There are so many good reasons not to enter Roman Catholicism that I hardly know where to begin and end in a forum such as this that provides so little space to reply. I will try to keep my answer as brief as possible.

While we’re on the issue of mutually exclusive propositions, let’s address another false assumption you imply; namely, that the current Roman Catholic church believes the same thing as the Roman Catholic church of an earlier age—or that it is the same church one finds in the pages of early church history. In his papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302), Pope Boniface VIII declared: "We are obliged . . . to believe . . . that outside [the Roman Catholic church] there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." To this may be added the words of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved"; and those of Pope Eugene IV in his papal Bull, Cantate Domino, "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal. . . . No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

These statements clearly teach that no one—not even schismatics (which is what Rome believes Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox to be)—can be saved if he does not remain in the unity of the Catholic church. The words of Unam Sanctam are particularly relevant here because it is an "infallible" papal declaration. Compare this statement to the "infallible" statement given about Mary’s immaculate conception: "To the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, . . . we, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . do declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Virgin Mary was, in the first instance of her conception, preserved untouched by any taint of original guilt . . . was revealed by God and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful" (Ineffabilis Deus). Clearly both Ineffabilis Deus and Unam Sanctam are "infallible" according to the criteria given by Vatican I. An ex cathedra statement is a statement issued by the pope that defines a dogma of faith or morals to be held by all Christians everywhere. Does Ineffabilis Deus meet this criteria? Its use of the words declare, pronounce and define suggests that it does, and all Catholics would agree that it is. What about Unam Sanctam? Does it fall under the rubric of infallibility? It, too, uses the words declare, pronounce and define, but adds to that, state, thereby making the statement even stronger. Ineffabilis Deus makes the statement that it must be believed by all the faithful. Unam Sanctam makes that same claim to mandatory and universal belief when it states: "We are obliged . . . to believe . . . that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." Again, Unam Sanctam seems to be much stronger in its assertion that it must be believed. Incidentally, both statements are accompanied by anathemas for those refusing to believe.

Now compare these statements to Vatican II (which is required for Roman Catholics to believe): "[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church. . . . Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation (Catechism, Art. 818-19). . .The church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who . . . do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity of communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist" (Ibid., 838). One must submit to the authority of Rome to be saved according to Unam Sanctam, but can be saved apart from Rome according to the official Catechism of the Catholic church. Hence, we have "infallible" Roman proclamations that contradict each other—and both are required beliefs!

Your request for me to point out a first-, second-, or third-century extra-biblical document "containing a charge that the church was preaching or teaching something that was not in line with what the Apostles taught" is a misguided question because it assumes that if we can show that the early fathers believed as the apostles did, that somehow vindicates the current Roman Catholic church (as though the current Roman Catholic church holds the same beliefs as the fathers). But since you asked, here is an example of such a belief from Irenaeus who tries to defend the notion that Christ was over 50 years old when he died:

I have preserved the context of the quote so that it is clear to all that Irenaeus is at pains to show that there is theological significance to the fact that Jesus must have been over 50 years old when he died. He even goes so far as to suggest that this is a "tradition" handed down from the apostles themselves! Of course no one today (including Roman Catholics) believe that Christ lived to be 50 years old. But the point is, on what basis are you deciding to reject this "tradition" (which Irenaeus clearly believes is not only theologically significant and rejected only by heretics, but also given to the church by the mouths of the apostles themselves) while holding to other "traditions" that have equal or lesser patristic support? Among other current Roman Catholic beliefs that cannot be found in the early fathers are:

1. The primacy of the Roman bishop (pope). No one before the fourth century held to the current Roman Catholic interpretation of "Peter as Rock" in Matt 16. Most interpreted the Rock as Christ or Peter’s confession, and the small handful of those who did see Peter as the Rock applied Peter’s succession to all bishops, not just Rome’s. The current mandatory belief for Roman Catholics given at Trent is that the church has always believed that the Roman bishop has primacy, and that there was no development of this doctrine.
2. Transubstantiation. Most of the fathers—including Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theodoret, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Cyprian, the Apostolic Confessions, Serapion, Eustathius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzun, Macarius, and Athanasius—believed that the bread and wine represented the body and blood of Christ, not that they were changed in substance. Here is a passage from Augustine that is representative of the belief of these fathers:

"To be sure, we often speak in the following way: As Pascha approaches, we say that tomorrow, or the day after, is "the Passion of the Lord," although He suffered so many years before, and His Passion occurred only once. Indeed, on that particular Lord’s Day we say "Today the Lord has risen," although many, many years have passed since the time when he arose. Why is it that there is no one so foolish as to accuse us of being liars when we speak in this way? It is because we name these days according to a likeness to the days on which those events took place. Thus a day, which is not the actual day, but like to it in the circle of the year, takes its name from the actual day because of the celebration of the sacrament which occurred, not on the very day of the celebration, but long ago. . . . For if sacraments did not have a certain likeness to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. . . . Therefore . . . in a certain way the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ" (Augustine, Letter 98.9).

