That literally doesn’t refute anything she said. Plus if Peter was the “inerrant in matters of doctrine” pope, why did Paul have to correct him? And we only have one Father, and no need for rabbis and priests and fathers, as Christ Himself said. And when she spoke of “dead” she was referring to how Catholicism nearly killed Christianity prior to the Reformation.
Many protestants think they know a lot about the Catholic church, and unfortunately just repeat the same old falsehoods that have been passed on from generation to generation and quoted again and again. So much of this article is false and ignorant. I started making a list and it went on for pages. I will just address a very foundational teaching of the church, that is Apostolic Succession.
If you think Jesus created the confusion and hermeneutical anarchy of 40,000 protestant churches you are wrong – he is not the father of confusion, that would be the father of lies.
Jesus established one church. Jesus did not leave his followers with a bound set of scriptures but rather a living, breathing institution—the Church—to guide and nurture faith.
In the Old Testament, the Temple in Jerusalem was originally built by the greatest king of Israel - King David, then rebuilt by King Solomon and then again by King Herrod. The Temple mount is built on a rock (Mount Moriah) and on this rock was the center of worship for the Jews for over 1,000 years.
In the time of Kings, when the King was away, he gave the keys of the Kingdom to his Prime Minister. The Prime minister Reigned and was in charge of the Kingdom while the King was away. This is from the book of Isaiah 22:22 – talking about the Prime Minister:
“I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what door he opens, no one will shut, what door he shuts, no one will open.”
the Prime Minister was given the keys to the kingdom – and the prime minister made all the decisions and was in charge until the King returned.
Matthew 16: I will give you peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mathew 18:18 Jesus repeats the binding and loosing and gives that ability to the Apostles.
Let’s look at Matthew 16:13: Jesus and the Apostles are in Caesarea Philippi; Simon Peter answers Jesus’ question Of “WHO do you say that I am?” and Peter professes his faith in Jesus as “the Christ – the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus tells Simon who he is… “and so I say to you, You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my church….”
Then Jesus professes on this rock “I will build MY church” so Jesus is going to build HIS Church or his temple and establish His Kingdom, but Jesus isn’t going to build his kingdom on a physical Rock but on the Person of Peter the rock – Peter is the new foundation on which Jesus’s Kingdom Temple (the church) will be built
In the kingdom of God, it is Jesus who reigns supremely; and although he remains mystically present to us here on Earth, he knew he was not going to with us physically, so he established a prime minister to be in charge of the kingdom on earth until he comes again.
The first prime minister was Peter; and Peter has been and always will be succeeded in office by other approved men until the King returns. We call this “The Primacy.” Peter, and the 266 men who have come after him as the Bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s authority as Chief Shepard and teacher.
The Catholic Church is not merely a historical institution but a living entity. It is seen as the "Body of Christ," with Jesus as its head and believers as its members. The Church acts as a spiritual guide, teaching authority, carrying forward the teachings and legacy of Christ.
To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
And mind you, this apostolic authority Jesus communicated to his ministers is so radical, Jesus would say of those he “sent”: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16, Matt. 10:40). To claim there could be thousands of differing sects, or “denominations” as they are called today, speaking different teachings after having been “sent” by Christ, would have been utterly foreign to the inspired authors of the New Testament.
In his name is another phrase in the New Testament that has been reduced and misunderstood among the multitudinous Protestant sects. When Jesus said, “I come in my Father’s name and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43-44), he reveals the power of this phrase. When Jesus speaks “in the name of” his Father, he leaves no wiggle room around his words. To reject him is to reject his Father. In the same way, when he sends his apostles “in his name,” he also leaves no wiggle room. To reject the apostles is to reject Jesus. This is the essence of apostolic succession regarding teaching authority.
In all fairness, I think a lot of Catholics think they know more about Protestants than they do. Protestants are pretty united on core doctrines. As for apostolic succession, I think this sums it up well: Apostolic succession is not biblical, and the concept is simply not found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. Roman Catholicism claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth is easily determined. True doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Sola scriptura.
