Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

“People with closed minds do not want to hear or read the truth” (quoted from the above link, referring to Catholics.

Definately needs a mirror to remove that beam from his own eye.

I wouldn’t listen to this guy, honestly. You’ll find more truth on all sides, here in this forum.

I truly want to believe that Roman Catholicism is the way but I also need reassurance, that’s why I brought it here to be refuted, for some peace of mind. My soul has been tortured with this kind of stuff for too long, so I am asking the experts.

Just from what he wrote here…

**In the Greek, we would read it as, Thou art Petros (meaning a stone) and upon this Petra (meaning a massive rock, referring to Peter’s confession of Christ being the Son of the Living God) I will build my church, meaning not on a stone but upon a massive rock; and Scripture tells us that Christ was a Rock. **

He is just picking arguments from anti-catholics. The native tongue of the apostles was Aramaic, so was Jesus…so these words were originally spoken in Aramaic, not greek…anyway, substitute petros and petra for Kepha…which is aramaic for Rock…then you get the sense of it.

And besides, you cannot separate peter/cephas from his faith…both have to go together…you cannot have one over the other…so it was built upon the rock steady peter/cephas…

There is more here…

Isaiah 22 is clearly the background for the promise of the “keys to the Kingdom.” Aside from Judges 3:23-25, which has no thematic parallels, Isaiah 22 is the only passage of the Old Testament where the word “key” even occurs. The thematic parallels are strong: the promise to Eliakim concerning “opening” and “shutting” is repeated to Peter, although using the terms “binding” and “loosing.” “Binding” and “loosing” were technical terms in first century Judaism referring to the authority to decide matters of halakhah (lit. “the walk”, i.e. “the behavior” or “how one behaves”), that is, the practical application of divine law.

Since you indicate you are already Catholic, I advise you to stay there - by any definition, the RCC goes by Sola Scriptura, too. It’s a matter of difference in who has the authority to interpret the meaning and intent of Scripture.

Life out here in Protestantland is not any clearer - why else would we be lurking on these forums, testing our own faiths?

Sometimes I feel like a hungry urchin, looking in a window at a well-fed, happy family.

And sometimes, not!


Hi Suzy.

I would recommend a nice and simple start to all of this; specifically, by going to the Pope Fiction section of EWTN’s audio library. You could listen to these however you should like, but I think a great place to start would be episode number 2: St Peter Wasn’t the Rock in the New Testament? Patrick Madrid, the presenter of these programs, is a very intelligent and kind person; and I think he outlines the basic Catholic response to these sorts of objections incredibly well.

To get a good start in this paganism subject, I’d recommend this article.

In Regards to St. Peter

And for some other listening pleasure here is more Servant of God Fulton Sheen

Peace be to you!

If you want to read more…

Just one more thing…do you know which is the pillar and bulwark of Truth?

This is in the Bible…and it is not the Bible.

First of all, and I write this in all love and kindness, why bother with this kind of thing? If only you knew how silly these “argments” are! I was a former “Bible only” Christian and I can tell you that nothing this person writes is anywhere near the truth about the Catholic Church.

First of all, the Bible is the Catholic Church’s book. It was the Catholic Church that compiled its books and decided on which ones would be included in it and why, so this person wouldn’t even have a Bible if it weren’t for the Church he hates.

Secondly, there is plenty of biblical evidence for Peter’s primacy among the other Apostles. Those who deny this either ignore this evidence or don’t want to see it there because of their bias.

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with using robes and candles and so on in the rites of the Church just because other religions also use them. Each item used in Catholic liturgies has a name and a purpose. They weren’t just stolen from the pagans. Once again, this person doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Many of our liturgies and practices have their roots in the Old Testament not in pagan Rome.

Lastly, people like this love to use scare tactics to unsettle the faith of others. Anyone who devotes himself to attempting to destroy faith in people is not doing God’s work. Stop reading this garbage and read your own Church’s teachings instead. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church or go online to read it if you want to know what Catholics really believe.

I highly encourage you to do your own research on the history of our Church. That way you can stand your own ground and be confident in what you believe in.

