THE CHURCH—Q&A

Patron: Mr. Salza, you responded to an email a while back concerning questions raised by my Protestant friend regarding Peter's role at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts. I just wanted to thank you and raise a few more questions posed by the same individual.

To me, it seems the heart of my friend's objection to the Catholic faith is the fact that the standard to which we, i.e. Catholics, hold all things pertaining to virtuous living is not only the Bible, but Tradition (which he does not, admittedly, differentiate with tradition). We both agree that there must be an objective standard for this purpose. However, his problem with Tradition seems to mainly stem from the fact that we had some corrupt popes, bishops, etc. at various points in history who taught different things on the same issue. He understands that Catholics say despite these corrupt leaders, the main, essential doctrines remain consistent throughout. He understands, too, the notion of papal infallibility to be the constant and true teachings of the popes on matters of faith and morals. How can we be guaranteed of this infallibility especially considering the inconsistent papal teachings on particular issues. If they are truly infallible, shouldn't they speak with one voice on some things such as indulgences? Why do teachings seem to "pop up" at various points in the Church's history? He also has great difficulty with the seeming inconsistencies and sometimes contradictory teachings found in the writings of the Fathers. He has given me a book written by William David Webster entitled The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, which you may or may not be familiar with. I have not read it yet; supposedly, however, the book in its entirety gives quotes from the Fathers which are contrary to contemporary Catholic teachings on all the major issues, i.e. justification, Eucharist, etc.

The other questions I wanted to resolve was regarding the fact that, according to my friend, Scripture records Peter as leading others astray from the true doctrine. The passage in question can be located in Galatians 2:11-15. What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you for taking the time to address these questions. Also, could I refer my friend to you if he has further questions? I think sometimes someone outside the situation can offer a more clear explanation given that they are not personally vested in the relationship.

J. Salza: Steve, first, your friend would have to prove that the popes were inconsistent on a teaching of faith and morals. I can assure that this is not the case. Your friend has the burden of proof on this. When you say that he has discovered “inconsistencies” in Catholic teaching, have him bring forward the evidence. It is easy to make such sweeping statements without proof. Remember also that there is a distinction between discipline and doctrine. The Church's doctrine cannot change because it comes from Christ through the apostles. Disciplines, of course, can and do change, and the popes have made these changes throughout history (days of obligation, hours of fasting, liturgical things, etc.)

When Jesus told Peter “whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19), He was promising to protect Peter from teaching error to the universal Church. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise to Peter. Because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), Peter must be protected from teaching error, since what he binds or looses, heaven binds and looses as well. Indeed, God intrudes into the mind of the pope and prevents him from teaching error, just like the Father penetrated the mind of Peter when he confessed that Jesus was the Christ.

You recall what happened next. Jesus said Peter is the rock upon which He would build the Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The basis for infallibility is the ability of the pope to accept and confess God's divine guidance without error. It has nothing to do with the pope's private opinions or conduct. The fact that all the popes have spoken with one voice over the past 2,000 years when it comes to dogmatizing principles of Catholic faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

Note also that nothing the Church teaches on faith or morals just “pops up.” This is because the Church’s teaching comes from the Tradition of the apostles, which we call the sacred deposit of faith. The Church may try to clarifying the way she expresses doctrine, but there can be nothing new under the sun, as they say. Often, the Church will issue a dogmatic teaching to clarify a point of contention or refute a heresy. But clarifying the way in which she expresses the divine deposit of faith does not mean she makes up new doctrines. The doctrines remain the same.

Regarding Galatians, this passage has nothing to do with Peter leading people astray. Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter's conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope's private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

I believe Peter's conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter's conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile's evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.

Paul probably should have known this. Paul did the very same thing, and Peter could have just as easily called Paul a hypocrite. Paul engaged in the Jewish purification ritual, and also had Timothy circumcised, even though Paul perennially taught that we were now free from the law of Moses. Why did he do this? For pastoral reasons. He was reaching out to the Jews, while trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Peter did the same thing.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

2. Peter versus James at the Council of Jerusalem

Scott: came across this website today and had a couple questions. A Protestant friend of mine, despite all the Scriptural evidence, is having a difficult time with two items regarding the primacy of Peter. First, he says it is James, not Peter, who opens the council at Jerusalem in Acts. Second, Paul, and I can't recall exactly where in the Epistles, speaks of how Peter was leading some away from the true doctrine. How can these Scriptural passages be reconciled with the Church's understanding of the special role of Peter in the early Church?

Thanks for your attention to these questions.

J. Salza: Scott, your friend has it all wrong. If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter "rose" and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says "all kept silent." When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter's teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.

So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).

Regarding any epistle where Peter was leading people away from the true faith, there is no such epistle. If your friend disagrees, have him produce chapter and verse.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

3. The Baptist "church"

Dennis: On your church history page you state that Baptists were started by John Smyth in 1609. Not so! Baptist had no one human founder. John Smyth only started one congregation in the Netherlands as Roger Williams started the first Baptist Church in America in 1639. There is evidence that Baptist go all the way back to the time of Tertullian (Edinburg Cyclopedia). Also from the "Apud Opera" pp> 112, 113 By Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent 1524 "Were it not that the Baptist have been grievous tormented (by the Roman catholic Church) and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the reformers".

Sir Isaac Newton wrote "The Baptist are the only body of known Christian that have not symbolized with the church at Rome. Therefore it would be no stretch of the imagination to believe that the apostles were in fact Baptist.

J. Salza: Your resources are incorrect. But even if you refuse to believe that the baptist church didn't start in 1609, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the baptist church is the church of the apostles. The problem, of course, is you cannot. First, there is not one single early Church father in the first seven centuries of Christianity who ever referenced the "baptist" Church (but many quotes referring to the "Catholic church.") If you disagree, then provide the quotes and the sources from which you are quoting. Further, the baptist church has no internal or systematic consistency on key core Christian doctrines, like justification, salvation, and, yes, baptism.

Again, the burden is on you to prove the apostolic roots of the baptist church, but I assure you that you cannot. The baptist church denies key tenets of the Christian faith that were believed and wrote about by the early church Fathers, such as the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, salvation by grace through faith and works, baptismal regeneration, Peter as the chief shepherd of the universal church, etc.

Dennis: You say that my resources are incorrect. In other words you are saying that Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524, President of the Council of Trent) never said what I wrote He said. That Sir Isaac Newton never said what I wrote you he said and that it is not written in the Edinburg Cyclopedia what I wrote you is said in it. PROVE IT. By the way Baptist is not a denomination nor are they Protestants. Also not everyone that call themselves baptists are true Baptists.

J. Salza: Dennis, for your information, neither Cardinal Hosiu, Isaac Newton nor the Edinburg Encyclopedia are able to make dogmatic pronouncements about what is true and what is not true concerning faith or morals. So your reliance upon them is misplaced. It is funny you bring up the Council of Trent. Have you actually read that council's documents? If you do, then you will discover that the Council of Trent rejected all of the fallacious views held by Baptists such as justification by faith alone, the Mass as a mere fellowship meal, and the non-inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. You really need to check your sources before quoting them, since your reliance upon Trent just bit you in the backside.

By the way, the baptists, and any other organization that claims to be Christian but is not in union with the successor of Peter, is a Protestant organization. That is, it is "protest"ing against the authority of Rome.

John Salza

Top

4. The (KJV) Bible and the Church

Justin: You wrote to my friend, this...(quote)....

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible AND the Church, both or neither.(unquote)

John, you seem to be a slow learner,. To begin with you say the church interprets the scripture for us. That’s an outright lie, I attended a Catholic college and University for 8 years and i asked the Priests etc to explain certain Scriptures and they either said they didn’t know or it wasn’t my problem to begin with.

Jesus said, But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him." (1 John 2:27)

You seem to take pride in the fact you are an intelligent man. Tell me, are you intelligent because God created you such or is it BECAUSE YOU ARE A SELF MADE MAN ?

J. Salza: Justin, I can't vouch for what a priest told you or didn't tell you. What I can vouch for is history. The hard nut for Protestants to crack is the fact that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at regional councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. Even your own Protestant apologists recognize the same. Why don't you?

The Catholic Church translated the original copies during the first centuries of the Church and throughout the Middle Ages. She also made the Scriptures available in the vernacular so all could read them. Study your history, Justin. There was no other church around. Take a look at all the quotes from the Fathers on my site or using other resources. They all claimed membership in the Catholic Church.

The Church came first, then the Bible. The Bible wasn't even compiled until 382, and printing presses weren't invented until 1440. If you really think that the Bible is the only way for salvation, then what about those poor souls for 1500 years who didn't have a Bible? Justin, Christ established an authority on earth to preserve His revelation and decide the Bible canon. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

If you disagree, then tell me what authority determined the Bible canon. I look forward to your answer.

Justin: John, maybe this will alter your Catholic thoughts on eternal hellfire. Jesus said (not mary) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25). The words of Jesus are true, that all who hear the quickening Voice of the Son are lifted from their appointment of death and live, even as you and I came alive upon hearing His call; but "Marvel not at this," as He went on to say, "for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION" (John 5:28-29).

Contrary to popular belief, the resurrection of DAMNATION, as the King James Bible has it, is a very promising subject and merits closer examination. Although this translation is classified as a work of literary art, it is not noted for its accuracy. It is therefore, not the best one to use for study. It certainly has the beauty and flare of that day, but this poetic style of writing does not constitute infallibility, as some may suppose. The text is also written in the old English, which in itself makes it difficult to grasp at times. To compound the problem, a large number of the words carried a different thought than what they do today. The loyal translators of the king can be given credit for the wonderful truths contained between its leather-bound covers, for there are many, but we should also know they sanctioned approximately 70,000 errors as well. Fifty thousand of those discrepancies have since been corrected, to a degree. The above word --DAMNATION -- is one of the 20,000 remaining errors.

John, get on an airliner, and go to the Vatican and get the big boys to translate John 5:25 to you, then mail me their answer.

J. Salza: Justin, first of all, I have made no reference in this dialogue about “my views of eternal hellfire,” but I can assure that those views are consistent with Sacred Scripture, as is everything else I believe. In fact, I use John 5:28-29 quite frequently to refute your false, Protestant doctrine of “the Rapture.”

