Sorry, like I said earlier I do not wish to debate anyone. (And unfortunately that’s how my father was until he was on his deathbed and accepted Christ after being a life-long catholic). He had the attitude that he wanted to prove one wrong.
I gave you many verses that showed what it takes to be saved. The most glaring truth is in Ephesians 2 8-9).
The “Holy Eucharist” is a catholic invention after the death of the Apostles. To say that Peter is the founder of the catholic church is risible. Not only did he never go to Rome, he was a preacher/teacher of Jews, not Gentiles. If anyone should’ve been chosen, it should’ve been Paul. He went to Rome and brought the Gospel to the Gentiles.
The devil’s biggest deception is fooling people that they can get to heaven by adding or taking away from the gospel. Or as Paul said, “If anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed.”
God bless your father and forgive him his sins.
Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches grace alone, which is a Catholic doctrine, — not faith alone. The apparent denial of the salvific character of works is in fact only referring to works for social status. The next verse, “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them” should disabuse any Protestant of his error.
For someone who does not wish to debate anyone, you have quite a collection of anti-Catholic nonsense that concludes your post, and has nothing to do with the topic that you are actually quite welcome to debate. Let me touch on these briefly.
The Eucharist is referred to many times in the Gospel, although not by that name. The name, by the way, — Greek for Thanksgiving — is fully biblical as Jesus himself gave thanks during the Last Supper. To learn about the Eucharist, read, when you have time, the scene of the Last Supper in all synoptic gospels, the discussion, already mentioned here, in the second part of John 6, and the definitive statement on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:20-30. Do not miss the figure of transubstantiation in the supper at Emmaus episode.
St. Peter is the first Pope because Christ made him so: see the granting of the keys, the renaming, the call to feed the flock, and the promise Jesus made at the Last Supper to specially pray for him, St. Peter, so that he could fail not and convert his brethren, that is, other bishops. But he is not the founder of the Church, Christ is. All these are of course expressed in well known verses most people remember readily; if you need a reference, ask, or better still, wait till an appopriate catechetical thread on the Eucharist comes up and post your questions then.
Whether St. Peter ever went to Rome would have nothing to do with his papacy. The pope is pope not because he lives in Rome, but because he is appointed one. Whether he went to Rome or not is not a known fact, but there is evidence, both scriptural and historical that he did.
That St. Paul would have been a wonderful pope no one can deny; he wasn’t around when the papacy was established, and apparently preceded St. Peter in martyrdom.
But it is not correct to portray St. Peter as exclusively dealing with the more difficult task of converting the Jews. St. Peter was the one who converted the first Gentile and initiated lifting the restrictions of Mosaic law, which made Gentile conversion difficult.
I fully agree that preaching another gospel is damnable. Why do you think I am willing to explain the gospel to all non-Catholics who’d listen?
**The “Holy Eucharist” is a catholic invention after the death of the Apostles**
Why do you say that?
The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper.
“This is my body.” “This is my blood of the New Covenant.”
The apostles followed Christ’s instructions from the Last Supper. “Do this in remembrance of me.”
I have no problem with the Holy Eucharist coming straight from Scripture and I guess I do not understand why you do.