Spending 20 years in several different Protestant churches I feel as though I know and understand Protestantism. Have you spent 20 years in the Catholic church?
Sola Scriptura is simply unbiblical. It is a Circular Position that was invented by Luther. There is no biblical passage that teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
We agree that Scripture is materially sufficient....every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. Even Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous: “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church,“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14)
Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked...and regarding your comment "True doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Sola scriptura." - the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned: Paul Writes:
“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).
“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”
Your above "article" is filled with the same old, same tired falsehoods and misunderstandings of protestants who purport to know and understand the Catholic faith and the bible.
I note you didn't really return to the one thing you decided to focus on, which was apostolic succession. But the Bible does indeed indicate that there will be disagreement on some "doctrines" when Paul counsels people to avoid legalism and let each person be convicted in his own mind on certain topics. The passages you quote as condemning such differences do no such thing. Paul is talking about heresy, not disagreements over feast days. As for tradition, Paul is not referring in general to any old tradition, but to his own teaching. Catholicism's elevation of manmade traditions as equivalent to Scripture is heretical, as numerous passages do teach we are not to add anything to His Word - certainly not new "traditions" - and the early church as described in Acts bears utterly no resemblance to the bloated monstrous Vatican with all its money and pomp and corruption. Catholics pre-reformation were literally killing people for wanting to put Bibles in people's hands. That is what manmade religion leads to. Roman Catholicism is a deterrent to the purity of the gospel.
You don't know a lot..but you think you do...Another falsehood...The Catholic definition of "Tradition" is Apostolic Tradition - the "Deposit of Faith" handed on to the Apostles by Jesus. Protestants seems to think its about "feast days" again showing complete ignorance of the Catholic faith. Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings and practices passed down by the Apostles, and their successors, including the Bishops. It's considered a source of God's revelation, alongside Sacred Scripture, forming a single deposit of faith. This tradition encompasses not only what the Apostles taught but also the way they lived and practiced their faith, ensuring the continuity of Christian teachings over time. The "rock" did not just die when Peter died. When Peter died, his office was taken by another, and the keys of the kingdom that Peter held were then passed to his successor, Linus all the way down to the 267th successor, Pope Leo XIV. We have an unbroken chain of succession from the apostles, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of its teachings.
I think the evidence presented below gives lie to your claims:
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom Jesus chose to build His church (Matthew 16:18). According to Roman Catholicism, Peter had preeminent authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that, sometime after the events recorded of the book of Acts, the apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, a position accepted by the early church as the central authority. Roman Catholicism teaches that Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. The teaching that all subsequent bishops of Rome, or popes, inherited Peter’s apostolic authority is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and subsequent popes were and are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when making formal pronouncements from their position and authority as pope. This supposed infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter and cites this as evidence that it is the true church.
Of course, Peter’s ministry was crucial to the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning of Matthew 16:18–19). But Scripture nowhere declares that Peter exercised authority over the other apostles or over the church at large. See Acts 15:1–23; Galatians 2:1–14; and 1 Peter 5:1–5. Nor does Scripture hint at the idea that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church.
The Bible delineates two offices in the church: bishop/pastor/elder (the terms are interchangeable) and deacon (Acts 6:1–4; 1 Timothy 3:1–13). The elaborate hierarchy found in today’s Roman Catholic Church simply isn’t found in Scripture. There is no hint of a pope in the Bible. One reason that Peter was not the first pope is that there was no such thing as a pope. Men had not yet invented the papacy.
If Peter were the first pope, then he would have been installed as the bishop of Rome. In point of fact, there’s no explicit proof in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the pastor there. Tradition says he died in Rome, and that could be true, but the Bible gives no clue about the place of his death. There is one reference to Peter’s writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13), but that is open to interpretation.
Scripture maintains complete silence on the matter of Peter being in Rome, even in passages where we would expect to find at least a mention. For example, Paul wrote his longest letter to the church of Rome. In his closing, Paul greets 28 individuals, plus various unspecified “brothers and sisters” and “the Lord’s people” (Romans 16:3–15). But Peter is never mentioned. Why would Paul include over two dozen personal greetings to friends in Rome and not greet Peter, especially if Peter was the bishop? Perhaps because Peter was not there.