Second, the fact that the KJV has errors just bolsters my argument that you need an authority to tell you what translations are correct and what translations are erroneous. Since the Catholic Church wrote, translated, and handed down the Bible to us, I defer to her judgments on what translation is the best. Based on these historical facts, what gives you the authority to determine which translations are correct and which are not?

Speaking of the King James Version of the Bible, it has no authority either, to the extent that it deviates from the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome in the fourth century. Moreover, King James was a sodomite politician. Why would anyone defer to an immoral, secular ruler’s interpretation of Scripture? Fortunately, King James’ wife figured it out, since she became a Catholic.

You see Justin, this is a question of authority. God gave us the Church, which interprets both the Scripture and Tradition to maintain unity in God's family and bring us to the truth of salvation in Christ. This is why the Catholic Church is one (for 2,000 years), and your Bible Christian church is a splintering off of thousands of different denominations. God is not the author of your Protestant confusion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33).

Christ appointed a chief steward over His house, the pope, in order to be the unifying force for the Christian family. Christ knew that the Bible could not be such a force, since it is subject to many different interpretations. In fact, Christ never even commanded His apostles to write anything down. The Bible is not a complete catechism on Christianity. That is why the St. Paul calls the Church (not the Scripture) the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Your polemics against the Church are intellectually groundless. You are not qualified to debate this topic. If you think you are, then please tell me (1) what authority determined the canon of Scripture; and (2) what authority determined the proper translation of the Bible.

Top

5. Is Peter the rock?

John: John, You know something you dogans always get your axles hung up on Peter's Rock. When Jesus came to the coast of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples a momentous question: "Whom do men say that I am?" (Matt. 16: 13). The disciples reported what others said as to Jesus' identity (vs. 14). However, Jesus placed the focus on them, "But whom say ye that I am? (vs. 15).Peter then confidently answered: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs. 16). Jesus then commends Peter and confirms Peter's answer (vs. 17). Jesus then enunciated: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (vs. 18). The word "Peter" (petros) does mean stone. Peter was a mere man. Peter stood in the way of Jesus' sacrificial offering, denied the Lord, and sinned publicly (Matt. 16: 21-23, 26: 69-75, Gal. 2: 11-14). Does the church rest on Peter, a man? Back to "upon this rock." When Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church.," he used a different word in the original ("rock" here is petra). "Petra denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved..." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Petros and petra also differ in grammar, petros (Peter) is masculine, referring to Peter and petra (upon this "rock") is feminine gender. Jesus did not build his church on a stone which could be easily thrown away (petros, Peter), but on a mass of rock (petra). Jesus, the Son of God, is the foundation, not Peter.

J. Salza: John, I have written a book that examines and refutes every single argument you just posed. It is called The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, published by Our Sunday Visitor (see pp. 40-64). If you are really seeking the truth, I humbly ask you to get a copy. I am also working on another book called The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, which digs even more deeply into these issues, again, refuting all the arguments you have just advanced.

My website also examines and refutes the arguments you raise in your email. Your note is rife with erroneous exegesis which has no support from the patristics, medievals, or any Christian for that matter for the first 1,000 years of the Church. Your analysis demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Greek language, and a distortion of the plain meaning of the texts (e.g., only Peter received the keys; binding and loosing in heaven what is bound and loosed on earth means the Church teaches infallibly; etc). Your analysis is also devoid of any historical support. But fundamentalist Christians such as yourself are expert eisegetes, privately interpreting Scripture to your own destruction. I have been down this road to many times before.

Why don't we do this. You find me one Church father, one doctor, one medieval who agrees with your position that (1) Peter is not the rock on which the Church is built, and (2) all the apostles received the keys to the kingdom. Okay? Just find me one. Surely, if you are so confident of your position, then it must be supported by the writings of the early Christians. Let's see what you come up with. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will begin to see that the early Church was Catholic. This is also the same Church that gave you the Bible (the Bible didn't just fall out of the sky, John; it's canon was determined by the Catholic Church).

So, come up with the fathers for support for your position, otherwise this
dialogue is over.

Top John Salza

6. Peter's authority based on Matthew 16:18-19

Anthony: Dear John, my name is Anthony XXXX and I live in Dublin, Ireland. I have just read a portion of your website and I would like to ask you a few questions.

On one of your website pages, sourcing Catholicism in Scripture, you say that the Scriptures actually tell us that Peter was to be the foundation of the church, linking him to be " the rock". The Scriptures do not tell us this, let me explain.

After asking his disciples what did men say who he ( Jesus ) was, his disciples gave various answers. And Peter replied with these beautiful words " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Now pay attention to what Jesus replies. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ". Peter cannot be the rock, because Jesus is the rock, the true foundation of the Church.

J. Salza: Anthony, "this" (in Greek, tautee) is a demonstrative adjective which is describing Peter, its nearest referent. As a result, Jesus did not have to use any of the possible alternatives that you provide. This is demonstrated when you pull out "rock" in the second clause. It would read: "You are Peter, and upon this I will build my church." You see, "this" refers to Peter, the nearest referent, which is what the demonstrative adjective in Greek requires. The meaning of the sentence is clear. There is no ambiguity here.

However, there would be ambiguity in your alternatives if Jesus used a non-demonstrative adjective such as "the" or "a" like: "You are Peter, and upon the I will build," or "upon a I will build." Thus, the original Greek language, which you evidently did not consider, displays the error of your arguments.

Anthony: Allow me to read to you another verse, this time from the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 10, verse 4.

" And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ". Again, we learn that the rock is Christ.

J. Salza: This is a fallacious hermeneutic. First, you are assuming that words in Scripture can only have one meaning. This is not true. Christ is called the shepherd and guardian in one Scripture, and the apostles are called shepherds and guardians in another Scripture. Christ is called the foundation in one book, and the apostles are called the foundation of the church in another book. See my website for these Scriptures (1 Cor. 3:11/Eph 5:20; 1 Pet. 2:25/Acts 20:28).

Second, no one is debating that Jesus is not the real rock. He is. Jesus is also the one with the keys of death and Hades, as the Apocalypse shows us. But Jesus confers these distinctions upon Peter, as His chief representative once Jesus has ascended to the Father. This underscores that Jesus is giving Peter a divine appointment. Your argument again proves nothing for you.

Anthony: But let us go back to the book of Matthew for a moment and examine another reference to the " rock ". This time lets look at the verse from Matthew again, notice the last wording in this sentence, ".......and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". If Peter, as you assume, is the rock, did the gates of hell fail to prevail against him? If you continue to read on, you will find that Peter was the one to fail. Jesus rebuked him to his face,

J. Salza: The nearest referent of "it" is "church," not Peter. This again is demonstrated by the Greek, which I suggest you study if you are going to properly exegete Scripture and make assertions against the Catholic Church. It is the Church that will not be subject to the powers of death, not Peter or any pope. A pope in fact can make errors, unless he invokes the divine charism of infallibility which Christ gave Peter with the authority to bind and loose. So, again, your analysis fails to support your claim.

Anthony: " From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he ( Jesus ) turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those things that be of men". (Matthew 16:21-23 ).

J. Salza: First, this verse demonstrates that Jesus has given Peter a divine appointment, that is, to be the chief shepherd of the Church after Christ was no longer with them. Jesus only speaks about His death after appointing Peter the chief shepherd. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, Jesus is establishing Peter as the authority over the Church, and this also facilitates apostolic succession to his chair. See Isaiah 22:15,19-22 which is the only other place where "keys" are used to descibe dynastic succession to the Davidic kingdom, which Jesus came to fulfill in His Holy Catholic Church.

Second, Jesus' rebuke of Peter actually underscores Peter's importance among the apostles. None of the other apostles understood what Jesus was saying at this time either. Note also that Peter is rebuked for his private opinion, not for his official teachings. Any pope can be rebuked for private opinions. Thus, Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in no way undermines the papacy or Peter’s teaching authority.

Anthony: Again, Peter is rebuked, this time by Paul in the book of Galatians;

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed". Basically, Peter in this case, was setting a bad example. Not a great start for a man who you claim to be the " rock ".

J. Salza: Before I answer you here, the other proof that destroys your arguments against Peter as the rock is the fact that Jesus calls Simon the rock in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42! (Cephas is a Greek transliteration of Kepha which, in Aramaic, means rock). This is one of those moments of "game over" for those who say Peter is not the rock. Now, regarding Galatians, you would agree that Peter taught and wrote infallibly regarding the salvation of the Gentiles, right? So, Peter's teaching authority is not being rebuked. Peter's individual behavior is the issue, and this is always fair game for rebuke, which Paul rightly did. There is nothing that undermines Peter's authority. Any pope can be criticized for his behavior and personal opinions, which Catholic apologists sometimes do (so long as it is done with holy fear, dignity and respect).

Anthony: Another verse which totally counters your idea of Peter " the rock " is found in the book of Luke, chapter 9, verse 20 and verse 46. In verse 20, Peter again gives his confession of Christ, similar to what he said in the book of Matthew. If at this stage, it had been decided that Peter was the " rock", the pope, why do we find later in verse 46 the disciples arguing over who was the greatest among them?

J. Salza: Verse 46 is, at a minimum, nine days after verse 20 so there is no connection between the two, and hence no direct Scripture that takes away the authority that Jesus confers upon Peter in Matt. 16:18-19. Yet, that is the type of desperate attempt that non-Catholics must make to somehow rescind the binding and loosing / keys to the kingdom authority that Jesus gave Peter in Matt. 16.

Regarding verse 46, first we can safely assume that the apostles didn't understand Jesus mission at this point, for Scripture shows how confused and faithless they were until after the Resurrection. So such an argument does not undermine the actual authority that Jesus gives to Peter. Moreover, after the Resurrection, we see in John 21:15-18 how Jesus commands Peter to "tend the sheep." The Greek word for "tend" (poimane) means to "rule." Jesus is thus commanding Peter to "rule" over the other apostles as their head. This is the same word that is used in Rev. 12:5 which describes that Jesus will "rule" all the nations with an iron rod. This is because Peter is the rock on which Jesus has built His Church.

Anthony: I pray that the Holy Spirit may open your eyes to the truth.

