Short answer: No.
Longer answer:
I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.
A typical Catholic reading of that passage mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter's confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is "petros", a maculine noun meaning "stone". Jesus told "petros" (actually, since "Peter" is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read "petron") that He would build his church on this "petra", a femine noun meaning "large rock, cliff, or ledge". The words are completely different genders in the original text. This passage does not make Peter a pope. He was, instead, an elder in a congregation of the 1st century church as a reading of the letters he wrote will show.
Even a quick reading of 1st century practices during the assembly in Acts, 1 Corinthians, etc... and of the organizational structure of the church as discussed in Timothy and Titus reveal that Catholicism is a drastic departure from this example and Biblical standard.
The Catholic church is not the original church. It is an apostate branch of the church as described in scripture that developed over time as an abandonment of congregational autonomy and the introduction of traditions that carried the weight of scripture took hold. Numerous Christian movements today are trying to return to the New Testament example of God's church (the church of Christ where I attend is an example), and some are having more success than others as millenia old Catholic (and even Protestant) traditions and social sensitivities cloud an effort to return to pure Bible teaching.
I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God. I will append this answer as necessary to respond.
I'm not sure I understand his answer. However my argument continues to rest on scripture. The passage in Matthew has been incorrectly interpreted by Catholics to justify their view of Peter as the first Pope. Scylla failed to point out my error. He just criticized it.
Also, it seems that Scylla takes the view of many Catholics that scripture cannot stand on its own in terms of defining the Lord's church. He is right that scripture does not contain all of the historical background, but it does contain a description of the 1st century church and its practices as established (and commanded) by Jesus and his apostles. Catholic practice and organization have deviated from that original establishment, as Scylla correctly infers, if one looks at history since the time documented in scripture.
I read catholic.com per Ignatius' recommendation. The Catholics assert that the gender difference in Matthew is purely stylistic. Interesting twisting of Greek grammar, but it is both inaccurate and inconsistent with other scripture. However, I would agree that those saying Peter was never in Rome are barking up the wrong tree. Whether he was or wasn't isn't the issue. They also assert that the Bible is not sufficient for faith or salvation but that one must also follow the oral traditions passed through the church. However, when tradition supercedes scripture, as it often does in Catholicism, they force a choice between the credibility of scripture or the credibility of the teachings of men. I go with scripture. Lastly, I agree with the Catholic assertion that many of the passages (2 Tim. 3:16 for instance) that christians use to show the inviolability of scripture are often taken out of context. However, with the passing of the apostles, it was necessary that their inspired writings become the documentation of their inspired oral teachings. Therefore, 2 Timothy and other passages do point us to what was to become scripture as well as what Timothy had as scripture. One more example of how God's Word transcends time and culture to maintain its relevence and truthfulness.
Comments
Adding quotes of your references would aid your argument, good answer.
by Anonymous on March 17th, 2005
This is a total load of bunk his Psuedo shcolarship is inccurate and biased by his anti-catholicism. www.Catholic.com
by Ignatius on March 25th, 2005
I agree, and I'm not anti-Catholic---I married one.
by Entropy on April 7th, 2005
This is bunk. It's called Sola Scriptura and is only about 487 years old and was not believed by the early church
by Truth Monger on April 10th, 2005
way to take a stand. well done.
by wfbrad on March 12th, 2006
the catholic church was born out of a marriage between the first church (christian)and the church of Rome,ordered by Constintene in at nicea in 325ad. PS the church of christ is flawed by twisted scipture also.
by BTC123 on December 8th, 2006