11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “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.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?

Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.

The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.

The Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and Rome

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.

St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

1. The Gospel of St. John

That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.

2. Salutations, from Babylon

St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

3. Gospel of St. Mark

From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

4. Testimony of Pope St. Clement I

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):

“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.

He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

5. Testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

6. Taught in the Same Place in Italy

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:

“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

7. Rome: Founded by Sts. Peter and Paul

Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

8. St. Peter Announced the Word of God in Rome

In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).

9. Rome: Where Authority is Ever Within Reach

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:

“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”

In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).

10. Come to the Vatican and See for Yourself

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.

By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).

11. Ancient Epigraphic Memorial

There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.

The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.

Thank you so much for sharing your testimony, dear Cronos!

In reference to my post of this Scripture ...

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. - Matt 7:13-14

... you said:

So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation. Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject.

God has blessed me many times with the opportunity to enter my testimony on threads populated by believers and non-believers alike and I always say this:

"God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting."

So, you see, for me "the gate" is not now - nor has it ever been - anything other than God Himself:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:6-7

As HE said:

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. - John 10:9

Nor shall it ever be about anything other than Him for there is Only One Great Commandment:

Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying, Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:35-40

I shall not sweat the details.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. - James 2:10

If it were possible to be good enough to enter heaven then Christ died for nothing:

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:21

Indeed, Psalms 22 which speaks to us from the Cross says:

My praise [shall be] of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

For the kingdom [is] the LORD'S: and he [is] the governor among the nations. All [they that be] fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this]. - Psalms 22:25-31

God's Name is I AM.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Of course as we are told often, Catholics don’t have to rely on scripture for what they consider truth nor does it have to agree with scripture.

Perhaps it is human nature to elevate man's thoughts.

In Judaism, most hold the Talmud in very high regard though, AFAIK, they do not consider it to be equal to Scripture. And that even though the Scripture says:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. - Deut 4:2

Likewise the LDS has writings it considers to be holy and holds Scripture to be faithful but only insofar as it has been correctly translated. And that even though the Scripture says:

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. - 2 Cor 11:4

And some, I suspect, would like us to believe that theology requires extensive education in certain beliefs and behaviors - or learning certain languages or meanings of words. And that even though the Scripture says in the previous verse:

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

It has always been about God, not us.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - 1 John 2:27

Man is not the measure of God.

To GOD be the glory, not man, never man.

The Pope has been vicar of Christ for over 2,000 years.

I did not think Ratzinger was that old:), but neither is the papacy of Rome, as the EOs also contend.

In any case, you keep relying on the same argument despite the invalid nature of this being shown. The point you are continually missing or avoiding is that even being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and having historical descent of office does not require or equate to assured infallibility and perpetuation of supreme office by them, as if it did then the church was wrong for beginning in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.

The reality is that an itinerant preacher showed up in Galilee (being preceded by another itinerant preacher), neither of whom had the sanction of those who sat in authority. Thus as Jesus was walking in the temple, "there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:27-28)

The Lord's answer was another question, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." As John also did not have their sanction and they did not submit to it, this question demanded their reply be "of men." However, unlike the official magisterium, the people rightly discerned John as a prophet (even though he "did no miracle"). "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved." (Hosea 12:13)

While God had ordained the Jewish magisterium (conditional obedience to whom the Lord even affirmed: (Mt. 23:2) and who were instrumental in passing on the faith, including affirming writings as Scripture, this did not require assured infallibility as per Rome. And God often raised up souls to reproved them and preserve the faith (even if it be among a remnant) who were part of that mysterious class of believers called "prophets," who, unlike the Levites, did not need formal descent of office for authenticity.

Likewise NT believers are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " (John 1:13)

But seeing the the Founder of the church operated in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses why should people follow Him? Upon what basis were His claims to authenticity established? The answer is that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as He fulfilled the Scriptural prophecies and descriptions of the One He claimed to be. Thus He could challenge, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (Jn. 5:39 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) And thus opened He the understanding of the disciples (not just apostles) to the scriptures (not traditions).

In addition, the Lord was given abundant supernatural Divine attestation which Scripture shows God giving to truth claims, esp. new teaching, and thus the Lord could exhort, "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. " (John 14:11)

The reality is that the greater the claims, the greater the attestation (cf. Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12), and the Lord is the only one who is manifestly worthy of implicit trust, and is not blind faith but has warrant and is confirmed.

As for Rome, she essentially makes herself into an alter Christos in requiring full implicit submission of faith to her "infallible" teachings, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Upon which premise RCs have assurance, while Rome rejects the means the very means and method by which the church as established in dissent, and by which souls obtained assurance that the death and resurrection of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles was validated. (Lk. 24:44; Acts 17:11) And assurance of present salvation is also provided based upon what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)

Rome may go thru the motions of validating her teaching with Scripture references, but according the only authoritative meaning (and providing real assurance) these have is that which she gives them, based upon Rome's premise of authority.

