The official Roman Catholic Church claim is that Peter had passed on the torch to Linus, who is believed to be the second Pope of Rome, despite that there is very little historical documentation about this Pope. Nothing was written about this Pope untill 189 C.E. from the chronicles of Irenaeus. That was more than 100 years after Linus death. We can't even be sure that such a person had really existed, let alone be certain of the details of his life. But this Pope Linus is said to have lived in the first century. He became a Pope in 67 C.E. and had died sometime around 76 C.E. Given the great importance of this man and the events that surround him, you would think that there would be much documantion and writings from this Pope. But as I had stated here on our web pages, the only record that refers to this person who was purportedly the direct successor of Peter, was written in 189 C.E. by Irenaeus, of all people. There is nothing else we know about this man Linus, and there was nothing we have of any writings penned from his hand. That is strange since Paul had no problem writing his views regarding the teachings of what would become part of the "Gospel" writings. The sketchy traditions around the life of Linus are very sparse. He was believed to be an Italian from Tuscany, yet, his name is Greek, not Roman. It's vaguely believed in some Christian circles that this Linus was the same Linus who is the subject of a single glancing reference in one of Paul's letters in the New Testament, but scholars of first century Christianity can't vouch for that as an unimpeachable fact. So who was this Irenaeus who had written about this Pope Linus? Irenaeus was the infamous heresy hunter, whose mission in life was to consolidate the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and squash what he viewed as inappropriate deviations from the teachings of the Church. Irenaeus was not exactly an objective historian. His record of Linus was supposedly based on a list of the bishops of Rome, no doubt from a copy of the Pseudo -Isidorian Decretals. Irenaeus had stated that after the Holy Apostle (Which one was he referring to? Peter or Paul?) had founded and set the Church, (Which one? the one in Jerusalem or Rome?) gave over the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus that is mentioned by the apostle Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. You might want to read this paragraph a few more times, because this statement alone from Irenaeus is the only and entire basis of the claim for proof of apostolic succession from Peter, the original Apostle of Yeshua. Without this one paragraph, there is no legitimate historical record to support the key Catholic claim and doctrine of apostolic succession, and their claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the "Head" of all the churches within the religion of Christianity. So as we have seen here, the entire foundation of the claim by the Roman Catholic Church of its apostolic succession is just one paragraph written by a Roman Catholic propagandist more than 100 years after the fact. Other than this statement, there is virtually no actual historical record to support the notion that Pope Linus, who was suppose to be the successor of Peter actually existed. In Irenaeus writings, he tells us virtually nothing about how it all came to be, what had actually happened. How was Linus selected and how was the authority passed on to him. Was Peter empowered to choose his own successor? Did Linus ever consider himself to be infallible, as many Popes who followed after him would claim for themselves? Did he consider himself leader of all Christians or just that of the Roman Catholic Church? These are some of the questions I would ask. It would be another 100 years that would have to pass, before the next historically significant reference to the person and career of Linus would be found in church annals. By the fourth century, the early Church fathers were reduced to rank speculation about who this person Linus, really was, and what he had to do with the church. Things got even worse when it came to the third Pope, who may or may not have been named Anacletus. Much of what is really known about this person is very vague. Catholic tradition calls Anacletus, Saint Cletus, which means that the Church didn't even trust Irenaeus to get his name straight. And the description cited by Irenaeus is the only historical record of Anacletus, or this Saint Cletus. For all anybody really knows, he may also have been the fourth Pope, rather than the third one. All of this is real murky because of the lack of any sort of real documents about this person. Anacletus or Saint Cletus, is said to have been a Pope for two or maby eight years before being martyred. This is the extent of what we know of any of these early "church fathers".