J. Salza: Anthony, He has, and that is why I am Catholic. I pray that He will move you to study the Church fathers who all bear witness to the truth of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

7. The visibility of the Church

Gene: Longtime no see John, 'know, I was just thinking -- this might be a lot easier than it looks. People are always debating whether the Church is visible or invisible -- but that is completely irrelevant. The real question is, "is the Church that Christ built united or divided?" What kind of person says, "I'm going to build a divided Church that is going to be in confusion and conflict for 1,900?" Certainly not Christ, because didn't He say "the gates of hell will never prevail against it?" Meaning it will never be divided against itself by Satan. And also that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Whether visible or invisible, we know with 110% certainty that the Church is one. And the only Church that has always been one is the Roman Catholic Church.

Gene

PS-- I'll be showing you my book of research soon.

J. Salza: Gene, your point on division is certainly critical. Only the Catholic Church is not divided on matters of faith and morals. But the visibility issue is also very important. If you study the Church Fathers, they wrote a lot about the visibility of the Church. This is in contrast to the Protestant idea that the Church is just an invisible body of believers, loosely connected to each other by faith in the Bible alone. But St. Paul called the Church the "body" of Christ, not the "soul" of Christ. Bodies are visible and souls are invisible. But note that we can only be the body of Christ if Christ is giving us something physical, that is, His body. So the visibility of the Church is based on the Eucharistic union we have with Jesus Christ. And the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

Grace be with you.

Top

8. The necessity of the Church

Hey John, I've been wondering, why exactly is the Church necessary? You don't need the Church in order to practice virtue; there are men who practice it outside the Church and who did so before it existed. Someone may say we need it because it preserves the true faith. But is stuff like whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son really that significant? To be honest, it sounds rather childish. Another argument may be because of the sacraments. Yes, the sacraments are powerful, but we really only partake regularly of the Eucharist and Confession (Can't God forgive people apart from Confession?). Baptism is one sacrament that is valid in many Christian sects. So is that the answer, we need the Catholic faith because of two sacraments?

Is there any really significant reason why it is necessary? To be absolutely honest, I think I may just need more faith. If St. Peter were Pope instead of Pope John Paul II, I wouldn't dare to ask that question, because if you are against St. Peter, then you are certainly against Christ. But nevertheless, I would appreciate your comments.

Sincerely,

Gene

J. Salza: Gene, we need the Church in order to be saved. Jesus Christ gave us the Church as the exclusive means by which we become united to Him through the sacraments, which allow us to grow in holiness, and give us the best chance for salvation. Those outside the Church are, objectively speaking, in a spiritually deficient condition, although they can still be saved by Christ. But the Church gives us the totality of the means of salvation through Christ and His Eucharistic sacrifice, which the Church celebrates from the rising of the sun to its setting. The Church is the sacrament of salvation. Regularly receiving the sacraments that Christ instituted is the way that Jesus has set the whole thing up. Confession is the normative way that God forgives sins. The Eucharist is the greatest gift God has given to us this side of heaven - because it is Jesus Christ Himself. It is only in the Church where we eat His body and drink His blood as Jesus commanded us.

You cannot receive these sacraments outside the Church where there is no valid priesthood. The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ, and we are adopted sons of the Father in Christ through His bride, the Church. You are right to say this is also a matter of faith. The Church is supernatural, not just a human institution. That is why the Church is an article of faith. Pray to Mary, the Mother of the Church, to give you the wisdom you need to truly comprehend its magnificence and necessity.

Grace be with you.

Top

9. A dialogue on Peter, Rome and the Orthodox Church

Josh: Dear John, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I found what you said to be quite interesting (which is quoted below in case you've forgotten since it's been weeks since we last corresponded). I do, however, have some questions and comments that might be of interest. I have a difficult time with the lineage argument. From the Eastern perspective, Peter was never seen as the fulfillment of what Abraham, Moses, David and Melchezidek were sent for.

J. Salza: Catholicism does not teach that Peter is the fulfillment. Peter is only the earthly representative of the fulfillment. However, just as Moses, for example, had the seat of authority, had access to God’s infallible judgments, and ruled over his people, Peter holds the same position in the Church of the New Testament (which is the Catholic Church). Peter, in that sense, is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament leaders combined (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.)

Josh: I honestly feel that most Catholics would also agree with us that Jesus was that very fulfillment. No one is questioning whether or not Catholics believe that Jesus is our King of kings, etc. but it does not work with the Eastern mindset to place Peter at the top of this Pyramid that is the Church.

J. Salza: Peter is the rock on which the Church is built because Jesus said so in Matt. 16:18-19. Jesus also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which was to institute his authority over the earthly Church and dynastic succession of earthly representatives. See Isaiah 22:19-22. So Jesus tells us that Peter has a unique position among the rest of the apostles. Peter is the rock, the keeper of the keys, and the chief shepherd of the Church. These distinctions, of course, belong to Jesus alone. But Jesus shares them with Peter. Peter exercises these distinctions in the name of Jesus and at His direction, until Jesus comes again.

Josh: Christ is our intercessor between Heaven and Earth; He is Jacob's Ladder. He became Man and continues to be so to this day leading our Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This may seem simplistic to you and many other Catholics... perhaps even a cop-out, but this honestly is how we have always seen the structure Church.

J. Salza: Catholics have no disagreement here. Christ is our only mediator before the Father in heaven. There is no issue here. But this does not preclude Christ from appointing an earthly representative to serve in his stead, which he did in Matt. 16:18-19 and other verses (see my link on Peter as the rock and Petrine Primacy). There is a distinction between Christ’s mediation in heaven and Peter’s ruling and guiding the Church on earth.

Josh: As far as Bishops go, this brings up an entirely different question. It has come to my attention that the East and the West are not speaking the same language in dialogue regarding the hierarchy of the Church and even in terms of Apostolic Succession. In the West, the Bishop of Rome is seen as the Successor of Peter. But who was Peter? Was he a Bishop?

J. Salza: Yes, Peter was a bishop. But he had supreme and plenary authority over the other bishops. The other bishops draw their authority from the keys which only Peter holds. Certainly, bishops exercise their authority on the local level, but they are always subject to the authority of the bishop of Rome. Regarding apostolic succession, the east and west do have apostolic succession and are in full union with the pope as the successor of Peter.

If you are talking about the Orthodox (not the Eastern Catholic churches), then they do have apostolic succession (because their bishops all have a lineage to the apostles). But since 1054 they no longer recognize Peter as having supreme authority (they do acknowledge, however, that he had a primacy of authority in the New Testament). All the apostles and their successors were bishops through the laying on of hands (also see my link on this).

Josh: From our point of view, a Bishop oversees, delegates and ministers sacramentally.

J. Salza: Yes, agreed. That is the definition of "bishopric."

Josh: He himself may have been a one (of Antioch, or Rome... but then what was Paul doing in Rome?), but this is beside the point. He was first and foremost an Apostle sent directly from Christ, just as Paul was (through the vision). This is what distinguished Peter and the other Apostles from other disciples; they were "sent out" directly from Christ.

J. Salza: I don't yet see the point. Were Timothy, or Titus, or Matthias not worthy disciples because they were not sent directly by Christ? Were they lesser because they were sent by the apostles' successors? I don't think so. In fact, the direct lineage from the apostles to their successors demonstrates the truth and importance of apostolic succession.

Josh: Pope John Paul II (however much I admire him) was not. He is the Bishop of Rome, one of the most distinguished and important Patriarchates of the historical Church. No Orthodox would disagree with the fact that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals in the Early Church. Most Bishops at that time looked to Rome for guidance and a point of union, and why wouldn't we have? First of all it was the center of the civilized world as we knew it. No place was more important than Rome. Everyone (regardless of religion) looked to it. Second, (but not least) we looked to Rome because it is where Sts Peter and Paul were both martyred. There is no question that St. Peter was revered among the Apostles as First among Equals... a leader so to speak.

J. Salza: Yes, I agree, but you look to Rome because Jesus Christ, through Peter and his successors, established the Church in Rome. You don't look to Rome because Paul (or even Peter) was martyred there. This is why, in the book of Romans, Paul writes his letter but stresses that he does not want to "build on another man's foundation." Paul was referring to Peter, who was the bishop of Rome and the head of the Church. It has nothing to do with politics, or culture, or future martyrdoms. It has to do with Christ's choice to build His Church upon the “rock” of Peter, in Rome. Peter is not just “the first among equals.” Peter is the “first and foremost” (which is why Scripture describes him with the Greek protos). The other bishops derive their authority from the keys which only Peter holds.

Josh: Just as we also cannot question the fact that among the Apostles, no one had as much influence on the early doctrine of the Faith than did St. Paul (through his Letters that are now part of the Bible and through the Ecumenical Council in Jerusalem - Acts 15). This is not to set Paul above Peter nor vice-versa.

J. Salza: Here, you err. It was Peter who settled the doctrinal issue on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter settled the matter, "the whole assembly kept silent." The other bishops who spoke after Peter relayed how Peter settled the matter, and spoke in union with him, just like bishops do today. Paul obeyed Peter’s decision without question. Your reference to the council of Jerusalem proves too much for you.

Josh: Just to digress a little, if we look at Acts 15 and assume that Peter was a Bishop, he certainly doesn't exercise his right to universal jurisdiction. James presided over Jerusalem and it therefore makes sense when he says "It is MY judgment that..." He has the last word.

J. Salza: Wrong. James wants every one to know at the beginning that he speaks in union with Peter when he says "Simeon has described..." As far as the statement, "it is my judgment," it is commonplace for bishops to say "it is my judgment" when they are speaking in union with the successor of Peter (just read 2,000 years of encyclicals to see what I mean). Bishops exercise full pastoral authority and can pronounce judgments, so long as it is in union with the pope who is head of the universal Church. It is only a problem when a bishop says, "it is my judgment" when he is not in union with Peter. Then we have a problem. Further, the Greek for “it is my judgment” (ego krino) really means “it is my opinion.” It does not refer to an authoritative, ecclesiastical pronouncement that James is making. This underscores that James is simply providing his opinion about how to pastorally implement Peter’s doctrinal decision.

Josh: It is evident that even Peter/Simon is afforded a special recognition within James' statement (v. 14) despite his error, and I would admit that this is due to his place of honor among disciples. But he does not have the last word, or jurisdictional authority, at least not over Jerusalem.

