They learn the Catholic church did not give the world the Bible. The Bible existed before there was a Catholic church. They learn the Catholic church makes use of these so-called saints to embellish its pomp, rituals, church decor with images, and to make people think all these were Catholic.

None of the Saints of the New Testament Church were Catholic. None of them had ever been in a Catholic church. None were sprinkle baptized in the trinity. None ever doused themselves with holy water. None of them ever went to confession. Never prayed on the rosary. None attend a Mass. None celebrated Easter. In fact, when a Catholic looks in the Bible for adoration and veneration of saints he/she cannot find the practice of it any where. One of the claims of the Catholic church to Catholics is this: "You can believe the Catholic church is the true Church because it produced all the saints and such holy men and women as St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St. John Vianney, St Therese of Lizieux." Rome claims these and other holy saints produced by the Catholic church proves it is the true Church. But where is the adoration and veneration of saints in the Bible? Where in the Bible is there the making of idols and images of saints to stand around the church, in the foyer, outside the church, and in every nook and cranny? Idols and images are condemned in the Bible.

Where in the Bible did Christians make medallions to hang from one's neck as a luck charm or a fetish to ward off sickness, disease, or some other bad omen? There is none. The whole use of these so-called saints is to make Catholics think no other religion claiming to be Christian has such people in its ranks. The Catholic church uses these saints and their lives as a means to teach Catholic doctrine and compliance to the rules and codes. If a person rebels against the Catholic church they might lose the prayers of a saint on their behalf or the behalf of another loved one. So, to keep close to God a Catholic prays to these idols and gives money to their favorite saint-fan-club. When a Catholic learns there is no such practices found in the Bible they know they were deceived again. They know they must leave the Catholic church quickly because it is not the Church Jesus founded.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find Mary attending a Catholic Church. They will not find her as a Nun. They will not find a perpetual virgin. If Mary is not a Catholic there is no Catholic church. When a Catholic opens the Bible and learns Mary was not a Catholic and not the mother of God, they know they must leave the Catholic church.

Mary was the mother of the seed of David in which God was incarnated upon birth (1Tim 3:16). There is no greater deception and lie of the Catholic church then that Mary was a Catholic. Mary never attended a Catholic church in her life. She never heard of one in her life. She never saw or met a Catholic nun, monk, priest, or pope in her life. She never attended a Mass in her life. She was never sprinkle baptized by a priest of the Catholic church. She never prayed on a rosary. She never crossed herself with the sign of the Cross. She never doused herself with holy water. She never went to a confession booth. She never received penance from a Catholic priest.

Mary was not a Catholic. She was Jewish and a member of the Christian Jewish Church. This Christian Jewish Church was not Catholic. The Jewish Church did not develop into the Catholic church. The Catholic church is a complete Gentile creation of men established many centuries after Mary's death.

Mary was a Jewish woman of the tribe of Judah and the mother of Jesus the Messieh of Israel. She was mother of the seed of David, the man-child, and she was the unrecognized queen of Israel. She did not birth a God into the world.

Such teachings that she is God's mother makes Catholicism a laughing stock. How can the created birth the uncreated? Impossible you say! Agreed. Where was Mary when God created the heavens and the earth? She was not living yet. Where was Mary when God created Adam and Eve? She did not exist. To say Mary was the mother of God cannot be found any where in the Bible. When a Catholic looks for this verification and cannot find it, they know this is one more reason to leave the Catholic church. They ask themselves: if Mary was not a Catholic why should I be?

The Catholic church goes above honor of Mary, they make her a co-mediator with Christ. The Catholic church claims a Catholic can pray to Mary who will talk to her son who will talk to his Father and favor is granted because Mary is the mother of the Father's Son. Catholics are led to believe Mary can get the Father to do for them what they ask because God the Father would never deny the Mother of his Son. Is this procedure of praying to Mary any where in the Bible? It is not found there.

What is the theory behind this? In ancient times a person might be afraid to go directly to a king because they did not know how their situation might turn out. So, they sought a way to influence the king and who better to do this than his mother. So, a person might get the mother to mention something to the king and thereby soften up his attitude and or provoke him to do something good for a person his mother knows. After all, it is reasoned what king would not want to show honor and respect to his mother's wishes. So, a Catholic believes if they ask Mary, she will ask the Son and the Son will ask the Father and the Father will not deny the mother of his Son.

