Case for Church as indefectible, perpetual, Kingdom of God, intended to persist always

[Arandur]

What is the case for the Church being an institution that cannot fail?

I’m wondering how the Catholic Church makes this case from Scripture primarily, but how it is supported by other means, as well.

There are many groups that think that the Church failed, whether into a full apostasy, or as something that had to only persist mystically or whatever. I want to know where we get the case for it being something that God promised would be preserved.

Can we show that promise? Where do we look for the promises, prophecies, etc in Scripture that demonstrate this?

Many of the Scriptures I have seen relating to the Messianic age, and the Kingdom of God, I think are often interpreted by others (who believe the Church failed) as being as-yet unfulfilled, or that the Church isn’t the Kingdom of God.

How strong is that case? What would you use to make it? What references?

I intend to examine these critically, from a “Devil’s Advocate” view from the other side, to see how those who disagree might look at these…

 

[vivnes]

“Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages.” (Vatican Council I, Session 4, Ch. 2)

“No other state will succeed the state of the New Law…Nothing can approach nearer to the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being brought to the last end.” (St. Thomas Aquinas; STh I-II, q. 106, a. 4)

“All authority has been given to me…Go therefore and teach all nations…and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20) The Church has always understood this to mean the “infallible assistance” of Christ “until the end of the world as absolutely future. To the word “lo” (in greek) Zorell rightly says, ‘What is promised is stated vigorously to be very important’” (Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 300)

“He will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever even the Spirit of Truth, who will be in you…” (Jn 14:16f.)

The teaching cited from Vatican I is also futher explained by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Satis cognitum”.

 

[rightness]

We look to Matthew 16:13-19 for that answer.

When Peter declares Jesus as Christ, the Son of the living God in verse 16, Jesus would return the gesture by changing Peter’s name and declaring that He will build His Church on Peter in verse 18, and the gates of Hades (or hell) will not prevail upon it. Since hell or Satan signifies death, Jesus promises that the Church He builds on Peter, as the foundation, will never fail. Also, Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, exclusively, and the power to bind and loose, which we call infallibility.

That’s why we simply need to trust in Jesus.

Now, it becomes more complex as protestants would play word games to refute this point, using Greek terminology Petros (male version of rock, means little rock) and Petra (female version of rock, means big rock or mountain). Here’s a few points that shows that Peter is really the foundation of the living Church.

1. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek - The word for rock in Aramaic is Cephas, and there is no male or female versions of rock in Aramaic. This point is shown further to be true as Paul would refer to Peter as Cephas, an example in Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.”
2. Daniel’s Prophecy - Let’s just take the previous protestant position as true for the sake of the argument. Even if Peter was “little rock” Petros, Daniel’s Prophecy foretells of such a little rock in Daniel 2:34-35.

As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces; then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

Now the stone is a small rock, and it was cut out by no human hand meaning it was God’s work. The images of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold are attributed to pagan gods. The stone grew so big that destroyed the pagan gods and filled the Earth with worship of the Church that Jesus built. The Catholic Church is truly universal with the word spread across all continents to fulfill this prophecy.

 

[rightness]

1. Peter’s name changed… TWICE! - There is a protestant argument that Jesus was pointing out that Peter is just a little rock, and Jesus was using Peter to juxtapose Himself that Jesus is the big rock which He will build the Church on Himself. Now, knowing the significance of name changes in the old testament, like Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel, this simply doesn’t fit the Biblical context.

Now, we often only think of the significance of changing Simon to Peter, which brought about the “rock” wordplay that I had argued away in the points above, but there is actually a second name change that is often overlooked that is even more significant. Peter is the son of John (John 21:15, and not John the apostle obviously, it’s a popular name), but Jesus would change that in Matthew 16:17.

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Now, Bar-Jona means Son of Jonah. For context, the Pharisees demanded a sign from Jesus earlier in Matthew 16, and Jesus replied that there will only be the sign of Jonah in verse 4. If you read the short book of Jonah, the whale story and the conversion of Nineveh, the wicked city. Jesus is a type of Jonah meaning Jonah prefigures the work of Jesus. What this means is that Jesus will also perform an extraordinary conversion of wicked people. Back to the point, Simon Bar-Jona is basically Jesus telling Peter that Peter is His son. This is extremely significant to show how important Peter is to Jesus’s ministry, and Peter would fulfill this role as the Son of Jonah by going straight to Rome, the pagan centre of the world, and converting the Roman Empire.

Now, I would go into the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose, but that’s not related. I just want to say that Jesus spent a vast majority of His ministry to prepare his disciples, and particularly Peter, to take over when Jesus leaves the world. To disregard Peter’s role is simply to disrespect Jesus’s work.

