There is no such thing as an invisible church of believers. Christ started a very visible Church and that is the Catholic Church, whether protestants want to believe it or not.
I like to remind people that Christ did not say “Upon this rock I build my churches.” He said “church” singular. And if you have a problem “take it to the church.” Well, how do you do that if your church is invisible? And if you believe in two churches, a brick-n-mortar one and an invisible one which brick-n-mortar church do you go to when there’s a different one on every block, each happily willing to give you a different answer??
He did not start the Papist system. There is one church and he rules over it, not some guy in Rome who is as fallible as the next guy.
Who then was the pope of the OT church? Who was Abraham's bishop? Where were the current dogmas of Rome held in the tents of Jacob?
The belief in the promise given in the Garden of the Christ was the mark of the OT believer. Christ the Rock then as now. John 8:57–59a
The body of Christ, the invisible church, the only one that counts.
that is the Catholic Church, whether protestants want to believe it or not.
And it has demonstrated by its opposition to God's word, that it no longer is whether Catholics want to believe it or not.
The problem with most RC’s is that they confuse the rock as Peter and fail to understand the object of our Lord’s pronouncement was all those to who God the Father had spoken.
Oh, by the way, I described the visible church, not the invisible one.
They can claim it all they want. It proves nothing. There is not one reference in all of Scripture telling us that the Catholic church is the one true church.
And Jesus said, "Upon this rock I build my church", because HE is that rock!
If the institutional church was the big deal, why did Jesus NEVER announce anything about structure itself, but simply leave it to the (VERY AMBIGUOUS) phrase “you are a rock and on THIS rock I will build my church?” A reasonable man would (and many have) interpret this phrase in a number of ways.
The institutions associated with the church were actually POST PETRINE in the sense that Peter was not the visible leader in the Gentile churches. Matter of fact, once he got outside his comfort zone with Jews, he erred seriously and had to be corrected by others. The organizational schema of the instituional church did NOT arise from Jerusalem, nor from Rome (there is little if any evidence Peter was ever in Rome), but from Paul and his organization of gentile churches.
Further, if Peter was the “rock” and the infallible keeper of the Gospel, why was there a “council” to determine the central issue of “what is the gospel?” in Acts 15? Would it not have been simpler and more correct to say “what does Peter the Rock have to say about this?” They did not do this, but argued and reasoned and prayed over the issue. Peter gave his argument — which was, interestingly enough, in light of what the church of Rome has done with the gospel— a statement that salvation is of faith ALONE, not mixed with works of the law. (Acts 15:8-11). I mean, if you guys are so big on the authority of PETER, why dont you listen to what he said on the most critical issue of the church?
Note further that Peter’s input on the issue was neither authoritative, nor final. Others (James, and Paul, and Barnabas... who was not even an apostle, interestingly enough) spoke. Note that they did NOT defer in this council to the authority of Peter.
James says, after quoting the scriptures (Not Peter nor his infallible interpretation of them... Peter appealed to experience), said “it is MY judgment that.....”
Plainly, this kind of language would never have been used if the final authority rested in the “church” as an institution and one man as the keeper of the keys. They would have just said “what do you declare?” and that would have been it.
Your “doctrine of the church” is refuted by the history of the church, which the church itself recorded.