Apostasy.

In my talk "Faith and Works", we learned the meaning regarding this word and the great debate on it. The problem was if the Catholic church lost authority or not. In this talk I'd like to go deeper. Even though I don't deny that at the beginning in Rome there was a church founded from the Apostles, Peter and Paul, we have to solve the problem: was this branch was the principle root or a simple branch? Like always, the Bible gives us more light about this topic. I want to set aside the history, because the men write it and everybody gives his particular vision. For example, Indians speaking about the Custer's battle say it was a great victory. The Americans say it was an horrendous massacre. Different viewpoints, different words, different ideas, but they are talking about the same fact. The Bible doesn't support any man or any idea, it supports the truth.
The Church of Jesus Christ of the saints of the early days, or median of time, was founded sometime around 30 A.D. to 33A.D. It was probably when the Lord called the 12 Apostles, and surely it was not named the Catholic Church. This word came up several centuries later; "Catholic" does not exist in the Bible. This is our first important clue. We have more clues to show where the Church really was established and met after the Christ's death.
The first clue is surely the first conference of the Church, held in Jerusalem. We have to consider that Paul was included in the meeting so we don't know exactly when it happened, but it was around 50 A.D. At this time the church was still in Asia. The church in Italy, and particularly in Rome, was not yet established. If it was, it should have been from the very beginning.

 The Catholic church demands their priority in the leadership only because Peter and Paul went to preach the Gospel in Rome and Peter died in there. The Bible gives us a proof about Paul's trip to Rome. It is reported in the Bible like it was his last place, so he was there at the end of his ministry. Regarding Peter, we have only the tradition or History. I believe that the history is correct in this case, the only thing I like to remark on is this: Peter and Paul went to many other places before Italy. Does this simple fact that Peter died in Rome mean that he transferred the main body of the church over there? Why? If he died somewhere else would that have been the place for the main body of the church to be gathered? It doesn't make a lot sense. The Catholic church affirms that He was the first Bishop in Rome, it could be. My personal opinion is that he organized the Church there, probably called a bishop, but he was not a bishop. His main purpose was to preach the Gospel.
Anyway, if you would like to maintain this idea, I do, and you will see why. The Catholic church maintain to be the true church because: Peter was the leader of the Church at that particular time, he was bishop of Rome, he was leading the church from there, so his successors naturally became the new leader. I didn't write "Pope" because this title came several centuries later. Regarding the word "pope", it is interesting to note that it means "papa", "Father", or "Dad" in Italian.
Matthew 23:9 says it is better not to do that. Maybe it is not referring to this same title?
What are my clues regarding the church based in Jerusalem? 

1) The same letter to the Romans shows that there was not a leader in Rome. This letter is a proof that the saints of Rome needed to be lead and receive knowledge.  People could say that this letter was sent before Peter went in Rome. That is fine for me, but what about the 93 or 92 A.d.?
2) My second clue is a proof because if at this time there was a Pope in Rome, like the Catholic church maintains, the Vicarius Christi (substitute of the Son of God literally), should have received the revelations from God. He was supposed to be the leader of the Church, is that right? Yes!
Well my simple question is, "Why were Revelations contained in the book, given to John instead to this "Pope"? Was John bigger than "pope", or was there "Pope"? I want to add something about "Revelation". Many people maintain that the prophecy, or revelations, would be over after the death of Jesus, but we have here a Revelation to John. While others maintain that revelations would be over after the death of the Apostles, but according the Bible John is still alive. So is the Bible lying about him, or are they making a big mistake. Turning back to Revelation and leadership, I want to comment on something. In the beginning, we have seven letters to seven churches; Rome is not included! There is a wonderful revelation to share with the saints, but Rome is not on the list. Maybe there was a particular reason? There is.
In Chapter 17 of Revelation, we have a description and explanation regarding the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters, and with whom the KINGS of the earth have committed fornication (It means her relationship with the politics or earthly power). Verse 4, "and the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color". (Maybe the dresses that the leaders of this organization use to dress). Verse 6:" and I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ( it seem from this scripture that this woman killed the followers of Jesus). Verse 7 "and the angel said unto me I will the mystery of the woman and of the beast.." Verse 9 "and here is the MIND WHICH HATH WISDOM. The 7 heads are 7 mountains, ON WHICH THE WOMAN SITTETH" Rome has 7 hills but maybe you could still think that there could be another possibility. If you go onto verse 18 there is no more choice but to conclude:"And the woman which thou sawest is that GREAT CITY, WHICH REIGNETH OVER THE KINGS OF THE EARTH."


Remember it is speaking about a Woman, not something else. The faithful woman will be the bride of Jesus, or the true church. In this particular case it is called the great whore, even to show how unfaithful she is. Well at this point I am pretty sure that this is speaking about Rome. The Vision that John had gives us is a proof that in Rome there was no leadership of the true church, but surely something else.