Church made up of "all believers regardless of denomination?"

[Erich]

Your method of proof is first to establish the Bible as infallible, for otherwise how could we conclude anything it might say about the Church is true?

Guess you didn’t actually follow the Proving Inspiration link, otherwise you’d have seen this:

We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Please tell my why the Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone the sole rule. It reduces to the question of why non-Catholics accept the Bible as inspired, since the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is first held to be inspired and, thus, inerrant.

 

[Erich]

I do deny that it has the same authority, powers and infallibility as the Apostles had or that such succession is necessary to the validity of a Protestant minister.

The word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15) Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.

That said, are you certain that the pastor who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

By what authority does your pastor claim his office? By succession? If so, he must demonstrate that he was called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office (i.e. a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation – of inferior authority – cannot confer superior authority upon a man). By extraordinary calling? If so, then he must show the required signs and wonders that authenticate his ministry. Even Jesus submitted to this proof-test; how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What is this except the Church saying that it has infallible authority simply because it says so. How do we know that it has it? The Church says that the Bible says so. But we can’t know the Bible until the Church first has the authority to determine the Bible. This is a circular argument. It would be similar to me writing a letter saying that I am the King of Siam and then pointing to that letter as proof that I am. Then because the letter says that I am the King of Siam I have the authority to write the letter. And round it goes.

Bringing in Tradition doesn’t help either. First, how do we know that Tradition is authoritative? Because the Bible tells us so, but then we are back in a similar circle.

Maybe we know the Church and Tradition are authoritative because Jesus told us they were. How do we know if Jesus said this? Well we can’t use the Bible as authoritative yet because we still don’t know the Church has the authority to define canon. And we can’t use the Bible to give authority to Tradition for the same reason. Does Tradition give the Church authority? Even if it does how do we know what Tradition is? Because the Church telling us it does, but that still begs the question of knowing the Church has the authority to tell us that.

**Sy Carl, I will only tell you what convinced me of my doubts. I studied the first century church fathers, these gave me testimony about what the apostles taught and handed down to already existing Catholic Church.

I was amazed, on how they went to their Martyrdom, for their belief in the True presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I also found many of them battled heretics, and followed the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). Their writings and teachings about the sacraments and scripture, and sacred tradition are a must read. If you like I could recommend some reading materials?

You raise an interesting thought provoking subject, that I hope to discuss with you more. We can start with the early church saints and martyrs, who gave witness to the teachings, and authority of what you question, then the scriptures followed by the catechism of the Catholic Church you will find that sacred tradition and sacred scripture go together, to me its like the divine meeting humanity, like Jesus incarnation" Its remarkable". I hope to find you on this thread later.

Peace be with you. **

 

[Chellow]

I am not in denial at all. Far be it from me to deny Catholic belief that their present hierarchy are in direct line of succession from the Apostles. I do deny that it has the same authority, powers and infallibility as the Apostles had or that such succession is necessary to the validity of a Protestant minister.

So you are insinuating the Church is not telling the truth of it’s authority?

 

[peary]

bengal_fan wrote:

*protestants separate catholic and “roman catholic” (the same way the orthodox do). the catholic church is the one church made up of all believers. the roman catholic church is one branch of that, centered in rome and headed up by the pope.

we would read this creed and say, “of course, that is what the catholic (meaning one or universal) church teaches. and, as i am a member of the catholic church, i believe it.”

you are assuming that whenever some one says catholic they mean roman catholic. *

**Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). **

So, when people use the term ‘catholic’ with another meaning than what it is supposed to intend are reinterpreting the word’s meaning according to a modern preference. ‘Catholic’ means exactly what it means in its original context when referring to the Church, not by one’s own notion or the ‘protestant’ notion of what the term once meant or of what it ought to mean.

 

[mozart-250]

Guess you didn’t actually follow the Proving Inspiration link, otherwise you’d have seen this:

Where this argument breaks down is here

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

I just don’t get how a non-Catholic can read the Bible as a historical document and believe on the basis of the Bible alone that Jesus Christ founded a church that was incapable of being incorrect.

Yes, I know the Catholic arguments from Scripture. But remember this is a non Catholic that is reading the Bible. Your non-Catholic is somehow supposed to make the leap from “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” to “incapable of being incorrect”.

The problem is that the two phrases are not equivalent and I just doubt whether anyone that is reading the Bible from a position of neutrality would make this leap.

