Dear Matt:

Well, I cannot give you a long detailed answer in this forum, but I can make some comments and then refer you to some sources.

Your historical investigations are leading you in the right direction. There were two things that lead me, as a Baptist preacher, to convert to the Catholic Church: 1) the Bible; 2) history.

On the historical score, as Cardinal Newman observed, "To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant." Any honest examination of history will lead a person to the Catholic Church.

History proves that Peter was the first Prime Minister of the Church, and that the Apostles and the first Christians were Catholic (Catholic by virtue of being under the leadership of the Pope).

To those who would admit that Popes did exist in the first century (something that cannot be historically denied) but that the "power" of the Pope was not like we know it a few centuries later I would refer to the Letters of Pope Clement I (still in existence). In around A.D. 86 Pope Clement wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth. We know that the Corinth Church was in trouble and having all sorts of problems as St. Paul addresses the problems in his epistles to the Corinthians. In this letter from the Pope to the Corinthians, he tells them to shape up and fly right under pain of sin. He could not do that unless he had papal (universal) power and jurisdiction since he was not the Bishop of Corinth. This letter provide conclusive documentary evidence that Popes, even in the first century, did indeed have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Another historical document is the Church manual, the Didiche, written around the end of the 1st century. In this document we have an example of a "church service". It is a Mass Liturgy that is nearly identical to the Catholic Mass today. This shows that the early Christians worship in the same manner that the Catholic Church has always worshiped.

These two documents, the letter from Pope Clement and the Didiche are the oldest Christian documents on the nature of the Church that we have in existence. The Letter from Pope Clement was even considered canonical until toward the end of the 2nd Century. These two documents are arguably the most important documents outside of the New Testament on how the first century Christian ordered and governed their church. 

Another early document on Church order comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch in approximately A.D. 107. St. Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and the Bishop of Antioch, a See once held by St. Peter.

After he was arrested the Romans transported him to Rome to be martyred. St. Ignatius welcomed martyrdom and wanted to be in Rome when it happened.

On the way to Rome he wrote seven letters to various churches. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he mentions that the church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. He mentions this not as an innovation but as a term already in use. Most scholars belief that the name CATHOLIC CHURCH was in use by the last quarter of the 1st Century.

All of this and more firmly establishes that the first century Church was a "Catholic" church under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

Biblically, Matthew 16 (backed up by Isaiah 22) where Jesus makes Peter the first Pope, and John 6 where Jesus holds his ground in his teaching of the literal nature of the Eucharist proves the Catholic teaching.

Matthew 16:13-19, confirmed by Isaiah 22:15-22, proves that Christ established His church on earth with Peter as the first "Prime Minister” of the kingdom and historical facts confirm the line of succession that leads to our present Pope.

Matthew 23:1-2 establishes that Jesus expected his disciples to submit themselves to a “Magisterium” -- the Chair of Moses (which was the Magisterium of the Mosaic Covenant). Matthew 16 establishes that the “Chair” of authority was transferred from the “Chair of Moses” to the “Chair of Peter.” (a new chair for a New Covenant)

John 6 clearly shows the doctrine of transubstantiation in that Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Some people think that Jesus was making an analogy but there is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, Jesus repeats this teaching and affirms it. When many of his disciples left him because THEY took it literally Jesus did not call them back and say, "Guys, it was only a symbol." No, instead Jesus turned to his beloved apostles and stood his ground on this teaching and asked them if they would leave him too. Jesus risked losing the apostles over this teaching. This was no mere symbol.

And there is much more.

The bottomline line is which Church do you wish to belong to? The Church founded by Luther, Calvin, Fox, Smyth, Wesley, etc. or the Church founded by Jesus.

I choose the Church founded by Jesus who said he would build his church (not churches) upon Peter. That "church" in union with Peter and his successors is the true and only true Church in the fullness of the faith on this planet.

The Protestants have hamburger, the Catholics have Prime Rib. The Protestant have a Reader's Digest version of the faith, the Catholics have the unabridged full version.

But, mostly, the Protestants lack the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Their "communion" is only a symbol; the Catholic communion is literally the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Protestant "communion" is mere bread the symbolizes their faith in Christ; the Catholic Eucharist is the fulfillment of the teaching of Jesus in John 6.

It is the Catholics were are truly the "biblical" Christians and who take the bible at its word. The Bible says that Peter is the Pope, we believe it. The Bible says that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, we believe it.

The Protestant stance is to insert their personal opinions into the Bible and change it to suit their views (and to give them an excuse to be like teenagers rebelling against their parent, who is the Catholic Church).

The attitude of the so-called, "reformers" is best illustrated by a quote from Martin Luther himself. In this quote Martin Luther responds to the criticism that he has added words to the Bible to suit himself. Luther added the word "alone" to the passage in Romans 3:28 in his German translation.

To the criticism of adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 Martin Luther replied:

"You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word 'alone' is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone,' say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say: 'Papist and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate...It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out."

Thus sayeth the "humble" Martin Luther.

In fact, the only place in the bible where the phrase "faith alone" appears is in the book of James where St. James says that "justification is not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Luther couldn't stand that reference because it appeared to contradict his opinion and thus he called the book of James "an epistle of straw" and wanted to rip it out of the Bible. He also wanted to rip out the books of Hebrews and Revelation. He did not success in doing that, but he did succeed in ripping out of the Bible seven books from the Old Testament. That is why the Old Testament is different in Protestant versions of the Old Testament today.

The Catholic version of the Old Testament was the same version read by Jesus in the Temple and the same version read by the early Christians for more than 1500 years until Luther, and the same version that is used by the Catholics for all of Christianity's 2000 years.

But, a man who was not even born until 1500 years after Jesus apparently knows more about it than the apostles who knew Jesus personally and early Christians who personally knew the apostles, and the rest of the early Christians. Go figure.

For more information I suggest you check out the following:

Catholic Answers The Library has several pamphlets on major issues of concern to Protestants

Scripture Catholic: Providing Scriptural Evidence for the Teachings of the Catholic faith

Biblical Catholicism (various books written by Dave Armstrong)

Catholic Encyclopedia

These should get you started.

For me, the issue is clear: the Catholic Church is the only Church that reads the Bible appropriately and literally (according to the true rules of literal interpretation), it is the Church described in the Bible and in the early Christian writings, all of Catholic teaching is in the Bible or derived from Biblical principle, the Bible proves the papacy and the Real Presence, and history also proves the Catholic Church as the Church of the first century and a church under a Pope.

For me, there is no choice once I learned all this -- either convert or become a hypocrite to the truth. I converted.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary