“Christ founded a Church. Certainly it was no Protestant sects since none of them existed for another 1500 years. “
Again, no. The church in Acts was not the Catholic church.
Also, Catholics base their authority on Matthew 16:18; which is a misunderstanding of scripture.
Humans created the precursor of the Catholic church, because humans crave power and importance.
Jesus did not not teach or create the Catholic church.
I have no doubt if Jesus descended from heaven today, he would sweep away the Catholic churches rituals, gaudy robes, the Mary worship, jewelry and all the rest. He would do it in the same way (and the same anger) he threw the money changers from the Temple.
You wrote:
“Again, no. The church in Acts was not the Catholic church.”
Oh, actually it was the Catholic Church and still is. And in any case, it most certianly was no puny 16th century sect founded somewhere in Northern Europe nor was it a sect from somewhere in America in the 1900s.
“Also, Catholics base their authority on Matthew 16:18; which is a misunderstanding of scripture.”
Incorrect. We base the authority of the Church squarely on Christ giving it to the Church. And we do not misunderstand Matthew 16. Rather, as some Protestants admit, it is Protestants who misunderstand Matthew 16.
D. A. Carson comments:
... 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,” as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:5-8). Others adopt some other distinction: e.g. “upon this rock of revealed truth- this truth you have just confessed- I will build my church.” Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to mean anything but Peter.
... Had Matthew wanted to say no more than 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!
Now, I would disagree with Carson on the “extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation” but it is clear that Carson and a growing number of Protestant scholars can no longer deny what Matthew 16 literally says.
“Humans created the precursor of the Catholic church, because humans crave power and importance.”
Nope. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. It’s precursor was Judaism. That was founded by God too. And the Catholic Church was persecuted in the beginning - and still is today - by people who don’t know what it is (and who apparently don’t know what Matthew 16 says according to other Protestants).
“Jesus did not not teach or create the Catholic church.”
Actually Jesus did teach and did establish the Catholic Church.
“I have no doubt if Jesus descended from heaven today, he would sweep away the Catholic churches rituals, gaudy robes, the Mary worship, jewelry and all the rest.”
We don’t worship Mary. And if Jesus came today, although this world would pass away, He would not be against beautiful vestments and “jewelry and all the rest” because it would be like the worship in heaven. Jesus is coming in glory - not misery or poverty. Apparntly you are unfamilar with such scriptural concepts as to the nature of Christ’s return.
“He would do it in the same way (and the same anger) he threw the money changers from the Temple.”
Nope. The Temple problem was about selling items in the Temple. Jesus not only dutifully paid the Temple tax, but He never once denounced the riches of the Temple or splendour of its worship. He also never rebuked the woman who poured the perfumed oil from the alabaster jar over His head even though it could have been sold to feed the poor. See Luke 7:36 if you are unfamiliar with the Bible.