For now, I’d like to remind you of the fact that a lot of things that Catholicism is being criticised for by Protestants are things that exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East - four big Churches that all existed before the schism. We all have origins in that first early Church and we have all inherited things from it that Protestants have rejected. Think about it this way: we’ve been separated from the Coptic Orthodox Church since the 451 A.D - that’s 1, 561 years and yet we have much, much, much more in common with them than with Protestants. Like the worship in the Jewish temple which used incense and liturgies and set forums, we all use holy water, holy oil, incense, candles, chanting, holy images, infant baptism, liturgical calendars, veneration of saints, etc. Furthermore, all of us believe that these developments which we all share in common and have safeguarded throughout all the centuries are legitimate and organic developments that are inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“Upon this rock, I shall build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” John 16:12-13.

“I am with you always even until the end of the time.” Matthew 28:20

The Church as a whole cannot apostatise and the Holy Spirit leads her to grow, like a seed into a beautiful flower. The Protestant Reformation was reacting to legitimate corruption in the Catholic Church but went too far in the extreme and began to attempt to turn the flower back into a seedling. Now you have Protestant Churches who believe things and practice things that the original Reformers would have considered unthinkable and downright heretical. Martin Luther for example believed in the Real Presence - he was just down on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. Martin Luther believed that Mary was truly the Mother of God. Martin Luther’s Mass is even more conservative than the modern Novus Ordo Mass - he thought it was “too” progressive to even pull the altars away from the walls and have priests look at the people.

The Bible is a part of Church Tradition - it took us centuries to figure out what’s definitively part of the Biblical canon and what’s not. And even once we did figure it out, the vast majority of the laity was illiterate so even the Bible was Oral Tradition for even more centuries after that - people relied on icons, stained glass windows, statues and Church art and architecture to teach them about the faith. People relied on the Mass to listen to the Scriptures read out loud. I’m going to give you a Youtube video on the history of the Bible but it’s told from an Orthodox perspective but Catholics should have no problem with it.

Part 1 - The Old Testament :

Part 2 - The New Testament :

Part 3a - Development of the New Testament :

Part 3b - Development of the New Testament :

Part 4 - Refuting Sola Scriptura :

Try and watch it all rather than skipping to Part 5 because you need context to really understand.

Thank you to EVERYONE who has replied, such thoughtful responses!

And as to the reasoning as to why I am here…and no I do not take offense. The exact reason why I am here is to learn more about my faith and to grow in it, so when I have doubts I like to have reasons to refute those doubts from others who are more versed in scripture and the faith. I am turning to all of you to help me be more confident so that in hopes one day I can defend my faith to others.

I will be on more tomorrow, I need to go pick up my kids from school and I will return when I have more time to discuss (usually baby’s naptime)

Thank you all again.

Ask yourself how some 5 year old website, run by strangers (with no authority to interpret scripture), could possibly lead you to the truth. Please avoid all such web sites like the plague that they are. They serve only to confuse and cause doubt - which is of the enemy. They claim to follow the bible but they are hypocrites - privately interpreting scripture, which the bible prohibits. Notice who it was that wrote that we are not to privately interpret scripture: Peter (2 Peter 1:20). Strange, huh? Please consider getting a copy of Catholicism for Dummies and reading through it. It will teach you the truth about the Church.

Sola Scriptura is not a practice or belief of the Catholic Church, so I think your comment is more than a little misleading. The Catholic Church is the authentic interpreter and guardian of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles through Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing and is not exhaustive of its belilefs or practices. Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture encompass the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church, not a Bible Church. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

We have someone here with questions between the two, so let’s please be clear and not add to their confusion.

I did not intend it to be misleading - my point actually was that the OP should not imagine that the Protestant claims of Sola Scriptura was an indication that Catholic teachings were not founded upon those same scriptures.

all this man is doing is trying to confuse and disarm you to place a ‘‘stumbling block’’ in your way. Peter in Aramaic is Kepha [rock]. :And upon this Kepha [rock[ [Aramaic] I will biuild my Church". Meaning that Peter was to be the successsor in teaching authority [the first Pope to govern and keep the Word of God in total teachings as Chist had taught him to do. To give Peter the Apostolic authority to determine the canon of the Bible. And to pass on the uncorrupted verse and teachings of Christ, until the end of time.]

