Thursday, May 30, 2013


As a former Roman Catholic, it hurts me when people attack the church, especially when they are so venomous toward the Pope, whom they say, is the Antichrist.  I know the RCC teaches a false gospel when it adds the need for works (church attendance and the sacraments) for salvation, and that is why I no longer claim to be Catholic.  Now, recently, with the election of Pope Francis I, and in light of the prophecy of St. Malachy concerning him, the criticism is stronger than ever.

Another error of the RCC is their insistence that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, and that Apostolic Succession has brought us to the current Pope.  Here are a few facts which should be considered as evidence that Peter was never a Pope:

*  Peter is not mentioned in the Book of Acts after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:7.
*  Peter's name occurs only seven times in the Bible after Acts 15:7.
*  Paul did not recognize the "Twelve" as being in authority over him (Gal. 2:1-10).
*  Paul openly rebuked Peter for hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-21).

In addition to Peter not being mentioned as the first Pope, Rome itself, plays a very insignificant part in the first century Church:

*  Peter's name is never mentioned with regards to Rome.
*  Roman Jews were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:10).
*  Aquilla and Priscilla were run out of Rome (Acts 18:2).
*  Paul desired to preach the Gospel in Rome (Acts 19:21; 23:11; Rom. 1:7, 15).
*  When Paul arrived in Rome, he called for the Jews (Acts 28:14-20).
*  Onesiphorus ministered to Paul in Rome (2 Tim. 1:16-17).
*  Christianity was still considered a Jewish sect at that time (Acts 28:22).
*  Rome is mentioned as the place of origin of Paul's letters to the Galatians (Gal. 6:18); to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:24); to the Philippians (Phil. 4:23); to the Colossians (Col. 4:18); to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:22); and to Philemon (Phile. 1:25).

So how is it that the RCC supports its claims?  Believe it or not, other than church tradition, there is only one piece of evidence upon which they might base their claim.  Some have pointed to a statement in 1 Peter 5:13, suggesting that "Babylon" is another name for Rome.  Many have interpreted the use of the name "Babylon" in Revelation to be referring to Rome as well (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).  If it is true that John meant Rome when he wrote Revelation, he certainly did not paint it as being the Seat of Power for the first century Church!
Be careful that tradition does not acquire equality with the Word of God!   

No comments:

Post a Comment