Jesus founded His Church on St. Peter and I am not one to argue with God on this matter! I can prove it historically and through Scriptures. There was never a dispute of this fact in the first centuries of the Church...
“It is to Peter himself that He says; “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matt 16:18).” —St. Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms 40:30+. J1261, 387 A.D.
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the CHURCH has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails...He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” -—St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15:2, J1346,1346a, 374 A.D.
“In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome” -—Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.
You can follow Calvin’s teaching, that is your choice; but I will stick to St. Peter and the Church which has withstood 2000 years of abuse from both within and without. This longevity is only possible through God’s divine hand.
Peace.
Longevity is not the test.
With that logic then the muslims and Jews could say the thing.
Faith alone in Christ alone everything else ends up in works.
You are saved by Grace through faith so no man may boast
The verse in Matt. refers to Christ himself is the rock.
Satan has used the catholic church as his personal playground.
Catholicism and the catechism are bullshit and it's practioners are Anti-Christ cultist.
with a long history of selling indulgences to the wicked and persecuting the faithful.
Well you beg the question, as you must, but that doesn’t resolve it for me. Any number of groups makes the identical claim, “we are the true successors to the primitive church.” God is not making that claim. You are. And I have as much right to question you as I do the Mormons or the Moonies. The article I referenced shows there is substantial doubt that the primitive church knew anything of the papacy as it later came to be formulated. I don’t have time for deep historical digressions, so that article will have to remain my response to your historical claims for now. The theological/Scriptural arguments are more accessible because we share a common regard for Scripture. If you would win me on the point, and not just beg the question, I would suggest you start there. Or not. If we’re done we’re done. It’s up to you.