J. Salza: This, as highlighted above, is incorrect. Peter spoke first. Peter resolved the doctrinal issue first. Peter was the first to speak about salvation for the Gentiles first. Peter did many things first. Peter has a primacy in the NT that cannot compare with any other disciple. Before Peter spoke, the matter was debated. After Peter spoke, the matter was settled (just like Saint Augustine said).

Josh: Now, returning to Peter and Paul, they had a very distinct mission among the Apostles and are equally revered in the Orthodox Church. To this day, one hardly ever sees icons of just Peter or Paul, but of the two together. This is both a symbol and call to unification among all Orthodox (and I would say Catholics).

J. Salza: They are both venerated in the Catholic Church. But, remember, only Peter was given the keys (not Paul). When the Orthodox realize the significance of the keys, they soon become Catholic. The keys of the kingdom cannot be overlooked in this argument, because they go to the very question of authority and dynastic succession. That is what they represent, and that is what they have effected for 2,000 years. This is why, In Galatians 1:18-19, it says Paul went to visit Peter in Jerusalem and examine (Greek, historesai) him for 15 days. Even though James was the bishop of Jerusalem, Paul chooses to examine Peter, not James. Why? Because Peter was the head of the Church.

Josh: I'm digressing though. As far as Rome goes, I'm not going to dispute its apostolic and historical importance, but the East has never seen Rome as the end-all to the Church. After the Fall of Rome, the East had no quarrel with looking towards the New Rome, Constantinople, as its "capital" so to speak. If they had once believed that Rome was the necessary, all-time, Godly inspired center and head of the Church, why would they even toy with the idea of replacing Rome?

J. Salza: This proves nothing other than a part of the apostolic Church left the seat of Peter. This fragmentation continues pitifully every week and every day. One of the earliest letters in Christendom is Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthian Church in the first century. Even though John the Evangelist was still living on the island of Patmos, and geographically closer to the Corinthian church, the Corinthians appeal to Rome to resolve their dispute (about ordinations). Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.

Josh: The fact is that the Eastern Church, as a whole, never saw Rome in this way, saw changing their focus from the Eternal City to Constantinople was a logical step for them. Rome was no longer politically or culturally relevant to the East. Naturally the West would not look towards Constantinople for the same reasons... they were western.

J. Salza: This again proves nothing theologically. It certainly does not address the authority that Christ endowed Peter with, in giving him the keys, and exhorting him to feed his lambs, and only praying for him to strengthen his brethren (the other apostles). The orthodox have no Scriptural grounds to divest Peter from the authority that the Son of God gave him. It also doesn't consider the many Eastern Catholic churches which have been in union with Peter for 2,000 years.

Josh: This is not to say that the Bishop of Rome was trivial to the East; all Patriarchates are vital and the fact still remained that this was where two of our greatest Apostles were martyred. That alone afforded a special honor (regardless of Rome's political or cultural status at the time).

J. Salza: Why don't you do research on what the Byzantine Fathers said about Peter. If you do, you will be in for a big surprise. They recognized Peter as Christ's representative, with supreme authority over the earthly Church. Is this so hard to believe? God always appointed an earthly representative over his flock throughout salvation history. You need to dig into this history a bit more.

Josh: Even keeping this in mind, the East never saw Constantinople as the Catholic Church views Rome today. Just as Peter did not have the last say in Jerusalem, neither did Constantinople. But even here I am committing a logical fallacy for Peter and Rome are not one and the same. Peter was Peter and Pope John Paul II is not Peter.

J. Salza: You fail to see the apostolic lineage to John Paul II from the very east you attempt to separate from the Catholic Church. Your argument just doesn't work. When you review the history, the east and west were united until the schism, when a portion of the eastern Church left the seat of Peter. But most of the east is still in union with Peter. And I pray the rest of the east will rejoin the one Body of Christ posthaste. Christ prayed for this unity, so that the world would know that He was sent by the Father.

Josh: Now, I am not going to argue Peter's importance AMONG the Apostles.

J. Salza: No one versed in the New Testament would do such a thing.

Josh: In the Orthodox Church there are still varying views on what Jesus meant by "on the Rock" (just as there was in the Early Church). Most Orthodox will at least say that the "Rock" refers to Peter's confession but not Peter himself. No, this is not an argument that Protestants invented for you can find it made by many Early Church Fathers. (Understandably Catholics would disagree with this and that doesn't offend me in the least.)

J. Salza: Please provide me with the Fathers who made this argument and their quotes. And even before you do, saying its Peter's confession is just fine with Catholics, as long as you also say it is Peter the person as well. My link on Peter the rock proves this beyond a doubt, through the use of Petros, tautee, etc. Jesus doesn’t just build His Church on “confessions” and “faith.” He builds it on people. This is why Scripture says that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, with Peter as the rock, and Jesus the chief cornerstone. I am completing a book called The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, and the Appendix will include quote after quote from the early Fathers from the East to the West, all claiming that Peter is indeed the rock of the Church.

Josh: The most catholic-friendly Orthodox view I have read thus far says that, while "the Rock" referred to his confession, it also referred distinctly to Peter: that he himself was the Rock upon which the Church would build itself.

J. Salza: Now you sound Catholic (which, by the way, isn't so bad, since this position has been articulated by the Fathers and doctors and all the rest for 2,000 years).

Josh: Although his fallible doctrine (as read in Acts 15) and trials in faith (during Christ's passion and when he walked on water with Jesus)…

J. Salza: What? Peter’s decision to dispense with the Old Covenant practice of circumcision in Acts 15 was fallible? Help me out here.

Josh: …do not argue this well, they do not disprove it either, for it proves him to be a very humble man who had the strength to admit his wrongs in both circumstances and grow from them, a quality that is necessary for any honorable leader. In this way, it can be argued that Peter offers us an example that God does exclude anyone from His Church based on how perfect or imperfect they are.

J. Salza: No argument here. God always chooses the weak to make them strong. That is why he chose Peter to lead the early Church.

Josh: I am actually quite sympathetic to this last interpretation, saying that Peter (along with his confession) is this Rock. In my mind there is no question that he was seen as First among Equals by his fellow apostle's, because of what Jesus said to him that fateful day. I say "among Equals" because it is obvious that he did not have the last word... Christ (in the Holy Spirit) did not only speak through Peter but through all of His Apostle's in a special way.

J. Salza: The Holy Spirit spoke through all the apostles, and speaks through Peter and his successors today. This comment does not in any way diminish Peter's authority and the early Church. While all the bishops speak with authority, their authority is derived from the keys of Peter. Only Peter was singularly given the power to bind and loose. The apostles share in this authority collectively, not singularly like Peter. I notice how you have not chosen to address the significance of the keys of the kingdom. Protestants (and Orthodox) avoid this argument, because it doesn't generally end well for them. The typology of the chief steward or majordomo of the Davidic kingdom who held the keys, as a prefiguring of Christ’s prime minister in the New Testament Church, is compelling.

Josh: It should also be pointed that the Orthodox Church (unlike the Catholic Church, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, I'm only observing a difference) is conciliar. Regardless of what the Bishop of Constantinople says, he in no way has the last word. He has special honor to this day (but even this is just an honor by merit of antiquity) but is not a "Pope" so to speak. In the same way, there is nothing to say that the Bishop of Rome was seen any differently from the East. He was respected and revered, but in no means had the last word.

J. Salza: This again is a distortion. First, the Catholic Church is “conciliar.” That is why it calls its formal meetings of bishops in union with the pope to provide definitive teaching "councils." By the way, it was these "councils" that provided you the teachings of Christ's divinity, the trinity, the natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, the Bible canon, etc. Second, Scripture and Tradition both show that Peter and his successors always had the last word. We see this in Acts 15. We see this with Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. And the Orthodox obeyed the councils that were headed and approved by the pope until they broke away from Rome.

Josh: In the end, from the Orthodox point of view, regardless of how one views Peter, his honor and place in the Church was not somehow passed on to his successor (who is in Rome... or is that Antioch? for he presided in both). Peter is Peter.

J. Salza: Tell me why not? In fact, please find me one single quote from an early Church father during the first five centuries of the Church who believed that “Peter’s honor was not passed down to his successor.” The 264 successors to Peter would certainly disagree with you. Such a claim also ignores the Scriptural bases concerning the power and function of the “keys.” The keys not only symbolized the steward’s authority, but were also used to facilitate succession (see Isaiah 22).

Josh: Some Orthodox will say that all Bishops are the Successors of Peter, but this is meant in a very different way than when Catholics say that the Pope in Rome is the Successor of Peter.

J. Salza: Supremacy and succession in the early Church mean just that to Catholics. If you try to undermine the authority that Peter’s successors were given by virtue of their appointments, you essentially undermine the doctrine of apostolic succession, and call into question the authority of your own bishops.

Josh: We believe our Bishops are successors of Peter in that they participate in his Eternal Confession: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

J. Salza: All the apostles confessed that after Christ's resurrection (and after Peter betrayed Christ). But only Peter received the keys of the kingdom. This proves nothing as far as Peter's supremacy.

Josh: Through the laying on of hands (ordination) they are given special sacramental duties and the responsibility to guard Christ's Flock, not the personhood of Peter.

J. Salza: We agree on ordination, but again, what about the keys? To whom did they pass? I'll tell you: to Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Avaristus, etc. Why did the early Church know that the keys represented Christ's desire for dynastic succession (and history proves this), but you don't? Did the early Church have it all wrong? I don’t think so. That is the real issue here, and the burden remains with you to disprove what history has already proven. Why would Christ give Peter this supremacy during his life, but not pass it on to successors?

Josh: It should be noted that no bishop (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, etc.) is, at least in theory, above any other bishop sacramentally or spiritually.

J. Salza: The bishop of Rome (the one with the keys), while a bishop like the others, has the supreme authority over the earthly Church, for Christ told him to feed His sheep, and specifically prayed that his faith may not fail, and that he should strengthen the other apostles. Jesus did not grant these distinctions to any other apostle, and neither can we.

Josh: They are all bishops, some just have more jurisdictional responsibilities than others (and because of this are especially honored). Were there to be a council today, either all bishops would have to be present, or, what is more likely, they would allow the bishop over them (jurisdictionally speaking... not doctrinally) as their representative (just as the Bishop of Rome was not present at some important councils, but he did send a delegate there to represent him).

