Following are some transcripts from John’s daily radio show called “Relevant Answers,” presented by Relevant Radio (www.relevantradio.com). In this feature, John explains a point of Catholic teaching using the Scriptures, and how to respond to Protestant objections. Relevant Answers runs six times a day, seven days a week on Relevant Radio – “bridging the gap between faith and everyday life.”
1. Sola Scriptura
Where does it say that in the Bible? Have you ever had a Bible Christian challenge you to prove a Catholic teaching from the Bible? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. All Catholic doctrines can be found in the Bible, explicitly or at least implicitly. But how do you respond to your Protestant friend if you are not sure where to find a teaching in the Bible? Here is a simple response. Tell him: “Show me in the Bible where it says it must be in the Bible for it to be true. Please give me book, chapter and verse.” While there are many verses that say Scripture is inspired or Scripture is God’s word, nothing in the Bible says the Bible is the only authority for Christians. In fact, the Bible teaches that it is NOT the only authority. St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 teaches that God’s word comes to us through both the written and unwritten traditions. These traditions have been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church, the Church who gave us the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
2. Baptism
“Are you born again?” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Protestants often ask Catholics whether they are “born again.” They get this phrase from chapter 3 of John’s Gospel, where Jesus in verse three tells Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to enter the kingdom of heaven. What does being “born again” mean? Protestants believe that it simply means accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior. However, this is not at all how Jesus explained the phrase. When Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, Jesus explains to him that being born again means being born “of water and the Spirit.” Water and the Spirit, when used together in Scripture, always refer to baptism. Thus, after Jesus teaches about the meaning of being “born again,” John records in John 3:21 and 4:1 that Jesus and his disciples went into Judea and baptized. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
3. Sola Scriptura
Did you ever hear a Protestant Christian claim that all saving truths are found in the Bible alone? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. How do we as Catholics respond to this claim that nothing outside of Scripture is necessary for our salvation? A simple way is to point out to our Protestant friends the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture is the collection of inspired books in the Bible. Now, knowing the canon is necessary for our salvation because if we had the wrong canon, we would be in error and our salvation would be jeopardized. However, the books in the Bible do not tell us what the canon is. There is no inspired table of contents. In other words, the canon of Scripture is a truth that is necessary for our salvation, but that comes to us from outside the Bible (which incidentally was determined by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century). This simple truth should move any honest Protestant to re-examine his premise that the Bible is the sole source of saving truth. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
4. The Virgin Mary
Did the Blessed Virgin Mary have other children beside Jesus? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Some Protestants contend that Mary had other children because the Bible refers to people such as James and Joseph as Jesus’ “brothers.” How do Catholics respond to these claims? First, while the Bible does describe people as Jesus’ “brothers,” it never says that these people are children of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is the assumption that the Protestant is making. Second, the people in Jesus’ time spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and these languages have no word for “cousin.” For example, in Genesis 13 and 14, Lot is called Abraham’s brother even though Lot was actually his cousin. Thus, people would in their native Hebrew or Aramaic refer to Jesus’ cousins as His “brothers,” and the Holy Spirit, who inspired the New Testament in the Greek language, recorded what the people actually said. So when Protestants see the Greek word adelphoi which means “brothers” to describe Jesus’ relations, this does not mean that Jesus had biological brothers, only cousins. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
5. The Eucharist
At the Last Supper, Jesus said “this is my body,” and “this is the cup of my blood.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. A while ago, a Protestant gentleman confronted me about the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. He presented me a picture of his wife and said “this is my wife. But the picture isn’t literally her, is it?” He thought he caught me in an error. In response, I took the picture, dropped it on the floor, and pretended to stomp on it. I then asked my friend if I were guilty of profaning his wife’s body and blood. He looked at me quite confused and after a few seconds, said no. I then asked him why St. Paul teaches 1 Corinthians 11:27 that we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we receive the Eucharist unworthily. I explained that we could not possibly be guilty of such a heinous crime for profaning a symbol, for if the Eucharist were just a symbol, St. Paul would be imposing an unjust penalty upon us. My friend said he would read the verse and get back to me. He never did. 1 Corinthians 11:27 is a powerful text that demonstrates Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
6. Faith Alone
Does the Bible teach that we are saved by faith alone? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Most Protestants refer to Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul says we are saved by grace and not because of works, lest anyone boast. But neither Paul nor any biblical writer ever says that we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, the only time the phrase “faith alone” appears in Scripture is in James 2:24 when James says that we are saved by works and NOT by faith alone, which utterly negates the Protestant proposition. So how do we reconcile the teaching of Paul who says we are not saved by works and James who says we are saved by works? Simple. The Bible teaches that we can relate to God in one of two systems – law or grace. In a system of law, we view God as an employer who owes us, and we thus try to obligate God with our works. In a system of grace, however, we view God as a Father who loves us and will reward us for our works out of His benevolence, not obligation. Thus, there is a difference between works done in grace (which James says us we must perform to be saved) and works of law (which Paul says will condemn us). I have much more on this topic in my book The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
7. Extreme Unction
Hi, this John Salza with Relevant Answers. For those who are in danger of death, Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Extreme Unction, today more commonly known as Anointing of the Sick. In James 5:14, the apostle sets forth the biblical basis for the sacrament. James says “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” Now, some of our Protestant friends also believe in healing prayer, and even call upon the elders of their communities to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them. However, since they do not believe in the sacramental priesthood, they are forced to ignore James’ concluding words in verse 15 where he says: “if he (the sick person) has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” Thus, the sacrament of the sick is not merely about anointing and prayer as Protestants claim, but principally about the priestly forgiveness of sins. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
8. Sola Scriptura
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In attempting to prove that the Bible is our only authority, Protestants invariably quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul says that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching.” Catholics, of course, agree that Scripture is inspired and profitable. But Paul does not say that Scripture is exclusive for teaching. In fact, the word “profitable” (in Greek, is ophelimos), underscores that Scripture is not our exclusive authority. For example, Paul uses the same word in Titus 3:8 when he says “good deeds are profitable to men.” Certainly, Protestants don’t argue that good deeds are the exclusive means of attaining salvation. There are at least three words in the Greek language that mean exclusive, and Paul didn’t use any of them to describe the role of Scripture in the Christian’s life. This, coupled with the fact that Paul commands us to obey oral tradition as well as Scripture, demonstrates that Scripture is not our only authority. No, our only authority is the Word of God, which comes to us through both Scripture and Tradition, as taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
9. Scripture Interpretation
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. I have always wondered how my Protestants friends contend that Scripture is so clear as to be our only authority, and yet consistently depart from the literal and obvious meaning of Scripture. The Catholic Church, for 2,000 years, has always taught us to interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless of course the interpretation is untenable. Why is this? Because God has deliberately chosen the words of Sacred Scripture, and He is not trying to deceive us. As St. Paul teaches, God cannot lie. This is why Catholics interpret literally Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 (Peter is the rock of the Church); Matthew 19:9 (divorce after remarriage is adultery); Matthew 26:26-28 (this is my body; this is my blood); John 3:5 (you must be born of water and the spirit); John 6:54 (eat my flesh and drink my blood); and John 20:23 (if you forgive sin, it is forgiven). The Church interprets these verses literally because there is no compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. God means what He says. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
10. Baptism
To deny the Catholic teaching on the necessity of baptism, Protestants often refer to the salvation of the good thief. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. As we read in Luke’s Gospel, chapter 23, after the good thief rebukes the bad thief and expresses his faith in Jesus, Jesus tells him “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” See, the Protestant contends, Jesus gave the thief eternal life without baptism. How are Catholics to respond? First, at this moment Jesus was still technically on the Old Testament side of the cross, so there was no requirement for the thief to be water baptized. Second, the Church teaches that a person can receive the grace of a water baptism by explicitly desiring it and repenting of sin, even if he doesn’t actually receive the sacrament. In the case of the good thief, he repented of his crime and desired to be with Jesus. Of course, if he knew that baptism was necessary for his salvation and could have received it, he would have. But, of course, in his condition he could not have received it. God does not punish someone for failing to do the impossible. The story of the good thief doesn’t negate Jesus’ words in Mark 16, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Instead, it demonstrates God’s mercy toward those who desire His sacraments but cannot receive them. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
11. Relics
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. For 2,000 years, Catholics have used relics to facilitate their devotion to the saints and their worship of God. Relics are parts of the body of a saint, like a piece of bone, or a saint’s clothing, or something a saint used or touched. Many Protestants view the Catholic use of relics as superstitious and pagan. They think we Catholics use relics as good luck charms. These views are mistaken. First, relics, in and of themselves, have no supernatural power. God chooses to use relics as a conduit of his power and grace. For example, in the Old Testament, Elisha’s bones, which are relics, brought a man back to life. St. Peter’s shadow healed the sick, and St. Paul’s handkerchiefs also healed the sick and drove out unclean spirits. And remember the woman with the hemorrhage? She sought to touch just the hem of Jesus’ cloak and was cured. God could have affected these cures directly, but instead chooses to use the material things He created to effect the supernatural. Second, the Church uses relics to remember and honor the saints, just like we have keepsakes such as clothing or pictures to honor our deceased loved ones. The use of relics is not only biblical, it is incarnational, which means it is thoroughly Christian. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
