A Question For Protestants regarding the Catholic Church...

[Gabriel_of_12]

The TRUE church is where two or more are gathered together to study and fellowship in God’s Word.

Could even be two from different faiths. It doesn’t matter. The true church is not a particular place. The true church is totally mobile.

Gabriel of 12;

This statement contradicts scripture for there cannot be two faiths but only one;

Ephesians 4:1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

According to scripture teaching and Apostolic Tradition the Church is the body of Jesus christ on earth, where the Catholic Church is the body and Jesus is the head in heaven present in his body. There cannot be two Jesus’s, only one Lord Jesus.

 

[DonLeon]

** TheWhoFreak;5382186**

Your incredible ignorance of Church history shows here. Get your facts straight. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian church around intil 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox church was formed. That was the FIRST recognized split from the CC until 1500
AD /QUOTE}

Just a point of information: The split that formed the Orthodox church and separated them from the Roman church was strictl political .The Orthodox church still follows the precepts as laid down by Jesus and his apostles. All sacraments of the Orthodox
church are valid. The Orthodox church and Roman Catholic church, although they are
separated, form the one true church founded by Jesus.

 

[laurenharper]

quote “And to answer you question: NO. And I never will reach that place, because that would lull me into a false sense of security in my Salvation, which I can never know if I have. The Bible tells me to “work out my Salvation with fear and trembling” so that is what I do. I fear God and never assume that I am saved”

Very nicely said. Right-on.

 

[laurenharper]

SonofMonica;5379914]What’s funny about this statement is, in my experience, protestants will point to the things that the Catholic Church has done or said or taught, outside the Bible, and use it to say that the Catholic Church is wrong. But they will not look to the things that the Catholic Church has done or said or taught, outside the Bible, to even consider for a moment that the Catholic Church is right. All of a sudden, all that talk becomes “mere Tradition.” :ehh:

How does this play out practically? I mean, God is going to allow potentially each and every individual Church to err, yet, somehow all of them taken together will not err? I suspect in practice, this really amounts to "We’re (e.g.) baptist, and all those who think like us (the invisible Church) will not err, but all these hierarchical Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants with their physical church structures (which we pretend we don’t have) will. Just a nagging suspicion I have based upon experience… Maybe you have a different idea of how that concept plays out.

Well, welcome and glad you’re here! Whether you reconcile with the Catholic Church or not, I’m glad you’re here and contributing to the conversation. I will say a prayer for you at Mass today. Speaking of, better go get in the shower and wake up my wife… God bless!

In my experience, Protestants just aren’t really into the idea of preservation from error. They (I cease to say ‘we’) would quote ‘for ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God’. If we are all fallen and sinnful, in no case should we consider ourselves preserved from error. There are only ‘big ideas’, or main issues, that Christ’s invisible church agrees on (namely, that Jesus is God, and died to save us from our sins). Besides that, it’s impossible to know for absolute sure what is biblical truth…only to take our best guess. We’ll know when Jesus returns, as my mom often says.

Always glad to contribute! Keeps me on my game. =) One last comment. The one pivital problem in all of this is SOLA SCRIPTURA. If ALL we have is the Bible (the protestant bible…ehemmm), then Catholics really aren’t in any better position to argue doctrine than Protestants. With no authority, everything falls apart. If you ask me, THAT is the place to start in a protestant/catholic debate, AND the easiest, since there isn’t a single scripture verse that even ELUDES to sola scriptura. The closest you can get is the verse that says ‘scripture is PROFITABLE…’

 

[laurenharper]

What’s funny about this statement is, in my experience, protestants will point to the things that the Catholic Church has done or said or taught, outside the Bible, and use it to say that the Catholic Church is wrong. But they will not look to the things that the Catholic Church has done or said or taught, outside the Bible, to even consider for a moment that the Catholic Church is right. All of a sudden, all that talk becomes “mere Tradition.” :ehh:

How does this play out practically? I mean, God is going to allow potentially each and every individual Church to err, yet, somehow all of them taken together will not err? I suspect in practice, this really amounts to "We’re (e.g.) baptist, and all those who think like us (the invisible Church) will not err, but all these hierarchical Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants with their physical church structures (which we pretend we don’t have) will. Just a nagging suspicion I have based upon experience… Maybe you have a different idea of how that concept plays out.

Well, welcome and glad you’re here! Whether you reconcile with the Catholic Church or not, I’m glad you’re here and contributing to the conversation. I will say a prayer for you at Mass today. Speaking of, better go get in the shower and wake up my wife… God bless!

