Forgive me for not answering sooner, but I began feeling overwhelmed. Anywho...Ok..... how can I be clear... you erroneously believe that the so called "Roman Catholic religion". Wait, I can't even say that title like that because it doesnt make sense. "Roman Catholic religion"?? What is that? How is it different than the Byzantine Catholic religion or the Ethiopian Catholic religion? There is no separate Church called "Roman"Catholic. "Roman" describes a diocese and liturgical rite, not a separate Church. I don't entirely blame you for your error as most western English speaking peoples have slowly come to identify the Catholic Church with the adjective "Roman" and that's that.
Anyway, you erroneously believe that the Catholic Church in Rome was presented with a codex Bible; it was labeled "Word of God" and they opened it and read it. They came upon Mathew 16: 18 and thunk 'this verse says Peter was the first Pope!!" That scenario is impossible. The Bible didn't come to us like that.
Mathew 16:18 physically happened. It was an action put into motion. Not a verse that was written and later organized around. The Church came first, then the Bible. Before all the NT manuscripts were completed, men like Clement of Rome were already running the Church. He was ordained Bishop by Peter. See, Clement didn't read Mathew 16:18, he was the product of Mathew 16:18..
Let me first point out the lies above. Then maybe sometime this week I'll address the Marian doctrines in scripture as well as purgatory.
1. We do not believe Mary is co redeemer.
2. We do not believe that the "Roman" Catholic religion is necessary for salvation. However, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ puts a person pretty far from truth.
3. We did not remove the second commandment.
Ok Brother Lee, people spread an awful lot of deceit about the CC.
I call it the "Roman Catholic 'religion'" because I don't like using the term "Church" for any faith-based institution that doesn't adhere solely and fully to the law and testimony of our 'Elohiym. And yes. I do believe the Roman Catholic religion staked claim to Matthew 16:18, while misinterpreting the verse mind you, in order to authenticate their origins and solidify their authority. And for the record, there exists a schism in your religion as to whom the actual "successor" of Peter, also known as The Apostle to the Circumcision, was. Many believe it was Linus while the opposition believe it was Clement. But, neither would make any sense whatsoever, would it? In Rome and to Gentiles? Did Peter disobey the commandment found at Matthew 10:5-6? Was not Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles? Did Peter bring the gospel to more than just Cornelius and his household? And as to the supposes "lies," all that I presented can be found on Catholic sites, online. As to Mary being a co-redeemer, I'll fall back. Apparently, I didn't understand the full definition. As it seems, she's only considered somewhat as a co-redeemer because she's considered the cause of our redemption, considering that she gave birth to our anointed Savior. But, there's still much debate as to her role in redemption among the hierarchy.
Again, I apologize. But, there's my responses to your comments and questions. I tried to make it short and sweet, too.
Until next time, Liam.