12. Call no man Father?
Because Catholics call their priests “father,” many Protestants accuse us of going against the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 23:9, when Jesus was teaching His disciples not to be like the Pharisees, He said “call no man father.” But was this a blanket prohibition on every using the word “father”? Of course not. In the prior verse Jesus also said “call no man teacher,” but Protestants call their pastors teachers, just like they call their biological fathers “father.” No, Jesus was teaching his disciples not to follow the hypocritical example of the Pharisees, who loved their titles more than their own people. So why do Catholics call their priests “father”? Well, in Acts 7:2 and 22:1, the New Testament priests are called “father.” In 1 John 2:1, 13 and 14, the apostle also calls the priests of the Church “father.” In 1 Cor 4:15, St. Paul calls himself a “father” in Christ Jesus. Jesus Himself calls Abraham “father” and commands us to honor our “father” and mother. And the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Mother and the angels all refer to our spiritual leaders as “father.” Call no man “father?” Catholics should ask their Protestant friends why they don’t call their pastors “father.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
13. Vain and Repetitious Prayer
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many Catholic prayers and devotions such as the Rosary or litanies are comprised of prayers that are repeated, such as the phrase “pray for us,” or “have mercy on us.” Because of this, Protestants often accuse Catholics of offering “vain and repetitious” prayer. They point to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:7 where Jesus says “in prayer do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words.” But in this teaching Jesus is not condemning repetitious prayer; He is condemning “vain” prayer, prayer that uses empty words because the person’s heart is far from God. As in His other teachings, Jesus is focused, not on the externals of worship, but on the person’s heart, for God reads the hearts and thoughts of men. If God were offended by repetitious prayer, then He would not have inspired Psalm 136 where the psalmist repeatedly says “For his love endures forever”; or in Daniel chapter 3 where Azariah repeatedly exclaims “bless the Lord”; or Apocalypse 4:8 where the angels incessantly chant “holy, holy, holy Lord.” In Matthew 26:44, even Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane prayed a third time, saying the same words. Far from offending God, repetitious prayer pleases God and moves Him to respond to our needs when offered with a sincere heart. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
14. Sola Scriptura
In Acts chapter 15, we read about the Church’s first council at Jerusalem. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. At this council, the Church had to resolve its first doctrinal question regarding whether or not Christians had to be circumcised. Now, Protestants contend that the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was the only authority for the Church. But if this were true, then the Church at the council of Jerusalem would have imposed the circumcision requirement upon Christians. After all, the Scriptures taught them that circumcision was the sign of God’s everlasting covenant with Abraham, which was also renewed in the Law of Moses. So all the Patriarchs and prophets were circumcised, the apostles were circumcised, and even Jesus Himself was circumcised. Based on the Scriptures alone, the circumcision requirement should have been imposed. We all know that it wasn’t, and that is because the early Church did not use the Scriptures alone. From the very beginning, the Church, led by Peter and his successors and guided by the Holy Spirit, was the final authority on matters of the faith. Scripture affirms this fact. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
15. The Virgin Mary
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Romans 3:23, St. Paul says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Protestants often use this passage in an attempt to prove the Blessed Mother had sin. How should Catholics respond? I’ll give you five quick ways. First, if “all have sinned,” this cannot include Jesus, so if Jesus is an exception then Mary can be as well. Second, in Romans 5:19 Paul says “many” (not all) were made sinners, which demonstrates that when Paul says “all,” he really means many. Third, the Greek word for “all” in Romans 3:23 is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when he says “all have died.” But Scripture says Enoch and Elijah didn’t die but were assumed into heaven, which means that when Paul says “all” he does not mean every single one. Fourth, Paul cannot mean every single one because infants, the senile and the mentally handicapped cannot sin (or at least aren’t culpable for their sin). Fifth and finally, in Romans 3:23 Paul really means that all people are subject to original sin. The difference between us and Mary is that God chose to redeem Mary from the moment of her conception, while he redeems us, through baptism, after we are born. But Mary’s redemption, like ours, is based entirely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, which God applied in advance to Mary, just as He did with the Old Testament saints. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
16. Papal Authority
Hi, this is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In arguing against the authority of the pope, many non-Catholics point out Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11, where Paul says that he withstood Peter to his face for separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Non-Catholics make way too much out of this passage, for the passage reveals the simple truth that there is a difference between a pope’s teaching authority and his personal conduct. In this case, Paul is saying that Peter was not living up to his infallible teaching that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. After all, it was Peter who first preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and baptized them. Because Peter was the leader of the early Church, his behavior was under the microscope, and separating himself from the Gentiles during meals was sending the Gentiles a mixed message. Peter was simply trying to appease the Jews to facilitate their transition into the Church. In fact, Peter could have responded to Paul’s rebuke with a rebuke of his own. Paul, too, tried to appease the Jews by circumcising Timothy in Acts 16:3, and even engaged in a purification ritual under the Mosaic law in Acts 21. Thus, Paul’s rebuke of Peter actually underscores Peter’s authority and prestige in the early Church, and that we must distinguish between a pope’s binding teachings and personal conduct. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
17. The Eucharist
How can Catholics possibly believe that Jesus gives us His flesh and blood to consume? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. This is the same question that the Jews asked after Jesus told them that the bread that He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. In John’s Gospel, chapter 6, we see the Jews asking each other “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Now, here is an important consideration for our Protestant friends. Scripture tells us that God cannot deceive us (see for example Titus 1:2). Thus, if the Jews were deceived in their interpretation of Jesus’ words, Jesus would have corrected them. As God, it would be impossible for Jesus’ to leave the Jews in their erroneous opinions, for God cannot deceive us, especially on a matter of salvation. So what did Jesus do? He didn’t correct them. Instead, He confirmed their literal interpretation that He would give them His flesh to eat. Jesus responds by swearing an oath as He says “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Although Jesus’ gift of self in the Eucharist surpasses our understanding, Catholics respond to Jesus’ words as Peter did: “Where shall we go Lord, for you have the words of eternal life.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
18. Purgatory
What is the biblical basis for the Church’s teaching on purgatory? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In the third chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Paul uses the metaphors of gold, silver, wood, hay and stubble to describe what people have done in their lives. In verse 14, Paul says those who built exclusively with gold and silver, in reference to their good works, will receive the reward of salvation when they die. In verse 17, those who built only with wood, hay and stubble, in reference to their evil works, will have their works burned up and be condemned when they die. What about the person who built with both good and bad materials? Paul reveals something very interesting. In verse 15, Paul says that such a person’s bad works are burned up, but the person is still saved, but only as through fire. In other words, the person who had his bad works burned up must, in the same manner, pass through the fire that burned up those bad works to be saved. The reason why the person must pass through this same fire is to be purged of the things that led him to produce the bad works in the first place. This purgation by fire after death prior to entering into heavenly bliss is what the Church calls purgatory. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
19. Purgatory
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many non-Catholics do not believe in the Church’s 2,000 year-old doctrine of purgatory. It seems as though they do not believe that our merciful Lord would forgive someone’s sin after they die. Well, it is true that if someone dies in unrepentant mortal sin, they have no more possibility of forgiveness. But if someone dies with venial sin only on his soul, or still owes God some satisfaction for his sin, he will, eventually, go to heaven. The Apostle John in his first letter chapter five explains this distinction between mortal and venial sin. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus says that “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come.” Willfully resisting the grace of the Holy Spirit is a mortal sin and will not be forgiven after we die. But, in this teaching, Jesus makes it clear that there is forgiveness after death, when he refers to forgiveness “in the age to come.” Now, regarding this “age to come,” forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and is no longer possible in hell. This means that there is another state after death, in the age to come, where God forgives sins, and this is the state of purgatory. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
20. Baptism