I have heard from time to time on E.W.T.N. Catholic radio many priests and other guest speakers who had claimed the holiness of the Roman Catholic Church and of its Popes. One such person I had heard was a Dr. Scott Hann, who is an ex-protestant preacher that had converted to the Roman Catholic Church, had stated that regarding the sanctity of the Popes of Rome and their office, that the Popes in general have shown a great deal of sanctity in their office and lives. That a great many of these Popes had been declared to be Saints and are now in Heaven. That only a handful of Popes in all of church history have been truly corrupt. This alone has to be a sign of the divine institution of the Papacy. Really! Well let us see just how divine the institution of the Church and it's Papacy really is. Let us see for ourselves if the Roman Catholic Church claims to have apostolic succession to the original Apostle of Yeshua. That the Roman Catholic Church has an unbroken chain of valid popes that go all the way back to the Apostle Peter. We will demonstrate to you the reader that some popes were not even valid bishops or Popes, and this alone breaks the "chain" of apostolic succession that the Roman Catholic Church vehemently claims. So let us draw back the curtains of actual church history and see what we can find out about the Roman Catholic Church and its Papacy. We already know how valid the first few Popes of the Roman Catholic Church really are, given the lack of any actual factual historical documents that may prove this claim. So now we need to go well into the late 2nd century before we are able to see an actual person who had become the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church that has any historical proof from any known factual documents. In 189-199 CE there is a Pope Victor I. There were three Popes and two anti-popes that went by the name of Victor. It is said that this Pope, Victor I, was probably a native of Africa. His pontificate is known mainly for his dispute with the Bishops of Aisa Minor over the refusal to conform with the practice of the church in Rome as to the date for celebrating Easter. He demanded of the Eastern churches agreement with the Roman Easter festival and date or threatened them with excommunication, if they refused. That was a worthless, empty threat. The earliest well-developed papal organization was that of Leo the 1st during the 5th century CE. He aimed to establish both in the East and the West, a system of papal vicariates through which Roman jurisdiction could be enforced and the Roman forms of faith and practice maintained. The growth of power of the Roman Catholic Church grew when Gregory the 1st, called the Great,(590-604 CE) was installed as Pope in 590 CE. Gregory the 1st was born in Rome of a wealthy patrician family. At age 30, he was made perfect of Rome by Emperor Justin II (578 CE). Gregory inherited considerable wealth upon his father's death, which he used for religious purposes. After the death of Pope Pelagius, who had died of the plague, Gregory the 1st was made Pope on Sept. in 590 CE. His main interest was economics. He gathered considerable amounts of properties from Africa through Sicily and Italy to Gaul. Managed directly by papal agents, these properties constituted the chief financial basis of the Roman bishopric. But as time wore on, things really got out of hand with the office of the Papacy. During the reign of Pope Honorius 1st. (625 to 638 CE) He was later condemned as a heretic by the Concil of Constantinople III which was the Sixth Ecumenical Council that was held. (680-681 CE). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So much for the belief of the infallibility of a Pope! Then in 768 CE, to 769 CE, Pope Stephen III (IV) who was born in Sicily and was a Benedictine monk became a Pope. Stephen III (IV) came into power in 769 CE. During his pontificate, with the help of an army which had conquered the previous Pope. Stephen III (IV) gave orders for his papal rivals to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen III (IV) sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his victum's body cut off every day until he finally died. Is this what their god, Je-Zeus Christ would do? Hummmmmm! Under Charlemagne, the kindom of the Franks reached imperial proportions, extending from the Pyrenees, deep into north and central Europe. Charlemagne had donated to the Roman Catholic Church much of the revenue that he derived from his vast realm and gave ecclesiastical dignitaries high posts in his government. In recognition of Charlemagne's service, Pope Leo III on Christmas day, 800 CE, crowned him Emperor of the West. This action layed the foundation of what will become known as the Holy Roman Empire. What was behind all of this? It was Leo's object to obtain for the Roman Catholic Church greater influence in political affairs. This act also claimed the right of choosing the secular rulers of Christendom. Then we have Pope Leo V, who only reigned for one month (July 903 CE) when a Cardinal Christopher put Leo in prison and made himself Pope. Then Pope Christopher was put into prison by Cardinal Sergius whom made himself Pope (904-11 CE). Pope Sergius killed Leo and Christopher while they were in prison. He also killed every cardinal who had opposed him. Is this what Dr. Scott Hann meant when he had stated about the sanctity of the Popes of Rome? Then we have Pope John XII who reigned from 955 to 964 CE. He was a violent man. He was also lustful that people of his day said that he turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. He drank toasts to the devil, and when gambling, he would invok pagan gods and goddesses to bring him luck. He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife. Do I recall Dr. Scott