Further, in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, which he wrote from Rome about AD 67, he names ten people who had visited him in Rome. But he does not mention Peter. Why? Perhaps Peter did not visit Paul in Rome because Peter was nowhere near Rome (and not the pope).
If Peter were the first pope, we would expect to see evidence of his authority over the other apostles. But the Bible gives us no indication of such a thing—quite the opposite, in fact. Paul publicly opposed Peter in Antioch over Peter’s hypocrisy concerning matters of the law (Galatians 2:11–14). The confrontation shows that Paul carried just as much authority as Peter did. Peter seems to have complemented the ministry of Paul: one was sent to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–8). It seems that all church leaders had equal authority. Peter gave testimony at the Jerusalem Council, but James was the leader at that meeting (see Acts 15).
In writing to Corinth, Paul addresses some internecine quarreling: “One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas [Peter]’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul mentions three prominent preachers, and he makes the point that none of them are worthy of special honor. The Christian life is not about following Paul or Apollos—or Peter.
If Peter were the first pope, he would most likely have mentioned the fact that he was the Vicar of Christ or at least the bishop of Rome, but he never does. His self-description is simply “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:1) and “a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).
If Peter were the first pope, he would surely have understood the difference between the priesthood and the laity. But, according to his own teaching, all believers comprise the priesthood under the New Covenant. Peter wrote to Christians that they were “like living stones . . . being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). A few verses later, he writes, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). Peter would have wholeheartedly agreed with the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
Was Peter the first pope? The answer is “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles, and the New Testament does not demonstrate that he held primacy. Nowhere in Peter’s writings does he claim any special role, authority, or power over the body of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter or any other apostle state that his apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the apostle Peter was often the spokesman for the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts 1—10). However, these truths in no way support the idea that Peter was the first pope, that he was a “father” to all believers, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter was not a pontiff, but he does point us to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
The word "Pope" is from the Greek word papa or Father.
Here's a tract that refutes all you have said above:
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
Additionally the canonical books of the new testement were determined based on the Tradition of the Catholic church. In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired. It wasn't until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined, which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t. The plain fact of the matter is it was settled only after repeated discussions with the bishops and the Pope in the 4th century and the final listing was determined by the pope and Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it. It is true history and was determined through the tradition of the Catholic Church.
No one's denying that Christianity, as manifested after Constantine, was represented almost exclusively through the lens of Catholicism. That's why it was almost dead by the time of the Reformation. Dead as in worthless, corrupt, and wholly unable to glorify God.
DEAD??? Oh wow you are really uninformed. The Catholic Faith is neither corrupt or dead. There are 1.4 BILLION Catholics in the world it is a vibrant amazing faith! I bring converts into the church and teach them the faith and this year was the largest amount of conversions and new Catholics world wide we have seen...hundreds of thousands are coming into the Catholic church...because even though the "gates of hell" have tried to take her down we are still here and growing and vibrant 2000 years later!! We are ONE holy catholic and APOSTOLIC church! Take care sister I will pray for the holy spirit to enlighten you! God Bless!
Lastly, just as Jesus “sent” the apostles, the apostles would send men as well. And those men would send men, and those men would send men—until the end of time. And they alone possess the fullness of the authority of Jesus Christ on Earth. Again, that is the definition of apostolic succession. And this is made clear in the New Testament not only by the above-cited text, which is incoherent apart from a proper understanding of apostolic succession, but also by the idea of the necessity of being “sent” by proper authority in the Church beyond the apostles.
The proper authority in the church beyond the apostles is Jesus Christ. That's it. Because He replaces priests, sacrifices, etc. that Catholics reintroduced as if they were still required. Men need no mediators - Jesus made the path that anyone can travel to Him.
That's exactly what the Catholic church teaches and always has taught. "Men need no mediators - Jesus made the path that anyone can travel to Him." Christ is the only mediator between God and Man - maybe you sho0uld pick up the cathechism of the Catholic church and read it.