Why do Catholics baptize infants? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many non-Catholics deny infant baptism, claiming that it has no basis in Scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Acts 2:38, Peter declares that the promise of baptism “is to you and to your children.” The Greek word for “children” (teknon) is the same word that is later used in Acts 21:21 to describe eight-day old infants preparing for circumcision. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants. And speaking of circumcision, in Colossians 2:11-12 St. Paul says that baptism is the “new circumcision.” That is, like the Old Covenant act of circumcision which was given to eight-day old infants, baptism is the New Covenant sacrament that is likewise given to infants. God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old. To the contrary, in Romans 5:15 St. Paul says that the grace of the New Covenant surpasses that of the old, to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
21. Graven Images
Catholics use images of Our Lord and our Lady and other saints to facilitate their worship of God. Have you ever heard a Protestant criticize a Catholic for using “graven images”? The Protestant refers to Exodus chapter 20 where God tells His people: “You shall not make a graven image.” Since Catholics do use images, what are we to make of this? Well, if the Protestant would flip ahead five chapters to Exodus 25, He would see God commanding TO make graven images, here, images of the heavenly angels. Was God being inconsistent about graven images? Of course not. In Exodus chapter 20, God commanded the Israelites not to make graven images to worship, which is why the prohibition is connected to God’s command “you shall have no other gods before me.” But this does not mean we cannot use graven images to facilitate our worship. That was the purpose of God’s command in Exodus 25 to make images of cherubim: to assist the Israelites in their worship of God. Using images is part of the Christian tradition and was one of the ways Catholics shared the Gospel before the compilation of the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
22. Papal Infallibility
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks His apostles who the people say that He is. Peter responds by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response, right before Jesus promises to build His Church upon Peter the rock, Jesus tells Peter “blessed are you, Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Why did Jesus say this? For a very important reason: To show that Peter received a revelation from the Father and then communicated that revelation without error. This is the basis of papal infallibility. God intrudes into the mind of Peter and Peter teaches infallibly, here uttering a truth about the person of Jesus Christ. While Peter certainly had faith in Jesus, Matthew 16 is not about Peter’s faith per se, but his ability to receive divine insights from God which he then passes on to the Church. Because God prevents Peter from teaching error, Jesus can promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.” My dear friends, let us thank God every day for the great gift of the papacy. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
23. Peter is the rock
To deny the papacy of the Catholic Church, Protestants argue that Jesus promised to build the Church only upon Peter’s faith, but not his person. Why do they argue this? Because while Peter the person is visible, his faith is invisible. Thus, if Jesus builds the Church upon Peter’s invisible faith, the Church must be merely an invisible association of believers, and not a visible organization like the Catholic Church. How do we respond? First, in Matthew 16 Peter confesses a truth about the person of Jesus (that He is the Christ) and Jesus, in response, declares a truth about the person of Peter (that he is the rock). So Matthew 16 is not about Peter’s faith, but his person. Second, after naming Peter the rock of the Church, Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose, which are visible, not invisible acts. Third, the Bible says the Church is built upon persons, not just attributes of persons like their faith. In Ephesians 2:20 Paul says the Church is built upon the persons of the apostles. Finally, the Bible tells us that Christ’s Church is a visible organization of bishops, priests and deacons. This is the Catholic Church, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
24. Jesus' “finished work on the cross”
Protestants often tell Catholics that we must accept Jesus’ “finished work on the cross.” They do this to deny the Catholic teaching that Jesus continues to present His sacrifice to the Father in heaven and in the Mass, as the book of Hebrews clearly teaches. How do Catholics respond? First, the Scriptures never refer to Christ’s work as “finished.” In fact, the Scriptures tell us that Jesus’ work is not finished. In Hebrews 7:25 and Romans 8:34, Paul says that Jesus continues to intercede for us before the Father for our salvation. If Christ’s “work” were finished, there would be no need for Jesus’ intercession. Scripture also gives the word “finished” a relative meaning. For example, in John 17:4, Jesus says He has “finished” the Fathers work, even before He went to the cross. In Hebrews 4:3, Paul says Jesus’ works were “finished from the foundation of the world.” If this were literally true, the Incarnation was unnecessary. Jesus’ “work on the cross” commenced on Calvary, but His work will not be finished until the end of time, when He comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
25. Peter’s keys to the kingdom
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 16, after Jesus renames Simon to Peter and promises to build His Church upon Him, Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” What did Jesus mean? By giving Peter the keys, Jesus was both conferring upon Peter authority over the Church and implementing a plan of succession to Peter’s office. The only other time in Scripture we see “keys” in the context of a “kingdom” is in Isaiah 22 which describes the Davidic kingdom of the Old Covenant. In the old kingdom, the king had a prime minister who would rule and govern the kingdom while the king was away. In Isaiah 22 the keys pass from Shebna to Eliakim, who was called a “father” to God’s people and had the authority to teach and discipline. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, the Jews immediately recognized that Jesus was implementing a new regime. Jesus was the new King, and Peter the new prime minister. Peter, and his successors through the passing of the keys, would rule and govern the Church until King Jesus would come again. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
26. Jesus died “once for all”
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. To deny the sacrifice of the Mass, Protestants point out that Scripture says Jesus died “once for all.” Thus, they argue that the Mass cannot reenact Christ’s death on the cross. While it is true that Jesus died once for all and that He doesn’t die again in the Mass, the Protestant misunderstands the phrase “once for all.” “Once for all” means perpetual, not over and done with. We know this because Paul connects Jesus’ once for all death with His once for all appearance in heaven. Because Jesus’ appearance in heaven is perpetual (even though Jesus appears once for all), His sacrificial death which He presents to the Father is also perpetual (even though Jesus died once for all). Thus, Jesus enters into the heavenly sanctuary to present His sacrifice to the Father, “once for all,” which means His appearance and His sacrifice are perpetual and ongoing realities in the heavenly sanctuary. While Scripture always describes Jesus’ suffering and death in the past tense, His appearance and heavenly intercession are always described in the present tense. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
27. The Sacrifice of the Mass
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In the book of Hebrews, Paul describes Jesus as our High Priest in heaven who intercedes before the Father on our behalf. In chapter 9, Paul compares Jesus’ heavenly priesthood with the Old Testament Levitical priesthood. In the Old Covenant, Paul explains that the priests would offer the shed blood of animals in the temple to make atonement for sins. In verse 23, Paul describes the New Covenant blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but in a way that should be startling to Protestants. Paul says that, in the New Covenant, we are purified with “better sacrifices” than those in the Old Covenant. Yes, Paul describes the New Covenant sacrifice as “sacrifices,” in the plural. How can this be, since Jesus died only once? Because Jesus’ sacrifice is re-presented over and over again in the Holy Mass. While Jesus died only once, His sacrifice is repeatedly re-enacted through His priests throughout time and space. Thus, Paul describes Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice of Christ as “sacrifices” in the context of its sacramental re-presentation on earth in the Mass. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
28. No Salvation Outside the Church
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. The popes throughout the centuries have infallibly declared that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Because Jesus saves us through His body, we must be a member of that body to be saved. This, however, does not mean that only Catholics will be saved. The Church teaches that those who are ignorant of the need to become Catholic may still be saved by living lives of faith, hope and charity. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty of their salvation, not knowing Jesus or His Church is an undesirable position in which to be. Those outside the Church lack the ordinary means of salvation, namely, the seven sacraments and the teachings of the infallible Magisterium. Christ did not purchase the Church with His own blood so that the Church would be optional. The Church is objectively necessary for salvation. In light of this divinely revealed truth, we must attend to those outside the Church with Christian charity and guide them back to Catholic truth. Through our efforts and the grace of God, we know that the Father will answer Jesus’ prayer that they may all be one. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
29. The Eucharist
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Because Scripture teaches quite plainly the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, Protestants often give one final argument against the Catholic position: they say that the Eucharist is contrary to reason. They argue that something that looks like bread and wine cannot really be Christ’s body and blood. What say Catholics in response? The Eucharist is not contrary to reason; it is above reason. In fact, it is easier to believe in the Eucharist than the Incarnation. It takes more of a leap of faith to believe that the ineffable and incomprehensible God would become a little helpless baby and submit to deicide than to believe that God gives Himself to us under the appearance of bread and wine. As my seven-year old daughter explained to me on the way to Mass, if God can create everything out of nothing (i.e, the universe), than it is easy to believe that He can change something into something else (bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood). Is the Eucharist a mystery? Yes. Is it contrary to reason? No. As the angel Gabriel told Mary, nothing is impossible with God. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
