Confronted by Baptist Friends

and petros in Matthew 16Yeah, they apparently don’t know how untenable that argument really is. Look at these links.

*]Peter the Rock

*]Peter the Rock

*]Defending Peter as the “rock” in Matthew’s Gospel

*]You Can’t Get Past this Rock


and how Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, not a priest. They also said that Jesus is the high priest, not a priest in the church.

Yeah…again…same old, same old.

*]Isn’t Christ the only mediator between God and man?

*]One Mediator Between God and Men

*]Is Confession in Scripture?

From my own blog:

*]Catholic Confession
*]Scriptures About Penance

They also said that the catholic church would kill people if they didn’t agree with their ways, like they would kill protestants in Europe in the 1500’s. This guy has his Doctorate in Divinity from a Baptist Seminary so I was outwitted. Anyways, I have been attending their church for the past week but I constantly feel something calling me back to the Catholic Faith. Maybe it is the holy spirit? I don’t know.

You can defeat that by simply asking him to document his assertion with historical evidence, but keep in mind that Protestants have done equally wicked things to us Catholics. St. Thomas More is only one good example, and even here in the U.S. we have encountered violence from n-C/a-C groups.
Check out these factual sources.

*]The Inquisition
*]The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
*]An Inquisition Primer
*]Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed

I feel so guilty. I told the deacon at a local Catholic church that I would attend RCIA soon but I never showed up. I feel like I was duped and brainwashed. Do you think the Holy Spirit calls some people to be Catholic? I mean everything I read here on Catholic answers makes sense to me…and it has always

bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible. Anyways, just thought I could rant here and maybe get different opinions.Hey, I know how you feel. take a look at My Testimony


Get used to that stuff though because those are pretty common assaults made upon the Catholic faith. One absolutely terrific resources that I would suggest that you invest in is Radio Replies which is a great compilation of answers to all manner of such challenges. The Preface is written by (then) monsignor Fulton Sheen and opens with the following insight.

[size=3]There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

You might also get a copy of [/size]The Protestant’s Dilemma by Devin Rose

I have them both and they are excellent resources that will really help you learn good answers to things like this.

I’ll be praying for you as you make this journey of faith in RCIA. Stick around and keep us posted. :thumbsup:

I myself find it difficult to make light of the Peter-rock issue.
The meaning of that one sentence is something so many people base their lives and beliefs on that the struggle to interpret it is very real, difficult, and serious.

Many great minds have debated, researched, and analyzed this one sentence fragment for many, many centuries and still, these great minds disagree on what it means.


Actually, only the last five centuries. The previous fifteen centuries, it was universally held that Peter is the rock.

Can you show me the great minds who held that Peter was not the rock from the first fifteen centuries?

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

From what I understand, Pope Damasus commissioned the Catholic canon to be gathered together in 382 A.D. He entrusted the bishops of North Africa to compile all of the books that they believed were canonical, that is, worthy of reading in mass. The Eastern Church had nothing to do with it because there was a heresy at the time, Arianism, that plagued the Eastern church. Anyways, the African Bishops took over 11 years to compile the canon of books that were considered worthy of reading in liturgy. To be considered canonical, the books had to have been written by an apostle. Anyways, in 393 A.D., the council submitted their canon for approval by the pope. In 397 A.D., the issue was once again reviewed and affirmed by the bishop of Carthage, Saint Augustine.

For over a thousand years, the canon of the church remained the same. That is until a monk named Luther decided he wanted to edit the bible in the 16th century. He didn’t remove the deutorocanonical books, he just moved them to the back of the old testament and called them “Apocrypha” which means “hidden.” He also wanted to remove Hebrews from the new Testament because he did not like Jewish people. Also, he wanted to remove the epistle of James because it explicitly says that faith alone is not enough for salvation. He eventually decided to leave those two books in but followed through in rearranging the old testament. This new version was called the Luther Bible.

I learned this in RCIA. :slight_smile:

You have a good RCIA class at your parish then. When I went through RCIA it was so elementary, I rarely heard anything new that I had not already read up on, on my own. One of the RCIA instructors acknowledged that fact to me too. He was very knowledgeable but had to keep the class elementary because so many of the people hardly knew anything about The Faith at all. If your class goes into historic facts like those you posted, that is a blessing.

Correct. Protestants contest that we added these books to the Bible, citing some bogus council of Jews in 95 AD that met to compile the Jewish canon, and that they left the seven books out. One must not strain oneself too much to see the flaws: 1. This council’s historicity is highly suspect, and 2. The traditional Sanhedrin had no authority following the life of Christ and certainly not after Pentecost

:wink: I’m not suprised

And their point? Who / what, do they think Jesus is referring to with petra?

After all,

*]We know who specifically received a new name “Rock”
*]We know who specifically received the keys to the kingdom of God
*]We know who specifically received the power to bind and loose on earth as in heaven

Jesus made His apostles mediators for HIM.

when Jesus said

Lk 22:19 “Do ποιεῖτε ] this in memory of me.”

*]do, make, construct, cause.
[/LIST]Jesus ordained His apostles when He said this to them at the Last Supper after He instituted the Eucharist

Jesus also gave His apostles the authority and power to forgive sins. In Context

That is passed on to those they ordain

Who are they to make such a statement?