In my experience, Protestants just aren’t really into the idea of preservation from error. They (I cease to say ‘we’) would quote ‘for ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God’. If we are all fallen and sinnful, in no case should we consider ourselves preserved from error. There are only ‘big ideas’, or main issues, that Christ’s invisible church agrees on (namely, that Jesus is God, and died to save us from our sins). Besides that, it’s impossible to know for absolute sure what is biblical truth…only to take our best guess. We’ll know when Jesus returns, as my mom often says.

Always glad to contribute! Keeps me on my game. =) One last comment. The one pivital problem in all of this is SOLA SCRIPTURA. If ALL we have is the Bible (the protestant bible…ehemmm), then Catholics really aren’t in any better position to argue doctrine than Protestants. With no authority, everything falls apart. If you ask me, THAT is the place to start in a protestant/catholic debate, AND the easiest, since there isn’t a single scripture verse that even ELUDES to sola scriptura. The closest you can get is the verse that says ‘scripture is PROFITABLE…’

By the way, I am finding that I am horrible at using this forum. Not figured out how to make my quotes show up in a shadow seperate from my response…frusterating.

 

[laurenharper]

** TheWhoFreak;5382186**

 

[phummel]

Can you describe your personal relationship with God?

Sure nothing unusual here:

• Spending quality time with Him through prayer. Asking for guidance and forgiveness.
• Giving Him praise through prayer and song.
• Getting to know Him by studying his word.
• Treating his other children with love and kindness.
• Acts of service towards others.
• Sacrificing something of your own for someone else.
• Providing for less fortunate.

Can it get anymore personal than to recieve his body, blood, soul and divinity in the believers own body and soul as “All” Catholics do when we recieve him in his Word, by hearing, In his Love sacrifice by his Eucharist as we are partakers of his divinity from Jesus Sacraments?

I imagine, since I don’t participate in the Eucharist, that this is a deeply personal thing for you.
I wonder if this is at the heart of wanting to keep lay people at a distance.
Please forgive me for dumbing this down…
That is, if the Eucharist is a literal transformation of wine->blood and bread->body, then I imagine only certain people would be qualified to execute the ceremony to make this happen.

How personal is your relationship with God? Is your relationship with God symbolic?

I think it’s quite tangible - He is changing my character.
I think your comment here is focused on the Eucharist.

Catholics dont believe in a symbolic god; We believe in a true eternal living present God through Jesus Christ our advocate who reveals the Father to us, because he is from the Father.

Yes, we agree.

… She is called by Jesus himself and commissioned to go out into all the world make disciples, baptise and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ teach them to OBSERVE ALL that Jesus has commanded his Catholic Church to do (see Matthew 28:18-20).

These things you mention, I feel is a charge for all Christians.
I know we disagree.

Jesus personally commissioned our first pope Peter " PERSONALLY" from John 21:15-19 to “TEND” his flock, by “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”.

Yes, I am familiar with this verse. He also said “follow me”.
I struggle with context - is this a message for Peter and Peter’s life or is it a charge for establishing popery.
I know we disagree.

The Roman Catholic Church is fully human subject to “concupiscence” where she will “never” fail is from her living divinity as the body of Jesus Christ, because Jesus promised to remain with her “always” never to leave her orphaned.

I had to look that up - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence.

The “Fall” of man depends on the contradiction of “wills”, when the human will is opposed to the divine will, which the father of lies the tempter leads man to think is a condition of “FREEDOM”.

I don’t equate Freedom neccessarily with happiness, but rather that our Father gives us the freedom to make mistakes.
Perhaps you are saying that committing sin enslaves us, to which I agree.
Semantics? I’m not sure.

The Catholic Church prays and intercedes from the example of Jesus, “Not my will, but your will be done”.

Yes, ego should not be in the way.

Anyway, Gabriel of 12, thank you for your notes and thoughts.
I didn’t want you to think I was being rude by not responding.

God Bless You.

 

[phummel]

Always glad to contribute! Keeps me on my game. =) One last comment. The one pivital problem in all of this is SOLA SCRIPTURA. If ALL we have is the Bible (the protestant bible…ehemmm), then Catholics really aren’t in any better position to argue doctrine than Protestants. With no authority, everything falls apart. If you ask me, THAT is the place to start in a protestant/catholic debate, AND the easiest, since there isn’t a single scripture verse that even ELUDES to sola scriptura. The closest you can get is the verse that says ‘scripture is PROFITABLE…’

Agreed.
I find that protestant churches even define sola scriptura differently. I think protestants pay lip service to it, but in the end other “sources” creep into their doctrines. Prima scriptura is probably more accurate. For example, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - Scripture, Reason, Tradition, Experience.

