Of all the many movements within Protestantism, among the most disturbing is the notion that one can have Jesus but does not need the Church. In order for this to be true, one must separate the bridegroom from the bride. This is impossible:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:25, 29-32 RSVCE)
So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6 RSVCE)
But why is the Church necessary? What did Jesus do on earth that he commissioned his apostles and their successors to do that is so important to us? What flows from the head of the church to His body and how does it get there? I’m going to focus on the source and summit of the Christian life: the sacrament of unity that we call the Eucharist.
For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. (1 Corinthians 12:12, 14-20 NASB)
Evidently, Paul was acutely aware of the unity of head and body and parts of the body with one another. There should be no division of the head from the body and the parts of the body from each other. But, think about it! Our salvation is not just of the soul. It is body AND soul. Everybody needs nourishment to grow and reach its full potential — both body and soul. St. Clement of Alexandria wrote:
“Eat my flesh” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3).
In Brant Pitre’s Bridegroom Messiah we read:
… [J]ust as Eve was given life by the miraculous gift of flesh from Adam, the first bridegroom, so too the Church — the bride of Jesus — receives her life through the twofold gift: the “living water” of the Holy Spirit that is given in baptism and the living “blood” of Jesus that is received in the Eucharist. And just as natural life was given to Eve, and, through Eve, to all humanity, through the flesh from the side of Adam, so supernatural life is given to the Church through the water and blood from the side of Jesus the Bridegroom.
The life of the Bride of Christ, one with the Bridegroom, receives her life and existence from Him and through the sacrament of unity — the Holy Eucharist — we grow in the fullness of life and unity. When we consider Jesus’ final prayer on Holy Thursday, this makes sense. Perfect unity can only come through being a partaker of perfect unity.
And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one …. (John 17:22-23 DRA)
We can only become the supernatural body of Christ by partaking in the supernatural body of Christ. We can only partake of the supernatural body of Christ though the very sacrament of unity he left us in His Church — the Holy Eucharist.
42 thoughts on “You Can’t Have Jesus Without the Church”
Can one “have Jesus but not the church?” Not really. If we are in union with Christ, the head, then we are necessarily also connected to his body, the church. “Christ utterly identifies with his people,” says Sam Allberry. “Neglecting the church is neglecting Jesus.”
By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/
Pingback: Pastoral Sharings: "Fifth Sunday of Lent" | St. John
About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter. – St. Joan of Arc
Unfortunately protestants complicated the matter by trying to separate Jesus from His Church, the Catholic Church but as stated previously the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - BigPulpit.com
Where do the Scriptures teach that the church is to have a pope as the head of the church?
Are you also claiming that your church has “perfect unity”?
To Peter Jesus Christ said, “…And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
The unity of the Church exists in that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic.
If the church is founded on a man then there is no sure foundation. It is best to understand that Christ was referring to Peter’s confession about Christ since only Christ can sustain the church. Also, He is the builder of it.
Jay, the Church is founded BY Christ. But, look here:
Eph. 2:20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,r with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.*
Second, in John 1:42, Jesus foretold of the change of name coming to Simon. He promised that he would be called Kepha which has only ONE MEANING-Rock. Perhaps that explains why the office of the papacy has existed since Peter until this day. No simply human endeavor would last.
Acts 5:39 But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” They were persuaded by him.
The Catholic Church has withstood enemies from within and without for 2000 years and will be here until the consummation of all things.
In Eph 2:20 where does it give any special mention to Peter or a papacy (supreme leader of the church)?
Where in Scripture does it mention that Peter will pass down to the bishop his authority?
Jay, did you read anything I have said? Was Jesus joking when he told Peter he would be the rock on which HE would build HIS church?
Judas was an apostle who held the office of bishop. His office was given to another after his death. Same for all the apostles.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
Where does Christ say He will build His church on Peter the man?
Where do any of the other apostles say that the church is built on Peter the man specifically?