Establishing truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation is faulted because it can results in both true and false teaching claiming the same basis. But so does relying on the premise of the church being the supreme authority, as well as in regards to what it teaches, and problem become extended to a corporate level. Thus you have rejection of such things as the Immaculate Conception (which is not established by Scripture, leaving RCs trying to argue from silence, though such an exceptional absence is contrary to its nature of revelation) or papal infallibility by other sola ecclesia churches.

In the end, "the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power," (1 Corinthians 4:20) and thus the church began upon Scriptural substantiation of its message in word and in attestation, and thus it continues, even if too divided as tribes and as a relative remnant, but with the evangelical gospel effecting manifest supernatural regeneration, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart as well as other aberrations.

Protestants of all denominations were also ‘sport’ as they quickly buckled under my power when they tried to convert me. However even back then I feared the Catholic priest as I knew, as did my demons, that I was no match for the power that came through him from God.”

As a former RC, who (just to provide some background) was raised devout Roman Catholic, with 2 uncles who were priests, with my brother and I altars boy, but who was manifestly born again at age 25 while still an Roman Catholic (and who remained a weekly attendee for 6 years, during which i served as a CCD teacher and lector, and was part of the charismatic movement), i call that out as bunk. Without any substantiation she boasts of her former occult power, as one under whom other quickly buckled, bring bringing born-again Christians to their knees, while supposedly Roman Catholic priests had an aura of power the demons feared.

She also states, “When a religion is under constant such attack, and yet remains the most visible religious force on earth (and has -- for 2,000 years, as the world's oldest institution), and never retaliates in kind (having only good words for others, and reaching out, ecumenically), you know you are dealing with authenticity.” Which is either gross ignorance, which is doubtful, or it testifies to a lying spirit, as Rome much relied on and sanctioned the power of the sword of man to deal with theological unfaithful or dissenters, even those who sincerely dissented in conscience toward God based on love for His Word. And which does not teach the church to use carnal means in this regards, and that it is the devil who is a murderer.

I do not doubt witches and satanists have power, and i would still recommend the book, “New Age Medicine” and have had some confrontations with witches (initiated by me) i could share, but rather than priests being powerful, with rare exceptions most could not even preach with any effect of power or otherwise manifest such. And those who in the Bible who cast out demons did not take dozens of sessions to do so over years. (And while i am not making myself out to be an exorcists, it does not seem the demons in the true story of Anneliese Michel Michel were looking to get away from the priest in her 67 exorcism sessions, one or two each week, lasting up to four hours in 1975 and 1976, before she died.)

Meanwhile, studies of their professed flock of priests have shown that Catholics largely deny the existence of the Devil is a personal being. 56% of Assemblies of God Christians versus 17% Catholics strongly DISAGREE that Satan is just a symbol of evil (rather than a real being). And 76% of evangelicals leaders (but which may include some Catholics) worldwide say they have experienced or witnessed a divine healing, and 70% of those from the Global South say they have witnessed the devil or evil spirits being driven out. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

Moreover, as a poster states on a thread here in response to this, “Every testimony of ex-witches and satanists I ever heard (and I have heard quite a few) all have said the same thing - they would not EVER go near the RCC because the rituals of praying to those other than God invite demonic spirits. IMHO this woman needs to get saved. She is sadly deceived by Satan.”

Another post states, “You don't find US....believing in....making long pilgrimages to....things such as inanimate statuary....supposedly weeping....seeping blood...etc....or....Jesus or Mary miraculously appearing in someone's breakfast pancake...or tamale...or dog's throw-up....or whatever.....OR....miraculously flying houses...that flew in three stages from Palestine to Italy....or.....well...you get my drift. Seems only rc's are still locked in a superstitious, medieval mindset...that accepts the most ridiculous story as 'gospel' truth...as long as it aggrandizes 'mother church' or 'mother mary' or whoever.”

But if you want to give stories like hers credence, then you have other former satanists claiming priests are working for the devil (and providing them does not mean i affirm them either). Bill Schnoebelen stated that all Satanic high priests are required to become Catholic priests, while Leo Zagami declared that each and every Catholic works as a spy for the Vatican, which is at the head of the Satanic Illuminati.

Then you have stories as , “Archbishop charges Vatican hierarchy with Satanism.” Archbishop Milingo openly charged high-ranking members of the Holy See as ‘followers of Satan’, or otherwise enablers of evil. This is part of what the Archbishop said: “The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game preserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church - the exorcist.” — http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/Satanism_in_the_Vatican/

The well known scholar, Vatican insider, and best-selling author Malachi Martin (who is invoked by FR Catholics as here) and author of “Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans,” was questioned about the alarming nature of the Archbishop’s accusations. He stated,

Archbishop Milingo is a good Bishop and his contention that there are Satanists in Rome is completely correct. Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the Prince of Darkness has had, and still has, his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.

In his 1990 non-fiction best-seller about geopolitics and the Vatican, The Keys of This Blood, he wrote:

"Most frighteningly for [Pope] John Paul [II], he had come up against the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and in certain bishops’ chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen called the ‘superforce.’ Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites." (p. 632)

He revealed much more about this alleged ritual in one of his last works, Windswept House: A Vatican Novel (1996). In this story, he vividly described a ceremony called “The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer... According to The New American, Martin confirmed that the ceremony did indeed occur as he had described. “Oh yes, it is true; very much so,” the magazine reported he said. “But the only way I could put that down into print is in novelistic form.” -http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/friar-satanism-has-been-practiced-in-the-vatican-2541944.html

And you have testimonies as this.

“In the beginning of the year 1973 started for me the most serious and deep events that were to mark my life as a magician, and led me to discover the mysterious world beyond. One Sunday after the mass, the parish priest, my master of initiation, gave me a rendezvous at his home at 7 PM. Faithful to the appointment, I came on time. He received me kindly and offered dinner. Then he told me the following : “I promised to show you greater things, and to establish you in life. Are you courageous ?” I answered affirmatively. Then he asked me if I would accompany him somewhere...”

“When we left at midnight, the priest took along a small rectangular carpet. Arriving at the cemetery, he invoked the first dead person to have been buried here, inviting him to do his job, for we were going to travel....”

“After having met these people from the hereafter, I was introduced to other terrestrial beings who had relations with the invisible, especially those who lived in Zaire. Invited into the great hall, I found many historical personalities, some whose lives we had studied at school : scholars, scientists, inventors, great businessmen, political figures, and, finally, members of the Catholic clergy, cardinals, priests, etc. The day’s session was organized so as to present me to the invisible world. I saw Pope Paul VI make his entrance. He was the one who directed the ceremonies. It goes without saying that the Pope was the representative of all the living people who attended the invisible world, and he held the supreme power. The Pope was still alive at the time. He pronounced a long speech, after which I was baptised Master to the third degree, sixteenth power. The ceremony ended with a reception and a toast, but the “wine” was human blood.” - http://itshellwithoutjesus.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/a-true-and-remarkable-testimony-exposing-satanism-and-devil-worship-in-the-catholic-church/

And other claims:

The main reason the Bible doesn’t mention Satanism as a religious institution is due to the fact that until the Enlightenment era, there really was nothing resembling it. One of the first philosophies that set the stage for contemporary Satanism was actually invented by a disenchanted Catholic priest named François Rabelais. In a 1535 novel, Rabelais created a literary paradise governed by what he called the Law of Thélème. The fundamental Law of Thélème was “do what thou wilt”—a phrase later commandeered by Satanists and Wiccans alike (although not without significant moral tempering by the more socially conscious Wiccans).

The European “hellfire” or “anti-morality” clubs built upon Rabelais’ vision of self-indulgence in the 17th and 18th centuries. These groups celebrated the excesses of their carnal appetites, and mocked the sensibilities of the Church through elaborate “Black Masses”. It’s important to note that the ceremonies were not an expression of sincere belief, but were an open mockery of institutionalized religion. Anti-moralists were not espousing a belief in anything, except their own pleasure.

This predecessor to Satanism didn’t develop a truly “spiritual” edge until Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) borrowed the language of Rabelais in formulating his own occult philosophy. To say that Crowley was an immoral man is not unlike stating that Billy Graham is a Christian evangelist. - http://www.spiritwatch.org/sattruth.htm

While such stories are what get the most attention, in reality, the devil's most successful work is that which is far more subtle, from starting family arguments to instilling the victim-entitlement mentality (a most prevalent tool, of which i know well myself), to that of his work in religion, his ultimate field: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. " (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

And rather than the simplicity that is in Christ in which dependance upon truly supernatural conviction and conversion is required and takes place, as seen in Scripture, Rome that has subtly turned this into a vast autocratic institutionalized socialist system that has largely substituted mere form over reality, ritual over relationship, fostering perfunctory professions and faith in her for salvation as the supreme authority; Supposing they were born again through infant sprinkling, and that the same church will get them into glory due to her “in” with God, even the most nominal. . To the eternal horror of those who are deceived by it or like systems.

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.