Then again, I get the impression some of my Catholic brothers would prefer I didn’t read the Bible at all. There is too much risk of me misinterpreting a verse.

 

[Mikejw]

Gabriel of 12;
Amen, as a Catholic I have all these things you claim to have and more this is not boasting it is giving God the glory for all He has done, and much much much more than you labeled here.

So? is your church the true church that worships the One triune God? how do you know this?
Because I have these blessings in my Catholic faith, just as you do, Do these blessings give me a license to go out and start up my own church to share what God has done in my life? Or do I search for the Church Jesus personally built upon Peter and his apostles? From his revealed Word?

" Or do I search for the Church Jesus personally built upon Peter and his apostles? From his revealed Word?"

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

We need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.

Who is the head of the Church?
Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)
What is the foundation of the Church?
No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Is there any other Rock besides the Lord?
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock, I know not one (Isaiah 44:8).
The church of Jesus Christ is catholic (universal) because it is composed of all the people purchased with His blood from every nation of the world. The church is holy because its members are sanctified by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the Bible.

Every assembly of Christians, the local church, that believes and obeys the teaching of the Bible form part of the one, holy and catholic church of Jesus Christ.

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your incredible ignorance of Church history shows here. Get your facts straight. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian church around intil 1054 A.D. when the Orthodox church was formed. That was the FIRST recognized split from the CC until 1500 A.D.

You know I am going to call you on this one simple statement. When I show you one exception, and there are several several more, please retract your statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_syrindia/doc/i_oo-rc_syrindia_1984.html

We can discuss the other groups if you wish but this one, very well known group, makes your statement incorrect.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

You know I am going to call you on this one simple statement. When I show you one exception, and there are several several more, please retract your statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_syrindia/doc/i_oo-rc_syrindia_1984.html

We can discuss the other groups if you wish but this one, very well known group, makes your statement incorrect.

Forgive me for being unaware of that. However, that still does not change the fact that :The Holy Catholic Church teaches the same things today as it did in Jesus’s time. The writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Saints are in line with the modern doctrine. So actually, how many denominations split and when they split is irrelevant.

I see from your signature that you are a Fundamentalist. From what I know of Fundamentalism the common belief (which I’ll assume you believe as well) of the True Church is that it is the Fundamentalist churches. It states that the True Church was paganized and corrupted in 300 A.D. when Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. This drew pagans to the church and it adopted depraved practices. The True Church then went underground, remaining a small sect of the modern Christian religion. It resurfaced briefly during the Reformation, went back under, and fully revealed itself in the 1920s.
This view of Church history is bogus, to say the least. From all the non-biblical writings we have from the same time period, NONE mention an underground church. You may say that the reason none mentioned it is because, duh, it was underground. I’m fairly sure any members of a church that decided to continue in the shadows would write about this, especially the church officials.
And another thing, why would the Church even allow itself to become paganized? Why would it let go of doctrine that it had so recently been taught to it by Jesus and the Apostles (this is 300 A.D. remember)?

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Or do I search for the Church Jesus personally built upon Peter and his apostles? From his revealed Word?"

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

Peter actually was the head of the Church. There is a reason for him being first in any Biblical list of the Apostles. Anyway, why would Jesus give him the tasks he did in John 21:15-19 if He didn’t mean for Peter to have power? And no, Jesus did not mean his words literally in that passage. It would be silly.

The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

We need not be in any doubt on the basic questions about the Church because the Bible gives us clear answers.

Even so, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven makes me think that Peter was more than an Apostle. Think about it. Giving someone the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven means that that person who posessed them would have the power to save many souls. Many are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Peter was the head.

Who is the head of the Church?
Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)

Christ is the spiritual head of the Church. The Pope (in this instance Peter) is the earthly head of the Church. God left us the Catholic Church as a visible representation of his Grace and Power.

What is the foundation of the Church?
No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

You contradict yourself. You said earlier that the Church was built on Peter’s Confession of Faith. As Catholics, we believe that:

• Peter is the earthly Head of the Church
• The Foundation of the Church is Peter’s Confession of Faith, which we all believe
• Christ Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church, meaning the most important part of an object. In older times the cornerstone was the stone that, without which, a building would fall apart. The Church would fall apart without Jesus. So, here Jesus is more important than the foundation

Is there any other Rock besides the Lord?
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock, I know not one (Isaiah 44:8).
The church of Jesus Christ is catholic (universal) because it is composed of all the people purchased with His blood from every nation of the world. The church is holy because its members are sanctified by the blood of Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles as recorded in the Bible.