J. Salza: Please give me an instance in Church history where a definitive teaching was rendered by the Church without the approval of the successor of Peter, and then we will have a discussion about this. A council has absolutely no authority unless and until it is approved by the pope, the bishop of Rome. Your previous bishops believed this until they decided to become schismatics. You keep referring to “honor” among the bishops, but this is really about “authority.”

Josh: Now, practically speaking, more honor often turns into more power... sometimes out of abuse. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but we as Orthodox would not hesitate to say that the Patriarch in Rome began to abuse his place of honor and usurp special powers which his bishopric had never been afforded in the past.

J. Salza: Again, please give examples. Of the 264 successors to Peter, I can think of about a half dozen scoundrels (which proves nothing other than members of the Church are not exempt from sinning). But what compels me as a Catholic is that I see 2,000 years of consistent teaching on faith and morals (notwithstanding bad popes) which tells me, in spite of our sinfulness, God is going to take care of His Church and prevent it from teaching error on faith and morals. Again, you won't find any examples to indict Christ's Church on the grounds that its teachings on faith and morals have erred. In fact, no church (including yours) has stood side by side with the Catholic church on certain moral issues, such as contraception (even though the apostolic church - read the Fathers - condemned contraception). Why is that?

Josh: The same may be true one day of the Patriarch of Constantinople were we to have a new council... I don't know. Also, it may not always be an abuse of honor, but rather out of practicality's sake. Let's assume again that the Orthodox Church has another Ecumenical Council. Many Russian bishops (for example) may just assume to follow the advice of the Patriarch of Moscow and stand behind what he says at a Council, trusting in his years of experience and that the Holy Spirit will work through him for the good of the Church.

J. Salza: Okay, fine, but again, this does not prove anything in regard to the supremacy of the successor to Peter. Any council not in union with Peter is really no council at all, for Christ promised that He would lead His Church (one Church, one Bride, just as there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism) into all truth. This is why you see the Protestant churches all falling away into serious errors (homosexual marriage, contraception, etc.) Christ will let them go their own way. But the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church, for that is His promise (Matt. 16:18-19). As an orthodox, I would have a real problem with the recent compromises on morality in your church. This would move me to ask questions about what I really believe and why.

Josh: After all of this, you may notice that not everything is as clean and proper in the Orthodox Church as our Western mentalities would like and there is no doubt that having such a central figure as the Pope has its benefits. But I would point out that nothing in Church history or dogma (or the Bible) necessitates the Bishop of Rome as the Universal Bishop, not to mention the relatively new idea of infallibility.

J. Salza: This is a statement that has come out of left field, and undermines the credibility of your otherwise thoughtful and charitable email. There is a plethora of Scriptural evidence, not to mention a mountain of evidence from the early Church fathers, that points to the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter. The Bible gives the "mustard seed" version. But that mustard seed has grown into an oak tree, as Christ has promised. Please provide authorities for such incredulous (and unscriptural) statements.

Josh: Practicality may necessitate this for the West, and that's fine, but that cannot be forced upon the rest of the Church as if they are somehow "splintered" because they do not (and have never) seen the Pope of Rome as their Leader. If we were to become one again, it would have to be similar to what Pope John Paul II has offered... the Pope in Rome would have no jurisdiction in the East, he would be Bishop of the West, and the East would continue as it always had... synodically.

J. Salza: Pope John Paul II offered no such thing. He wants to bring the Orthodox back into the one fold, under His rule. Christ gave us only one Church, with one earthly shepherd, just as God has fathered his covenant family since the beginning. This usually comes down to pride. Many people don't want to submit to a pope. But if they don't, they inevitably become super-popes of their own. They can easily disagree with their bishops, and priests, and theologians, and this does and has caused unprecedented splintering in Christ's Church during the past 500 years. The Orthodox church, unfortunately, is on the same splintered path, as its own teachings (particularly on sexual morality) become more and more compromised.

Josh: Our way is complicated and messy, even imperfect, but in the end, it works. We (the Greeks, Russians, Antiochians and so on) have been able to hold one doctrine this way for nearly 2000 years... not without its cultural tiffs... but we are only human. Obviously one could go on forever on both sides. I'm sorry I wrote so much. It may make it difficult for correspondence so I will try and keep them shorter in the future. Thanks so much for your patience in waiting for my response. I am looking forward to yours. I should also state that, like most things in history, this is not a black and white subject. We can use the Church Father's writings to support almost anything, but I am simply looking at what the general mindset of the Early Church of the East was. God bless you.

J. Salza: Josh, I truly admire your sincerity and your convictions. You seem to be a man who wants to know the truth. I have read substantial materials on the Orthodox and Protestant positions before becoming completely convinced of the Catholic Church. I suggest you do the same. It is often helpful to read the Catholic position, and then try to refute it, instead of reading an orthodox position and getting fired up about it in the absence of a Catholic rebuttal. Many Catholics have traveled the rode you are on, and, with a sincere heart, fervent prayer, and an open mind, they see that Christ left us a visible, hierarchical, authoritative, and sacramental Church which has a visible head, and an earthly representative - the successor of Peter. He has the keys of the kingdom.

Josh: Greetings in Christ. I found your email intriguing. Before I respond I would like to check out your references. I'm really curious what books you're reading. I've been looking at some by some major Catholic theologians (Congar, Dvornak) but haven't been able to find the major points of difference you brought up (re: Rome having jurisdictional authority and such). Also, I'm curious what Orthodox books you are reading. But most important are the Catholic books so I can a look at them. I'll do the same for you.

There are more things I would like to say, but I lack the time and think for now I will leave it at that in case there is anything in your references that make me re-analyze part of my view. God bless.

J. Salza: Josh, ah, I can understand the lack of time. I barely have time to check all the emails I receive each week about the Church, not to mention my other writing and speaking endeavors, my full-time job, my wife and children. I appreciate the time pinch.

My analysis is based on the plain meaning of the Scriptures, as interpreted by the early Church fathers. If you want additional (and much more valuable) analysis regarding Peter, go to my site and click on the "Church Fathers" link in my Links section. Mr. Gallegos does a very good job compiling the quotes of the early fathers regarding doctrines of the Catholic faith. Also, you may want to check out the Navarre Bible commentaries and the Haydock commentary, which are also very good. In addition, I am working on a book called The Biblical Basis for the Papacy which will address all of the pertinent issues involved. Once you get through some of these, feel free to contact me.

Those who come home (become Catholic) most often do so because they cannot reconcile the varied opinions within their own churches on questions of morality, and they look at the 2,000 year history of the Church and (while vehemently try to challenge it) discover that her teachings have been the same since Christ ascended into heaven (the doctrine has developed as our minds have become more open to it, but the basics of the faith have been the same since the apostles - e.g, Peter is the chief shepherd of the earthly Church, the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the Blessed Mother is the Ark of the New Covenant, the saints are our brothers and sisters in heaven, etc.)

The morality question is particularly difficult (all churches, including the Orthodox, have compromised their moral positions), and most Christians believe that God would not allow such a thing in His Church. He wouldn't, and that is why He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against her. The Church is mystery, as it can only be truly understood by faith (that is why it is part of the Creed - put together by the Catholic Church). She is supernatural. But she is the vehicle God created to give us His grace and further the work of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus as the cornerstone, Peter as the rock, the apostles as the foundation, and Mary as our Mother.

I am keeping you in my daily prayers.

Josh: Dear John. Thanks you so much for you cordial responses. Regarding the Catholic Church. I do respect your Church and Pope John Paul II immensely... but in the end there are things that I just don't agree with. It's not necessary nor beneficial to talk about them because I have a feeling you are just as convinced of your position as I am of mine. And I respect, that. Not the same way I would respect a protestant for being Lutheran or Baptist. I mean, I would respect this as their decision and as Christians certainly but it would be hard for me to respect the logic behind their stance. As far as Catholics go, however, I respect their positions... I don't agree with them (when they differ with Orthodoxy) and I do not wish to get into that. It's nothing highly personal... probably not reasons any different to those of other peole that have chosen Orthodoxy over Catholicism (and we know that it happens the other way too), I've just been in so many of these discussions that go nowhere. I respect you for being Catholic and I see no reason for you to become Orthodox. If you were ever to feel you had to, due to certain reasons of conscience, that's you're choice, but usually I would just say, if you are attracted to Orthodoxy, go to an Eastern Rite parish.

I see Catholics as my true brothers and sisters in Christ. I lived in Spain for two years and although I missed dearly the Orthodox Church and could probably never settle down in Spain for that very reason, the RCC became kind of like an adoptive family for me while I was there. Obviously nothing can replace the Sacraments (I'm not questioning the validity of your Sacraments, I just do not intercommune since we... are not it full communion), but at least there was that common fellowship which I find very difficult to share with protestants. I am also very involved in a Catholic Bible Study here on campus. (here's our website http://personal.cmich.edu/greve1jj) I don't know what I would do without this weekly fellowship. I have grown to love Western traditions such as Eucharistic Adoration and the Rosary (two practices that in no way go against Orthodoxy but that are simply just traditions that developed in the West).

I should also mention that I became Orthodox about 5 years ago. I was Lutheran and took a hard look at Catholicism. I came across many useful resources from the RCC that helped me on my journey home, even though I did end up being lead to East. Some of these were "Any Friend of God's is a Friend of Mine" (I think that's what the title is.. it's been a while) and Scott Hahn's lecture series on the Gospel of John which was strongly based on the very Catholic Navarre Commentary.

I am not telling you this in hopes that you will think that the Pope is not such a big deal... he is for you... and should be... you're Catholic! Just like you, there is a little hope inside of me that everyone would just come to the Orthodox Church... but 1) that's unrealistic and 2) I know that some of that comes from my intellectual pride. I expect people to see things the way I do. So, in my realist mentality, I just hope for something more attainable: That Catholics and Orthodox would become better Cahtolics and Orthodox; that protestants would come home to be Catholic or Orthodox; and that non Christians would just come to know Christ however possible. And, my hope is that those who never know Christ, at least learn to know God the best they can through what they've been given.