30. Transubstantiation
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. When discussing the Eucharist and transubstantiation, Protestants argue that something that looks like bread cannot really be Christ’s body. They misunderstand the concepts of accidents and substance. Accidents are what we perceive in the matter by our senses (color, texture, taste). Substance describes what the matter truly is, its essence. In transubstantiation, when the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Jesus’ body and blood, while the accidents remain the same. In a similar way, the accidents of water can change to steam or ice, but the substance remains water. Digestion may give us the best example of transubstantiation. When we consume bread and wine, the laws of nature change the elements into our own flesh and blood. If God can change bread and wine into flesh and blood through the natural law which He created, why can’t He change bread and wine into flesh and blood immediately by His own power? The answer is that He can, for God is the author of both accidents and substance. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
31. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant
In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was for the Jews the holiest article of religious worship because it contained the word of God on stone tablets. It was so holy that when Uzzah touched it to prevent it from tipping on a journey, God killed him. God would not let anything defiled come into contact with the Ark of His Word. While the ark of the Old Covenant was holy, it cannot compare to the holiness and purity of the Ark of the New Covenant – the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she bore the Word of God, not on stone tablets, but made flesh in her womb. Just as God’s glory cloud would cover the old Ark, God’s Spirit overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation. Just as King David leaped for joy before the old Ark, John the Baptist leaped for joy before Mary at the Visitation. And when John sees the old Ark in heaven in the Apocalypse, the very next thing he sees is Mary, clothed with the sun and crowned in glory. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, holy and without any stain of sin. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
32. Mary had no pain in childbirth
Many Protestants say that Mary had pain during the birth of Jesus to somehow accuse her of having sin. They point to Apocalypse 12:1 where the woman who gives birth to the Messiah “cried out in her pangs of birth.” Does this prove Mary had pain? No. The birth pangs in the Apocalypse are symbolic for the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ as the devil wages war on them. This symbolic use of birth pangs is common in Scripture. For example, in Galatians 4:19, Paul says he will have birth pangs until Christ is formed in them. In fact, in Romans 8:22 Paul says that the entire creation is groaning in travail for Christ. In Jeremiah 13:21, the prophet says Israel has birth pangs, and Micah says the same thing about Jerusalem in chapter 4, verses 9-10. Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Finally, in Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet reveals that Mary would give birth before she was in labor and without any pain. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
33. Salvation in the Old Covenant
Before the coming of Christ, how were people saved in the Old Covenant? The same way we are saved today – through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. The only difference is that the Old Covenant people were saved by the anticipated sacrifice of Christ, and the New Covenant people are saved by the ongoing sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all on Calvary and re-presented in the Holy Mass. Acts 2:33 says Jesus “was delivered up according to the foreknowledge of God” and Apocalypse 13:8 says that Jesus was “slain from foundation of the world.” Thus, the Father could forgive sins even in the Old Covenant because Jesus’ future sacrifice was guaranteed to occur. This sacrifice, which appeased the Father’s wrath against sin, brought grace to the world. In the Old Covenant, God administered His grace through the nation of Israel. In the New Covenant, God administers His grace through the Catholic Church, where all the nations are one in Christ. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
34. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant
The Scriptures make a clear and direct connection between the Ark of the Old Covenant and the Blessed Virgin Mary, who the Church calls the Ark of the New Covenant. For example, when Mary asked the angel Gabriel how she would conceive the child Jesus since she made a life-long vow of virginity, the angel said: “The Holy Spirit will overcome you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word for overshadow (episkiazo) is the same word the sacred authors used to describe God’s glory cloud overshadowing the Ark of the Old Covenant which we read in the books of Exodus, Kings and Job. Just like God’s shekinah glory cloud overshadowed the Holy of Holies of the Old Covenant, Mary, at the Annunciation, was overshadowed by the glory of the Holy Spirit and became the “Holy of Holies” of the New Covenant. As the Holiest of Holies, Mary had no stain of sin, for she was to bear the Word of God, not on tablets made of stone, but made flesh. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
35. Sacred Tradition
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Most Protestants believe that the Word of God is contained in Scripture alone, which is called sola Scriptura. This view holds that the Bible is the only infallible authority on matters of the Christian faith. In order to be true to their theory that the Bible is our only authority, Protestants must argue that the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. If the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura, then sola Scriptura comes from a teaching authority outside the Bible, which destroys the whole theory. In light of these parameters, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 strikes sola Scriptura with a fatal blow. Why? Because 1 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches that oral revelation (the Word of God proclaimed by Paul and others) is also an infallible authority. Thus, the Bible teaches that there are two sources of infallible authority (the oral and written Word) and sola Scriptura teaches that there is only one (the written Word). This means that the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
36. Predestination and Grace
In John chapter 6, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” and “who comes to me I will not cast out.” Those Protestants who conclude that Jesus is teaching about eternal security don’t consider the freewill side of the equation. Jesus will not cast out the one who comes to Him, but there is no guarantee the person will come, nor any guarantee he will stay if he comes. This is why Jesus in John 5:40 tells the Jews “yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The Father was drawing the Jews with His grace, but they refused to respond to His drawing. Jesus in John 12:40 also says, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Because all men don’t eventually come to Jesus or stay with Jesus, freewill must be part of the drawing process. James 4:8 says, “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you.” These verses explain that God draws us by His grace, but we must respond to that grace to be saved. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
37. Sacred Tradition
In his letters to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, Paul teaches that we are to obey the oral apostolic Tradition. Because Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible alone, they argue that oral Tradition existed during the period of revelation but not beyond it. In other words, the churches in Corinth, Thessalonica and elsewhere were to obey the oral Tradition they had received from Paul as he commanded. However, once John finished the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, these churches were to forget everything they heard from Paul! When John penned that last “Amen,” Protestants would have us believe that a giant bell went off and Paul’s disciples were to erase from their memories everything that he and his successors taught about Jesus Christ! Not only is the argument unreasonable, the Protestant cannot prove it from Scripture, which his theory requires him to do. If the Protestant cannot prove from Scripture that the oral apostolic Tradition ceased with the completion of Scripture, then the debate about Tradition is over and the Catholic position prevails, which it does. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
38. Church Authority
In the Old Testament, Moses had divine authority to interpret God’s Word and pronounce judgments over the people. In Numbers 16, we learn about a man named Korah who rose up against Moses and attempted to usurp his divine authority. He and his followers thought they could interpret God’s Word on their own. As a punishment for their rebellion against Moses, God killed Korah and his fellow rebels by causing the earth to swallow them alive. Why is this relevant to Christians? Because the Apostle Jude warns the Church not to “perish in Korah’s rebellion” (Jude 11). This raises a most critical question for Protestants: If the Bible is the only authority for Christians, how can we rebel against an authority other than the Bible? Korah didn’t rebel against Scripture; he rebelled against God’s chosen leaders. Jude’s warning makes absolutely no sense unless there is a hierarchy in the Church with divine authority that we must obey. Indeed, there is: As Paul says in Hebrews, they are the successors to the apostles who are “keeping watch over your souls” (Heb 13:17). This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
39. Sola Scriptura
While each Protestants interprets Scripture for himself, Catholics submit to the Church’s judgment on the proper interpretation of Scripture. In doing so, Protestants argue that Catholics divest the Scriptures of authority. This is a fallacious argument. It is like saying a decedent’s will has no authority because the probate judge must interpret it. Scripture is an authority because it reveals the Word of God, just like the will is an authority because it reveals the intentions of the decedent. The question is not one of authority, but about protecting the authority. If there is no probate judge to interpret the will, the authority of the will will be undermined. The family would be fighting about its contents and nothing would get resolved. The same is true with Scripture. If there is no Church to interpret the Scriptures, the authority of the Scriptures will be undermined as well. The family of God will fight about its contents and nothing will be resolved. This is Protestantism, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