 

[peary]

You are absolutely wrong in your assumptions. Show me where Scripture depicts anything remotely close to what the Roman church is today. How many times does Jesus have to say it in the Gospels? How many times does Paul have to preach it? You don’t want to see it although it is there. Show me sound proof that the Roman church is the one and only.

Hey, YOU are the one who is challenging it. YOU show us so-called ‘proof’ historically that the Catholic Church is NOT the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.

 

[peary]

Where this argument breaks down is here

I just don’t get how a non-Catholic can read the Bible as a historical document and believe on the basis of the Bible alone that Jesus Christ founded a church that was incapable of being incorrect.

Yes, I know the Catholic arguments from Scripture. But remember this is a non Catholic that is reading the Bible. Your non-Catholic is somehow supposed to make the leap from “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” to “incapable of being incorrect”.

The problem is that the two phrases are not equivalent and I just doubt whether anyone that is reading the Bible from a position of neutrality would make this leap.

**Actually, for a practicing Catholic Christian, the non-Catholic is not our problem; it is an issue for the nonCatholic, and it is up to the nonCatholic to see our position in this, not the other way around, although I can sympathize with his/her predicament.

 

[deacon_d]

Guess you didn’t actually follow the Proving Inspiration link, otherwise you’d have seen this:

Please tell my why the Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone the sole rule. It reduces to the question of why non-Catholics accept the Bible as inspired, since the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is first held to be inspired and, thus, inerrant.

I think Paul explains this best:

2 Timothy 3:15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

Are you suggesting that if the Bible never existed or was completely destroyed and unavailable we’d still have the church today?? I don’t think so. This is where the Bible is so great and if you ever researched how it has survived you would obviously see GOD’s complete intervention. This was done purposely by GOD so that we wouldn’t be taking the words of men. Who’s word is more reliable, mere men or GOD??

Think of it this way. Play the game where you line 20 people up. Whisper in the first person’s ear “Jesus is Lord, pass it on”. Watch what the last person says. Now magnify that by 2000 years. Anyone who believes we would have received a consistent message from 2000 years ago by word of mouth only is definitely smoking something they shouldn’t.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

The word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15) Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.

Don’t bend scripture to justify a position.

Definition of Apostle:

1. Literally: One sent forth; a messenger.

Now let’s look at Pauls’ complete message:
Romans 10: 13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[g]
14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is why the Scriptures say, “How beautiful are the feet of messengers who bring good news!”[h]

Paul is saying that you can’t confess Jesus to be your savior unless you know about him. So in order to know about HIM someone has to go and physically tell them. He’s not using the word sent to confirm authority. It’s like saying “hey the people in Alaska don’t know about Jesus”. Well I guess someone better go and tell them.

I travel to Alaska to spread the good news of Jesus. Someone says who sent you? I say the Roman Catholic church? They say who the heck is the Roman Catholic church? So then I say Pope Benedict. They say who the heck is Pope Benedict? So then I finally say GOD sent me. They so OHH. When the messenger went to spread the good news they never announced themselves as being sent by the Apostles. They announced in the name of Christ.

This was actually a problem the churches had in the beginning because they started following the messenger that came to preach and or that baptized them. This ultimately resulted in the divisions that Paul speaks of in his letter to the Corinthians.

12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,[d]” or “I follow only Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not!

Now the Catholic church follows the succesor of Peter. Isn’t that in direct contradiction to Paul???

That said, are you certain that the pastor who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

Our Elders appoint our head Pastor. What qualities do we use? The same ones Paul outlined in HIS letter. Where do we get those? The Bible.

By what authority does your pastor claim his office? By succession? If so, he must demonstrate that he was called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office (i.e. a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation – of inferior authority – cannot confer superior authority upon a man). By extraordinary calling? If so, then he must show the required signs and wonders that authenticate his ministry. Even Jesus submitted to this proof-test; how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?

By your statement here you are saying that every church in the world had leaders who were appointed by a higher authority. OK, we believe the Holy Spirit guided our Pastor to us. Why do we believe this? Because our church has never flourished so much in a 10 year period. You want testimony:

In the last 2 years alone we’ve baptized almost 600 people into Christ. 15% of those people were baptized previously and decided to re-dedicate their lives to Christ. The remaining 85% were completely unchurched and never knew Christ. Is that satan really at work hard in our church to lead us away from Christ?? I’d say we got it right. Our authority is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does work outside the Roman Catholic church. Very well as a matter of fact.

