Who says we are obstinately refusing the Lord? The bible does not say it, not Peter, Paul, Jesus, or the HS.
The Vatican is built on a hill that was previously devoted to a pagan goddess. Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)but they are the political descendents of the vicars that ruled Rome, Pontiff Maximae.
Those who refuse to do things the way God has instituted them are refusing Him. There were some charecters in Numbers 16 who also thought they could do it better than Moses. If God says "This is the way I want it done", and you say, "well, I'd rather do it this way", what does that say about refusing the Lord?
The Vatican is built on a hill that was previously devoted to a pagan goddess. Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)but they are the political descendents of the vicars that ruled Rome, Pontiff Maximae.
LOL!!! What's your source, Jack Chick? I suppose the more you make Rome to be the worse of all evils, the easier it is for you to say, "God, ya see, I can't accept the way you did it through the Catholic Church. How about I build my own church?"
Regards
Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)
This is really amateur anti-Catholicism. You can do better.
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.You can see more here.In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.