Replies

There is no such thing as Apostolic succession. If there were, a Pope about to die would annoint a successor. Instead of that they've been assassinating eachother. At one time there were two Popes.

Wow. Not sure where to begin with this one, but here goes:

First, Apostolic Succession is right in the book of Acts. After Judas commits suicide, do they decide to stay with 11 Apostles? No. They appoint a successor. So, we know of at least one definitive case of Apostolic Succession being passed down in the Bible and if the Apostles have the authority to appoint a successor to another Apostle, why would they not have the authority to appoint a successor to themselves?

Also, you contradict Christian history, once again. Could you provide documented evidence of the first ten Popes killing each other? My memory escapes me, but there is no documented evidence that Pope Linus killed St. Peter.

Notice the order of "believe" and "baptize". You have to be older than a newborn baby to do that. Also, this doesn't leave any room for Peter, Popes or Purgatory, which are all late human inventions.

Look, you're doing the typical Protestant argument and refusing to finish an argument on one topic and instead move from doctrine to doctrine attacking whatever you can until something sticks.

I would be more than happy to discuss any doctrine of the Church and its Biblical foundation, but it would be more productive if you responded to the rebuttals already made against your arguments instead of "carpet bombing" the thread, trying to hit whatever you can.

"First, Apostolic Succession is right in the book of Acts. After Judas commits suicide, do they decide to stay with 11 Apostles? No. They appoint a successor."

And we never hear from the man-appointed successor again. God appoints the twelfth apostle whom we all know as Paul from tarsus. That was aa good reference!

"Also, you contradict Christian history, once again. Could you provide documented evidence of the first ten Popes killing each other?"

I never said that.

Also, there's no documented evidence that anybody but Catholics and those whom they've convinced believe that Peter went to Rome. In all the epistles Paul wrote from Rome, he mentions endless (as it were) lists of people there, but no Peter.

Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

"you're doing the typical Protestant argument and refusing to finish an argument on one topic and instead move from doctrine to doctrine attacking whatever you can until something sticks."

I do that because the whole Roman construct is a web of lies, starting with Peter being called a "Pope", which office never existed for hundreds of years, to the hocus-pocus of transubstantiation, which is no miracle, because the bread never becomes anything but bread. The truth shall make ye free.