Hann claim that only a handful of Popes were corrupt? My; I have only just started on the Popes of Rome that were corrupt. In the tenth century CE, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of the reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under very mysterious circumstances. One of the Popes that was installed, was Marozia's own son. He was believed to be fathered by Pope Sergius. Marozia's son became Pope John XI at the age of twenty-five years. In 1003 CE, Pope Silvester II was murdered by his successor, Pope John XVII. Seven months later, Pope John XVII had been poisoned. In 1012 to 1024 CE, Pope Benedict VIII had reigned. He kept a private force of "Pope's men" who were known for torture, maimings, and murder. The Pope personally ordered many assassinations. He enjoyed cutting the tongues out of living men and he had a reputation for blood lust. Yep; And they have the gull to call this a Holy Office! Let us see what else we can find about the sanctity of the Popes of Rome. When Benedict VIII died in 1024 CE, his brother seized power and became Pope John XIX. He had himself ordained a priest, consecrated as a bishop, and crowned as Pope, all on the same day. Pope John XIX had died under suspicious circumstances. In 1032 to 1044 CE, Pope Benedict IX had reigned. He had become Pope through bribery. He had sex with men, women and animals. He gave orders for people to be murdered. He also practiced witchcraft and Satanism. The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that on two occasions he had to flee from Rome. Benedict sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI. As part of the deal, he continued to live in the Lateran Palace, with a generous income. Benedict filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes. A fine idea for a church that is a Spiritual whore! Then in 1294-1303 CE, Pope Boniface VIII sat at the throne of the Holy See. He was born in Anagni, Italy. He had sought to exercise both temporal and spiritual authority in all of Roman Catholic lands. To accomplish this task, he issued two Bulls. One was Clericis Laicos that was issued in 1296 CE. This "Bull" forbade the collection or payment of taxes on ecclessiastical property without the express consent of the Pope. The other "Bull" was issued in 1302 CE, Unam Sanctam, wherein he asserted the supremacy of the Pope over all rulers, in temprol and in all spiritual affairs. Nothing like giving yourself all of these powers. In 1298 CE, Pope Boniface VIII had ordered that every man, woman, child and animal in the Italian town of Palestrina be slaughtered. He was known for torture, massacre, and ferocity. The Kings, Princes and Nobelmen should have kicked this Pope's holy ass off his high horse and defrock the Papacy. Another Pope who was just like Pope Boniface VIII was Pope Clement VI, who reigned from 1342 to 1352 CE. He also had ordered the slaughter of an entire Italian town. He lived a life of luxury and extravagance. He openly admitted that he sold church offices and used threats and bribery to gain power. Clement had also purchased a French palace which became known as a papal brothel. Next on the list comes Pope Alexander VI. He had reigned from 1492 to 1503 CE. He was known for murder, bribery and selling positions of authority in the Church. He was grossly licentious. On one occasion he required 50 prostitutes to dance naked before him and to engage in sexual acts for his entertainment. He had cardinals killed so that he could confiscate their property and sell their positions to ambitious people. He died of poison after having dinner with a cardinal. It was rumored that the cardinal suspected that the Pope would try to poison him and he therefore switched the wine goblets with the Pope. The cardinal suspicion was correct. Then we have Pope Julius II, who had reigned from 1503 to 1513 CE. He became Pope not through apostolic succession, but through bribery. He was extremely ruthless and violent. He had a reputation for lust, drunknness, rages, deception, and for awarding high public appointments to his relatives. Pope Leo X, who had reigned from 1513 to 1521 CE had put a statue of himself in Rome's Capitol to be saluted by the public. He had statues of Greek gods and goddesses put all over in Rome. Here was one Pope who acted like he was a god. I am talking about Pope Gregory VII who had reigned from 1073 to 1085 CE. He required Kings and Emperors to kiss his foot. Gregory and his successors used forged documents in order to expand the power of the papacy. Some Roman Catholics tried to expose these forgeries but they were excommunicated for it. However, the Orthodox Church kept records and wrote detailed information about the forgeries. I had spoken of this earlier on this web page, remember? Simony was rampant among the clerics. It was commonplace for priests to pay money in order to become bishops and abbots. Pope Gregory VII said that he knew of more than 40 men who became Pope by the means of bribery. Forget that chain of apostolic succession. It had a long time ago been broken. What you have here is nothing more than a free for all to become Pope, the head of the holy see and of Christianity, at least in the west. Pope Innocent III was not that innocent as his name implies. Pope Innocent III had reigned from 1198 to 1216 CE. He believed that the Pope was the ruler of the world and the father of Princes and Kings. He claimed that every priest and bishop must obey the Pope even if the Pope commands something evil. Pope Innocent III wanted to get rid of the Albigensian heretics who had lived in France. He forced the King of France to kill hundreds of thousands of French citizens. The Albigensians lived mingled among the French Catholics. Pope Innocent commanded that every person in the