Up until now I have been silently fighting this battle on my own but I refuse to sit quietly anymore. Something has got to change with the daycare center All God's Chilren. I have called Child protective services on them until I am blue in the face but to my disbelief I found out today from a woman that used to work there that, that is nothing new and they are "tipped off" as to when the state will make an inspection. State guidelines require CPS to make an inspection anytime they recieve a call about a registered daycare center that inspection is supposed to be a suprise visit.
To get you all up to date on some of the things I'm dealing with here, here are a few things I've had to report.

* Too many children, not enough providers. Sometimes up to 26 kids with one "teacher"

* Teachers screaming at children.

* Children used to sweep and mop play rooms (bleach is used in the mop water)

* Mop water(bleach) left unattended around children ages 2+

* Forced nap time from 11-2 for all ages(State mandates 1 hour "rest period" after an hour the children are to return to days activities)

* My kids (under the age of 5)coming home with bleach stains, bite marks, bruises, filthy cloths, extreme diaper rash and urine odor, dried feces in their diapers, and so much more

* Food prepared at 5am still being served for breakfast sometimes as late as 10am without refrigeration

* Terrible tasting food (makes hospital food taste like a 5 star dinner)

* Fake daily activity sheets (they do nothing all day, their supposed to hold classes)

And just this morning the kids dad went to drop them off at 5am. The one and only teacher scheduled for that early went directly into the kitchen to prepare breakfast and left my kids in the front room. Everytime he tried to leave the youngest followed him out the door. This happened 5 or 6 times until at 5:30 he had to actually go into the kitchen and ask the teacher to come out of the kitchen and watch the kids so he could leave. I know you may be wondering why on earth would she continue to take her kids to such an awful place but I have no choice. They are the only ones in town that open up at 5am and stay open until 11pm. I have to drop them off at 5am along with a number of other TDCJ officers I know and pick them up anywhere from 6:00-6:30pm when I get off work. I work 12 hours a day up to 7 days in our 8 day work week just to make ends meet. I pay the daycare $600 a month to neglect my children. I've tried to get the states help to clean up that daycare but they WONT help. I have talked to several parents and they all have the same problems. Whats it going to take for someone to take notice. It takes a village to raise a child and YOUR children are being neglected. Please Help!

The Apostle Peter vs. Roman Catholicism

This statue of “Peter” (pictured to the left) is honored by Catholics all over the world. So much so, in fact, that the statue’s foot is being worn away by the “kisses of the faithful”. Yes, Catholics love Peter so much that they disregard what he said when Cornelius “fell down at his feet and worshipped him”. Peter said, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:25-26) You’d think that if Roman Catholics were going to follow Peter, they’d be interested in what he said, but I find this is not the case. Let me give you an example. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #552 says, “Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church.” However, Peter writes in his letters that Jesus is the “rock” which the builders “disallowed!

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:6-8)

Why did the Roman Catholic “builders” disallow Jesus as their “Rock” when their “first pope” says He is? They make Peter their “Rock” in Christ’s stead! Catholic historian and theologian, Peter DeRosa admits:

“It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Matt.16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is a s staggering to Catholics...The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter” (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 24).

And again:

“We already noted that not a single Father can find any hint of a Petrine office in the great biblical texts that refer to Peter. Papal supremacy and infallibility, so central to the Catholic church today, are simply not mentioned. Not a single creed, nor confession of faith, nor catechism, nor passage in patristic writings contains one syllable about the pope, still less about faith and doctrine being derived from him” (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 206).

Paul writes in his epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus as the “Rock”. (1 Cor.10:4) How then can men take seriously the claim of Roman Catholicism that Peter is the “unshakeable Rock”? All we can find in Peter’s writings about his position among the apostles is in 1 Peter 5:1, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder….” We also have the testimony of Paul who said that Peter was the “apostle to the circumcision” (i.e. Jews).

“But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Galatians 2:6-9)

It’s very clear in the scriptures that Peter is not the “Rock” of the church, for Paul said, “whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me….God accepteth no man’s person” If Peter were the “Rock”, then it would matter to all, including Paul.