Edit: I want to add one more thing. Notice it’s the “Gates” of Hades. Now it’s the gates and not some army because not only will the Church never die, but it will be on the offensive against Hell, so Hell will be on the defensive. In current times, we should remember that we need to proclaim God’s word and be on the offensive against the wickedness of Satan because Satan will not prevail against the Church.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks!

What about the argument that passages like what you reference (Jn 14, Matt 28) can be interpreted just to apply to people personally? That people receive the personal gift of the Spirit of Truth, or that Jesus will always be with those who believe in him, and thus those are fulfilled by personal relationship and not by the Church?

For non-Catholics, the Catholic references (Vatican I, St. Thomas) wouldn’t be considered authoritative and might just be dismissed.

 

[Arandur]

What about those who would say that the Church lost its way, fell away (apostatized)? So that whatever may have been given to Peter, they would claim it was lost?

I do think Daniel’s prophecies are pretty powerful, but people can also get bogged down in the symbolism and competing interpretations, just as they get bogged down in Revelation. And then you have to fend off the accusations that the “little horn” and other passages actually refer to the Catholic Church, which can get ugly, just because there are so many propagandized interpretations making out Revelation (and by extension, parts of Daniel) to accuse the Church.

I think the succession of the kingdoms is pretty powerful, because chronologically I don’t think there’s any way to avoid the last kingdom before the Messianic era being Rome, and that Rome would be effectively conquered by the Messiah and taken over.

However, many non-Catholics I think just basically say that none of these prophecies are fulfilled yet. That references to Christ’s “everlasting kingdom” or reign or whatever just haven’t happened yet.

What would responses to these objections be?

 

[vivnes]

Saint Patrick said it well: Be converted by faith with all your heart to the Lord my God. (Confessions, 19) In the Catechism, beginning of Part two, it says, what the faith professes, the sacraments communicate. By this we see the remedy of our words amiss. The supplement of sacramental medicine converts the heart to believe the truth in all aspects including authority. Any concession to a lower ‘cafeteria’ notion would be profane and a scandal.

 

[Arandur]

And yet they can say the same: believe us and then you’ll understand. It seems like a recipe for entrenchment, not pursuit of truth. One needs to get as far as belief/assent, and receiving the Sacraments, for what you say. How does one get to that point?

I agree that the Holy Spirit is who converts, but we can still dialogue and are called to sow seeds or prepare the ground. So what seeds can be sown, what other notions can be cleared, that faith and reason can work together?

 

[rightness]

What about those who would say that the Church lost its way, fell away (apostatized)? So that whatever may have been given to Peter, they would claim it was lost?

I do think Daniel’s prophecies are pretty powerful, but people can also get bogged down in the symbolism and competing interpretations, just as they get bogged down in Revelation. And then you have to fend off the accusations that the “little horn” and other passages actually refer to the Catholic Church, which can get ugly, just because there are so many propagandized interpretations making out Revelation (and by extension, parts of Daniel) to accuse the Church.

I think the succession of the kingdoms is pretty powerful, because chronologically I don’t think there’s any way to avoid the last kingdom before the Messianic era being Rome, and that Rome would be effectively conquered by the Messiah and taken over.

However, many non-Catholics I think just basically say that none of these prophecies are fulfilled yet. That references to Christ’s “everlasting kingdom” or reign or whatever just haven’t happened yet.

What would responses to these objections be?

I think it’s still answered by Jesus’s promise that the “Gates of Hades will not prevail against it”.

The idea of Peter as the foundation of the Church, you have to imagine it in literal terms: a church built on rock, like what one of Jesus’s parables taught. If the foundation is no longer there, then the Church is gone, like if an earthquake broke apart the foundation, the building can’t be support and gets destroyed.

If protestant claim is to say that the Petrine succession is lost is to say that Jesus broke his promise and the Church He built is destroyed. There has to be a Pope or there is no Church.

It’s the same argument against the Sedevacantists who say the seat is vacant to justify how they reconcile with that promise. They’re going to be waiting a long time.

 

[vivnes]

Pope Benedict XVI, during his years as a professor, elucidated the fact the Kingdom of God is the cross, hence it is read This is the King of the Jews above his divine head. St. Paul says we preach Christ crucified as the wisdom that compels the elect from the world into the Kingdom. This example of life of carrying one’s cross daily as Jesus said, dieing daily as St. Paul said will draw men to the Godhead from the anti-church.

No bunker fire from the standpoint of the well lived cross