When a Catholic learns this is not in the Bible any where they know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus. When they learn Mary was not a go-between to Jesus and to God the Father for others, this causes Catholics to see all this Maryology as nothing but a big religious sham. They should take this treasured Lady down from her place among idols throughout the world. They should stop praying to her because this is not in the Bible. They should stop teaching lies and falsehoods about Mary. Have they no respect for her? They should remove her from their churches because she was Jewish and not Catholic. When a Catholic learns that Mary was not a Catholic they have discovered the last thing they need to know that proves the Catholic church is not the Church Jesus founded.

As the light of Truth comes into the life of a Catholic they will see the Catholic church as an impostor. They will then take a second look at its sins, evils, and scandals. They will know from its birth in Nicaea in 325AD until today 2005 it is an evil religion that has cheated millions of true Bible salvation by its falsehood. The Catholic church has killed more people to establish and enforce the Catholic religion then any other religion in the world. Thousands have been murdered. Hundreds have been burned at the stake. More hundreds have been tortured. There are thousands of killed babies whom nuns birthed and the fathers were priests. Homosexuality is so out of control in the Catholic church among the priests, monks, and popes. If ever there was a church the gates of hell have prevailed against, it is the Catholic church. Catholic apologist claim these are just scars of sinners upon Christ and they are wounds to his body that Catholics and the world should overlook. No, we cannot overlook something so evil, when we know it is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church will continue to be the most shameful religious group in the world. When a Catholic comes to see the shame of the Catholic church they will know it is not the true Church Jesus founded.

So, why should a Catholic leave the Catholic church and find the true Church of the Bible?

Because as members of the Catholic church they are in a false church. As a member in the Catholic church they are forced to believe the Catholic church does not have to be found in the Bible. They are forced to believe in many things they cannot find in the Bible.

If a Catholic does not leave the Catholic church they are not baptized properly as found in the Bible. They are not saved by faith as found in the Bible. If they remain Catholic their soul will be lost. If they remain a Catholic after they are shown the Catholic church is not in the Bible they will go to hell.

A Catholic must ask themselves: "If Jesus and the Apostles were not in the Catholic church why should I be a member?"

A Catholic must believe Jesus was the founder of a Jewish Christian Church and Peter preached how to be saved in Acts 2:38.

A Catholic must ask him/her self this question: "If Peter was the first Pope how come the Catholic church does not follow him and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as Peter preached in Acts 2:38?

Catholics are not dumb people. They do not want their soul to be lost. My final advice to all our Catholic friends is: "don't let anyone fool you or convince you to stay in the Catholic church."

Lord Jesus I pray for all the good people in the Catholic church. I pray our Lord that you would open their eyes to see you were not a Catholic and they should not be either. As they open their Bible Lord Jesus and begin to seek for the true Church, guide them, love them, and lead them as our Good Shepherd. Lord I pray now you will bring them into the one fold of the True Church of Jesus Christ. Amen!

Here are some other Catholic writers as well on the subject whose scholarship is worth considering:

"Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 80,221-222).

"ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop. Not until the pontificate of St. Pius I in the middle of the second century (ca. 142-ca. 155) did the Roman Church have a monoepiscopal structure of government (one bishop as pastoral leader of a diocese). Those who Catholic tradition lists as Peter's immediate successors (Linus, Anacletus, Clement, et al.) did not function as the one bishop of Rome (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., p.25).

To begin with, indeed, there was no 'pope', no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter or bishop...Clement made no claim to write as bishop...There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome...but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid-150s (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. Yale University Press, London, 2001, pp. 9, 10,13)

...we have good reason to conclude that by the time of Anicetus (155-66), the church of Rome was being led by a bishop whose role resembled Ignatius or Polycarp (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 143).

Note all of the qualifying phrases in the sentence:

"The twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome (see above), combined with the tradition of Peter's residence in the same city, especially as it would seem that the Roman Church had actually been formed early in the reign of Claudius through the indirect influence of the Petrine Christianity of Palestine."

