And Jesus said where two or three are gathered together, He would be in their midst.
Among the Apostles, Jesus designated one with a primacy, calling him "the rock."
That is not evident in the book of Acts or other places in the NT.
The visible church on earth is governed by men, but shepherded by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Bishops and elders who do not resemble at all the offices the RCC has instituted.
I see nothing inferior in accepting a visible, earthly church established by the cornerstone, Jesus Christ.
Picking a church for what? Exactly?
The rock is Christ. Paul identifies the rock as Christ in plain, simple, clear words.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
You need to refute that and show how that is wrong.
It is evident. Peter was the first called. Whenever the Apostles are named in the NT, Peter is always listed first. Many times it's just "Peter and the disciples." Peter is the one called "rock." Peter is the first to be promised the keys to the Kingdom. Peter is told to "tend my Sheep," which signifies him as shepherd of the whole of the church.
There are a number of things like this that can be observed.
Bishops and elders who do not resemble at all the offices the RCC has instituted.
The NT church was a church in its infancy. The church grew; the church matured. The society and culture today does not resemble the first century. But I see how the basic structure of church governance can be observed in the NT; this is brought forth more clearly in the immediate centuries following the Apostles.
The rock is Christ. Paul identifies the rock as Christ in plain, simple, clear words.
* * *
You need to refute that and show how that is wrong.
There's nothing wrong about what Paul says. What's incorrect is your assumption that 1 Cor.10:1-4 has anything to do with what Jesus is speaking of in Matt. 16
In Matt. 16, Jesus is emphasizing the core confessional truth of the future church and making a poin about the ecclesiastical foundation.
In 1 Cor. 10, Paul is showing how the Christ was prefigured in the OT.
These verses are directed to completely different points.
"The rock was Christ" isn't some bit of clarifying text Paul writes with Matt. 16 in mind. The subjects are different. (Matthew's gospel was composed after Paul wrote First Corinthians, in any event).