You misuse the term Apostolic. Apostolic means that it holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (meaning that the Apostles passed on their teaching authority to their successors in Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Catholic Church) in conjunction with belief in Apostolic teachings.

" Every assembly of Christians, the local church, that believes and obeys the teaching of the Bible form part of the one, holy and catholic church of Jesus Christ.

I disagree. What you describe is known as the Body of Christ. All Christians make up the Body of Christ. Only Catholics make up the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. There is a difference between the Body of Christ and the True Church of Christ.

 

[Matariel]

I would be more concerned with what I say, think, write and do, than being a member of any specific “church”. It is written, that we will be judged by our every word/act/thought, etc. This judgement will be based on the Word of God, witnessed by Christ and The Holy Ghost, to see if our thoughts/words/actions in fact glorify God (The Word). He has no use for boasters, wolves in sheeps clothing, selfishness, hatred, betrayal, back-biters, etc., etc…This forum is filled with high-headedness, none of which, glorifies God.

This is a question-dodge. There was only one Church founded by Christ. Why be a part of a man-made denomination with bits and pieces of truth mixed with error, when you can be a part of the true Church which has the fullness of the Faith? Of course, whether you like it or not, you are imperfectly a part of the Catholic Church if you have been baptised, since Baptism is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church and there is no changing that.

 

[Matariel]

Then again, I get the impression some of my Catholic brothers would prefer I didn’t read the Bible at all. There is too much risk of me misinterpreting a verse.

A strawman arguement. We are taught by the Catholic Church that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. We just have to be mindful of how each verse fits into the larger teachings of the Bible and the Church.

In fact, the Catholic Church is the most Bible-based of all.

 

[phummel]

A strawman arguement. We are taught by the Catholic Church that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. We just have to be mindful of how each verse fits into the larger teachings of the Bible and the Church.

In fact, the Catholic Church is the most Bible-based of all.

No strawman, someone earlier in this thread basically said I had no business interpreting scripture. Maybe reading is different from interpreting?
I appreciate your comment about how verses fit into a larger picture. It’s so easy to take things out of context.

Anyway, I know from the high level scholarship I’ve seen in this forum that many Catholics know the Bible. I’m glad reading of the Bible is encouraged.

God Bless You.

 

[Matariel]

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false.

You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church… and then he gave him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to bind and loose. I don’t know, the evidence is pretty one-sided in favour of the Catholic Church.

Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

Christ is, but he left his earthly head, Peter, to “tend My sheep” “feed my lambs” and so on. He clearly designates Peter as the head of the Apostles and Church, and his successors are the Bishops of Rome today.

The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

I fail to see how the two views are somehow contradictory. Christ did name him as head of the Church Because of his confession. It seems your twisting words again.

Who is the head of the Church?
Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23)

And Peter is His Prime Minister, with the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loosen.

I

s there any other Rock besides the Lord?
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock, I know not one (Isaiah 44:8).

Christ named Peter “Rock”, but only in a vicarious sense as representing Christ, the true Rock. That’s why Peter’s name means “Rock”.

Every assembly of Christians, the local church, that believes and obeys the teaching of the Bible form part of the one, holy and catholic church of Jesus Christ.

Even though they all believe contradictory doctrines and are perpetually divided? This schismatic mindset is condemned by St. Paul. Also, they cannot be a part of the true Church because they hold errant doctrines (even different from one another) but the real Catholic Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” St. Paul says.

 

[Matariel]

No strawman, someone earlier in this thread basically said I had no business interpreting scripture. Maybe reading is different from interpreting?
I appreciate your comment about how verses fit into a larger picture. It’s so easy to take things out of context.

Anyway, I know from the high level scholarship I’ve seen in this forum that many Catholics know the Bible. I’m glad reading of the Bible is encouraged.

God Bless You.

Thanks.

 

[ahollars]

No strawman, someone earlier in this thread basically said I had no business interpreting scripture. Maybe reading is different from interpreting?
I appreciate your comment about how verses fit into a larger picture. It’s so easy to take things out of context.

Anyway, I know from the high level scholarship I’ve seen in this forum that many Catholics know the Bible. I’m glad reading of the Bible is encouraged.

God Bless You.

I am the one who said laypeople have no business interpreting Scripture.

Having said that, it is arrogant for people to believe that one is wiser than all his predecessors. It is equally foolish to accept, with no evidence at all, that the Church somehow corrupted itself, and only through individual resource and the conference of liked-minded men can the truth be found, as if the Catholic Church didn’t do that in it’s first 1000 years.