Note that the encyclopedia refers to Peter's residence as "tradition" not fact, but "as it would seem", and the phrase "the indirect influence" meaning what? If Peter had been involved in its formation it would have been "direct influence", but the encyclopedia says "indirect" meaning that Peter was not there personally, but what was Petrine Christianity in Palestine made its way to Rome indirectly.

Why don't you finish the sentence:

Why don't you finish the page: "All this giving rise to ... the legend of his twenty-five year residence in Rome"

And this:

"it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome".

So here we have the answer to our question of when Peter became bishop of Rome: Peter became bishop of Rome in the middle of the third century by virtue of the pen of Cyprian and embellished upon a short time later by Eusebius.

As I see it, you are slowly slowly proposing a hypothesis which includes the idea that the Church is deceived and is in fact following Simon Magus or somebody of the kind, rather than Peter.

Except this theory collapses on one key issue. The Church was the SOLE CUSTODIAN of all Scripture and writings of the early Church fathers for FIFTEEN CENTURIES. If they had engaged in this conspiracy, they would simply have destroyed all of the evidence.

NONE of the original Protestant Reformers questioned the FACT that Peter was the first Pope or that he was in Rome, this Simon Magus theory is a VERY RECENT invention by anti-Catholics. Here are two of Luther's "95 Theses" which clearly indicate that he never questioned the fact that Peter was the first pope (obviously, Luther did question papal authority):

77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12:28.

While it is clear that both of these statements question mock the papacy, they also AFFIRM THE FACT that Peter was the first pope.

Ah, but don't you know that a public declaration of accepting Jesus into your life results in a completely free pass for the rest of your life.

Although that's an accurate statement about the free pass, it appears as tho you just don't get it...

When a person comes to Jesus with nothing but his/her sin, and you ask Jesus to save you because you are to vile to do anything at all to save yourself, He not only says yes, but he sends along the Comforter to dwell within you...

You get that Spiritual operation

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

which results in the Spiritual circumcision

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

which actually separtates your soul from your flesh...

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I'm guessing you don't understand that...

I asked earlier if there were any Catholics on the thread that were filled with the Holy Spirit, 24/7...No one replied so I guess you guys are not...

When you have God 'in you', you have constant conviction...You want to do right...And you try to do right...And you fall...And you get back up and try again...Most folks that get filled with the Spirit quit drinking, quit smoking, quit gambling...Not because they have to but because they want to...

You don't have to abide by the Commandments, you don't have to do anything other than what your whim directs.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Do you understand this verse???

The Bible says so, doncha know?

It certainly does...

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter

Let me get this straight: it is "an indisputable historical fact" and yet "the chronology of his arrival and death" are uncertain. And they are saying that as long as he died there, his death in Rome is all the evidence the RCC needs for them to make their subsequent claims of a Petrine Papacy.

They have been reduced from the claim of a 25 year Petrine Roman Episcopacy to merely Peter's death in Rome, and that is supposed to be the foundation of the Church of Rome? So now the whole Petrine Papacy rests on only one claim ---that Peter died there in Rome. And just what is the historical evidence of that, remember "historical" not "theological"? and how long before they back off of that claim as well.

Using their logic, if it can be shown that Peter died in some other city, would that make the church of that city the See of St Peter?

Do you have a problem reading the entire article in the encyclopedia, or do you think that through repeating it again and again you will cause it to stand out from the rest of the article?

Please note yet another paragraph in the article:

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, 80 also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter's activity in that capital (thus in Baur, "Paulus", 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially Lipsius, "Die quellen der römischen Petrussage", Kiel, 1872). But this hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely local importance of Ebionitism, and is directly refuted by the above genuine and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant historians (cf., e.g., Harnack's remarks in "Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur", II, i, 244, n. 2). A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence conciudes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter's death in Rome far antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of Christian antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.

I could easily repeat the section I quoted before, but I'll not insult the other readers' intelligence through repetitiveness.

As to the Schaff article, even this non-Catholic source states as its closing sentences for this section: It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome toward the close of Nero's reign, some time after the cessation of the general persecution. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable.

Your statement,

I'm terribly sorry, that first part should have been in quotation marks as:

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says:

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter."

Except this theory collapses on one key issue

YOU think it collapses. I think it collapses. But UC and Diego (and others to be announced later?) don't think so.

It's one thing to be as all-seeingly wise as I indisputably am, it's another to close the sale with somebody not blessed with my innate superiority (and modesty).

It's so very dicey. From MY POV it looks like Diego and UC are claming to know not only that there was a second shooter in the Book Depository or on the grassy knoll, but also the identity of that shooter. Consequently, my antennae are up and I am VERY alert to (or TRY to be alert to), as I said, a string of probabilities being presented as a producing a certainty, or what looks like a misquote or a tendentious editing of sources. That's about what persuades ME. So our friends are not closing the sale, not even close.

After all, if A is 90% probable and B is 90% probable, the probability of both of them being true is less, namely 81%. Give us 6 things which are 90% probable and we drop below 50% in a hurry.

But unless they are pranksters -- and what a boring prank it would be -- they think this stuff so plausible as to justify entertaining the notion that our Church would be wily enough to disguise the truth so well that a lot of very smart and pious people are deceived, but klutzy enough to leave evidence of their lies all over the place.

At least that's how I see it. I don't DO history much. It all looks like a Rorschach test to me most of the time or like people looking down a well and seeing the reflection of their own face.

But I'll listen, for a while anyway.

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).

This verse has nothing to do with salvation, or purgatory...This is the judgement of a Christian...ALL people at this judgement are already in heaven...The judgement is not for salvation...

The judgement is for rewards when you get to heaven...For your good works, you'll get good rewards...Your bad works will be burned...Even the ones you thought were good...A Christian is already in heaven when this judgement takes place...

This objector in the story of yours is right on the money...The Catholic should be listening to the objector...

Catholics do not believe we are saved by works. We do believe we are saved by grace.

Naw...Everybody gets the grace to get saved but without faith, you don't get saved...

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

We are in the dispensation of grace...Know what that means??? That means there were other dispensations that did not have grace...

But the questionis: what is the faith spoken of in the verse??? Faith in what???

God gives us the saving grace (He calls us). We respond sacramentally by being baptized.

You mean you do something...How many Catholics on these threads quote these verses to prove that works are required for your salvation???

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

You guys believe in works for salvation...That's why you keep quoting 'faith without works is dead' from the book of James...'Work out your own salvation'...

You guys have told us constantly that you must 'endure to the end' and then die before you can get salvation...

Those folks in Mat. 25 are not under the dispensation of 'grace'...

It seems to me you have two standards of proof, one easy one for your hypothesis, and a hard one for ours. What's up with that?

And I see nothing whatsoever problematic about the line I underlined. If the thing to be proved (at the micro level) is that so-and-so was in such and such a place, that can be shown without knowing exactly when so-and-so got there or when he left. No problem.

As to the claims of a Papacy, I've tried to address that in my other scintillating posts. (I'm sure the brilliance of my reasoning just dazzled you ... NOT -- hmm, what's IN today's meds?) They might not evan have had the term "Pope". The lines between "bishop" (overseer/supervisor) and "presbyter" ("Scottish Calvinist", uh no, wait, I mean "elder") and the job descriptions and all that were probably not formalized. In any event, they have developed since then. So the absence of a document saying, more or less, "That guy from Judea was made Pope today," is not dispositive."

In my schema, FWIW, all you need is for Peter to have shown up and to have been given deference. He doesn't even need to have established the congregation in Rome to later have served in a supervisory capacity.

I don't think the place of his martyrdom establishes his being Overseer in that place one way or the other.

But, in the land of the probable, how IMprobable is it that when (or IF) Peter, one of the twelve, shows up in the congregation he is NOT given the leadership role?

I think we ought not read the later encrustations of offices and ranks and such on the ferment of early Christianity. We can barely imagine.

Were these people skulking around at night giving signs and counter-signs to one another to make sure persecutors didn't cotton onto them? Or did they conduct their evangelism and ministry more or less openly? I REALLY don't know (Who is this that troubles council with words without knowledge? Why, that would be Dawg!) but while the Episcopal Bishop of Long Island when I was young had exquisitely manicured hands and a homburg hat, I imagine that even the Christians in Rome wouldn't have recognized Peter without an introduction. They would have passed him in the stree, and probably said to themselves nothing more than,"Oh, A provincial. He dresses funny."

And this is all about the kind of contemporaneous evidence one can reasonably expect. I would venture to guess: not much and none of it conclusive.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.