If you want a sign that it was the Holy Spirit or proof. I’ll remind you to familiarize yourself with how Jesus responded when forced to give a sign.

PEACE.

 

[Chellow]

Where this argument breaks down is here

I just don’t get how a non-Catholic can read the Bible as a historical document and believe on the basis of the Bible alone that Jesus Christ founded a church that was incapable of being incorrect.

Yes, I know the Catholic arguments from Scripture. But remember this is a non Catholic that is reading the Bible. Your non-Catholic is somehow supposed to make the leap from “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” to “incapable of being incorrect”.

The problem is that the two phrases are not equivalent and I just doubt whether anyone that is reading the Bible from a position of neutrality would make this leap.

Well I take the bible as historically and inspired, I believe that Christ commissioned the church in Mt 16:18-19 and in Jn 14:16, 26 he guides us and will not leave us orphans. That the Church is a visible body as in Mt 18:17 and that it’s the pillar and foundation of truth as in 1Tim 3:15. That its member can sin against God, but still be anointed as Moses and Aaron where. I believe that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church Mt 16:18., that we are to have blind obedience to the Church because in Matthew 16:19 whatsoever the Church shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever the Church shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Deacon110]

[/Quot]

This can make for an outstanding good-natured debate. This may be a little lengthy so be nice I’m brand new.

I would agree 100% with what J.N.D. Kelly wrote. We can’t assert this notion of an invisible church. That makes no sense. Someone says please show me Christ’s church, I say “well gee umm you see it’s invisible and kind of looks like well umm” you get my point. We need to be able to point to a physical thing. So then we have to define what the church visibly is. To be simple it’s followers of Christ (stay with me here and refrain from hitting quote to refute me). So in essence if someone would say where is the church I would point to myself and say right here. Not me alone but I’m part of it.

The problem we ultimately run into and one we cannot avoid is the label we place on it. This is where the word Catholic causes the conversation to drop off the proverbial 10,000 foot cliff with a large SPLAT similar to that of Wile E Coyote’s pursuit of the famous road runner I find humor helps keep it real.

For the Protestant he/she will always argue for the connotation universal. For the Roman Catholic they most assuredly will point to Rome with all it’s successors around the world. If someone had no knowledge at all they would wonder why Rome. The best answer we can give is that Peter ended his evangelistic life there. You may include Paul but let’s face it, Paul was on his way to Spain with the intent of only stopping off in Rome. Unfortunately he was being put on trial and his claim of being a Roman citizen landed him in Rome with his ultimate demise (be-heading) as we have been led to believe.

But the church did not originate in Rome and has no foundation there at all. So then one has to ask why did Peter go to Rome. Many historians believe it was perhaps to help Paul. Others believe he found out Paul was be-headed and wanted to make sure his work didn’t die off. But most likely and I could be wrong, Peter went to Rome because it was the political epicenter of the world. If Rome would convert then Christianity would flourish. Now given the events over time I would say we all can agree the Holy Spirit was at work guiding Peter for sure. There’s no doubt that Christianity had large success because of the ultimate conversion of Rome. Now the question that comes into play is, could the church have become corrupt at any point in time? The answer has to ultimately be yes. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit protects the church from corruption, but merely guides the church through the corruption. Teachings are not infallible if someone is corrupt and no man is infallible.

Can we argue that a man or group of men can be infallible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?? Sure but why just THAT group or one man? The Holy Spirit guides us all. Why can’t I be infallible if I claim the Holy Spirit is truly guiding me?? Let’s say I claim the Holy Spirit guided me to help the poor. Is that infallible?? Sure why not. It is for this reason that I have a slight objection to the office of the Pope and the teaching magisterium. We assume they are guided by the Holy Spirit because they are a part of the Church and the Church cannot be infallible in it’s teachings. But that’s the key though. They are only but 1 tiny piece of the church. And remember what happens when you assume If they are corrupt at all then the teachings can become corrupt. Hence the Protestant will argue the Holy Spirit sent the reformers to do a “course correction” if you will. Not arguing for correctness by the way. Just good points of debate.