That literally doesn’t refute anything she said. Plus if Peter was the “inerrant in matters of doctrine” pope, why did Paul have to correct him? And we only have one Father, and no need for rabbis and priests and fathers, as Christ Himself said. And when she spoke of “dead” she was referring to how Catholicism nearly killed Christianity prior to the Reformation.
Many protestants think they know a lot about the Catholic church, and unfortunately just repeat the same old falsehoods that have been passed on from generation to generation and quoted again and again. So much of this article is false and ignorant. I started making a list and it went on for pages. I will just address a very foundational teaching of the church, that is Apostolic Succession.
If you think Jesus created the confusion and hermeneutical anarchy of 40,000 protestant churches you are wrong – he is not the father of confusion, that would be the father of lies.
Jesus established one church. Jesus did not leave his followers with a bound set of scriptures but rather a living, breathing institution—the Church—to guide and nurture faith.
In the Old Testament, the Temple in Jerusalem was originally built by the greatest king of Israel - King David, then rebuilt by King Solomon and then again by King Herrod. The Temple mount is built on a rock (Mount Moriah) and on this rock was the center of worship for the Jews for over 1,000 years.
In the time of Kings, when the King was away, he gave the keys of the Kingdom to his Prime Minister. The Prime minister Reigned and was in charge of the Kingdom while the King was away. This is from the book of Isaiah 22:22 – talking about the Prime Minister:
“I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what door he opens, no one will shut, what door he shuts, no one will open.”
the Prime Minister was given the keys to the kingdom – and the prime minister made all the decisions and was in charge until the King returned.
Matthew 16: I will give you peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mathew 18:18 Jesus repeats the binding and loosing and gives that ability to the Apostles.
Let’s look at Matthew 16:13: Jesus and the Apostles are in Caesarea Philippi; Simon Peter answers Jesus’ question Of “WHO do you say that I am?” and Peter professes his faith in Jesus as “the Christ – the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus tells Simon who he is… “and so I say to you, You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my church….”
Then Jesus professes on this rock “I will build MY church” so Jesus is going to build HIS Church or his temple and establish His Kingdom, but Jesus isn’t going to build his kingdom on a physical Rock but on the Person of Peter the rock – Peter is the new foundation on which Jesus’s Kingdom Temple (the church) will be built
In the kingdom of God, it is Jesus who reigns supremely; and although he remains mystically present to us here on Earth, he knew he was not going to with us physically, so he established a prime minister to be in charge of the kingdom on earth until he comes again.
The first prime minister was Peter; and Peter has been and always will be succeeded in office by other approved men until the King returns. We call this “The Primacy.” Peter, and the 266 men who have come after him as the Bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s authority as Chief Shepard and teacher.
The Catholic Church is not merely a historical institution but a living entity. It is seen as the "Body of Christ," with Jesus as its head and believers as its members. The Church acts as a spiritual guide, teaching authority, carrying forward the teachings and legacy of Christ.
To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
And mind you, this apostolic authority Jesus communicated to his ministers is so radical, Jesus would say of those he “sent”: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16, Matt. 10:40). To claim there could be thousands of differing sects, or “denominations” as they are called today, speaking different teachings after having been “sent” by Christ, would have been utterly foreign to the inspired authors of the New Testament.
In his name is another phrase in the New Testament that has been reduced and misunderstood among the multitudinous Protestant sects. When Jesus said, “I come in my Father’s name and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43-44), he reveals the power of this phrase. When Jesus speaks “in the name of” his Father, he leaves no wiggle room around his words. To reject him is to reject his Father. In the same way, when he sends his apostles “in his name,” he also leaves no wiggle room. To reject the apostles is to reject Jesus. This is the essence of apostolic succession regarding teaching authority.
In all fairness, I think a lot of Catholics think they know more about Protestants than they do. Protestants are pretty united on core doctrines. As for apostolic succession, I think this sums it up well: Apostolic succession is not biblical, and the concept is simply not found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. Roman Catholicism claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth is easily determined. True doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Sola scriptura.
