Roman Catholicism a world wide apostate church

Roman Catholicism, a seperate demonination of Christianity, or is it an apostate church? ROMAN Catholicism started in the 200’s AD when the Bishop of Rome began to change ORIGINAL church doctrine.

But wait …..didn’t the church start earlier? YES MUCH EARLIER

Within the thread you will find references to many initial ROMAN Catholic “Popes” who refused to follow the ancient Catholic church bylaws and teachings that were set by the apostles, the church elders in Jerusalem which included the seventy Christ sent out two by two.

According to the Apostles and the church leaders in the first century (known as ancient church fathers) taught we must all obey the Scriptures and no one has a right to change the teaching of the bible. If anyone does, even if he leads a large church they must be ignored.

NOTE: This includes dates and times of events!

One of the main false teachings that set Rome apart was the idea that Peter was the first pope, or bishop of Rome. One of the church fathers, Eusebius, reveals a list of the popes, showing first pope was Linus and the Roman Catholic Church agrees, yet they put Peter as the first pope before Linus. (Roman Catholic doctrine). Let’s see what the ancient church fathers said and how Peter was never thought of a bishop of Rome or pope.

EUSEBIUS, AD 325: Ecclesiastical History Vol. 3.2
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first to receive the episcopate of the church of Rome.

IRENAEUS, AD 177: Against Heresies Vol. 3.3.3
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus, the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy, to him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

EUSEBIUS, AD 325: Ecclesiastical 3.13
After Vespasian had reigned ten years, Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus.

In the first two centuries, the head of the church was called a bishop. In the second century the term pope began to be used to refer to the leader of a patriarchate. There were FIVE cities that were patriarchates: Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. Each patriarchate was responsible for planting churches in its area. Rome’s jurisdiction was Europe, while Alexandria’s was Africa. In the correspondence between Cyprian of Africa and the bishops of Rome referred to each other as pope because they all headed their own patriarchate. So….. we have Pope Cyprian of Africa corresponding with Pope Stephen of Rome. After the fall of the other patriarchates, the only pope left was the one in Rome.

The idea of papal authority is this: Peter was the first pope and Jesus said He would build His church on Peter alone and give him the keys to the kingdom. So if Peter alone could bind and loose and the gates of hell could not prevail against Rome, then the bishop of Rome must be infallible. Hence all churches must obey the pope.

What Christ meant when telling Peter “He would build His church on Peter alone and give him the keys to the kingdom.” It is built upon Peter’s confession as to who Jesus was… the Christ (The Messiah)

Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ and therefore the Son of God. Jesus says on this truth I will build my church. Roman Catholic dogma states Jesus was saying HIS church would be built on Peter’s authority, not on his confession. By this they (catholics) mean Peter and his successors would be in charge of the whole church. In fact, Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing to all twelve apostles whenever two or more agreed in prayer. This did NOT apply to Peter alone.

The words of Christ:

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if TWO of you shall agree on as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven.”

And Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then he charged his disciples they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:16-20

The ancient church fathers (prior to 200AD) stated that the “ROCK” Jesus will build his church on was not on Peter, but the STATEMENT OF FAITH that Jesus is the Messiah.

ORIGEN, AD 240: Commentary on Matthew 16
If you should think that the whole church was built by God ONLY on that one, PETER, what will you say to John or each of the apostles?

Augustime, 378 AD – Retractationes
I have somewhere said, concerning the apostle Peter, that the Church was founded on him, as a petra, or rock, but I know that I have since very often explained that our Lord meant Peter’s CONFESSION of him.

Similar statements were made by St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in his second book on the Trinity, St. Chrysostom in his 53rd Homily on St. Matthew and several others.

Tertullian, 212 AD: On Modesty 21
Peter said, “Why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition of a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? This proclamation both “loosed” those parts of the law that were ababdoned and bound those that were retained. Hence the power of binding and loosing given to Peter had NOTHING to do with the moral sins of believers.

ORIGEN, 230 AD: Commentary on Matthew 12.11
The promise of the keys to the kingdom was given NOT to Peter alone, but to all the disciples of the church.

NOTE: The “church” referenced here is not the Roman Catholic Church. The “church” are those believers who are bound under the guidance of the ORIGINAL Catholic Church , (Notice there is no Roman in front of Catholic) in Jerusalem.

NOTE: Also I use commentaries ONLY from those ancient (original apostles and their known disciples) sorry no 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or 20th century wannabe commentaries.


******************* CONTINUED ******************

Commentary on Matthew 12.14 and 13.31 by ORIGEN
The power of binding and loosing of one who has the keys to the kingdom is not that he has authority in himself to make new laws about sin; but that he has the answers (DOCTRINE TRUTH) about Jesus and the church. The power in teaching total truth is that it instantly sets free those who listen and obey from the sin and its consequences on their life, or it completely binds them to their sins if they refuse to listen, making the consequences that much more severe. But if a person has incorrect doctrine, then those who listen to them will be trapped deeper in sin. These no longer have the power of binding and loosing. One can’t free with the truth if one does not know the truth. So if someone speaks rightly, we must listen to them, but if not, we must not listen to them lest we be bound unnecessarily.

If the Pope of Rome is infallible when sitting in St. Peter’s chair and speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of morals and doctrine, then none of the popes would have made mistakes in these areas. None would ever have been accused of immorality or heresy or excommunicated by the church, but instead we see the opposite.

Pope Anicetus of Rome REFUSED to observe the Lord’s resurrection in the way Apostle John and his disciple, Polycarp, do because he said he had to follow his ROMAN TRADITIONS. Polycarp refused to participate in the Roman way of celebrating the resurrection which leads you to think there was some form of paganism creeping into Rome at the time when the Apostle John was nearing the end of his life.

IRENAEUS, 177 – Fragment 3
When the blessed Polycarp was visiting Rome…..Pope Anicetus (second bishop of Rome) could NOT persuade Polycarp to forgo his observance. For these things have always been observed by John, the disciple of the Lord, and the other apostles with whom had been conversant. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to keep Passover rituals instead of Easter rituals for Anicetus maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him.

NOTE: In Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5:20
Irenaeus corrects several schisms of Roman bishops – Blastus, Florinus, Eleuterus, Victor, Zephyrinus and Callistus.

Pope Eleuterus (12th pope) was deceived by the false prophet and cultist, Montanus. Popes Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus constantly fell into heresy even to the point of allowing non-Trinitarian doctrine to be taught in Rome. They were constantly rebuked and eventually forced to do right by the church.

Firmilian actually comes right out and states the bishops (popes) of Rome change apostolic doctrine and practice and created new customs of doctrine based not on the apostles but on their own previous corrupted corrupted doctrines. This is the first known account of the Roman idea tradition is equal to scripture.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage and was martyred in 250 AD. He wrote eighty-one epistles (letters) and twelve treatises. In his eighty-one epistles he leave no doubt that there was no concept of Papal authourity or infallibility in the ancient church, except in the minds of corrupted bishops of Rome.

The ancient church fathers forbade the use of statues of saints or angels; but in time they crept into use by the Roman church. In 787 AD he seventh general council was called to discuss what would be called the “Iconoclastic Controversy”. Second Nicaea declared that the Roman use of statues of saints to be idolatry and must be removed. Rome refused and to this day still disregards the council of the church and continues in its idolatry.

So I stop at this point, otherwise it could on for hundreds of pages. Throughout both the Old and New Testament we clearly know what God and the Apostles thought about idols and idol worship and how it is forbidden. This is clearly apostate teachings.

The list of corrupt Roman Catholic Popes and Vatican Cardinals is long and many their deeds were abhorrent and in direct violation to the scriptures and over one thousand years were able to sneek in paganism teachings and observances like Easter.

I thought I knew the Old Testament until I bought the JPS TANAKH which I highly recommend. One example, in the Holy bible it says Moses parted the Red Sea. No he did not, he parted the Reed Sea (Well actually God did the parting part!) Check it out and you will find many more issues that will help you better understand and any book the old testament speaks of like Jasher and Enoch.....read it.

In the book of Revelation we read about the destruction of the Babylon whore sitting on seven hills….. the Vatican sits on seven hills, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, The Roman Catholic Church is full of idols.

This is NOT the Catholic church…… it is the ROMAN Catholic church. False Christianity based upon forbidden practices and doctrines of men within the ROMAN Catholic church that misled their flock, many to eternal destruction.

Think most people wouldn’t argue but
I believe there are many good christians in the RC church, not the RC church
It’s been stated many times, organised religion is evil

Nope, Gnostic's is...there was no church for it.

Besides, wasnt it Constantine an the Council of Nicea, that got to decide an hand pick which books would be used in the modern day(regardless of translation) bible?

a reply to: DeathSlayer
This is how I read the growth of papal authority from the historical perspective (with the assistance of Arnold Toynbee).

From Paul's time to the time of Constantine, there was NO centralised authority in the church, but I suspect that the Gentile churches were regarding Antioch as the "mother church".

Once the Christian community was allowed to come out into the open, the geography of hierarchy in the church tended to confirm to the hierarchies of secular authority. If province X included city Y for secular purposes, then the bishop of X would expect to be able to supervise the churches of Y. The word "diocese" originally meant one of the divisions of Imperial administration. Roughly speaking, the importance of a bishop depended on the secular importance of his city.