region, including Catholics, to be killed. This was called the Albigensian Crusade, or the Albigensian Massacre, depending upon what side you see history from. The Pope gave the Albigensian Crusaders a special indulgence which was supposed to guarantee that if they died in battle, their sins would be remitted and they would go to Heaven. And people were foolish to believe that! Huh. There were times in the history of the Roman Catholic Church where two or more men would claim to be Pope at the same time. All of these claimants to the papacy had their own followers. Eventually one contender would be declared to be Pope, and the other would be declared to be an anti-pope. For centuries, Roman Catholic books differed as to which men they considered to be the genuine Popes. According to my Funk & Wagnall New Encyclopedia, there were at least thirty such Popes that were later called anti-popes. As we have seen on this page, the church had failed to prove their claim of apostolic succession on two counts. They have failed to prove that the Roman church was the direct successor to Peter. They have also failed as we have seen here, their claim of an un-broken chain of "valid" Popes as their original claim would infer. Then we come to this business of the forgeries. One must ask the question; What do this tell people about a church that had tried to forge documents in order to prove their case. The church of Rome knew they had no such proof and felt the need to forge some documents in order to give itself the legitimacy it needed. As we can see here, their whole claim of having direct apostolic succession to Peter is a false one at best. What we have here is a phony representation of the original true congregation of Yeshus, disguised as the legitimate successor to Peter. What we have here concerning the Roman Catholic church, is in reality a multi-national business enterprise with a heretical, heathen, Babylonian religion with a phony god that do not represent the original congregation that was established in Jerusalem, or the Apostles true teachings about Yeshua that was originally written which would later be altered to become the New Testament. The original Apostles had warned the congregation that devious wolves would creep in and change or alter the teachings they had preached. Even Paul gave out that warning in his letters near the end of his ministry. But we now know that the people had not heeded those warnings. I really feel sorry for those people who are Christians, for they have been duped into believing in a phony theology and religion. You can understand why I am so disgusted with those priests and preachers who should have known better. These people had the education, had every opportunity to know during their study of their Christian religion, its history, and the history of how the Bible came to be. But they had chosen to turn a blind eye to it. They knew full well that people would greatly depend on them to give the congregation the true facts. But all they had done was give people a false hope through a false theology and religion with a false god or gods. Because of this, billions of Catholics during the two thousand years had blindly accepted the words of their priests and Popes, thinking that they were coming closer to having a personal relationship with the real GOD, our Heavenly Father, when all of the time, they were actually drifting further away from the truth. I am greatly surprised that people like John Huss, Martin Luther, Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Knocks, John Wycliffe, Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Eramus, John Colet and Sir Thomas Moor who had broken away from Catholicism and had fought against the Roman Catholic Church during the schism that had led to the great reformation during the 14th-15th century that gave way to the establishment of the Protestant churches, had not noticed or seen through that Great lie that was established during the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, by the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches in which they had claimed that their fictitious Je-Zeus Christ was god. That these Protestant reformers had failed to notice that this Christian god had spoken about and prayed to another god in their text of the New Testament. That they had failed to notice that flawed "three gods in one" theology that was staring them right in their face. But no, they could not see through this Great Lie because they must have been so brainwashed into Catholicism, that they were unable to notice that major flaw in their Christian theology. So billions of people who became Protestants ended up following that same perverse three gods theology that the early Christian church fathers had invented. I am quite aware that this web site is upsetting many people who belong to the various branches of Christianity. Their priests and pastors are also upset because I dare to expose the fraudulent teachings that is within their religion. These priests and pastors will quote chapter and verses and try to rebuke what I have said on these web pages. What I find amusing is that these Catholic and Protestant cretins try to reprove me from a bible that had been greatly corrupted and can not stand the test of what is the truth. One should realize that there are no three gods in the teachings of Yeshua. When I speak about the "early church fathers", it is always in referance to those gentiles who had broken away from the original congregation of Yeshua and re-created their own religion based upon their apostate, false teachings that would become known as Christianity. Now you know why I call Protestant Christians with their churches or fellowship groups the harlot daughters of a spiritual whore.

_________________________________