The apostle Peter was a married man whose wife traveled with him as he preached the gospel. Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.” And again in1 Corinthians 9:5, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Notice it says “power” to lead about a sister, a wife. By what power did the Roman hierarchy take away the “power” that God gave His own apostles? Is it not reasonable to conclude that if the Roman hierarchy were truly the "successors of Peter" they would have the "power" to lead about a wife. Rome took heed to the doctrines of devils instead of the doctrine of Christ as the scriptures had warns in 1 Timothy 4:1-3:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

Pope Gregory VII, in 1075 A.D., made a decree called the Dictatus which listed 27 powers which all popes possessed as the “successors of Peter”. Among those powers listed we read: “That it may be permitted to him [the pope] to depose emperors” and, “that he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” Now, as the “successor of Peter”, we should have no problem finding the same doctrine or beliefs in Peter’s writings. Did he depose emperors and free us from serving such men?

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.” (1 Peter 2:13-15)

It sure doesn’t sound like Peter and Gregory VII are on the same page! Instead, Peter rebukes us all to “submit….whether it be to the king, as supreme” for it is the “will of God”! So why then did Gregory come to the conclusion that he had the right to depose kings? Peter De Rosa, in his book, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, said that Gregory VII was seeking revenge for Gregory VI who was deposed and humiliated by King Henry III in 1046.

“Gregory (VII) was bent on breaking princes once and for all. To him, all were corrupt. They were entitled to less respect than the meanest exorcist who at least cast out devils and did not give them princely hospitality. Monarchs only desire to dominate, said this most lordly of pontiffs. It would need an indecent magnanimity on God’s part to save even one of them from the eternal flames. Everything they do is rooted in pride, yet what have they to offer? A dying king will come to the humblest country priest to be shrived. When did even a lay woman come to an emperor to ask for God’s pardon? Where is the emperor who can grant salvation or make Christ’s Body and Blood with a movement of his lips? A man with no brains can see priests are superior to kings. Then, how far above them all is the pope, successor to Peter? Was it not his duty to cut princes down to size, to offer them a lesson in humility? That never fading memory made this man of inflexible will hold all civil authority in contempt and one day, he was resolved on it, he would have his revenge” (pp. 57-58).

Pope Gregory VII wasn’t interested in Peter’s words because his pride blinded him. In fact, so full of pride was this pope that he canonized himself. He was also the pope who claimed that the Roman church “has never erred, nor can it err until the end of time”. Yet, he erred when he said that he had the authority as the “successor of Peter” to depose emperors instead of submitting to them for the Lord’s sake as Peter wrote.

It seems no matter which subject you choose to deal with, Peter’s life and writings testify against Roman Catholicism. Let’s take a look at what Peter wrote in his epistles and compare them with the practices and doctrines of Rome. Let’s start with Rome teaching that the word of God and tradition are equal. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #82,

"...Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

And again, #97,

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God.”

Notice how the Rome’s Catechism puts her “Sacred Tradition” before the “Sacred Scripture”? Then she wants you to believe and confess that her traditions are also the “word of God” and should be “accepted and honored” with the same devotion and reverence one has for the Bible. Not only are they disobeying the command of God that no man can add to or take from His word, but they did not listen to their “first pope”, Peter. Starting in 1 Peter 1:9-12:

“Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

Notice that Peter is saying that the “END of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” was prophesied beforehand. Where does this put the Roman traditions that have evolved through the centuries? In 1 Peter 1:18-25, we read:

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Why didn’t Peter exalt tradition as equal to the word of God? Peter wrote that we are to be “established in the PRESENT TRUTH.”

“Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.” 2 Peter 1:12

First, let’s get a clear definition of the word “established”. It means, “To make stable or firm; to fix immovably or firmly; to set (a thing) in a place and make it stable there; to settle; to confirm”. Peter is telling us that we are to stand “immovably firm” in the “present truth”. Again, this is a testimony against Catholicism which admits readily that its doctrines and practices have “evolved”. Here are just a few examples:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

All these doctrines that evolved are a far cry from the “present truth” in which Peter says we were to be established, which is the “end of our faith” even “the salvation of our souls". How did Rome miss all of this? Why claim you follow Peter as your “Rock” yet ignore his teachings?

Let’s continue. Rome teaches in her Catechism of the Catholic Church, #85:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone."