That is my hope, however optimistic/pesimistic that may be. I should reiterate, that I do feel that the Orthodox Church is the full expression of the early Church liturgically, dogmatically and structurally; just as you feel the same about the Catholic Church. We aren't going to change our minds on that... and that's ok. If God really wants me to be Catholic, I will be so... if he really wants you to be Orthodox, I trust you will be so. But my guess is that we will both continue to serve God to the fullest in our respective Churches and, in some small way, contribute to mutual understanding that will one day (God willing!) give way to unity (even if not in our lifetime). Feel free to write back if you want.

Have a blessed Lenten season,

Josh

J. Salza: Dear Josh. Your response to me was passionate and charitable. You are truly a man for the Lord. I feel blessed when I receive those kinds of emails. When you think about it, not much separates us. But I also think about Jesus' prayer in John 17, where he prayed that they may be one. There is only one true Church, one Bride, just as there is only one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Throughout salvation history, God has appointed earthly shepherds over His flock (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.). With Christ, He didn't decide to splinter His New Covenant Kingdom into territorial bishoprics. He appointed an earthly shepherd, a representative, a royal prime minister over the Kingdom, and that was Peter and His successors. That is why He only gave Peter the keys (just as He gave the keys to the kingdom to the prime minister of the OT Davidic kingdom - Isaiah 22:19-22). The keys not only represent authority, but also dynastic succession. This ensures the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17. And Jesus' prayer for unity was answered indeed. It is only found in the Catholic Church. I pray that someday we will be united.

Josh: Dear John. Well, it's been a while since I've responded. This is mostly because I've been busy with classes but partly because I don't know exactly what to say. Before I go further, I do want to tell you that I was not avoiding anything with the question of the "keys." I didn't get into it because I forgot (it was a pretty long letter) and I'm sure I forgot because this, from and Orthodox point of view, has little to do with the See of Rome. The Orthodox Church has no problem as seeing Peter as First among Equals. I will point out however that these keys were also given, later on, to the other Apostles. But this is still beside the point. We simply do not see any Bishop as representing any Apostle. All Bishops are successors of Peter in that they, like the other apostles, share in his Divine Confession.

J. Salza: Again, Josh, the function of the “keys” is critical to this discussion. I will leave you to study that issue in more depth. You are incorrect when saying that the “keys were also given, later on, to the other Apostles.” There is no such teaching in Scripture. This, sorry to say, is a fabrication. In fact, your statement just shows that the “keys” pose a problem for you. You have to argue that the other apostles were given the keys (even though Scripture doesn’t say this) in order to mitigate Peter’s unique authority. If Jesus gave Peter alone the keys (which is true), then you have a big problem with your view that all the bishops are on equal footing. I hope you dig more deeply into this.

Josh: Now, I will never convince you of my points, and the truth is: this really doesn't bother me. I have no desire for you to become Orthodox. Obviously if you were to say, Josh, I am becoming Orthodox, I would be giddy beyond all belief… but what I mean is that I don’t see you as a wayward Christian cut off from Apostolicity. I recognize your sacraments as fully valid, and you recognize mine (or you should) as such. Honestly John, we will never have a hierarchy that is completely unified. Some of this is due to pride on both sides; a lot of this is due to honest beliefs (about the Papacy, the Filioque, etc) that will just never be reconciled. But there is still hope, hope that we can at least move closer to intercommunion. Fr. Robert Taft (a Jesuit priest-monk) alludes to this. He is a bit crass, but it is only because he doesn't mince words. You can see he has no agenda. He's not "out to prove the Papacy" or to disprove it. He is just blunt about how he sees it (God bless the Jesuits J). Here's the link: http://ncronline.org/mainpage/taft.htm I think you will find it interesting. It doesn’t really prove anything as far as the Papacy goes, but it's still an interesting read.

Well, I should get going. My intention was not to offend you, but I do admit I was blunt at times. I don't really want to beat around the bush and I think this is necessary for us to get to the point. Again, my purpose is not to persuade you to be Orthodox, only to show you that the issue is not that clear cut, and that conceding that point makes you no less a Catholic. I am Orthodox and become so more every day by the Grace of God... this is who I am, this is where I have been called to be. So I will tell you right now that I honestly am not going to give in on this. It’s important that you understand this so that I don’t mislead you in anyway. I just don't want to give you false pretenses as if I were “seeking”. I am around very faithful Catholics on a weekly if not daily basis and next year I will be living with the leader of the Catholic Bible Study I attend. If I were to be compelled to become Catholic, it would certainly not be through any e-mails. I'm not trying to be pretentious, it's just the truth. God has ample opportunity to call me Westward if He wishes and if that is so, I will make that difficult move. But these experiences (including this one) have only further confirmed my Orthodoxy. I entered this discussion that I might learn... and believe me, I've learned a lot. So, I don't mind continuing this, but if you feel this is a waste of time and is void of any real purpose, that's fine, you won't offend or make me think less of you. If you decide, however, to continue corresponding, even if it’s just lighter stuff (or not), I look forward to future correspondence with you.

Have a Blessed and Powerful Holy Week.

J. Salza: Dear Joshua. Thank you for your message. I enjoy the dialogue and respect your traditions. Yes, you have valid orders and valid sacraments. The only issue I would have if I were you is the inconsistency of the Orthodox position on questions of morality, specifically, sexual morality. The Orthodox church has abandoned some of the Catholic Church's teachings on sexual morality. The Orthodox, just like the Anglican, Lutheran, and other "protestant" branches of Christianity, have not stood with the Catholic Church on these very important issues that bear upon our salvation. Only the Catholic Church has maintained her teachings. That tells me that the Orthodox church, while invested with valid orders, has not been given the special charism of teaching faith and morals without err.

We can read all the books about doctrinal disputes between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, but this ultimately comes down to faith. I believe that God is bound by His justice to provide a mechanism that will help us discern between truth and error. There is only one Church that has demonstrated this miraculous truth throughout her history - the Catholic Church. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. Jesus chose ONE shepherd for his earthly Church. This should be no surprise to you. God always had one representative over His people throughout the Old Testament. Why would He do so for 5,000 years, only to establish His New and Everlasting Covenant kingdom among many different bishops, with no longer a visible head? This simply makes no sense. I would ask you to appeal to reason and history here, and not the academic or doctrinal questions our dialogue raises. The Orthodox church is simply not unified in teaching matters on faith and morals. This cannot be God's plan for His people. God desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Have a blessed Easter, and God bless.

John Salza

Top

10. The seat of Moses

Gene: Long time no see John. I have one question that will answer one thousand: Was the Seat of Moses an infallible authority?

-- Gene

J. Salza: Gene, the Jews had access to God’s infallible judgments through the leaders that God appointed over them (Moses, Solomon, etc). This was also true in the case of the Sanhedrin. This is why Caiaphas could prophesy infallibly about Jesus’ pending death for the sins of His people. This is also why Jesus recognizes their authority to “bind and loose,” and tells his disciples to “obey what they teach, but not what they do” Matt. 23:2-3 (of course, this was limited to the Old Testament side of the cross). However, the Jews’ access to God’s divine judgments was obviously limited; otherwise, the Sanhedrin would not have rejected their Messiah.

After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter's chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking "ex cathedra" (from the "chair"). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old.

John Salza

Top

11. Petros versus petra

Rey: Dear John. Peace be unto you and all your loved ones. I'm an avid fan of your great website scripturecatholic.com. It's the most helpful website on Biblical apologetics because it summarizes everything what a catholic should believe and defend. I'm glad to tell you that I used your notes (of course, I acknowledge your authorship) in my Religious Studies classes here in University of St. La Salle, Bacolod City, Philippines Thank you very much for your great help to us Catholics who are in dire need for Biblical support for our faith.

I have observed, by the way, that we Catholics have poor response to Eschatological discussions such as rapture, millennium, tribulation, 70 weeks of Daniel, Revelation and even Dispensationalism. How about working out those topics? I would be very pleased if you can do that. It might be the first Catholic website that is very comprehensive to answer all the interest Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

God bless.

Fraternally,

Rey XXXX
Asst. Prof. Religious Studies Dept.

J. Salza: Dear Rey. Thank you very much for your kind words and use of the website for teaching and apologetics. I currently have a page in the Eschatology section called “The Second Coming / Rapture” that deals with this topic on a basic level. I soon will have a page called “Zionism” that will provide much more depth to the topic, and give a thorough refutation of the Rapture from a biblical perspective. Stay tuned.

Rey: Dear John, Good day! Were you a former Protestant before, what denomination, and were you a pastor? Your analysis of the biblical verses are clear, direct and powerful. You also gave comments on Masonry ... were you a Mason before? I hope you can give a bit of your personal info in your website because that would inspire more your readers.

By the way, in your analysis of the term Peter, my students pointed out that you wrote "Petros means rock" and "Petra means stone". I think it's the opposite: Petrus, masculine gender in Gk, is small stone and Petra, feminine in Gk, is rock or boulder. Perhaps, a typographical error from you. Your analysis of petrine supremacy is really great and helpful. Same with your textaul analysis about second coming and rapture. Keep up your great work. I'm waiting for your next articles.

In Christ,

Rey

J. Salza: Dear Rey, thanks for the email. I am a cradle Catholic, but I became ensnared in Freemasonry, and became lukewarm in my faith. The Holy Spirit set me on fire, and I left Masonry, and am now devoting myself to Catholic apologetics, especially all the issues that I had to address and resolve during my reversion.

Regarding Petros, I think your students got mixed up a bit. I will try to explain here:

1. The Greek word for rock is "petra" (there is no word "petros").

2. Jesus called Simon "Kepha" which, in Aramaic, means a large rock, or massive rock formation.

3. When the Gospel was translated into Greek, the writers translated Kepha into Petros (not petra). This was done to masculinize the name of Peter as Petros.

4. Because petra in Greek can mean a small rock and the translation reads Petros, Protestants attempt to say that Jesus was calling Peter a small rock, in order to diminish Peter's significance.

5. But if Jesus wanted to call Peter a small rock, the translation would have read "lithos" (meaning small pebble in Greek), not "Petros."

6. Nevertheless, Jesus said Kepha (not "evna" meaning small pebble), so the
Petra v. Petros comparison (which really doesn't exist in Greek anyway) is
irrelevant. I hope this helps.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

12. Is the Church only a symbol?

Mr. Salza, a Methodist told me that when Christ said He will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, the rebuilding of the temple was symbolic for His Church, which is none other than Christ Himself. Therefore, the Catholic Church cannot possibly be the true Church because the Church is just a symbol. I am sure you have a response to this, don't you?

J. Salza: The Temple Christ was referring to was His body (the Church was not destroyed and then raised up in three days, right?) So your Protestant friend’s argument really makes no sense. Saint Paul also talks about Christ's body as the Temple, and, as those baptized in Christ, are bodies are also temples of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is not a symbol. It is the visible body of Christ, the living and breathing reality of Christ’s presence among us. Remember also that Christ gave Peter and the apostles the authority to "bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth” (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Binding and loosing are visible acts, not symbolic ones. Jesus said a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is the Church on earth.

Grace be with you.

John Salza

Top

13. A sensitive dialogue with someone considering the Catholic Church

J: Salza: Lisa, I will go through your questions.

Lisa: I still have concerns about some of the things brought up about Catholicism on another website: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm

J. Salza: This website craziness. It is really too bad. There is not one scintilla of truth in any of it.

Lisa: The author brings up the case of the thief on the cross to whom Jesus said, "Today you will be with me in paradise" and how that 'proves' that there is no such thing as purgatory.

J. Salza: The author is mistaken. First, even if the good thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove that there is no purgatory (especially when such verses as 1 Cor. 3:15 prove that there is a purgatory). When someone dies a bloody, painful and repentant death (like the good thief did), he may be ready for heaven with no need of purgatory. Also, remember that punctuation was not part of the Scriptures until they were translated and put into books around 1400 A.D. So Jesus could have actually said, "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." Notice where the comma is. In this case, Jesus' reference to paradise would have had nothing to do with whether the good thief would be in paradise on that day or later. It would just mean that Jesus was telling him something today, right now, right here, sort of like putting an exclamation on His statement.

Lisa: Also, tonight I spoke on the phone with my ex-boyfriend's mom (who is a Catholic - she was raised in the church) who said that because their was fear of individual interpretation of the Bible, she remembers when it was not encouraged and sometimes forbidden to read one's Bible. She couldn't answer some of my other questions, though, so maybe this is misinformation on her part?

J. Salza: Yes. During the Enlightenment period, the intellectual movement known as Rationalism swept throughout Europe. This led many to interpret the Scriptures outside the teaching authority of the Church. Martin Luther furthered this with his novel theology of Sola scriptura (scripture alone).This led to private judgment theology and has given rise to the 30,000 different Protestant denominations. The Church emphasized that the Scriptures must be read in light of the apostolic Tradition that was handed down through the ages. As Saint Peter writes in his epistle, Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation. It therefore must mean that it is a matter of public interpretation, and that is the interpretation of the Church. The Church has always encouraged reading the Scriptures. In fact, the Catholic Church is the one who first translated the Scriptures into the vernacular. Why? Because she wanted the Scriptures to be available to as many people as possible. Protestants don’t often talk about this history, do they?!

Note also that Catholics get more Scripture than any other Christian faith. We literally read the entire Bible every 3 years during the Mass. But many Catholics have not been properly educated with the Scriptures in the past 30 years. But we need to become Scripture Catholics! That is why I started this website. We need to reclaim the patrimony that is truly ours. The Bible is a Catholic book; it is THE Catholic book because it was given by God to the Church.

Lisa: I am sorry if I am bothering you with my questions - I am just so afraid of falling into another of Satan's traps without knowing it - I have done that many times in my life.

J. Salza: I believe the Lord is leading you home to the Catholic Church. This is the Church Christ built upon Peter and the apostles.

Lisa: According to Protestants, I would go to hell if I were Catholic because I would be 'deceived' even though I had the best of intentions. Somehow that doesn't make sense to me - that God Almighty would know how confused I am yet punish me for all eternity because I 'guessed wrong.'

J. Salza: You are absolutely correct. That Protestant theology is nonsense. One cannot commit mortal sin unless she knows what she is doing is wrong and does it anyway. But your investigation of the Church is not wrong. God wants all people to seek the truth and come to the knowledge of Christ His Son. If you continue your journey, I believe you will find the fullness of the truth of Jesus in the Catholic Church.

Lisa: What do you think about that website? Is it completely false? Again, the link is: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm

J. Salza: I know it is false. Whatever else I can address in it for you, just let me know.

Lisa: Thank you so much for your help and your website. May God bless you richly.

J. Salza: Thank you. May God bless you.

Lisa: Hi John, I have been reading many links on your website and am still confused as to why Protestants say Catholics 'pray to the dead'. Any suggestions to help me clear this up? Thanks for your help! By the way, I agreed that the Jesus-Is-Lord website is run by a fanatic.

J. Salza: Hi Lisa, The Jesus-is-Lord website sounds like it is run by a fanatic. I wouldn't waste my time with that site.

Regarding intercessory prayer, Catholics don't pray to the dead. They pray to the living! Those living with Christ are more alive than we are, because they are enjoying the beatific vision for all eternity. As Jesus said, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, we invoke their assistance by asking them to pray for us. It is as simple as that. Yes, we pray directly to God. But we also ask our brothers and sisters who have gone before us to pray to God for us as well. Just like if I asked you to pray for me. The Catholic Church is the family of God, both on earth and in heaven. We are not cut off from our loved ones in heaven, but through Christ, are joined to them through the Church. Since the prayers of the righteous are powerful, and those in heaven are righteous, we seek their prayers which are more powerful than ours can be.

Look at my link on intercessory prayer. Scripture is replete with verses that talk about intercessory prayer. We see in the Apocalypse how the prayers of the saints rise up as incense before the throne of God. God allows us to participate in Christ's mediation by praying for others. I will try to contact you in the near future. Take care and God bless.

Lisa: Dear John. Thank you for your response. I would appreciate knowing some good links and/or books to check out. There are several things I am concerned about with the Catholic Church. For example, (I believe it is on the 'slideshow' part of that link I sent you) I have seen pictures of the Pope with an upside-down cross on his throne-looking chair.

J. Salza: Thank you for the reply. I will try to address some of your concerns in a quick email (which is never sufficient). I will also try to call you and talk viva voce. As far as books, I would start by reading Gospels, and then the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this will tell you everything the Church teaches "from the horse's mouth" - instead of relying on misleading Protestant assertions.) You can pick up a Catechism for $12 from any Catholic bookstore. You can also read my book The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith which can be purchased from Our Sunday Visitor at www.osv.com.

I have seen pictures of the Pope with an upside-down cross on his throne-looking chair; Saint Peter, the first pope, was crucified upside down (because he said he was unworthy of dying the way Christ died). The cross on Pope John Paul II's chair was reflecting the death of Peter as he was sitting "on the seat of Peter.”

Lisa: In the Bible there is a scripture in the New Testament that warns of people who ‘forbid to marry' and who teach 'abstaining from meats' - so I have a problem with the celibacy of nuns and monks, etc.

J.Salza: Go to www.scripturecatholic.com, the priesthood link, and look for the link on celibacy. http://scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html#priesthood-IV Saint Paul was teaching against those early cults that forbid marriage outside the teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, exalts marriage to a sacrament (it does not even do this for consecrate celibacy). Celibacy is just a church discipline in the Western church; in the east, priests can marry in certain circumstances. But if you see my link, you see that Christ praises celibacy and recommends that all who can receive the gift, should receive it. Saint Paul also recommends celibacy. You also see in the Apocalypse that those consecrated to celibacy are praised in the heavenly kingdom. As far as abstaining from meats, that has nothing to do with celibacy. Paul was referring to Judaizers in the church who kept preaching that Christians were still required to obey the edicts of the Mosaic law regarding food. As we know, the Mosaic law, with all its edicts regarding food, has been made null and void by the New Covenant.

Lisa: I have a real issue with praying 'through' Mary so she could make some intercession on my behalf, since I believe I am an adopted daughter of God Almighty, and those who prayed throughout the Bible prayed directly to God.

J. Salza: Mary is always a big hurdle for many non-Catholics. Yes, you are an adopted daughter of God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. However, Christ allows us to participate in his mediation on a subordinate level. Hence, we can ask others to pray for us to God. Well, those in heaven are more alive than we are on earth. Thus, we can ask them to pray for us as well, as they behold the face of God. There is no one closer to Jesus in heaven than His Mother Mary. We can therefore ask her to intercede for us before her Son. She helps make our prayers acceptable to God. Recall in the Old Testament that the Davidic king always had his mother at Hiss right hand, who would intercede for him. Christ is the true Davidic king, and Mary is the true Queen Mother, at Her Son's right hand. Jesus never refuses the requests of His mother Mary. Also, the New Testament is replete with verses where the writers ask for prayers. Also, in the book of Revelation, we see the prayers of the saints, include Mary, rising up as incense before God.

Lisa: Never once did Jesus ask Mary to intercede for Him, and neither did Paul or any others I have read speak of doing so.

J. Salza: This is not so. Please read the Gospel of John, chapter 2, about Christ's first miracle at Cana. Mary intercedes for those at the wedding feast because they were out of wine. Jesus invites Mary’s intercession by responding to her, “what does that have to do with me and you?” Mary then furthers her intercession by telling the stewards to do whatever Jesus told them. Mary brings about Jesus' ministry through her motherly intercession at a wedding feast which prefigures the wedding feast of the lamb at the end of time. Mary's reply would not make any sense unless Jesus was welcoming her intercession, and she knew this.

Lisa: I have a problem with the crucifix, as Christ rose and is at the Father's right hand – I view the crucifix as a way for Satan to 'keep Him on the cross' so-to-speak.

J. Salza: Actually, it was Satan who kept telling Jesus to come down from the cross. Not the cross! Anything but the cross! Satan wanted Christ down from the cross because Christ on the cross is the greatest act of love God has ever showed human kind. We exalt the cross because it is the pure sacrifice that has made peace with God, and the greatest paradox of salvation history. Saint Paul said that "we preach a Christ crucified." We do not just preach a Christ risen. Protestants take Jesus down from the cross because they do not like the question of suffering. But it was through Jesus' propitiatory suffering and death that we are healed.

Lisa: I have a problem with the repetition of prayers and many, many other issues.

J. Salza: The issue is with the "vain," and not the "repetition." Please see this link: http://scripturecatholic.com/vain_and_repetitious_prayer.html God, in fact, inspired the sacred writers to offer Him repetitious prayers (see, for example, Psalm 136 and Daniel 3:52-66).

