No–I don’t care about people changing churches–keep the church you have, but I disagree with the understanding that Peter was the rock who was being referred to by Christ and I demonstrated why from the Bible with very clear references to what Peter understood and knew, and that is why I feel strongly about the issue since it means divided “loyalties” or a “house divided against itself” in that Christ must be viewed as the Rock in order for humankind to have sufficient faith in Him to repent through His grace, to seek personal revelation to guide in their own personal sanctification, and not think the “pope” has some authority that divides their loyalty between either (1) Christ or (2) Peter and “his successors”. (Choose one or the other–not both. Having both is tantamount to losing the power of faith necessary to access the full power of His grace.)
Again–I have not the slightest interest in anyone changing church affiliation based on anything I have written at any point in any of these forums, but I think people can pull out the Bible, read the references, think for themselves, and figure out that Christ and Peter were using the foundation of the Old Testament to teach a continuing doctrine and not a new doctrine, which continuing doctrine is that Christ is the Rock, always, and has never been replaced nor has the key of David been given to someone else.
The issue here is not “apostasy”, but the issue is that Christ and His grace and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit are essential to the process of sanctification, and those aspects of His gospel are what enable the gates of hell to be opened, the prisoners to be set free from their prison both here on earth and in the spirit world, and the ultimate triumph that is promised in the Book of Revelation.
I am with everyone else on here in wondering just what you imagine you’re arguing against. It seems you’ve set up a strawman, that you’re attacking a belief that Peter replaces Christ. That’s not the Catholic belief at all. It shows total ignorance of all Catholic doctrine regarding the Petrine See.
Christ is the “cornerstone.” This is the first stone laid, the crucial one for providing the guide to the rest of the foundation, indeed for the whole structure. And Christ himself is the new builder of HIS Church (which term, “Church,” is always used to inherently mean “Christ’s Church”).
Yet Christ chooses others to participate in his Kingdom. Like the Davidic King, he appoints ministers (the office of apostle/bishop), and sets one of those as the effective prime minister as final appeal for the other ministers while the King is away. We see this participation of others throughout the Scriptures. Indeed, the Apostles are several times referred to as the “foundation” of the Church. Does that supplant Jesus? Nope. It glorifies him, for he has used and transformed such weak humans through his own power, incorporating them into his own Church and Body. Our weaknesses prove that his solid foundation is a product of HIS glory, not our own. It is proof that HE is the one that works
through us. Indeed, Catholics understand that even our most sacred Sacraments come not by any power of the priests themselves, but solely through and by Christ’s power. They merely act, as properly appointed, in persona Cristi.
Is it any wonder that those appointed to carry Christ’s message and called to be like him would share similarly in his imagery (being “foundation,” with one leader among them as particular “Rock” by his very name)? There is no divided house here, just one house built of stone, incorporating many into the Body, and some with particular roles.
The position of Christ’s servants in no way detracts from his own glory, and Catholics understand that. So I really fail to see your point. You seem to be quixotically attacking something that exists only in your imagination.
What’s more disheartening to me is how you can insist that Christ must be the rock and cornerstone and yet prove an unstable foundation upon which the Church HE builds fails. It seems Christ is the fool who builds on shifting sand, not anticipating the storms his Church would face. It seems he is the laughingstock who sets out building his tower without counting the cost.
This is what I find so offensive about any idea of total apostasy. It blasphemes in almost every way against Jesus himself, making him the butt of his own parables and turning him into a liar, oathbreaker, adulterer, abandoner, failure, weaker than the Adversary.
In the case of the Smithian religions, it does all this in favor of the words of a simple MAN. As even Smithian leaders have attested, all this house of cards is built on the testimony of a MAN. And you accuse others of following “traditions of men?”
I choose to be a part of the Church established by Christ, because God chose me to be a part of His Universal Family and Kingom and I accept. How can I turn away from Him? How can I distrust the Gospel He preached, or reject the Apostles He sent (for rejecting them, Jesus said, was rejecting Christ and the Father)? How can I accept, instead, another gospel, despite warnings against just that (whether it was Arian’s, Montanus’s, Mohammed’s, or Mohammed’s recent repetitor Joseph Smith’s)? How can I accept a different message claimed to be sent by an angel, when I have been warned in the Scriptures against exactly that, warned that indeed, angels of darkness masquerade as those of light?
There is far more in the Scriptures warning exactly and very clearly and directly against false prophets and teachings like Joseph Smith than there is that even hints at anything like a total apostasy of the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