In this letter to Boniface of Cataquas, Augustine reveals what his concept of a sacrament is. It is clear that Augustine uses "sacrament" as a virtual synonym for "symbol." Just as the Lord symbolically rises on each Paschal Lord’s Day—that is, each Paschal Lord’s Day bears a "likeness" to the actual day that the Lord arose—so also "in a certain way" (i.e., in a way that symbolizes the original) "the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ." So, for Augustine, there is a "real" presence of the body of Christ during the Lord’s Supper, but it not the "actual" body of Christ that is present. Instead, the eucharistic bread is "like" the original in that it "takes its name from the actual" body of Christ.

Yet this is contradicted by Trent which says: "Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation." (Session XIII). Now obviously Trent is dead wrong about the "always" part of this statement, as I have shown above. Yet Trent goes on to say this: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema" ("The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist," Canon 1); and this: "The council forbids all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree" ("Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist," Introduction).

In other words, Trent has not only anathematized all the fathers listed above (including Augustine), but also tells us that the church has always believed in transubstantiation (which is demonstrably false), and forbids anyone to disagree with it in anything it states in this regard. In other words, according to Trent you must simply ignore all the teachings of the fathers on this issue and believe that they don't exist. Lest you take comfort in the notion that you may safely disregard Trent’s words in favor of Cardinal Newman’s notion of a "development of doctrine" theory in regard to transubstantiation or the papacy, keep in mind that Trent is considered to be an "infallible" conciliar council, and all that it decrees is binding on the Roman Catholic. So you are forbidden to believe that Augustine really said what he said (or any of the other fathers, for that matter), or that there was a development of these doctrines.

I could go on and on with every uniquely Roman belief, but I think I will turn to the NT evidence that you asked for, which contradicts current Roman belief. In addition to the obvious ones (e.g., no magisterial priesthood, no papacy, no primacy of Rome, no prayers to the saints, and no mediator between God and man except Christ), let me give you two on Marian beliefs that you may not have considered. In Matt 1:25 we read that Joseph kept Mary a virgin "until" she gave birth to a son. Most Roman Catholic apologists make the point that the word "until" does not necessarily imply a change of the situation afterward, citing various examples in the Bible where "until" implies no such change. However, they consistently miss the point that the phrase "hews hou" (until) used in Matt 1:25 is a different phrase than any of the examples they provide (they cite only instances where "hews" is used alone). The fact is, whenever the phrase "hews how" occurs in the NT (when it means "until"), it always implies a change in the situation of the passage. In the case of Matt 1:25, it means: "and he did not know her [sexually] until she gave birth to a son—after which he did know her sexually." In fact, there is not even one instance of this phrase (when it means "until") in all the Greek literature of the entire two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ where the meaning is "until, with no thought of what happens afterward." I know this for a fact because I have personally examined all of these occurrences as a part of my doctoral dissertation on the role of Mary in the NT, and as far as I know I am the only one who has gone to the trouble.

But perhaps the reason you want to join the Roman Catholic church is because you think Roman Catholics are completely unified in their beliefs and that Evangelicals are completely disunified in theirs (another myth perpetuated by Roman Catholic apologists); so allow me to set the record straight. Among the smorgasbord of beliefs from which to choose in Roman Catholicism are:

Or perhaps you have been duped into believing the "canon" argument posited by Roman Catholic apologists; namely, that unless we ascribe authority and infallibility to the Roman Catholic church, we can have no assurance of the contents of the NT canon. But did you know that the same synods that Roman Catholic apologists point to for the list of NT books (Hippo and Carthage) also provide a list of OT books that differs from the current OT canon of the Roman Catholic church? Did you know that the Eastern church beat Rome to the correct list by some 20 years, and that Rome had omitted the book of Hebrews but eventually decided to adopted the list from the Eastern church? And by the way, on what basis are you entering the Roman Catholic church and rejecting the Eastern Orthodox church as the "true" church founded by Jesus Christ if your criteria is some kind of apostolic succession and ecclesial pedigree? If you say that your reason is the supposed Petrine Primacy found in Matt 16, then you are arguing in a circle. For you have interpreted this Scripture as an individual and rendered a private judgment that Rome is right in her interpretation—but this is the very thing that Rome tells us is an illegitimate practice to begin with. One finds passages in the NT that seem to contradict Roman belief, and Rome invariably says that you as an individual are incapable of interpreting the Scriptures apart from Rome. And so the very principle that you say led you to Rome ends up being an illegitimate principle once you get to Rome. Ironic, isn’t it? Moreover, Eastern Orthodoxy, which also claims to be the "true" church and which boasts direct apostolic succession, believes that you are misinterpreting the "Petrine Primacy" passages, and also claims that you cannot rightly interpret the Scriptures or church history apart from the Eastern Orthodox church. So now on what basis do you decide which "true" church is the "true" "true" church? Again, the irony of such a question demonstrates the utter silliness of joining either one of these "true" churches. Both have shied away from a strictly biblical examination (since both would utterly fail), claiming instead that one must search for the "true" church in the annals of history. Yet both have the same credentials of "pedigree, tradition, and liturgy"; and both deny that you are capable of rightly understanding history or the Scriptures without them. So, in order to pick one, you must engage in the very practice that both of them condemn as illegitimate. Yet you cannot pick both of them, for they see each other as illegitimate. So again, you are left in a dilemma. You either use the "illegitimate" principle of sola Scriptura and private judgment to decide which one is the "true" church; or you decide that the principle of sola Scriptura and private judgment is not so illegitimate after all, in which case you remain within Evangelicalism and reject Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no other option.

E.S.