Johnny Cochran?
or
Jackie Chiles? 
A mere assertion, based upon presumption.
1. No apostles were Catholic, such as evidenced in Acts thru Revelation (which best shows how they understood the gospels) they looked to the street-level leader Peter as the first of a line of popes possessing exhorted ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, nor commanded, reminded, exhorted the churches to submit to Peter as such, nor as making provision for a successor to any apostle, save Judas, which was to ensure the original 12, and was chosen by casting lots.
2. Which NT church never taught that or exampled that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. Which is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8
3. Nor prayed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, neither did any other believer in the over 200 prayers in Scripture.
4. Nor taught or exampled a clerical class distinctively titled sacerdotal "hiereus" (versus presbyterous or episkopos) whose their primary unique active function was that of confecting the true body and blood of the Lord out of wheat bread and wine, as an offering for sin and as spiritual food.
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,”
6. Nor taught or exampled baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
7. Never exhorted or commanded believers to regularly come to clergy to confess and be forgiven of sins in general, as uniquely have the power to bind and or loose, or manifested them doing so.
8. Never taught or exampled that there was a separate class of believers called “saints,” who directly go to Heaven at death, while the rest go to purgatory.
9. Never exalted Mary to a place of prominence as exalted intercessor.
Even Caiaphas, while plotting to murder Jesus, correctly prophesied to Israel by virtue of his office. (John 11:49-52) Do you not understand the implications of that? When Romans 11:29 says "The gifts and calling of God are without repentence," it means it.
Yes, you do not understand the implications of a impious man of high priest office which is simply not which is seen in the NT church, impromptu speaking a prophecy - not defining doctrine - without intending to, or understanding what he was doing, and without any form indicative that he intended this to be a prophecy, or that it was, and what would only be known (apart from Scripture) as a prophetic fulfillment after its fulfillment;
versus conditional (scope and content) ensured magisterial infallibility of office, in which a doctrine is so when the pope intentionally defines a matter, on faith or morals for the whole church, which may occur once in a 100 years or so, but is not subject to needed fulfillment for assurance that it is God, but which is based upon it form. And which no single apostle did, nor did Peter do so in council (and which he never called).
Do you not understand the implications of recourse to such a desperate erroneous egregious extrapolation? An unplanned unintended spontaneous utterance by the high priest, turns out to be a prophecy, by one who did not plan to speak it or understand what it all was, somehow translates Peter and successors possessing ensured perpetual infallibility when in the exercise of papal office one defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and that the teaching is definitive is sppsd to be discernible by form. Meaning it is a matter of manifest doctrine, intended as being so, and which is to be held as infallible due to its content and scope, and form, versus being subject to needed fulfillment.
Meanwhile street-level leader among brethren Peter was not a successor to the high priest, certainly nor acting as one.
What the Spirit of Christ teaches is that true prophets were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow," (1 Peter 1:11) and accordingly
The the implications of such desperate recourse is that Catholic impugn the Spirit of Christ for not providing what they can only wish Scripture actually taught.
Legends in their own minds.
Very good. Thank you for that Scriptural detailed response.
Proving once again why catholics are taught to distance their beliefs from Scripture, all because their doctrine is man made according to “tradition” and nothing more.
Johnny Cochran?
or
Jackie Chiles?
BTW, thank you for including Scriptural support to provide Biblical reference. Which is the foundation of Christianity.
John 1:1
King James Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
King James Version
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
When catholicism denies the True Word of God, not only are they rejecting the Word, but also reject the Word that was made Flesh and dwelt among us. This is why they replace Jesus with another head (the pope) And also why they replace the Worship of Jesus with the worship of Mary.
When all the man made ordinances are removed from the false doctrine, it’s left with an empty shell. That is why they distance themselves from Scripture.
Sacraments?
Instituted by Jesus??
The Mass says He didn’t pay for all sin on the cross,
But the last thing Jesus said “It is finished”!!!
1 Peter 3:18
Also
“ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”
Sound’s like Rome has been wrong from the get-go.