On this you are wrong.
First let us understand the meaning of the word church. It is not the definition as is proposed by most Protestant apologists which is an invisible church. The linguistic and theological context was the Jewish Qahal. The Qahal was a rigid and formal theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society, aligned to the Masoretic Text of the Bible. The Greek equivalent was the ekklesia. It's meaning is more correctly translated as a convocation; a group called together for a specific purpose or function, and not some voluntary assemblage or membership. It has a deep tradition in Greek culture dating nearly 500 years before the time of Christ. Literally meaning the called or called out, it was a governing assembly of Greek city state. Its membership was very narrowly restricted to males over the age of 18 who had served at least two years in military service to the city. The Ekklesia had a very structured organization and was empowered to make the most important decisions for the city, that of declaring war, suing for peace, judging all capitol cases and the hiring, firing and trying of any public officials. It was in these traditions that Jesus formed His Church.
Matthew 16 tells us the how, why and context that Jesus established His Church. Jesus took the Apostles and some Disciples to Caesarea Philippi and before the rock and the gates of Hell asked them who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.
He then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had through out the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
I disagree with you regarding the meaning of the word — church.
The Christian church can be seen in two ways: the visible and the invisible.
The visible church is comprised of all who truly claim the name of Christian and who gather together for worship and participation of the sacraments.
The members of the visible church claim the name of Christian (excluding the cults).
The visible church contains both believers and non-believers; that is, there are people in the visible church who are not really saved. Hence, Ibelieve that there are those baptized in the Catholic ( and Protestant ) church who are not really saved.
The members of the invisible Church are the actual body of believers. They are the ones who are truly regenerate and have trusted, by faith, in the true Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The true Christian is indwelt by the Lord Jesus (John 14:23) through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Christian church is figuratively said to be the body of Christ.
Rom. 12:5, “So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”
Eph. 4:12, “For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.”
Yes, The word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “gathering” or “assembly.” Therefore, the church is the gathering of the believers who come together to participate in fellowship with one another as they worship God and hear from His Word, the Bible.
The church as a whole has been equipped with people possessing different spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:5-8).
The purpose of the gifts is “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:12-13).
The Christian church was founded by Jesus and He is its Head and Savior (Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23). Being in the church, the Christian is subject to the Lordship of Jesus (Eph. 5:24) through the administration of the Word of God.
The Bible does not provide a detailed method of Church government. But, it does state that there are to be elders who govern in the church. These elders are appointed by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). They are to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:2).
Regarding Matthew 16, I don’t see it as Christ appointing Peter to be the Pope of the church. In other words, I don’t see this as Christ building His church on St. Peter.
On this passage, I stand with St. Augustine.
Augustine was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18.
In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father.
At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter.
However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable “(The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position.
He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one. The fact that he would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated.
I Can’t imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16.
But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day.