As the “successor of Peter”, the Roman hierarchy claims that it alone (i.e. Catholic teaching magesterium) has the right to interpret scriptures, making itself out to be the one and only great private interpreter of the Bible. This is one of the most important doctrines used by the magesterium to silence all those who dare question its twisting of scriptures! You cannot argue with Catholics using scriptures because they deny you can interpret what you are reading. You’ll often hear such statements as, “That’s your interpretation!”, or “That’s not how the Catholic church interprets that scripture”. Yes, by private interpretation, Rome can make the scriptures say whatever she wants and no one has the right to question her authority. Interesting enough, Rome uses 2 Peter 1:20-21 to deny each man and woman the right to interpret what they read for themselves. However, it testifies against Rome!

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

You see, Rome didn’t give us the word, God did! Psalms 68:11 says, “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” And since it was God who gave the word, it is God Who interprets His own word! “...Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen.40:8) It is Jesus who told us to “search the scriptures”. It was Jesus who opened up His word after the resurrection! “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Luke 24:45) God, who cannot lie, made a promise in Proverbs 1:23,

“Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Did Peter go against the word of God and teach that only he and his successors had the right to privately interpret the scriptures? In all of Peter’s epistles, is there any proof that he taught that each man and woman must come to him and his successors if they wanted to know what the Bible was saying? We know that Paul never taught such things in his writings. In fact, says that he wasn’t taught by man.

“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal.1:11-12)

Paul then goes on to write:

“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23)

Paul is very clear here that all things are ours so that we wouldn’t glory in men. If Paul could be taught “by the revelation of Jesus Christ”, and did not “receive it of men” nor was “taught it” by men, then we also have this promise, and need not glory in other men as though we had not received these things. So, was Peter in disagreement with Paul? No! Peter said that the epistles of Paul were “scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16) Did Peter teach that we needed to read scriptures for ourselves? Or did Peter teach men to come to him and his successors if they wanted something interpreted?

First, and we know that Peter called Paul‘s epistles “scriptures”, (2 Peter 3:15-16) so we know Peter agreed with what Paul taught. Let’s look at two specific verses to see if there is an elite group of men above others.

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

“For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” 1 Corinthians 3:4

Did you notice that Cephas (i.e. Peter), is not mentioned first in 1 Cor.1:12? Why not? If we are all founded on Peter as the “Rock”, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to mention it? Shouldn’t Paul have made a point to say that everyone was under Peter and would have settled it once for all? Paul says we all belong to Christ! Paul states that Jesus is the foundation and Rock of the church. (1 Corinthians 3:11, 10:4) Does this mean that Peter and Paul were not in agreement? These are important questions that those of us who dare to go against Rome and read and interpret scripture are asking! Of course, the Roman hierarchy is not answering because it doesn’t have to answer to the laity who has no power to interpret anything anyway. How convenient! But Peter does answer the question. 1 Peter 1:17 tells us to that we can call on God who is not a respecter of persons. Peter also says we are to commit our souls to Jesus with no mention of committing our souls to the church! (1 Peter 4:19, 5:10) Most of all, Peter tells us how we are born-again!

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:23-25)

Peter tells us that we are born-again by the word, the same word by which the gospel is preached, which was foretold in the Old Testament to “minister” unto all of us!

“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:10-13)

Peter warn us to be “mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets” (2 Peter 3:2) and that we have “also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed” (2 Peter 1:19), but he also encourages us, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” (1 Pet.2:2) Here we have Peter teaching us to read the word and heed it! Yet Rome will use 2 Peter 3:16 to discourage her people from trying to study and read the scriptures:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Notice it is the “unlearned and unstable” that wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. But the warning is so that we will read and study as mentioned in previous scriptures. We were NOT to be “unlearned and unstable”. The last verse (3:18) tells us to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. If we study and grow in knowledge, we won’t be “unlearned” nor “unstable”.

Once Rome claimed to be the great private interpreter, she made men prisoners to her interpretations. A good example of this is Rome’s clever private interpretation of John 6:53, in which she makes Calvary inaccessible to all men, except they approach a Roman Catholic priest. John 6:53 reads:

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

Rome teaches that the words of Jesus are “literal” (if this were true, the “host” would not “contain the blood” ) in contradiction to verse 63 where Jesus explains that the words are not literal, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Since one is forbidden to interpret what Jesus said (i.e. “the words that I speak ...they are spirit”), one is forced to take the Roman Catholic’s interpretation (i.e. “the words are literal”) or be labeled a “heretic”. Rome teaches that you can only get this literal “flesh and blood” by coming to a Catholic priest at the Mass where he will miraculously change a piece of bread into “God” by an act called “transubstantiation”. Remember, Jesus said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have NO LIFE IN YOU.” So, if you have to literally eat Jesus or you have “no life in you”, and the only place to get His “literal flesh and blood” is through one of Rome’s priests, you are now the prisoner of Rome. Your salvation hangs in her balance. If she withholds the “flesh and blood” from you, you “will perish”. See how easy it is to privately interpret one scripture and thereby enslave all men to yourself. Again, how convenient! Had the Catholics been allowed to study and interpret, they might have read all of John, then they would have seen these words:

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst…And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:35, 40

When considering the Catholic Eucharist, I wonder why Rome did not take the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:17 literally?

“Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?”

All these additional doctrines, most often pagan in origin, evolved over the years and are a far cry from the “present truth” in which Peter told us to be established. Peter also warned us that false teachers and false prophets would come.

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” 2 Peter 2:1-3

Peter says that false teachers would even deny the Lord that “bought them.” This brings us to another doctrine of Rome that evolved, the doctrine of a “purgatory”. In Christianity, we believe that Jesus “purged” our sins and purifies us from all unrighteousness. (Heb.1:3; 1 John 1:9) However, Rome denies the Lord that bought them and teach men that they must purge their own sins in the fires of purgatory. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1472, we read,

“Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is call the ‘eternal punishment’ of sins. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state call Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the temporal punishment of sin.”

Catholicism actually teaches that a man or woman may purchase a Mass to be said for a family member in purgatory for a mere $25. Of course, there is no guarantee that the “graces from the Mass you purchased” goes to the one intended. This keeps each member coming back to purchase more Masses for the dead. It’s quite a racket. God warned us through the writings of Peter how Rome would use men.

“And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” (2 Peter 2:3)

Had they heeded the warnings of their first “pope”, they would have known that we are not purchased with corruptible things:

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 1 Peter 1:18-19

Did you notice that not only did Peter’s epistle expose the buying of Masses for the dead as a farce, but he’s bringing into question the tradition of “your fathers”! That’s right, he called it “vain conversation received by tradition”. Peter is describing Roman Catholicism! Isn’t it wonderful and amazing? God knew beforehand that Catholicism would be founded on the vain conversation received by tradition from their fathers and He used Peter to expose it! What an awesome God we serve! This is not the only example! It’s incredible how God used Peter to expose all the lies of Rome. Let’s continue!

Rome teaches that Baptism washes away sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1265, by saying, “Baptism not only purifies from all sin….” has gone against Peter, their “first pope”.

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (NOT THE PUTTING AWAY OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 3:21

Catholicism has been known for its fakes and forgeries. For seven centuries, “the Greeks had called Rome the home of forgers” (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 59). The Donation of Constantine, Isidorian Decretals, the Apostle’s Creed were all forgeries, and some of the greatest Catholic works were based on forgeries, including Gratian’s Code of Canon Law and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. Often the “saints” of Rome have been exposed as the gods of an ancient religion. “St.” Christopher is a good example. For years, Rome taught men and women to pray to “St.” Christopher for safe travel. Eventually, Rome admitted that there was no such saint, and that it was all just a fable founded on the pagan god, Bacchus. Likewise, the rosary was founded on a fable, yet Rome will continue to deceive the people and let them worship God by giving heed to fables. But, Rome’s “first pope”, Peter, said,

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)

In 1 Peter 4:15, we read:

“But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.”

We already know from history that there have been numerous popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and monks who were murderers, thieves, and evildoers surpassing the heathens. The last line is the one I find the most interesting. This, “busybody in other men’s matters,” without a doubt, describes accurately the Roman Catholic confessional. A priest spends his time being a busybody in other men’s matters, listening to every dirty detail and sin that every man, woman or child commits. Just think, it’s the job of every priest to hear all the sins of his congregation, then execute judgment for those sins according to whatever the priest feels is a “fair” penance. The Catholic priest will hear the sins of a another man’s wife, sins her own husband might know nothing about! A child may express they had bad thoughts about their sexuality. Is it any wonder there is so much pedophilia among the priests? It’s easy to prey on the weak when it can be done secretly in the confessional. Praise God this disgusting, degrading practice is condemned in Peter’s epistles.

The Mass is the most offensive Catholic ritual. It denies the finished “once-for-all” (Heb.10:10) sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Peter’s epistles also deal with this subject. In 1 Peter 3:18, we read: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God….” Rome has an “eternal victim” in a “continual sacrifice” which never ends.