Yes Jesus is High priest… in His Church. And that doesn’t negate the fact priests are under the high priest… in HIS Church

Don’t let THAT rattle you. We know who started the Baptist religion and when they were started. It wasn’t by Jesus, it wasn’t by the Holy Spirit, it was by John Smyth in the 17th century. Who gave him any auithority to do what he did? It sure wasn’t Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Why do I say that? Jesus wants perfect unity in what He established. Not just among the apostles but also those who come to faith through their effort. “they are to be perfectly one” as Jesus and His Father are perfectly one. John 17:20-23 . And the HS only teaches what He hears from Jesus [/FONT]John 14:25-26 , & John 16:12-15. [FONT=Arial]Therefore neither Jesus nor the HS is behind all the division on steroids we call Protestantism, no matter the stripe. [/FONT]
Division ( διχοστασίας[/FONT] ) from Our Lord’s Church, (The Catholic Church #[FONT=Arial]34[/FONT] ) has no legitimacy and is condemned. Any and all division ( διχοστασίας[/FONT] ) from Our Lord’s Church is condemned.

That same Greek word [/FONT]διχοστασίας appears in [FONT=Arial]Romans 16:17-20 , & [FONT=Arial]Galatians 5:19-21[/FONT] . And notice the consequence for one who does it and remains in division? (Gal 5:21)[/FONT]

“they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God”.

BTW, that’s where the phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”, comes from

Listen to the call.

Go back and talk to the deacon. Tell him what happened. See if you can get into RCIA

1 Jn 5:13 I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. 16If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God**(“”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Protestants have no gurantee they are forgiven when it comes to mortal sin. That’s why Jesus established the sacrament of reconciliation In Context

Protestants can’t just walk off the street and go to confession to a Catholic priest.

One phrase that should help you considerably in your future discussions with them:

“Hmm, you seem to have a logical argument and I’m not sure of the Catholic answer to that argument. But I will look it up and get back to you on that.”

Don’t feel pressured to know EVERYTHING about the faith, or that you need to be able to have a PhD-level debate on the intricacies of Greek. The Church has the fullness of the Faith, and the fullness of the Truth. So if you don’t know the answer right away, simply say that you will look up the answer and get back to them. Truth isn’t determined by who has the better debate skills.

I’m not sure that I understand your point. :confused:

John is making a distinction between mortal and non mortal (venial) sin for forgiveness.
Venial sin (non mortal sin) he says one can pray about that, and God forgives that sin. But he then says he doesn’t recommend that for mortal sin.

Of course for a Catholic, Jesus established sacramental confession. Protestants don’t have that sacrament, and they can’t just walk off the street and go to a Catholic priest to confession. So the point is, how can they be confident their mortal sins are forgiven?

Lutherans and Episcopalians have the sacrament of reconciliation.

Ya gotta have a valid priesthood. They don’t

Well, yes…that’s what I’m saying. There were many books of scriptures to choose from and many–including gospels supposedly written by apostles and disciples–were not included. That’s what happens when a religion is in it’s formative stages and is deciding what books and ideas to keep and which ones not to keep.
So it makes sense for the Protestant religions to do this, too.
Some early Christian groups like the Marcionites, the Ebonites and the Gnostics relied on scriptures in those first several centuries that were not chosen to be in the canon we have today.

Mark and Luke were not apostles.

And, as we know today, many of the books in the bible were written anonymously. And some of the authors listed are incorrect (for example, half of the 14 Pauline Epistles are thought to have been written by someone else).

Right. When you said in your original post that “it has always bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible…” it was confusing, because the books are there–as you say here.
He placed the Apocrypha books in-between the Old Testament and New Testaments.
It does make chronological sense to put them there, since that’s when they were written.

So…they explained to you in RCIA the reasons why Luther felt the the Apocrypha books should be moved?
And I assume you disagree with those reasons?

That’s my main question…since you mentioned in your original post that it bothered you.


Wait a sec, you’re acting as if the Church just did some random picking and choosing of books. If they did this, THEN it would be okay for Protestants to do this, however that is not the case.
The books had to have Canonicity, which meant the books were evaluated to see if they conformed to the teachings of Jesus, originated with the oral tradition of the Apostles, and recognized by the Universal Church. This then became the Canon, which refers to the correct number of books in the Bible. The Canon was approved at multiple Councils as well.
A brief connection with Protestants, by the time of the Reformation, they had used this Canon for about 1100 years (therefore considering them inspired) before Martin Luther decided to drop the deuterocanonical books.
There is more about this here:

No…in no way was it random, not sure how I gave that impression. I know that it took decades and decades.

Yes, of course they were evaluated, etc.

All I am saying is…the Protestants and Jews evaluated them differently. And that’s why the difference in the books.

Those who decide to be Protestants, obviously, agree with the Protestant evaluation of them.

When a religion branches off, they make changes or amendments. The Eastern Orthodox made changes in their faith to make it their own…and so do the Protestants.

Obviously, if each group all agreed on everything…there would be only one religion, one bible, one set of customs and rituals, etc, etc…


Ah, in that case, I fully agree. That is basically how that works, and why they today have different books/teachings.

Right, it wasn’t Luther who removed them – I concede that I was factually wrong on that one. But my point still stands that the vast majority of protestants don’t include the deutorocanonicals. Is there a reason for this? Who decided this? By what authority did they decide?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit