[sasportas]

As usual, your very thorough posts leave Papists naked and exposed. You definitely hit a home run here. All your points were excellent, but I especially took notice of your points 4 & 5:

4. Nowhere (in the Bible) is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head.

5. Not once in the Lord's own letters to the churches (Rev. 2 & 3) is the pope even mentioned, despite the critiques, commendations and censures.

[sasportas]

On your point 5, everybody - except our befuddled preterists - knows Revelation was written late in the first century. This gives time for the alleged successors of Peter to have been well known in the churches everywhere. Surely such a successor would have been, at the very least hinted at, in the Lord’s letters to the seven churches. No such hint, no mention. If Jesus Christ knows of no such Petrine succession, neither should we. Romanists know more than Jesus Christ?

[Salvation]

**Nowhere (in the Bible) is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head.**

Please read about the Council of Jerusalem. St. Peter was the speaker, then others took action.

[Celtic Cross]

...But fail to take into account that Catholics don’t subscribe to sola scriptura (which contradicts itself by not being in the bible), rendering the points in question moot.

[metmom]

Heck, not only is any pope not mentioned.

ROME isn’t even mentioned.

Quite a glaring oversight by Jesus, would it not be?