The Roman Catholic would ask as I used to, why would the church become corrupt? The answer is why would any organization become corrupt? Power, money etc. I think we all would be naive if we didn’t think that type of corruption could creap into the Roman Catholic church. Again the Holy Spirit doesn’t prevent it like a large piece of teflon. One only need to look at the behavior of some of our previous Popes to see the plain corruption that existed. And in fact there is still plenty of corruption today in and out of the Roman Catholic church. I’m going to throw this to every denomination out there. We see sexual abuse of young boys, embezzlement of church funds you name it. Again I’m pointing these to all denominations. The priest that married my wife and I turned out to be gay and a heavy user of Cocaine. Someone I knew for over 25 years.

But notice something amazing. Through all this corruption and division, we as Christian Brothers and Sisters will never deny Christ and the basics of church teachings:

• HE was born of the virgin Mary
• HE was GOD’s only begotten SON
• HE died on the Cross
• HE paid the one-time price for our salvation
• HE left us the Holy Spirit
• HE commmands us to be Baptized
• HE asks that we do this in remembrance of HIM (Lord’s supper)
• HE was resurrected
• HE promises eternal life

Those core beliefs if you will, will never change amongst us Christians. We will argue forever on some of the minor points that are written. Where does Mary fit, do we pray for the dead, do we ask the dead to intercede etc. I would say there are some things we will just have to wait for GOD to clarify.

So then what’s my proposed solution?? I’ve always wondered why we don’t revert back to using the council forum with inclusion of all denominations. But with greater frequency I might add. Why not once a year or whatever it takes. At least let’s show some unity. I’m always disheartened when a Muslim tells me that we Christians can’t even get along. This from a group that claims we have corrupted the original Bible but then can’t produce a single copy or one page from that original to suffice their claim.

Also remember this folks. 6 billion in the world. 2 billion Christians. 66% of the world just isn’t getting it. This from just a very humble Deacon.

PEACE

 

[mozart-250]

Well I take the bible as historically and inspired, I believe that Christ commissioned the church in Mt 16:18-19 and in Jn 14:16, 26 he guides us and will not leave us orphans. That the Church is a visible body as in Mt 18:17 and that it’s the pillar and foundation of truth as in 1Tim 3:15. That its member can sin against God, but still be anointed as Moses and Aaron where. I believe that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church Mt 16:18., that we are to have blind obedience to the Church because in Matthew 16:19 whatsoever the Church shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever the Church shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Yup.

But the argument made was based on the church being “incapable of being incorrect”.

None of these Scriptures indicate the church is “incapable of being incorrect”. The best one might infer is that the church is “authoritative”.

Furthermore, none of these Scriptures points to a denomination as being the church.

 

[peary]

**Deacon110 wrote:
Those core beliefs if you will, will never change amongst us Christians. We will argue forever on some of the minor points that are written. Where does Mary fit, do we pray for the dead, do we ask the dead to intercede etc. I would say there are some things we will just have to wait for GOD to clarify.

I don’t consider the Eucharist to be a “minor point.” In fact, it is THE point in the Catholic Church. As for the other things (i.e., Mary, praying for the dead, intercession of the saints, etc.), these beliefs have been clarified by God - through His Church.**

 

[Deacon110]

Deacon110 wrote:
Those core beliefs if you will, will never change amongst us Christians. We will argue forever on some of the minor points that are written. Where does Mary fit, do we pray for the dead, do we ask the dead to intercede etc. I would say there are some things we will just have to wait for GOD to clarify.

I don’t consider the Eucharist to be a “minor point.” In fact, it is THE point in the Catholic Church. As for the other things (i.e., Mary, praying for the dead, intercession of the saints, etc.), these beliefs have been clarified by God - through His Church.

You’re assuming the clarification has been made. Even if it was we can’t assume it was understood correctly and then in turn taught infallibly. If the church was ever to be found in error she would never admit it because it would then become a house of cards. The church was never deemed to be infallible in her teachings. Just that the gates of hell would not prevail. Christ surely knew that there would be corruption. Corruption leads to fallible teachings. It is when we see through the fallible teachings that we (the church) stay grounded in our Faith to Christ. If we allow the fallible teachings to drive us away then satan has won.

PEACE

 

[SolaFide]

The “true” church is an organism NOT an organization. All true believers in Yeshua HaMashiach are part of the true church.

Step away from the Augustinian Greco-Roman interpretation of the Scriptures and get back to the Hebraic interpretation of the Scriptures and these arguments will all be moot!