[Mt.16:13-19] *And I will tell you you are Peter [Rock] , and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Verse 18-19][iI]

[FONT=“Comic Sans MS”]Christ meant to have the office of Peter to last until the end of time Christ gives the ‘‘keys to the kingdom of heaven’’ to only Peter, It is an awesome gift. No one else is given the power to rule like this. Ask non Catholics to reflect upon this privilege instead of using verbal acrobatics to explain away the title of “Peter”. I hope this gives you information you can teach someone.

Scripture must be kept in accordance with oral Traditon and the acts of performing the Mass in its entirety. Sripture is to be used alongside* oral Tradition and celebration of the Mass, not reading the Bible by ones self. It is the church that practices Apostolic** authority **as to what words belong in the Bible and are considered Scripture to be recited, learned, and passed on.God Bless,/COLOR][/FONT]

One thing that I have been told is that if someone wants to believe in sola scriptura, they have to defend that position. And they can only use scripture. Even IF they can do that they then have to prove that what they are using is scripture. The authority that said that the bible is the divine word of god was the Catholic Church. How did they determine that it was the word of God? Did they use scripture alone to do so?

@Suzyq and also Stilldreamn- I want to also say welcome and may you both be blessed when you visit here. I notice you both signed up recently.
As a convert myself who took about 35 years searching for truth until she finally dove in head first trusting God that he would not lead her into an alliance with the “W…of Babylon” for the ruin of her soul, I know that there are many hear who have been in your position and truly understand.

Many have already made some good points and references to your question so here is my 2 cents worth;

A few basics to ponder:

  1. Know that Authority is what Jesus our Lord has from the Father and this is what he passed on ( as it is written in scripture) to His Apostles and commissioned them to do- to build His Church. Read John 15 for meditation. So when people challenge your faith, ask them ( or ask yourself) by who does this person have the authority of interpretation of the scripture? If they say by the Holy Spirit ask them how do they know that it is the Holy Spirit speaking truth to them which is different to the church /denomination/believer across the street (30,000 different ones now I believe in the US and growing)? Again by who’s authority do they know this? where did they learn it from and so on.

2.The fact that the Church came before the official list (Cannon) of the Bible was put together and the fact that the compiling of what books should or should not be in the Bible was done so that everyone would be reading the same texts and that the translations would be accurate.

  1. If the Bible alone ( Sola Scriptura) were the intention of Jesus to pass on the Gospel then why did he not simply say to His Apostles take up your quill and write, publish and pass it out? It is only in Revelation when John is commanded to write what he sees.

4.Ask people who preach Sola Scriptura what did those first Christians do for the first 3-400 years before the NT was properly compiled? If they tell you "well that Church went under ground and was preserved by some remote sect in the outer Hebredies only to resurface in the 1500s "or something then ask them if they intended to call Our Lord and Savior a Liar? because Jesus said that he would send his disciples a helper , the Holy Spirit and that he would not leave them.

5.You need to know WHY the so Catholic Bible has more books than Protestant Bibles. we have morn in the OT. Know also that the original 1611 King James Version had the complete Catholic cannon of the Bible and he put out a decree that if anyone would remove the Deutero Canoniocal books ( books of the second cannon) known by Protestants as the Apocrypha, they would be punished by death. it was only in the 1800s that those books were removed from future publications of the KJV Bible. Know that many Protestant theologians now acknowledge this. As they do the whole Peter -rock thing because of the Aramaic.

6.Know that the Dead Sea scrolls that were found in Qumrann upholds that the Hebrews did read Tobit , Maccabees and one other that fails me right now- Wisdom perhaps? which are those ‘disputed’ texts by Protestants. Also that the Pharisees had a different official list of books that made up their sacred scripture than did the Sadducee who I think only had 5- the Torah.

7.Use your God given logic and never feel like you need to give an immediate answer to someone who attacks your Church and therefore your faith other than saying something like “I am not sure of the exact answer right now but I promise I will get back to you” then go away and do your research in the CCC etc and get back to them.

  1. Finally read the NT ,at least, for yourself . Then read a book like Surprised by Truth by Patrick Madrid. If you are a Mum of little ones i think you will find this in easy Mum bite sized portions to digest and you might find Catholicism for Dummies a bit dry …although still very good.

Just to reinforce your point about authority…it is in the Bible how to know which is from God and which is not…and the ECFs later reinforce this with their writings…

First, from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

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