In accordance with that principle, the Council of Nicaea gave Rome and Alexandria jurisdiction over their local areas, effectively (for the first time?) acknowledging their autonomy from Antioch. As Constantinople grew into a capital city, it obviously became more important, and therefore it's bishop was raised to the level of the other three. Jerusalem was made a patriarchate for sentimental reasons, and never became important in its own right.

If any one person had supremacy over the church, it was the Emperor, who had the right to call church councils and enforce their decisions, if he approved of them.

During this time, the bishop of Rome had authority over the Latin-speaking outcrop of the church at the western end of the Mediterranean. The key moment in his trajectory came when the Lombards invaded and took over most of Italy, which cut him off from the main body of the church in the east and from Imperial authority in Constantinople. I did a Toynbee-inspired thread on this development- The springboard of papal power

From then onwards, the Pope was the leading church authority in his own detached Latin-speaking world (the phenomenon known as "big fish in a small pool"). Because of that blinkered horizon, it wasn't difficult for him to start thinking of himself as the leading church authority of THE world, and convince himself that the Greek-speaking half of the church had broken away from him instead of the other way round. A readiness to falsify history helped ("Donation of Constantine", "Peter founded the church in Rome").

But in theory he had a new boss, namely the "Roman Emperors" of the West, starting with Charlemagne. As late as 1000 A.D., the German Emperors still had enough authority to reforrm the church by deposing Popes. I thought of doing a thread on that episode as well, but didn't get around to it. Hence the big political struggles of the Middle Ages, by which the Popes established political independence, and then projected this back into history as though it had aleays been there.

I see the false claim to authority as the most important error, because that's the one that puts the power into any other errors.

Yep they’re apostate and an abomination.
It will be better for them that they had never been born (again) then to believe, practice and preach false authority.
There can be no Christians in the Roman Catholic Church because Christ is not found in that religion.
They practice idolatry and are masochists and sadists a fusion of all things heretical and false.
The great fallen church of deception, greed, fraud and lies.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

a reply to: DeathSlayer

It's literally built on Peter. The Vatican, part of it.
Isn't that funny? In a slightly morbid fashion but still...

Fyi it's Rome, the city of the 7 hills. Vatican Hill is one hill and not even part of the 7.
Everything else you write is just as 'close but still a miss'
Early Christianity is very very far from what you seem to have in mind.

a reply to: Dalamax

Cute. Not saying they're without fault or that it wasn't a 'wild ride', you know the ups-and-downs of history.
Still they're the original and everything else is just a sect. Which is like with cassettes (remember tapes?), each copy(the sect) the sound is getting worse.
But I guess it was somewhat inherently, after Jesus made Jews break their bond with God it was probably bound to happen that there'd be a snowball effect towards the end.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It's actually quite elegant, as authority in matters of faith each pope is responsible for the little errors and such of his flock, you know those who really put their eggs in his basket. Catholics always have a current semi-lamb thing going for them if they're wrong in matters of faith, doctrine and such it's the pope's responsibility.
All other Christians each take full brunt with everything wrong about their faith. And believe me there's a lot wrong with Christianity.

a reply to: Peeple
If he leads his flock over a cliff, the fact that he's responsible won't help them much.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well yes, because afterlife. What kind of Christian are you?

a reply to: Peeple
Not if it's the wrong cliff. The one where somebody has covered up the "This way to avoid the afterlife" notice.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't think there is such a path. Avoid the afterlife would mean to never die. Not possible.

a reply to: Peeple
Other options do exist. People know what I'm talking about.
You can have the last word now.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah well...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Amen, Mean...all organized religion is wrong...

*Former Catholic school student

a reply to: Raggedyman

Originally posted by Raggedyman
…
I believe there are many good christians in the RC church, not the RC church
It’s been stated many times, organised religion is evil

Why do Christians keep saying that…

That “organised religion is evil”…?

News Flash…Christianity is a Religion!

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Well that depends on how you qualify the word religion
Outside of Baptism, communion (simply sharing a meal) and marriage, christianity doesn’t have any ceremony that needs to be undertaken.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Originally posted by Joecroft
Why do Christians keep saying that…

That “organised religion is evil”…?

News Flash…Christianity is a Religion!

Originally posted by Raggedyman
Well that depends on how you qualify the word religion

The word Religion is reasonably well defined already…

Definition of religion

1a : the state of a religious
//a nun in her 20th year of religion

b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Source

Christianity clearly fits the definition of a Religion…

The more pressing question is…how are you defining the word “Religion” when making the statement “organised religion is evil”…?

Originally posted by Raggedyman
...
I believe there are many good christians in the RC church, not the RC church
It’s been stated many times, organised religion is evil

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Jesus taught faith was between the individual and Him only
No need for ceremony, liturgy or works
No need for organisation , outside of fellowship with people with the same faith