Here’s a good place to start:
howardmorganministries.com/

 

[Chellow]

Well I take the bible as historically and inspired, I believe that Christ commissioned the church in Mt 16:18-19 and in Jn 14:16, 26 he guides us and will not leave us orphans. That the Church is a visible body as in Mt 18:17 and that it’s the pillar and foundation of truth as in 1Tim 3:15. That its member can sin against God, but still be anointed as Moses and Aaron where. I believe that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church Mt 16:18., that we are to have blind obedience to the Church because in Matthew 16:19 whatsoever the Church shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever the Church shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Yup.

But the argument made was based on the church being “incapable of being incorrect”.

None of these Scriptures indicate the church is “incapable of being incorrect”. The best one might infer is that the church is “authoritative”.

Furthermore, none of these Scriptures points to a denomination as being the church.

I see by your yub you agree with what I stated, but don’t you see if the Church has the power to bind and to loosen whatsoever on earth and heaven, that’s the greatest authority that God can give to the Church (Matthew 16:19). With this authority the Church can rule with an ion rod (Psa 2:9).

 

[Deacon110]

Chellow:
I see by your yub you agree with what I stated, but don’t you see if the Church has the power to bind and to loosen whatsoever on earth and heaven, that’s the greatest authority that God can give to the Church (Matthew 16:19). With this authority the Church can rule with an ion rod (Psa 2:9).

If I may just add one tidbit to the conversation. The power to bind and loose was not just given to the Apostles as is noted in Matthew 16. This is a problematic argument which would imply only church leadership has this authority. Jesus repeats this in Matthew 18.

If Your Brother Sins Against You
Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed [6] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

It appears that Jesus is not only extending this to the entire church. But also to you and me individually wanting us all to hold one another accountable. This would make sense given Jesus clear distaste for ruling authorities as we see in the following verse:

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I don’t think Jesus wants anyone to rule with an iron rod as you say. Sorry to interupt

PEACE

 

[Harpazo]

The “true” church is an organism NOT an organization. All true believers in Yeshua HaMashiach are part of the true church.

Step away from the Augustinian Greco-Roman interpretation of the Scriptures and get back to the Hebraic interpretation of the Scriptures and these arguments will all be moot!

Here’s a good place to start:
howardmorganministries.com/

Shlomo

Please read the OP again. Where is this belief in Scripture at all or Church history?

Different sects of Protestantism believe differently in what defines a “true believer.”

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

If I may just add one tidbit to the conversation. The power to bind and loose was not just given to the Apostles as is noted in Matthew 16. This is a problematic argument which would imply only church leadership has this authority. Jesus repeats this in Matthew 18.

It appears that Jesus is not only extending this to the entire church. But also to you and me individually wanting us all to hold one another accountable. This would make sense given Jesus clear distaste for ruling authorities as we see in the following verse:

Shlomo!

At first it might look like that passage is against Christ given the keys to solely Peter, but you must take it into context with the verses before and after it. Christ gave St. Peter the eminent power over the Church and He also gave power to the apostles as well. You have to also look into the totality of the New Testament as well. Here’s what I said on another post:

Examining Luke 22:31-32

Τα βιβλιά ελληνικά 22
31Σίμων Σίμων ιδού ο Σατανας εξήτησατο υμας του σινιάσαι ως τον σιτον. 32 Εγώ δέ εδεήθην περί σου ινα μη εκλήπι η πίστις σου, και εσύ ποτε επιστρεψας στήρισον τους αδελφούς σου.

Douay Rheims: 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Vulgate: 31 Ait autem Dominus Simon Simon ecce Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum. 32 Ego autem rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos

In the Greek, the word “υμας” meaning “you” (plural). While “σου” is “you” (singular). It’s very clear that Christ is protecting Peter’s faith here, allowing it not to fail. Why else would Christ do this if the Church was not founded upon him?

The phrase in verse 32 “Εγώ δέ εδεήθην περί σου ινα μη εκλήπι η πίστις σου” literally means " I begged for you that not fail the your faith." Clearly, Christ is saying that Peter’s faith will not fail and he will lead the Church on Earth until Christ comes. Granted, that last sentence isn’t in there verbatim, Christ is again promising Peter as He did in St. Matthew 16:18-19.

Many Protestants (and Orthodox, too) are in denial about this, and understandable so. If they were to admit to it, their faith would come crumbling down.

If you notice, in St. Matthew 18:18, the keys are given to the other Apostles.

Alaha Minokhoun
Andrew