Another doctrine that has evolved is the worship of the “Virgin Mary”. Apparitions have increased the practice of offering prayers to and through Mary, often because the apparitions request it. A good example of this is the apparition at Fatima, Portugal, where “Mary” assured the Catholics that God wanted her to have a church built in her honor. This is the same apparition that told three little children that “Many go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifice for them.” Had any of the members of the Catholic hierarchy read what Peter said, they might have discerned that the apparition was the work of devils. Peter said he heard the voice of God from heaven, but we have “a more sure word”... that’s right, a “more sure word” than the voice of God from heaven! In 2 Peter 1:17-19, we read:

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.”

What a testimony against Catholicism! Rome heeds the voice of devils telling her that there is “no one to make sacrifice for sins”. Jesus is the only one who could make the sacrifice for sins!Jesus paid the full price for the sins of the world! It is absolutely absurd that Rome sanctioned the apparition of Fatima as truly “Mary” and “Jesus”. At what point are they going to listen to their “first pope”? They should have taken heed to “a more sure word”. Then they would have known that no man has to go to hell because there was already the perfect sacrifice “once for all” as Peter said in his epistle!

Rome rejects the doctrine of “eternal security” in Jesus Christ, yet 1 Peter 1:4-5 clearly teaches us that our inheritance is “reserved in heaven”:

“To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Peter also talks about corrupted men who “speak great swelling words of vanity” whereby they promise men liberty, but “they themselves are the servants of corruption.” (2 Peter 2:18-19) This again describes Roman Catholicism. While they promise men liberty, they serve idols.

“And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” (Judges 2:19)

“And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.” (2 Kings 23:13)

Peter never speaks of a special priesthood where men are able to make “God” out of a piece of bread. However, Peter does tell us that we are all priests!

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Rome is notorious for putting men up on pedestals by making them “saints”, or giving flattering titles (Job 32:21-22), ignoring the fact that all believers are “saints” according to the word of God. Peter tells us that God is not a respecter of persons, “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons…” (1 Peter 1:17)

It’s interesting that Peter is the one who reminds us of the sin of Balaam who, for love of unrighteous gain, taught Balak to cast up a stumbling block before the children of Israel. It just so happens that Peter is describing the Catholic hierarchy to perfection:

“Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.” (2 Peter 2:14-15)

When we talk of “covetous practices”, it isn’t hard to see purgatory as a major source of collecting money for sin. But Rome has many ways to collect and make merchandise out of men from charging for every ritual they perform to the selling of idols such as rosaries, scapulars, statues, etc. Killing men because they were “heretics” and confiscating their property was another easy way to collect for their covetousness. Thomas Aquinas, one of Rome’s greatest theologians, said that “heretics should be executed” (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 60). Of course Rome no longer calls Christians “heretics”, but rather, “separated brethren”. When Rome burned “separated brethren” at the stake and tortured those who loved Jesus and embraced the true gospel, she wasn’t obeying her “first pope”, Peter, who said that they were to add to godliness “brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” (2 Peter 1:7)

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.” Peter 1:22

Again, I have to wonder how torturing “separated brethren” is “unfeigned love of the brethren” or love with a “pure heart”. The only fervent thing in Rome is her desire to hate the “separated brethren” and kill them or silence them.

Many scandals have plagued the Catholic church throughout the centuries but Rome tends to silence history by rewriting it. Today’s scandals are not so easily erased by the pen. Rome has been forced to pay millions of dollars for the crimes of her pedophile priests. Sodomy within her ranks along with AIDS has also become an alarming problem for Rome. Isn’t it interesting that it would be Peter who would bring up Sodom and Gomorrha and her judgment?

“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:6)

Blind obedience is demanded by all who enter into Roman Catholicism. Rome is famous for her saying, “Upon entering Catholicism, one must leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.” Now, my friend, these are not the words of some “Protestants” angry at Rome for her lies. These are her own words! I am asking Catholics everywhere to go back and pick up their “reason” that they left at the door when they entered in Rome, and re-evaluate what they have been taught in light of the holy Scriptures. Keep in mind the words of our Lord in Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.”

If your own “first pope”, Peter, is not in agreement with your Roman Catholic system, then it’s time to leave it and seek the truth.
By Rebecca A. Sexton