Matthew. "And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.Matthew 16:18-19 "And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the CHURCH. And if he will not hear the CHURCH, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Matthew 18:16-17 St. Peter warned people about private interpretation. "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20

No where in the Bible is the word Catholic even used. In the early Church the word catholic was used but simply meant general or universal and thus all Christians were "catholic." Those who made the error of Gnosticism in placing angels, saints, or anyone else above Christ were quickly pointed out by Paul as being un-Christian (1 Corinthians 2:17-19). The term was later adopted by the Catholic Church to imply they had descended from the apostles, even as they persecuted the true continuers of Christianity like the Anabaptists. Ever hear of Robert Barclay, the famous historian? "We shall afterward show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of divine truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church." - Robert Barclay Ever hear of John Clark Ridpath, another famous historian? "I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists." - John Clark Ridpath Here's yet another famous historian, Mosheim: "Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modem Dutch Baptists... the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity... the first century was a history of Baptists." - Mosheim What about Zwingli? "The institution of the Anabaptists is no novelty, but for 1300 years has caused great trouble in the church." -Zwingli And here's a recent quote: "Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, and have an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands; and yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine, and adherence." - "Crossing the Centuries", edited by William C. King Even Newton supported this: "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome." - Sir Isaac Newton And a Catholic Cardinal, the president of the council of Trent: "Were it not for the fact that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1200 years, they would swarm greater than all the reformers. If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those of the Anabaptist, since there have been none for the 1200 years past that have been more generally punished or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and have offered themselves to the most cruel sort of punishment than these people." - Catholic Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1564. ==================================================== EDIT: The anabaptist's own modern writings are the only assertions? Please read my post, I quoted Isaac Newton, the president of the council of Trent, and several of the world's greatest historians. Just because you don't like my post, please don't lie about it, even if such lies are highly transparent.

The presence or absence of any given word in the Bible is by no means a test of whether Christians should believe it, or use it. Cases in point: Locate the word "Trinity" in the Word of God? Locate the word "Incarnation" in the Word of God? Locate "wedding rings" in the Word of God? Locate "guardian angels" in the Word of God? Locate the term "altar call" in the Word of God? Locate the terms "sinner's prayer" in the Word of God? Can't be done! Yet many Christians believe in all of the above. At least half of my list is Biblical, and 1/3 of it critical to the doctrines of Christianity! Now, where do we find the very first use of the name Catholic Church? That's easy to show. Do you know who used the term and who discipled him into the faith? His name is Ignatius of Antioch and he was a close friend, and disciple of St. John. This is the very same John who wrote the Gospel, 3 epistles and the book of Revelation. He was the last of the apostles to die and the only one to die of natural causes. He wrote Revelation in about 96 AD and then passed away in about 99. Ignatius became bishop of the church at Antioch and was himself martyred by being thrown to wild animals in 110. In 107 he wrote a letter to the church at Smryna in which he said the following. "CHAP. VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid." http://catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm Now Ignatius would not have used that name if it wasn't something that the church recognized and called itself before that time, so that means that the name was already accepted by the believers even before St. John passed away. It doesn't have to be in the Bible...it's a historical FACT. (Unless of course you want to assert that perhaps St. John taught his converts wrong!!!) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is only source of what Christians believe in fact St. Paul tells St.Timothy that something else is the pillar and ground of the truth. (1st Timothy 3:15) "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Does the Bible say that it contains all that Christians know about what Jesus said and did? Look here at the last 2 verses of the Gospel of John. "24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." That is the apostle John speaking right there! Now, unless one is willing to assert that John may have taught his friends and disciples error and that they were stupid enough to die for those beliefs, then you pretty much have to accept that the historical evidence of link to the apostles is there. To allege differently attempts to deny the verifiable historical facts. So...who's interpretation of what the Bible means are you going to accept? That of a guy (2 guys really...look up Polycarp! http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/polycarp2.cfm) who was trained by an apostle and died for the faith or someone who came along 500 years later with a different interpretation, or even worse some modern day preacher who wrote or preached something different? Who was closer to the source?

The true answer is no book actually endorses the Catholic Church. The connection made through the Matthew references, as all surely have noticed, is not specific enough to be considered references to the 'Catholic Church'. It may very well be true that the Catholic Church may be the oldest existing Christian denomination - but the church is the body of believers - and always has been. To say the reference is specifically refering to the Catholic Church is a problem because someone from that early church decided to personally interpret what CHURCH meant in Matthew. and it has been taught to the masses of people as fact. Majority does not decide the true meaning of any scripture though.

Well in reference to you statement as "which part of the Bible refers to the Catholic Church as the TRUE church? Let me tell you that there are no such scriptures, infact there is one scripture pretaining to the Catholic Church in Revelation, Referring to the Great Catholic Church as the Great Whore, ie. Harlot, for some. The Catholic Church isnt even seen as a Christian Church to most Christians today, because of Idol Worship, Strang Unnessary Traditions and the Worship of Graven Images, such as the Virgin Mary.

In the book of Acts, the earliest church that was made was the Apostolic Movement. As seen throught the scriptures. The Catholic Church was established about 100 yrs after the True Church was made, also. The Early Catholic Church was in fact not Christian at all, in fact it was seen as in early worship of the God called Dagon an early Babalonian God of Fishermen. Thus said, the Catholic Church has Numerous traits of that same Religous sect today. Note: Popes St. Peters Fishermans Ring and His Fish Mouth Hat, Dagon worshipers wore a ceremonial Fish Head in worship pratices.

The Catholic Church created the bible as we know it. The Church didn't come from the bible. The bible is a collection of books accepted by the Catholic Church. Thats as Catholic as it Gets. The bottom line is people need to wake up and learn history and not just what their parents told them. The Epistels are Paul continuously urging the other churches, to hold fast to the traditions they learned. All the NT Letters are as Catholic as it gets. If you do not have Catholic background you will not notice it.

Plain and simple, the Catholic Church created the Bible not the other way around. When the Bible was written, it wasn't written to support and promote the Catholic Church but to write about Jesus and his teachings. Too much hype is given to "Is this in the Bible?" or "The Bible says this so why don't you.....?". We should simply treat the Bible as a collection of stories based on religious truths. They may or may not be literally or factually correct but all have great truths within them from which we have much to learn.