Especially since Jesus Himself promised that would never happen. After giving Peter the Keys, the very next thing He said was, “The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” And this was not a device left to men, either. He also said after the Resurrection, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

My question to you is, “When did this corruption occur?” What is it that the Catholic Church teaches that is evil, wrong, presumptuous, misguided, incomplete, incorrect, or whatever, and when did this teaching begin? When did what we teach now become different from what was taught by the Early Church Fathers?

The truth is that most Protestants’ problem is the idea of submitting to Rome. Pride is a deadly sin, and we know this. Catholic submission is an act of humility. Every Catholic on this website submits to Rome specifically because we fully admit that we do not know everything, and we never will. On the other hand, for years now, I’ve read Protestant after Protestant admit that they reached their conclusions studying on their own, and that this was proof of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

The Keys to the Kingdom are absolute:

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Scripture is not open to interpretation. The belief that it can be is the reason for all these denominations in the first place. Understanding is not open, either. It is fixed, with one standard that will judge us all. Truth does not change for any reason. Scripture itself says that, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” ~1 Timothy 3:15~

It that makes us Catholics look like blind sheep, well then, so be it. I gladly accept that label. At least I can trust my shepherd. Any herder can tell you that sheep on their own never do well, especially young, inexperienced sheep in small numbers. Remember Luke 15.

And that, my friends, is what it means to be Catholic.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

 

[SemperReformada]

Especially since Jesus Himself promised that would never happen. After giving Peter the Keys, the very next thing He said was, “The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” And this was not a device left to men, either. He also said after the Resurrection, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

Did Jesus give Peter alone the keys? If so, precisely where/when did this occur?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

" Or do I search for the Church Jesus personally built upon Peter and his apostles? From his revealed Word?"

In a sense, the church is built on Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:20) because it is founded on their teaching about Christ. The Roman Catholic claim that the church is built on Peter because he was made the universal bishop of the church is false. Even though he was a prominent apostle, Peter was not considered the head of the whole church. The Vatican teaches that Peter is “the Church’s supreme pastor (shepherd)” (Catechism paragraph 857); but Peter himself would disagree because he identifies Jesus Christ as “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).

Gabriel of 12;
We are fellow citizens with the Holy ones, Members of the household of God; Not all are called to be apostles; So much of scriptural teachings are for the Apostles and their successors in our Bishops and Popes, preists, and deacons when Jesus ordained them to do so. See John 17:16-26 where Jesus consecrates the apostles and prays that they not be taken out of the world, (thus successors to the apostles can only be found in the Catholic Church) protected from the evil one. Jesus prayer to the Father did not go unheeded, but is fulfilled these 2000 years.

Peter is not the universal bishop of the Church, from the pretense that you assume. Peter and his successors is the Bishop of Rome. Peter and his Successors in the unbroken line of Popes on the Chair of Peter, Is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, who alone with the successors to the apostes possess the Keys to the Kingdom.

This authority place over the sheepfold of God does not apply to all the members from the biblical context. So for one laity to claim from the context of scripture that he possesses the Keys to the KIngdom, is a far cry from biblical interpretation. Lets us be realistic here. From a symbolic view of this text, a lay person does possess the keys to the kingdom from his personal life, to bind and loose on a personal level but not from the Universal (Catholic) level of the whole church. Only Peter who is always named first ahead of the apostles throughout scripture along with the apostles and their successors possess the Keys to the Kingdom and Authority to bind and loose.

Jesus is our Shepherd, the Shepherd has gone to heaven to prepare a place for us, but is returning in his “parousia” soon. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him after he resurrected, to feed, tend his flock until he returns along with the Keys to the Kingdom, what Peter binds on earth, Jesus will bind in heaven, what Peter looses on earth Jesus will Loose in heaven. Jesus has not left his church orphaned. He is eternally present in her always just a he promised.

Mikejw;
The rock could refer to Peter’s confession about Christ, the Son of God, as St. Augustine and other Fathers taught. Even the Catholic catechism admits that this meaning is correct. “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ built his Church” (paragraph 424). In either case, the papacy is not proved from Matthew 16.

Gabriel of 12;
Interesting, Jesus named Peter “Kephas” which translates massive “Rock”, Paul and I believe St. Luke calls Peter from their writings the name Jesus gave Peter “Kephas”. So, if Paul calls Peter by the name Jesus gave him. Why do think Jesus was speaking about Peters confession? How do you get that when Jesus renames him “You are Kephas (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build my church”? True the bible does not list all the Popes who succeeded Peter, only 2 popes, then Apostolic Tradition and historical records record all the successors of Peter to today. Both secular historians and religious historians have proven this as fact. When did your church start up, if you are not made aware of this knowledge of historical documentation?

cont.