40. Isn’t being a Christian enough?
Some Protestants argue that being a Christian is enough, and the particular denomination doesn’t matter. How should a Catholic respond? I would first confirm that the Protestant believes in the First Commandment – that thou shalt not worship false gods. After confirming he does, I would tell him that I worship what appears to be an ordinary piece of bread. Based on Scripture and 2,000 years of Tradition, Catholics believe that the substance of the bread becomes the flesh and blood of Christ in the Mass, and is thus worthy of worship. Jesus also said if we don’t eat His flesh, we have no life in us. Here is the dilemma: Either I am risking damnation because I am committing idolatry by worshiping a piece of bread, or the Protestant is risking damnation because He is not eating the flesh of Jesus Christ and has “no life” in him. This means that there is “no middle ground.” Those who argue that being a Christian is enough are compromising the gospel and really demonstrating that they are lukewarm in their own Christianity. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
41. Revocation of the Old Covenant
In the Old Testament, God made two principal covenants, one with Abraham and the other with Moses. In the first one, God promised Abraham, while he was a Gentile, that He would bless his descendants with an eternal dwelling place. Because this covenant was based on Abraham’s faith, God transformed it into the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. This is why Paul in Galatians 3:29 says Christians are the “seed of Abraham.” The second one, commonly known as the “Old Covenant,” God made with the Jews only and it was based on law, not faith. In 2 Corinthians 3:14, Paul says that the “old covenant” has been revoked by Jesus Christ. Paul says the same thing in Hebrews 7:18; 8:13 and 10:9. This means that, like the Gentiles, the Jews are now saved only in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. In fact, in Galatians 3:28 Paul says that in the New Covenant, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
42. The Catholic Approach to Scripture
When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular. First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents. Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15. Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
43. Old Testament Sacrifices and Grace
In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul says that Old Testament figures like Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham, Moses and David were justified by faith and have received their eternal reward. However, these men offered blood sacrifices to God throughout their lives. If these men were justified by faith alone as Protestants believe, then these sacrifices, which sought God’s favor, would have been an affront to God and brought about a loss in their justification. Protestants cannot explain why these men who were justified by faith continued to offer sacrifices to God with God’s blessings and approval. But Catholics can: We are justified by grace through both faith and works, not faith alone. These works of offering sacrifice brought about their justification before God, just like our works and sacrifices do as well. Just as offering sacrifice justified sinners in the Old Covenant, it does the same in the New Covenant, most especially in our offering of the supreme sacrifice: Jesus Christ the Holy Mass. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
44. The Heavenly Priesthood of Christ
In Hebrews 5:1 and 8:3, Paul says that a priest’s duty is to offer sacrifices for sins. Then, describing Jesus’ priesthood in heaven, Paul says “it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” This offering must be a sacrifice for sins for, according to Paul, that is what priests offer. We cannot separate Christ’s sacrifice from His priesthood since Christ is a priest only by virtue of His sacrifice. This poses a problem for Protestants who view Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary as completed. What sacrifice for sins could Jesus be possibly offering in heaven? It could only be the sacrifice of the cross which He now makes present in heaven. This makes sense, for if the Father could be appeased only by the sacrifice of the cross while Jesus was on earth, it follows that the Father would have to be appeased by this same sacrifice while Jesus is in heaven. Christ makes His Calvary sacrifice present not only in heaven, but also in the Mass, through His New Covenant priests. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
45. The Blood of the Covenant
In Hebrews 13, Paul says “may the God of peace…by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will.” For those who refuse to “meet together” to celebrate the Eucharist, Paul says such people have “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Why is this significant? Because the New Testament uses the phrase “blood of the covenant” only one other time: when Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Note that Paul is speaking of the actual shed blood of Christ for only Christ’s true blood can “equip” us to do God’s will, and be “profaned” if we refuse Him. Thus, it necessarily follows that Christ’s actual shed blood is also present in the Eucharist (which is what the people celebrated by “meeting together”). This means when we meet together in the Mass, we are sharing in the very blood that Jesus shed on the cross and continues to offer the Father for our sins, the blood of the New Covenant. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
46. The Mystery of the Eucharist
Protestants often object to the Church’s teaching that Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist in just one drop or particle of the consecrated elements. But this shouldn’t trouble the Protestant any more than the fact that the infinite God resides in our human bodies. In Romans chapter 8, Paul says that “the Spirit of God dwells in you” and “Christ is in you.” If God can dwell in our finite bodies, then Christ can be present in the Eucharist. Scripture also shows us that the risen Jesus is not subject to the laws of space or time which is why He could appear to His apostles when the doors were shut. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not much different than the soul’s presence in the human body. The soul is present throughout the entire body just as Christ is present in every particle or drop of the Eucharist. We cannot see our souls in our bodies, but they are there. And we cannot see Jesus in the Eucharist, but He is there. As Paul says, “we walk by faith, not by sight.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
47. The Old Testament canon and the Church
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. To deny the authority of the Church, Protestants often ask Catholics how the Jews of the Old Covenant knew what Scriptures were inspired if they didn’t have the Church to tell them. Don’t be caught off guard with this question. First, the Jews didn’t have an established canon of Scripture. They disagreed on many books such as we see with the Sadducees, who only believed in the Pentateuch, and the Pharisees who believed in the more expanded canon. Second, the consensus the Jews did have about Scripture came not from what Scripture said about itself, but from the prophetical Tradition and divinely-appointed authorities God placed over them. In other words, the Jews knew Isaiah, for example, was inspired Scripture because of Tradition and authority (which is the Catholic position) and not because of Scripture (which is the Protestant position). This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
48. Baptism
In John 3:5, Jesus says unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. In Titus 3:5, Paul says “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” In these texts, both Jesus and Paul are referring to the sacrament of baptism. Notice the definite parallels: In John 3:5, we enter the kingdom of God and in Titus 3:5 we are saved; in John 3:5 we are born of water and in Titus 3:5 we are washed with water; in John 3:5 we are born of the Spirit and in Titus 3:5 we are renewed in the Spirit. In these passages, Jesus and Paul teach that baptism is not a mere symbolic act as many Protestants believe. No, in baptism, what was contracted by generation (which is Original Sin) is washed away by regeneration (which is baptism). In baptism, the person is literally reborn into eternal life and becomes an adopted child of God by grace. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
49. Purgatory
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 5 and 18 and Luke 12, Jesus teaches us, “Make friends quickly with your accuser on your way to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard and you be put in prison.” Jesus then assures us that we will not get out of this prison until we pay the last penny. The word “accuser” Jesus uses in His teaching is the same word Peter uses in 1 Peter 5:8 to describe the devil. The devil is the accuser against man and God is the judge. If we do not adequately deal with the devil and sin in this life, we will be spiritually imprisoned until our entire debt to God is satisfied in the next life. Luke’s version of the Our Father in 11:4 also equates debt with sin, where Jesus says “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” This prison that Jesus refers to is purgatory, where we will not get out until we have paid the last penny. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
50. Baptism
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter says “baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.” In Hebrews 10:22, Paul similarly says “let us draw near to God with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” In these texts, both Peter and Paul are referring to baptism. Notice the parallels: In 1 Peter 3:21 we are saved and in Hebrews 10:22 we draw near to God; in 1 Peter 3:21 we are saved with water and in Hebrews 10:22 we are sprinkled clean and washed with pure water; in 1 Peter 3:21 we are given a clear conscience and in Hebrews 10:22 we are purified from an evil conscience. Because the conscience deals with the interior life of a person, these teachings demonstrate that baptism is not a mere external, symbolic act. No, baptism changes the interior of a person by washing away his sins and infusing his soul with sanctifying grace. This is how being washed with water saves us from an evil conscience so we can serve our God as His sons and daughters. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
51. The Virgin Mary