Spending 20 years in several different Protestant churches I feel as though I know and understand Protestantism. Have you spent 20 years in the Catholic church?
Sola Scriptura is simply unbiblical. It is a Circular Position that was invented by Luther. There is no biblical passage that teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
We agree that Scripture is materially sufficient....every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. Even Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous: “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church,“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14)
Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked...and regarding your comment "True doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture. Sola scriptura." - the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned: Paul Writes:
“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).
“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”
Your above "article" is filled with the same old, same tired falsehoods and misunderstandings of protestants who purport to know and understand the Catholic faith and the bible.
I note you didn't really return to the one thing you decided to focus on, which was apostolic succession. But the Bible does indeed indicate that there will be disagreement on some "doctrines" when Paul counsels people to avoid legalism and let each person be convicted in his own mind on certain topics. The passages you quote as condemning such differences do no such thing. Paul is talking about heresy, not disagreements over feast days. As for tradition, Paul is not referring in general to any old tradition, but to his own teaching. Catholicism's elevation of manmade traditions as equivalent to Scripture is heretical, as numerous passages do teach we are not to add anything to His Word - certainly not new "traditions" - and the early church as described in Acts bears utterly no resemblance to the bloated monstrous Vatican with all its money and pomp and corruption. Catholics pre-reformation were literally killing people for wanting to put Bibles in people's hands. That is what manmade religion leads to. Roman Catholicism is a deterrent to the purity of the gospel.
You don't know a lot..but you think you do...Another falsehood...The Catholic definition of "Tradition" is Apostolic Tradition - the "Deposit of Faith" handed on to the Apostles by Jesus. Protestants seems to think its about "feast days" again showing complete ignorance of the Catholic faith. Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings and practices passed down by the Apostles, and their successors, including the Bishops. It's considered a source of God's revelation, alongside Sacred Scripture, forming a single deposit of faith. This tradition encompasses not only what the Apostles taught but also the way they lived and practiced their faith, ensuring the continuity of Christian teachings over time. The "rock" did not just die when Peter died. When Peter died, his office was taken by another, and the keys of the kingdom that Peter held were then passed to his successor, Linus all the way down to the 267th successor, Pope Leo XIV. We have an unbroken chain of succession from the apostles, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of its teachings.
I think the evidence presented below gives lie to your claims:
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom Jesus chose to build His church (Matthew 16:18). According to Roman Catholicism, Peter had preeminent authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that, sometime after the events recorded of the book of Acts, the apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, a position accepted by the early church as the central authority. Roman Catholicism teaches that Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. The teaching that all subsequent bishops of Rome, or popes, inherited Peter’s apostolic authority is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and subsequent popes were and are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when making formal pronouncements from their position and authority as pope. This supposed infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter and cites this as evidence that it is the true church.
Of course, Peter’s ministry was crucial to the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning of Matthew 16:18–19). But Scripture nowhere declares that Peter exercised authority over the other apostles or over the church at large. See Acts 15:1–23; Galatians 2:1–14; and 1 Peter 5:1–5. Nor does Scripture hint at the idea that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church.
The Bible delineates two offices in the church: bishop/pastor/elder (the terms are interchangeable) and deacon (Acts 6:1–4; 1 Timothy 3:1–13). The elaborate hierarchy found in today’s Roman Catholic Church simply isn’t found in Scripture. There is no hint of a pope in the Bible. One reason that Peter was not the first pope is that there was no such thing as a pope. Men had not yet invented the papacy.
If Peter were the first pope, then he would have been installed as the bishop of Rome. In point of fact, there’s no explicit proof in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the pastor there. Tradition says he died in Rome, and that could be true, but the Bible gives no clue about the place of his death. There is one reference to Peter’s writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13), but that is open to interpretation.
Scripture maintains complete silence on the matter of Peter being in Rome, even in passages where we would expect to find at least a mention. For example, Paul wrote his longest letter to the church of Rome. In his closing, Paul greets 28 individuals, plus various unspecified “brothers and sisters” and “the Lord’s people” (Romans 16:3–15). But Peter is never mentioned. Why would Paul include over two dozen personal greetings to friends in Rome and not greet Peter, especially if Peter was the bishop? Perhaps because Peter was not there.
