The Catholic Church IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH

Several times have my opponent said "This is not found in scripture" or "This is unfounded in scripture" etc. but he cannot prove that we are to follow the bible alone. He says the scripture says this and the scripture says that though scripture itself says the Church is the "PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH" (1Timothy 3:15) but not the bible. Now my opponent said that "In Matthew 16:18, the word used for Peter is Petros[1]. The word used 'upon this rock' is Petra, which is the feminine form[2]. Why would Christ call Peter a female? Since a different word is used, I assert that it is not the 'rock' Peter(Petros) that Christ was speaking of, or else the word would have been Petros." I should point out that the language that Jesus spoke was Aramaic and the Aramaic word for Peter is "Kephas"(John :42) and this is what Jesus said. "You are "Kephas" and upon "kephas" I will build my church." Upon Kephas the Church was built. Kephas means "a massive rock". A catholic apologist named Mario Derksen explained it better. He says " Note that this is the passage in which Simon's name is changed to Petros (in Greek) or Cephas (in Aramaic; cf. St. John 1:42). Cephas means rock; there is no dispute about that. It is only a matter of common sense that Petros also means rock, even though the literal word is petra, which is a feminine noun, and it is really not difficult to imagine why Christ the Lord did not wish to give Simon a feminine name! Secondly, if you look at the above context, if "upon this rock" does not refer to St. Peter, then why did Christ change Simon's name right then and there? What was the purpose of adding "Thou art Peter"? Could Christ not have changed that name at another occasion? Why would the Lord effectively say, "Blessed are you, Simon. You are now to be called Peter, and upon I now build my Church. Here are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven!" ?? Thirdly, our English language obscures the pun being made in this verse, but it's clear in some of the other languages of the world (I think we need to remind ourselves every now and then that English isn't the only language in the world). So, here's a little game now for the readers: read the verse (St. Matthew 16:18) in the following different languages and see if you can pick out which two words in each of these examples are the same (or very close to being the same). GREEK: kago de soi lego hoti su ei Petros, kai epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian, kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin autes. FRENCH: Et moi, je te dï¿½clare : Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre j'ï¿½difierai mon Eglise, contre laquelle la mort elle-mï¿½me ne pourra rien. ITALIAN: E io ti dico: Tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra edificherï¿½ la mia chiesa e le porte degli inferi non prevarranno contro di essa. LATIN: et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam. SPANISH: Yo te digo que tï¿½ eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra edificarï¿½ mi iglesia, y las puertas del reino de la muerte no prevalecerï¿½n contra ella Even linguistically, you can see that these two words are related to each other, and refer to each other in this sentence. Just by looking at the other languages, it should be clear on the face of it, especially in the French! While the author says, "it is more plausible that Jesus is referring to anything other than Peter," what is obvious just by looking at the words themselves is that it is highly unlikely that "petra" refers to anything except Petros. " My opponent also says "The bible tells us that Apostles must be witness to the resurrected Christ and to his ministry[3]." I have a question, what is your definition of a "witness"? My opponent also says "Pro admits that the Catholic Church doesn't claim a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Rather, it claims a foundation of Bishops. This is clearly not the same foundation as required in Ephesians 2:19-20." In this passage, Paul is saying that Jesus is the foundaion of the Christian Faith. The difference is that the church is the structure and body of Christ while faith is neccessary to become a member of the church. My opponent also says " Catholics follow what they consider to be tradition, but Pro provides no substantial evidence for what makes this tradition proper" 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us to follow Tradition. Jesus said he would send us the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost guides the Church and the Holy Ghost will not lead the church in the direction of destruction. Finally, I have another question for my opponent. You say you follow scripture alone but how do you know your interpretation of scripture is correct? The bible says that scripture can be interpreted to ones own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16) and no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) but you seem to privately interpret scripture. Consider this story from FR.Damien. He says "Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men. Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby." "And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live." Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible. Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity." The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible. Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith. Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men." Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!" How do you know your "private interpretation" is correct?