In Matthew 1:24-25, it says Joseph knew Mary not until she had borne a son. Because the Scripture says “not until,” some Protestants say this proves Mary had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus. This is incorrect. The Greek phrase “not until” is an action that describes only the past, not the future. The phrase “he knew her not until she bore a son” means “he knew her not up to the point that she bore a son.” It has nothing to do with Joseph’s relationship with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. For example, when Jesus says He will be with us “until” the end of the world, “until” refers to the past only; it doesn’t mean Jesus won’t be with us after the end of the world. In Luke 2:37 it says Anna was a widow until she was eighty-four. This does not mean Anna was not a widow after she was eighty-four. In 2 Samuel 6:23 it says Michal had no child to the day of her death. This doesn’t mean Michal had a child after her death. Anyone who uses Matthew 1:24-25 to deny the virginity of Mary has completely misunderstood the text. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
52. Justification
When discussing justification, many Protestants argue that we don’t really become righteous; instead, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us. Luther even analogized the righteous Christian with a dunghill covered by snow. Scripture, however, refutes this theology. For example, in Matthew 6:1, Jesus tells us to practice our own righteousness, which means righteousness is a quality within us. In Apocalypse 19:8 it says the fine linen is the “righteous deeds of the saints.” In Luke 1:6, it says Zechariah and Elizabeth are righteous. In Romans 5:19, Paul says by disobedience many were made sinners, but by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Finally, in 1 John 3:7 John says “he who does right is righteous, just as God is righteous.” In Catholic theology, God doesn’t just declare us righteous. He doesn’t say something that isn’t true for that would infringe on His character. Instead, God loves us so much that, by His grace, He makes our righteousness a reality. This is the God of the Catholic Church, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
Where does it say that in the Bible? Have you ever had a Bible Christian challenge you to prove a Catholic teaching from the Bible? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. All Catholic doctrines can be found in the Bible, explicitly or at least implicitly. But how do you respond to your Protestant friend if you are not sure where to find a teaching in the Bible? Here is a simple response. Tell him: “Show me in the Bible where it says it must be in the Bible for it to be true. Please give me book, chapter and verse.” While there are many verses that say Scripture is inspired or Scripture is God’s word, nothing in the Bible says the Bible is the only authority for Christians. In fact, the Bible teaches that it is NOT the only authority. St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 teaches that God’s word comes to us through both the written and unwritten traditions. These traditions have been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church, the Church who gave us the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
2. Baptism
“Are you born again?” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Protestants often ask Catholics whether they are “born again.” They get this phrase from chapter 3 of John’s Gospel, where Jesus in verse three tells Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to enter the kingdom of heaven. What does being “born again” mean? Protestants believe that it simply means accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior. However, this is not at all how Jesus explained the phrase. When Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, Jesus explains to him that being born again means being born “of water and the Spirit.” Water and the Spirit, when used together in Scripture, always refer to baptism. Thus, after Jesus teaches about the meaning of being “born again,” John records in John 3:21 and 4:1 that Jesus and his disciples went into Judea and baptized. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
3. Sola Scriptura
Did you ever hear a Protestant Christian claim that all saving truths are found in the Bible alone? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. How do we as Catholics respond to this claim that nothing outside of Scripture is necessary for our salvation? A simple way is to point out to our Protestant friends the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture is the collection of inspired books in the Bible. Now, knowing the canon is necessary for our salvation because if we had the wrong canon, we would be in error and our salvation would be jeopardized. However, the books in the Bible do not tell us what the canon is. There is no inspired table of contents. In other words, the canon of Scripture is a truth that is necessary for our salvation, but that comes to us from outside the Bible (which incidentally was determined by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century). This simple truth should move any honest Protestant to re-examine his premise that the Bible is the sole source of saving truth. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
4. The Virgin Mary
Did the Blessed Virgin Mary have other children beside Jesus? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Some Protestants contend that Mary had other children because the Bible refers to people such as James and Joseph as Jesus’ “brothers.” How do Catholics respond to these claims? First, while the Bible does describe people as Jesus’ “brothers,” it never says that these people are children of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is the assumption that the Protestant is making. Second, the people in Jesus’ time spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and these languages have no word for “cousin.” For example, in Genesis 13 and 14, Lot is called Abraham’s brother even though Lot was actually his cousin. Thus, people would in their native Hebrew or Aramaic refer to Jesus’ cousins as His “brothers,” and the Holy Spirit, who inspired the New Testament in the Greek language, recorded what the people actually said. So when Protestants see the Greek word adelphoi which means “brothers” to describe Jesus’ relations, this does not mean that Jesus had biological brothers, only cousins. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
5. The Eucharist
At the Last Supper, Jesus said “this is my body,” and “this is the cup of my blood.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. A while ago, a Protestant gentleman confronted me about the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. He presented me a picture of his wife and said “this is my wife. But the picture isn’t literally her, is it?” He thought he caught me in an error. In response, I took the picture, dropped it on the floor, and pretended to stomp on it. I then asked my friend if I were guilty of profaning his wife’s body and blood. He looked at me quite confused and after a few seconds, said no. I then asked him why St. Paul teaches 1 Corinthians 11:27 that we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we receive the Eucharist unworthily. I explained that we could not possibly be guilty of such a heinous crime for profaning a symbol, for if the Eucharist were just a symbol, St. Paul would be imposing an unjust penalty upon us. My friend said he would read the verse and get back to me. He never did. 1 Corinthians 11:27 is a powerful text that demonstrates Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
6. Faith Alone
Does the Bible teach that we are saved by faith alone? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Most Protestants refer to Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul says we are saved by grace and not because of works, lest anyone boast. But neither Paul nor any biblical writer ever says that we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, the only time the phrase “faith alone” appears in Scripture is in James 2:24 when James says that we are saved by works and NOT by faith alone, which utterly negates the Protestant proposition. So how do we reconcile the teaching of Paul who says we are not saved by works and James who says we are saved by works? Simple. The Bible teaches that we can relate to God in one of two systems – law or grace. In a system of law, we view God as an employer who owes us, and we thus try to obligate God with our works. In a system of grace, however, we view God as a Father who loves us and will reward us for our works out of His benevolence, not obligation. Thus, there is a difference between works done in grace (which James says us we must perform to be saved) and works of law (which Paul says will condemn us). I have much more on this topic in my book The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
7. Extreme Unction
Hi, this John Salza with Relevant Answers. For those who are in danger of death, Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Extreme Unction, today more commonly known as Anointing of the Sick. In James 5:14, the apostle sets forth the biblical basis for the sacrament. James says “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” Now, some of our Protestant friends also believe in healing prayer, and even call upon the elders of their communities to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them. However, since they do not believe in the sacramental priesthood, they are forced to ignore James’ concluding words in verse 15 where he says: “if he (the sick person) has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” Thus, the sacrament of the sick is not merely about anointing and prayer as Protestants claim, but principally about the priestly forgiveness of sins. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
8. Sola Scriptura
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In attempting to prove that the Bible is our only authority, Protestants invariably quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul says that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching.” Catholics, of course, agree that Scripture is inspired and profitable. But Paul does not say that Scripture is exclusive for teaching. In fact, the word “profitable” (in Greek, is ophelimos), underscores that Scripture is not our exclusive authority. For example, Paul uses the same word in Titus 3:8 when he says “good deeds are profitable to men.” Certainly, Protestants don’t argue that good deeds are the exclusive means of attaining salvation. There are at least three words in the Greek language that mean exclusive, and Paul didn’t use any of them to describe the role of Scripture in the Christian’s life. This, coupled with the fact that Paul commands us to obey oral tradition as well as Scripture, demonstrates that Scripture is not our only authority. No, our only authority is the Word of God, which comes to us through both Scripture and Tradition, as taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
9. Scripture Interpretation
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. I have always wondered how my Protestants friends contend that Scripture is so clear as to be our only authority, and yet consistently depart from the literal and obvious meaning of Scripture. The Catholic Church, for 2,000 years, has always taught us to interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless of course the interpretation is untenable. Why is this? Because God has deliberately chosen the words of Sacred Scripture, and He is not trying to deceive us. As St. Paul teaches, God cannot lie. This is why Catholics interpret literally Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 (Peter is the rock of the Church); Matthew 19:9 (divorce after remarriage is adultery); Matthew 26:26-28 (this is my body; this is my blood); John 3:5 (you must be born of water and the spirit); John 6:54 (eat my flesh and drink my blood); and John 20:23 (if you forgive sin, it is forgiven). The Church interprets these verses literally because there is no compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. God means what He says. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
10. Baptism
To deny the Catholic teaching on the necessity of baptism, Protestants often refer to the salvation of the good thief. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. As we read in Luke’s Gospel, chapter 23, after the good thief rebukes the bad thief and expresses his faith in Jesus, Jesus tells him “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” See, the Protestant contends, Jesus gave the thief eternal life without baptism. How are Catholics to respond? First, at this moment Jesus was still technically on the Old Testament side of the cross, so there was no requirement for the thief to be water baptized. Second, the Church teaches that a person can receive the grace of a water baptism by explicitly desiring it and repenting of sin, even if he doesn’t actually receive the sacrament. In the case of the good thief, he repented of his crime and desired to be with Jesus. Of course, if he knew that baptism was necessary for his salvation and could have received it, he would have. But, of course, in his condition he could not have received it. God does not punish someone for failing to do the impossible. The story of the good thief doesn’t negate Jesus’ words in Mark 16, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Instead, it demonstrates God’s mercy toward those who desire His sacraments but cannot receive them. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
11. Relics
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. For 2,000 years, Catholics have used relics to facilitate their devotion to the saints and their worship of God. Relics are parts of the body of a saint, like a piece of bone, or a saint’s clothing, or something a saint used or touched. Many Protestants view the Catholic use of relics as superstitious and pagan. They think we Catholics use relics as good luck charms. These views are mistaken. First, relics, in and of themselves, have no supernatural power. God chooses to use relics as a conduit of his power and grace. For example, in the Old Testament, Elisha’s bones, which are relics, brought a man back to life. St. Peter’s shadow healed the sick, and St. Paul’s handkerchiefs also healed the sick and drove out unclean spirits. And remember the woman with the hemorrhage? She sought to touch just the hem of Jesus’ cloak and was cured. God could have affected these cures directly, but instead chooses to use the material things He created to effect the supernatural. Second, the Church uses relics to remember and honor the saints, just like we have keepsakes such as clothing or pictures to honor our deceased loved ones. The use of relics is not only biblical, it is incarnational, which means it is thoroughly Christian. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
12. Call no man Father?
Because Catholics call their priests “father,” many Protestants accuse us of going against the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 23:9, when Jesus was teaching His disciples not to be like the Pharisees, He said “call no man father.” But was this a blanket prohibition on every using the word “father”? Of course not. In the prior verse Jesus also said “call no man teacher,” but Protestants call their pastors teachers, just like they call their biological fathers “father.” No, Jesus was teaching his disciples not to follow the hypocritical example of the Pharisees, who loved their titles more than their own people. So why do Catholics call their priests “father”? Well, in Acts 7:2 and 22:1, the New Testament priests are called “father.” In 1 John 2:1, 13 and 14, the apostle also calls the priests of the Church “father.” In 1 Cor 4:15, St. Paul calls himself a “father” in Christ Jesus. Jesus Himself calls Abraham “father” and commands us to honor our “father” and mother. And the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Mother and the angels all refer to our spiritual leaders as “father.” Call no man “father?” Catholics should ask their Protestant friends why they don’t call their pastors “father.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
13. Vain and Repetitious Prayer
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many Catholic prayers and devotions such as the Rosary or litanies are comprised of prayers that are repeated, such as the phrase “pray for us,” or “have mercy on us.” Because of this, Protestants often accuse Catholics of offering “vain and repetitious” prayer. They point to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:7 where Jesus says “in prayer do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words.” But in this teaching Jesus is not condemning repetitious prayer; He is condemning “vain” prayer, prayer that uses empty words because the person’s heart is far from God. As in His other teachings, Jesus is focused, not on the externals of worship, but on the person’s heart, for God reads the hearts and thoughts of men. If God were offended by repetitious prayer, then He would not have inspired Psalm 136 where the psalmist repeatedly says “For his love endures forever”; or in Daniel chapter 3 where Azariah repeatedly exclaims “bless the Lord”; or Apocalypse 4:8 where the angels incessantly chant “holy, holy, holy Lord.” In Matthew 26:44, even Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane prayed a third time, saying the same words. Far from offending God, repetitious prayer pleases God and moves Him to respond to our needs when offered with a sincere heart. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
14. Sola Scriptura
In Acts chapter 15, we read about the Church’s first council at Jerusalem. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. At this council, the Church had to resolve its first doctrinal question regarding whether or not Christians had to be circumcised. Now, Protestants contend that the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was the only authority for the Church. But if this were true, then the Church at the council of Jerusalem would have imposed the circumcision requirement upon Christians. After all, the Scriptures taught them that circumcision was the sign of God’s everlasting covenant with Abraham, which was also renewed in the Law of Moses. So all the Patriarchs and prophets were circumcised, the apostles were circumcised, and even Jesus Himself was circumcised. Based on the Scriptures alone, the circumcision requirement should have been imposed. We all know that it wasn’t, and that is because the early Church did not use the Scriptures alone. From the very beginning, the Church, led by Peter and his successors and guided by the Holy Spirit, was the final authority on matters of the faith. Scripture affirms this fact. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
15. The Virgin Mary
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Romans 3:23, St. Paul says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Protestants often use this passage in an attempt to prove the Blessed Mother had sin. How should Catholics respond? I’ll give you five quick ways. First, if “all have sinned,” this cannot include Jesus, so if Jesus is an exception then Mary can be as well. Second, in Romans 5:19 Paul says “many” (not all) were made sinners, which demonstrates that when Paul says “all,” he really means many. Third, the Greek word for “all” in Romans 3:23 is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when he says “all have died.” But Scripture says Enoch and Elijah didn’t die but were assumed into heaven, which means that when Paul says “all” he does not mean every single one. Fourth, Paul cannot mean every single one because infants, the senile and the mentally handicapped cannot sin (or at least aren’t culpable for their sin). Fifth and finally, in Romans 3:23 Paul really means that all people are subject to original sin. The difference between us and Mary is that God chose to redeem Mary from the moment of her conception, while he redeems us, through baptism, after we are born. But Mary’s redemption, like ours, is based entirely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, which God applied in advance to Mary, just as He did with the Old Testament saints. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
16. Papal Authority
Hi, this is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In arguing against the authority of the pope, many non-Catholics point out Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11, where Paul says that he withstood Peter to his face for separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Non-Catholics make way too much out of this passage, for the passage reveals the simple truth that there is a difference between a pope’s teaching authority and his personal conduct. In this case, Paul is saying that Peter was not living up to his infallible teaching that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. After all, it was Peter who first preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and baptized them. Because Peter was the leader of the early Church, his behavior was under the microscope, and separating himself from the Gentiles during meals was sending the Gentiles a mixed message. Peter was simply trying to appease the Jews to facilitate their transition into the Church. In fact, Peter could have responded to Paul’s rebuke with a rebuke of his own. Paul, too, tried to appease the Jews by circumcising Timothy in Acts 16:3, and even engaged in a purification ritual under the Mosaic law in Acts 21. Thus, Paul’s rebuke of Peter actually underscores Peter’s authority and prestige in the early Church, and that we must distinguish between a pope’s binding teachings and personal conduct. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
17. The Eucharist
How can Catholics possibly believe that Jesus gives us His flesh and blood to consume? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. This is the same question that the Jews asked after Jesus told them that the bread that He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. In John’s Gospel, chapter 6, we see the Jews asking each other “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Now, here is an important consideration for our Protestant friends. Scripture tells us that God cannot deceive us (see for example Titus 1:2). Thus, if the Jews were deceived in their interpretation of Jesus’ words, Jesus would have corrected them. As God, it would be impossible for Jesus’ to leave the Jews in their erroneous opinions, for God cannot deceive us, especially on a matter of salvation. So what did Jesus do? He didn’t correct them. Instead, He confirmed their literal interpretation that He would give them His flesh to eat. Jesus responds by swearing an oath as He says “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Although Jesus’ gift of self in the Eucharist surpasses our understanding, Catholics respond to Jesus’ words as Peter did: “Where shall we go Lord, for you have the words of eternal life.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