Lisa: My phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX if you would like to call me. Thank you John for your help and response, and I thank God that you are freed from Masonry!

J. Salza: Thank you! I thank God for this grace as well. God bless you.

Top

14. A dialogue with a former (now, anti) Catholic

Jacqueline: Dear John, Thanks for your email. I am surprised you are still writing to me.

J. Salza: I have no problem dialoging with someone who loves Jesus. It is not principally about who is “right or wrong,” it is about who believes in the fullness of truth that Christ gave to us through His apostles and their successors. Yes, non-Catholic Christians are loved by Christ and members of His body. But non-Catholics have not yet accepted the totality of Christian truth which has been given by Christ to His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I agree with you that Jesus is everything, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and this is why I have given my life to Him. But as a follower of Christ, I listen to what He teaches in Sacred Scripture.

Jacqueline: Finally we agree on something! We must OBEY Christ to the letter, and worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, NOT the way we want to.

J. Salza: But to obey Christ, we must obey the teachings of His Church. Christ intended to leave us a unified, hierarchical and authoritative Church whom He guides into all truth. It is not "Jesus, the Bible and me." If it were, tell me why there are 33,000 different Protestant denominations? Christ loves us so much, He left us a Church to teach us the entirety of His truth, and protect us from error. God is in fact bound by His justice to provide us a mechanism that keeps us from error. That mechanism is not the Bible, which is subject to many different interpretations. That mechanism is the Church, the Bride! This is proven by 2,000 years of consistent teaching on faith and morals, and further underscored by the continued splintering of non-Catholic Christian churches who all claim to go by the Bible alone.

In John 6:35-66, Jesus says over and over again that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in Him. But, I know, you Protestants don't think he really meant that.

Jacqueline: My dear John, I am NOT a Protestant. I was born a Roman Catholic. And yes I agree in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. I would not bother going to Mass if I did not believe that.

J. Salza: Jacqueline, if you believe in transubstantiation, then you believe that the Catholic Church has a valid priesthood. This makes you Catholic. No other Church teaches transubstantiation (that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine no longer remain). If you believe in the Church's teaching on transubstantiation, then why don't you believe in the Church's other teachings? If you are Catholic, then why are we debating?

Jacqueline: I also point out that the word "transubstantiation" is not in the Bible, and this was not defined by the Church until late in the Church's history. This shows that you believe in a Tradition that is found outside of Scripture.

J. Salza: Now you don’t sound Catholic. Where in the Bible does it say that it has to be in the Bible for it to be true? No where. Further, while the term “transubstantiation” was not formally defined until Lateran IV, the Church always taught that the elements of bread and wine miraculously become the body and blood of Christ. If you read the Church fathers, they used different terminology (transform, transmute, convert), but they were all attempting to explain the miracle that the substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Lateran IV settled the terminology, but the doctrine was always there.

Jacqueline: You believe that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, but he really gave this gift to all Christians. We too can forgive and retain sin.

J. Salza: No, that is not so. That is not what the Scriptures say. In John 20:23, Christ only breathed upon the apostles and gave them this authority. He did not grant it to Mary or anyone else. Yes, we can forgive each other, but, unless we are ordained (which gets back to the valid priesthood issue that you have already acknowledged), we cannot sacramentally absolve someone's sins. You should also consider why your position was never taught by any Christian for at least 1,500 years (in fact, I am not aware of any Protestant church that teaches that all Christians can absolve sin). Also, you will not be able to find any early Church father teaching your position.

In fact, let’s pursue your statement a bit further. You say we all can retain sin. If I confess my sins to God with a contrite heart, do you mean that you have the authority to judge my contrition, and retain my sins against me? That is what you are saying in your comment. This is not true.

Also, if you have the power to bind and loose, does this mean that you can perform the priestly act of consecrating the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ? If so, why go to Mass? I don't mean to be glib, but I hope you can see how problematic it is to accepting some of the teachings of the Church but not others.

Jacqueline: You also always point to Matthew 16:18 to show that only Peter is the rock of the Church. But that verse can be read both ways -- Jesus as the Rock, and Peter as the rock also.

J. Salza: No, it can't. When you read Matt. 16:18-19, you can see there is an exchange of titles - Peter says, "You are the Christos!" and Jesus says, "You are the Petros!" Also, the Greek demonstrative adjective "tautee" is used to describe "Petros" which means "this very rock," or "this same rock," in reference to Peter. Peter is the only referent for “this,” which means Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.

Are you saying you believe in the Eucharist, but not that the Church was built upon Peter?

Jacqueline: Further, ALL the Apostles were equal in authority. Peter did not have precedence over the others. They were all one. Matter of fact, the leader of the first Christian Church in Jerusalem was James, and not Peter.

J. Salza: This is also not true, and certainly not biblical. Go to my site and see the link PRIMACY of PETER. Peter was the chief shepherd of the apostles. Jesus only prays for Peter, that Peter may strengthen the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:31-32), and charges Peter in John 21:15-17 to "feed my sheep," "tend my lambs," "tend my sheep."

Most importantly, while all the apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, only Peter was given the keys. Read Isaiah 22:19-22. The keys symbolized authority over the household of God. The keeper of the keys served as the chief steward, or prime minister of the house. When Christ gave Peter the keys, he was appointing him chief steward over the Church, which is the kingdom of heaven. Also, Peter's keys symbolize the use of dynastic succession, just as in Isaiah 22:19-22 (keys pass from Shebna to Eliakim). Peter was the chief steward of the new Davidic kingdom, and these keys have passed to 263 successors over the last 20 centuries.

Also, where in the Bible does it say James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem? Where does it say that Jesus gave James the keys, charged James to strengthen the rest of the apostles, and commanded James to tend the sheep? If James was the leader of the Church at Jerusalem, then why does Peter (not James) do the first order of business at the church in Jerusalem right after Pentecost by initiating a successor to Judas? (Acts 1:15). Why is Peter (not James) the first person in the Church at Jerusalem to preach the Gospel after Pentecost (Acts 2:14)? Why does Peter (not James) declare the Church's first anathema of Anaias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3)?

Why is Peter (not James) the first one in the church at Jerusalem to teach about salvation for both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48; 11:1-18)? Why is Peter (not James) the one to resolve the Church's first doctrinal debate at the council of Jerusalem, and the whole assembly kept silent (Acts 15:7-12)? If James is the leader, why does he only speak after Peter's definitive teaching on circumcision, only to acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching (Simeon Peter has related...) Acts 15:13-14? Why does Paul spend 15 days with Peter in Jerusalem (not James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem) prior to beginning his ministry, even though he was directly converted by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:18)?

I believe that you are a sincere Christian, but I sense that you are not getting your information from a thorough study of Scripture, but from anti-Catholic sources.

Jacqueline: Yes all Christians have the power to bind or loosen. It's a Spiritual power that was given to ALL Christians. The problem is that most Christians don't know how to utilise this power.

J. Salza: Where does it say all Christians have the power to bind and loose in the Bible? It doesn't. Moreover, if this were the case, you would have to be able to show me from the Bible how to properly utilize this power. But, of course, this is not in the Bible either. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms that are reserved for the leaders of the Church. See for example Matt. 23:2-4 - Jesus acknowledges the Pharisees authority to bind and loose under the Old Covenant. Not all Jews had this authority, only the successors to the seat of Moses. Similarly, only the apostles, and not all Christians, have the binding and loosing authority of the New Covenant.

In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives His other apostles the authority to bind and loose in heaven what he binds and looses on earth, but he only gives the apostles this authority collectively. He gives Peter alone the power to bind and loose individually. The apostles can only bind and loose when united to Peter. Ordinary non-ordained Christians have no power to bind and loose.

Jacqueline: Yes we have that power too!

J. Salza: Again, were does it say that in the Bible? Also, point me to an early father or doctor of the Church that agrees with you. See my comments above.

Jacqueline: We are also not born again by baptism, but by accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

J. Salza: Where does it say that in the Bible? When Jesus talks about being “born again,” He is referring to baptism. In John 3:5, Jesus says that we must be born of water and the Holy Spirit in reference to baptism, or we cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jacqueline: I agree! There are 2 baptisms. One with water, and one with Fire --which only the Holy Spirit can give.

J. Salza: This is not what I said, and your statement is also incorrect. There are not two baptisms. There is only one baptism, just as one Lord and one faith. (Ephesians 4:5). Again, your position is not biblical. But hopefully we agree that baptism is salvific, not just symbolic.

In 1 Tim. 3:15, Paul calls the Church (not the Bible) the pinnacle and foundation of the truth. But, I know, you Protestants don't believe he really meant that.

Jacqueline: And WHAT is the Church? The Church is NOT a building of mortar and stone. The Church is the Mystical Living Body of Christ lead by His Spirit. WE are the Church!

J. Salza: No. The Greek word for Church here is "ecclesia," which refers to the visible, hierarchical and authoritative Church, not an invisible, ethereal body of believers loosely connected by faith in the Bible alone. Again, if you acknowledge a valid priesthood, then you must acknowledge that Christ divinely instituted a Church as well. What Church? Only the Catholic Church claims and proves to be Christ's Church.

In 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul commands the faithful to obey Tradition, whether it is oral or written (He never says written alone, and he never repeals this command anywhere else in Scripture). But, I know, you Protestants don't believe he really meant that.

Jacqueline: Tradition must be faithful to Holy Scripture. No religious denomination can make-up their own Traditions as it pleases them!

J. Salza: Where does it say in the Bible that Tradition must be faithful to Holy Scripture? It doesn't. This is because Scripture IS a tradition. As we see in 2 Thess. 2:15, Tradition is not limited to what is written. It also includes the oral teachings of the apostles. Because you claim to be faithful to the Scriptures, which oral Traditions do you follow?

Jacqueline: What Signs and Gifts of the Holy Spirit do YOU have?

J. Salza: Wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord. Isaiah 11:2 (from the Latin Vulgate which Protestants rejected 1200 years after it was given to us by the Catholic Church).

Jacqueline: Do you believe the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to ALL Christians or only given to a select few?

J. Salza: God desires all people to be saved, and gives all people gifts of the Spirit. But those in full communion with Christ through the Church He founded have a better cha