Further, in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, which he wrote from Rome about AD 67, he names ten people who had visited him in Rome. But he does not mention Peter. Why? Perhaps Peter did not visit Paul in Rome because Peter was nowhere near Rome (and not the pope).
If Peter were the first pope, we would expect to see evidence of his authority over the other apostles. But the Bible gives us no indication of such a thing—quite the opposite, in fact. Paul publicly opposed Peter in Antioch over Peter’s hypocrisy concerning matters of the law (Galatians 2:11–14). The confrontation shows that Paul carried just as much authority as Peter did. Peter seems to have complemented the ministry of Paul: one was sent to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–8). It seems that all church leaders had equal authority. Peter gave testimony at the Jerusalem Council, but James was the leader at that meeting (see Acts 15).
In writing to Corinth, Paul addresses some internecine quarreling: “One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas [Peter]’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul mentions three prominent preachers, and he makes the point that none of them are worthy of special honor. The Christian life is not about following Paul or Apollos—or Peter.
If Peter were the first pope, he would most likely have mentioned the fact that he was the Vicar of Christ or at least the bishop of Rome, but he never does. His self-description is simply “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:1) and “a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).
If Peter were the first pope, he would surely have understood the difference between the priesthood and the laity. But, according to his own teaching, all believers comprise the priesthood under the New Covenant. Peter wrote to Christians that they were “like living stones . . . being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). A few verses later, he writes, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). Peter would have wholeheartedly agreed with the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
Was Peter the first pope? The answer is “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles, and the New Testament does not demonstrate that he held primacy. Nowhere in Peter’s writings does he claim any special role, authority, or power over the body of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter or any other apostle state that his apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the apostle Peter was often the spokesman for the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts 1—10). However, these truths in no way support the idea that Peter was the first pope, that he was a “father” to all believers, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter was not a pontiff, but he does point us to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
The word "Pope" is from the Greek word papa or Father.
Here's a tract that refutes all you have said above:
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
Additionally the canonical books of the new testement were determined based on the Tradition of the Catholic church. In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired. It wasn't until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined, which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t. The plain fact of the matter is it was settled only after repeated discussions with the bishops and the Pope in the 4th century and the final listing was determined by the pope and Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it. It is true history and was determined through the tradition of the Catholic Church.
No one's denying that Christianity, as manifested after Constantine, was represented almost exclusively through the lens of Catholicism. That's why it was almost dead by the time of the Reformation. Dead as in worthless, corrupt, and wholly unable to glorify God.
DEAD??? Oh wow you are really uninformed. The Catholic Faith is neither corrupt or dead. There are 1.4 BILLION Catholics in the world it is a vibrant amazing faith! I bring converts into the church and teach them the faith and this year was the largest amount of conversions and new Catholics world wide we have seen...hundreds of thousands are coming into the Catholic church...because even though the "gates of hell" have tried to take her down we are still here and growing and vibrant 2000 years later!! We are ONE holy catholic and APOSTOLIC church! Take care sister I will pray for the holy spirit to enlighten you! God Bless!
Lastly, just as Jesus “sent” the apostles, the apostles would send men as well. And those men would send men, and those men would send men—until the end of time. And they alone possess the fullness of the authority of Jesus Christ on Earth. Again, that is the definition of apostolic succession. And this is made clear in the New Testament not only by the above-cited text, which is incoherent apart from a proper understanding of apostolic succession, but also by the idea of the necessity of being “sent” by proper authority in the Church beyond the apostles.
The proper authority in the church beyond the apostles is Jesus Christ. That's it. Because He replaces priests, sacrifices, etc. that Catholics reintroduced as if they were still required. Men need no mediators - Jesus made the path that anyone can travel to Him.
That's exactly what the Catholic church teaches and always has taught. "Men need no mediators - Jesus made the path that anyone can travel to Him." Christ is the only mediator between God and Man - maybe you sho0uld pick up the cathechism of the Catholic church and read it.