The office of an apostle is different than one for a bishop. For an apostle that person must have been with them as they walked with Christ and be a witness to His resurrection. See Acts 1:21-22. The qualifications of a bishop is one who is to be married and manage his household well. See 1 Tim 3:2-7
There is no office of an apostle in the church today. Only the bishop’s office.
One can only give authority to others if they HAVE authority to GIVE it. So, with that in mind, please tell us:
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
2786. Κηφᾶς Kēphas, kay-fas´; of Chald. or. [comp. 3710]; the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:—Cephas.
When did Jesus keep His word to Simon and call him Kepha? If not Matt 16, when?
The gospel accounts are not an exhaustive account of the life of Christ in what He said and did.
Do you believe that your church is built on the man Peter?
Was JESUS joking when he named Simon Kepha which ONLY means ROCK? If you are going to refuse to answer, I am not going to play anymore 😛
Cephas means stone.
In I Cor 10:4 it says Christ is the rock …”and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”
So again–“Do you believe that your church is built on the man Peter?”
Protestant scholars on the Rock
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (David Hill (Presbyterian), The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun – and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368}
Are there 2 rocks that are equal if Peter is a rock and Christ is a rock?
If Peter is the foundation for the church because he is the rock that Christ building on, then why don’t we see Eph 2:20 mention Peter by name instead of all the apostles? Why don’t any of the other apostles acknowledge in their writings that Peter is the rock on which the church is built?
So, do you believe that your church is built on a man called Peter?
Consider this by Roman Catholic historian von Dollinger on papal succession:
“ Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these three texts, yet not one of them who commentaries we possess–Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas–has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together (Cited in Hunt D. A Women Rides the Beast. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR) p. 146).”
Don’t blame me or the Pope. Jesus told Peter he was going to be rock on which He would build His Church. Perhaps that explains a 2000 year succession. Interesting you bring up the early church fathers. Perhaps you would like to tell me that he is a liar when he wrote:
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Mt 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known [Letters 53:1:2 (c. A.D. 400)].
Don’t see anything here about the Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies these passages to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors.
The first bishop of Rome who appeals to Peter was around 250 AD.
Consider this from RC scholars on the situation at Rome in the early centuries:
“…there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the “fact” is regularly taken for
granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San
Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29).
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the
notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the
churches they founded…”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century.
(Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ),
2001, p. 80,221-222).
Perhaps you can show me YOUR line of bishops back to the apostles? Meanwhile, if you wish to carry this conversation forward, friend me on facebook and we can talk right on my wall. I’m sure it will be very educational for all.
Were talking specifically about the papacy and if it is in the NT and it was passed on by Peter to someone else like Linus. You need to show that Peter was acknowledged by the other apostles as the supreme leader of the church and that a bishop of Rome such as Linus claimed to be the supreme head of the church at the time and was acknowledged as such by other churches. If this can’t be done, then you can’t trace to the papacy i.e. the Roman bishop as the supreme head of the entire church to the NT. You need facts that shows these things.
Can you show with any documentation that Linus wrote something that showed he was the supreme head of the entire church? Can you show with documentation that other churches such as Antioch and Jerusalem considered Linus to be the supreme head of the church?
Facebook or bust. It’s up to you. I am not going to respond on this thread any longer. Friend me if you like.
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? “Lo, we have left all and followed you” [Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 21 (c. A.D. 200)].
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA [I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things that seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in only one; for they do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens [Commentary on Matthew 13:31 (c. A.D. 249)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM The Lord is loving to man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little maid, but he repented and wept bitterly [Catechetical Lectures 2:19 (c. A.D. 350)]. [Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius set up his statue. . . . As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their prayers against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvelous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven [Mt 16:19] [ibid., 6:14–15]. In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter also, the chief of the apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ at Lydda, which is now Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34] [ibid., 17:27].
ST. JEROME Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom, being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord [Illustrious Men 1 (A.D. 392)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Sermons 295:2 (c. A.D. 411)]. Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles? [Tractates on John 56:1 (A.D. 416–417)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. Moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church [at Rome] whence priestly unity takes its source [Letters, 54:14 (A.D. 252)].
