Did Jesus found the Catholic Church

Rebuttal I: Pro Case.Pro has no actual response to the claim that Jesus was the rock. He merely denies it with no acedemia to back himself up. The highly prestiegous Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary sums my argument up as this:"The word translated rock, is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived." (1)To say that Peter is the rock is contracticary to the idea that only Jesus may lead us to salvation... That HE is the center point of our religion. And in regards to Pro's Matthew 16:19 verse... The phrase "I will give you the keys..." doesn't imply Peter had power over a church... It meant Peter was allowed to open the religion to the gentiles... An act deemed unacceptable in Judaism..."The former Peter exercised when he took the lead after the effusion of the Spirit, and opened the door to the Jews. It was his action that admitted the Gentiles, without compliance with the distinctive rites of Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel (see Acts 15:7)." (2)Eitherway. This only implies a sense of power in the religion. Not that Peter is now the founder of the Catholic Church. The Churches listened to Peter because he was Christ's top apostle... Not because they were one Church founded under Peter... To say that Peter founded this Church's because they listened to him is like saying Obama founded the US because the US listened to him... Or that George Washington invented each state because each state listened to him...Being a lead authority here is akin to JMK being called a 'leading authority on Economics' here. He didn't found economics here. Each Church, the Roman Church included, was founded uniquely and separately from Peter and Jesus, even if it's Jesus's teaching they followed.[1] http://biblehub.com...[2] http://biblehub.com...Argument I: Roman Church v Catholic Church.This is a silly response. The apostles are being called because they personally knew Jesus... They were the top knowledge on the subject. The Church didn't go to them because they founded the Churches, but because the Church's trusted them.Pro needs to come to grips with that reality. Is RoyLatham the founder of Conservatism because Conservatives on DDO go to him for advise? Other people, separate of Jesus and the Apostles, founded the majority of Church's. They ask the people most knowledgeable for advise, but THEY still founded their Church's.Reguarding St. Ignatius... He is not referring to the 'Catholic Church...' But to the 'Universal Church' using a romanized version of the greek term katholikos. What he is referencing isn't the Catholic Church that Pro is talking about, but instead a term for the general church as a whole to distunigush from 'fake' Churches. Much like referencing all of Europe as a whole in 1900, before the European Union existed. The term Catholic Church only got carried over to distinguish the western Roman state Church from the eastern "Orthodox Church," after the East-West Schism of 1054. and was not, prior, the actual name of the Church. Therefore, Ignatius could not have been referencing a specific Church at the time.The text from Against Heresies referencing the existence of Paul and Peter in Rome... This in no way contradicts my statement. What the text leaves out is that Peter and Paul arrived after the Church had been founded. By Pro's logic, if you create a business, and a few years later, I become an employee, and help your business become a huge company, it was I who founded your business."laying out the foundation of the Church" means they helped give form to an already existing entity. Not that they created that entity.A bad founding is in fact the sign of an imperfect founder. That's because it wasn't Jesus who founded the Church. Had it been Jesus who founded the Church, it wouldn't have needed constant help. We know this because Peter and Paul needed no help after Jesus was done founding, with in them, their faith.Argument II: Catholicism Is Counter to the Scriptures.Jesus calls Abraham "Father" because Abraham actually is the Father of the Hebrew in a biological sense and metaphorical sense... Jesus does not refer to him as Father in a spiritual sense. So Pro case is null. If Pro read what I wrote, he'd see that I said the text references calling a 'priest' Father... Not that ALL examples of calling someone Father is wrong. You can call your dad Father. But calling your religious leaders Father is a sin.John 20:22 doesn't mean the Disciples could choose who got forgiven and who didn't... For Pro to accept this, is to defy all the preaching of Jesus, who spoke endlessly of how ONLY GOD can forgive your sins. What the text means is that the Apostles had the responsibility of teaching people how to be forgiven. As Gill's Exposition puts it:"God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake..." (3).This is akin to how a teacher of Math chooses who can and can not do math by who and how she teaches.As for the part of Acts showing the Apostles electing a new members... They do this because the book of Psalms commanded it. They acted in compliance with authority, and not through their own authority. ""For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms: "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "'May another take his place of leadership.'" -Acts 1:30Had Palsms not commanded it, it's unlikely they would fill in Judas's spot. But if they did, it wouldn't show some odd God-given power... It would just be them filling in a vacancy in their specific group, which still had a ministry in the Middle East to teach.Pro's cases all fall short of scriptural context. The use of the word "Father" for talking to the priests, and the anti-scriptural power of the Clergy and Pope all contradict the Bible. Gills even refers to the power to chose who can be saved or not (the power that the Pope and Priests have) as being that of the anti-Christ.[3] http://biblehub.com...Conclusion:Pro's whole argument fails on one MAJOR error... Not understanding what it means to "found" something. It does not mean to have authority over it, or to be it's go-to guide. My KFC that I work at has to call a servicer when something goes wrong, so does that service get to call itself our Founder? Being a privately owned KFC, even the corporate didn't 'found' our KFC, but we go to them when we have questions.Pro's attempts to show Peter had god-given powers that only God's allowed to have falls short of proven Peter founded the Church of Rome... or any Church. Even if Peter had powers, it doesn't mean he founded the Church.The Roman Church, which would become the Catholic Church, was founded before Peter ever went to Rome. Pro only shows that Peter was a teacher for the Church... Not that Peter founded it... Or that Jesus founded it.