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter [Church History 5:28:3 (c. A.D. 312)]. Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tm 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Letter to Timothy [2 Tm 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow soldier [Phil 4:3] [ibid., 3:4:9–10].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Mt 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus . . . [Letters 53:1:2 (c. A.D. 400)]. If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of being, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today? [Answer to the Letters of Petilian the Donatist 2:51:118 (c. A.D. 402)].
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
157 (436) Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, ‘but the violent take it by force’ (Mt. 11:12). Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? ‘Lo, we have left all and followed Thee’ (Mt. 19:27; Mk. 10:28).
WHO IS THE RICH MAN THAT SHALL BE SAVED?, Chap. 21
MG 9, 625
ANF II, 597
ST. IRENAEUS
See Nos. 25 and 150.
160 (211) The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.
AGAINST HERESIES, Bk. 3, Chap. 3
MG 7, 849
ANF I, 416
Hezekiah was a DAVIDIC KING. All Davidic kings had a head over the household-a royal steward over the house. Hundreds of years after David died. Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of all of the Davidic kings. Jesus now sits on the throne on which David, Solomon and Hezekiah sat.
First note that the “type” of the Son of David, Solomon had 12 rulers over his people:
1Kings 4:7 Solomon had twelve governors over all Israel Among them was the “master of the palace”:
1Kings 18:1 Long afterward, in the third year, the word of the LORD came to Elijah: Go, present yourself to Ahab, that I may send rain upon the earth. 2 So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab. Now the famine in Samaria was severe, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, ***master of his palace***, who greatly revered the LORD.
2Kings 15:1 In the twenty-seventh year* of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, became king. 2 He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecholiah, from Jerusalem. 2Kings 15:3 He did what was right in the LORD’S sight, just as his father Amaziah had done, 4 though the high places did not disappear, and the people continued to sacrifice and to burn incense on the high places. 5 The LORD afflicted the king, and he was a leper until the day he died. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king’s son, was ***master of the palace and ruled the people of the land.***
2Kings 18:17 The king of Assyria sent the general, the lord chamberlain, and the commander* from Lachish with a great army to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem, to the conduit of the upper pool on the highway of the fuller’s field, where they took their stand. 18 They called for the king, but Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, ***the master of the palace***, came out, along with Shebnah the scribe and the chancellor Joah, son of Asaph.
Is. 22:20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
Is. 22:21 I will clothe him with your ROBE, and gird him with your sash, and GIVE OVER TO HIM your AUTHORITY. He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is. 22:22 I will place the KEY of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
Is. 22:23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
Is. 22:24 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
Matt. 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
Matt. 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Matt. 16:19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I understand that Jesus is King. Are you asserting that Peter was a king?
Jay, I presume you understand that Jesus established the Throne of David forever. There is a reason that the Spirit went to the trouble of informing us how the Kingdom of David was structured including the Royal Steward who was second to the King over the Dynasty. I’m sure Jesus knew what he was doing. Re read what I posted and see if you can spot the glaring similarities.
Where do the apostles in their writing use those passages for the church as some kind of dynasty?
Jay, if it were not for the Catholic Church, you would have no infallible way of knowing that the writings you have ARE from the apostles.
17 Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.k 18 As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.l 19 And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
John 17:20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.m 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am* they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world.n 25 Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me.o 26 I made known to them your name and I will make it known,* that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”
Where does Christ reference the RCC in John 17? Where does it mention a pope?
John 17 is about UNITY which you mentioned earlier. The verse with the word “Pope” is in the same verse with the words “Trinity” and “Incarnation.”
So we agree that a pope has nothing to do with unity?
If your church is unified how is it that so many members are not unity with many of its teachings? Over 50% of American Catholics are for gay marriage which is against official church teachings.
The kind of unity Christ had with His Father was perfect. Does your church have perfect unity?
The fact that people are hard-hearted has nothing to do with the authority of the Church. We have 2000 years of constant teaching, a line of bishops that extends back to the apostles themselves. It’s up to us to listen.
Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
Clearly, Jesus gave to his apostles the authority that he himself carries. He also was well aware that some would obey and others not.