18. Purgatory
What is the biblical basis for the Church’s teaching on purgatory? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In the third chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Paul uses the metaphors of gold, silver, wood, hay and stubble to describe what people have done in their lives. In verse 14, Paul says those who built exclusively with gold and silver, in reference to their good works, will receive the reward of salvation when they die. In verse 17, those who built only with wood, hay and stubble, in reference to their evil works, will have their works burned up and be condemned when they die. What about the person who built with both good and bad materials? Paul reveals something very interesting. In verse 15, Paul says that such a person’s bad works are burned up, but the person is still saved, but only as through fire. In other words, the person who had his bad works burned up must, in the same manner, pass through the fire that burned up those bad works to be saved. The reason why the person must pass through this same fire is to be purged of the things that led him to produce the bad works in the first place. This purgation by fire after death prior to entering into heavenly bliss is what the Church calls purgatory. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
19. Purgatory
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many non-Catholics do not believe in the Church’s 2,000 year-old doctrine of purgatory. It seems as though they do not believe that our merciful Lord would forgive someone’s sin after they die. Well, it is true that if someone dies in unrepentant mortal sin, they have no more possibility of forgiveness. But if someone dies with venial sin only on his soul, or still owes God some satisfaction for his sin, he will, eventually, go to heaven. The Apostle John in his first letter chapter five explains this distinction between mortal and venial sin. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus says that “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come.” Willfully resisting the grace of the Holy Spirit is a mortal sin and will not be forgiven after we die. But, in this teaching, Jesus makes it clear that there is forgiveness after death, when he refers to forgiveness “in the age to come.” Now, regarding this “age to come,” forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and is no longer possible in hell. This means that there is another state after death, in the age to come, where God forgives sins, and this is the state of purgatory. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
20. Baptism
Why do Catholics baptize infants? This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Many non-Catholics deny infant baptism, claiming that it has no basis in Scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Acts 2:38, Peter declares that the promise of baptism “is to you and to your children.” The Greek word for “children” (teknon) is the same word that is later used in Acts 21:21 to describe eight-day old infants preparing for circumcision. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants. And speaking of circumcision, in Colossians 2:11-12 St. Paul says that baptism is the “new circumcision.” That is, like the Old Covenant act of circumcision which was given to eight-day old infants, baptism is the New Covenant sacrament that is likewise given to infants. God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old. To the contrary, in Romans 5:15 St. Paul says that the grace of the New Covenant surpasses that of the old, to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
21. Graven Images
Catholics use images of Our Lord and our Lady and other saints to facilitate their worship of God. Have you ever heard a Protestant criticize a Catholic for using “graven images”? The Protestant refers to Exodus chapter 20 where God tells His people: “You shall not make a graven image.” Since Catholics do use images, what are we to make of this? Well, if the Protestant would flip ahead five chapters to Exodus 25, He would see God commanding TO make graven images, here, images of the heavenly angels. Was God being inconsistent about graven images? Of course not. In Exodus chapter 20, God commanded the Israelites not to make graven images to worship, which is why the prohibition is connected to God’s command “you shall have no other gods before me.” But this does not mean we cannot use graven images to facilitate our worship. That was the purpose of God’s command in Exodus 25 to make images of cherubim: to assist the Israelites in their worship of God. Using images is part of the Christian tradition and was one of the ways Catholics shared the Gospel before the compilation of the Bible. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
22. Papal Infallibility
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks His apostles who the people say that He is. Peter responds by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response, right before Jesus promises to build His Church upon Peter the rock, Jesus tells Peter “blessed are you, Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Why did Jesus say this? For a very important reason: To show that Peter received a revelation from the Father and then communicated that revelation without error. This is the basis of papal infallibility. God intrudes into the mind of Peter and Peter teaches infallibly, here uttering a truth about the person of Jesus Christ. While Peter certainly had faith in Jesus, Matthew 16 is not about Peter’s faith per se, but his ability to receive divine insights from God which he then passes on to the Church. Because God prevents Peter from teaching error, Jesus can promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.” My dear friends, let us thank God every day for the great gift of the papacy. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
23. Peter is the rock
To deny the papacy of the Catholic Church, Protestants argue that Jesus promised to build the Church only upon Peter’s faith, but not his person. Why do they argue this? Because while Peter the person is visible, his faith is invisible. Thus, if Jesus builds the Church upon Peter’s invisible faith, the Church must be merely an invisible association of believers, and not a visible organization like the Catholic Church. How do we respond? First, in Matthew 16 Peter confesses a truth about the person of Jesus (that He is the Christ) and Jesus, in response, declares a truth about the person of Peter (that he is the rock). So Matthew 16 is not about Peter’s faith, but his person. Second, after naming Peter the rock of the Church, Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose, which are visible, not invisible acts. Third, the Bible says the Church is built upon persons, not just attributes of persons like their faith. In Ephesians 2:20 Paul says the Church is built upon the persons of the apostles. Finally, the Bible tells us that Christ’s Church is a visible organization of bishops, priests and deacons. This is the Catholic Church, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
24. Jesus' “finished work on the cross”
Protestants often tell Catholics that we must accept Jesus’ “finished work on the cross.” They do this to deny the Catholic teaching that Jesus continues to present His sacrifice to the Father in heaven and in the Mass, as the book of Hebrews clearly teaches. How do Catholics respond? First, the Scriptures never refer to Christ’s work as “finished.” In fact, the Scriptures tell us that Jesus’ work is not finished. In Hebrews 7:25 and Romans 8:34, Paul says that Jesus continues to intercede for us before the Father for our salvation. If Christ’s “work” were finished, there would be no need for Jesus’ intercession. Scripture also gives the word “finished” a relative meaning. For example, in John 17:4, Jesus says He has “finished” the Fathers work, even before He went to the cross. In Hebrews 4:3, Paul says Jesus’ works were “finished from the foundation of the world.” If this were literally true, the Incarnation was unnecessary. Jesus’ “work on the cross” commenced on Calvary, but His work will not be finished until the end of time, when He comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
25. Peter’s keys to the kingdom
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 16, after Jesus renames Simon to Peter and promises to build His Church upon Him, Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” What did Jesus mean? By giving Peter the keys, Jesus was both conferring upon Peter authority over the Church and implementing a plan of succession to Peter’s office. The only other time in Scripture we see “keys” in the context of a “kingdom” is in Isaiah 22 which describes the Davidic kingdom of the Old Covenant. In the old kingdom, the king had a prime minister who would rule and govern the kingdom while the king was away. In Isaiah 22 the keys pass from Shebna to Eliakim, who was called a “father” to God’s people and had the authority to teach and discipline. When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, the Jews immediately recognized that Jesus was implementing a new regime. Jesus was the new King, and Peter the new prime minister. Peter, and his successors through the passing of the keys, would rule and govern the Church until King Jesus would come again. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
26. Jesus died “once for all”
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. To deny the sacrifice of the Mass, Protestants point out that Scripture says Jesus died “once for all.” Thus, they argue that the Mass cannot reenact Christ’s death on the cross. While it is true that Jesus died once for all and that He doesn’t die again in the Mass, the Protestant misunderstands the phrase “once for all.” “Once for all” means perpetual, not over and done with. We know this because Paul connects Jesus’ once for all death with His once for all appearance in heaven. Because Jesus’ appearance in heaven is perpetual (even though Jesus appears once for all), His sacrificial death which He presents to the Father is also perpetual (even though Jesus died once for all). Thus, Jesus enters into the heavenly sanctuary to present His sacrifice to the Father, “once for all,” which means His appearance and His sacrifice are perpetual and ongoing realities in the heavenly sanctuary. While Scripture always describes Jesus’ suffering and death in the past tense, His appearance and heavenly intercession are always described in the present tense. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
27. The Sacrifice of the Mass
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In the book of Hebrews, Paul describes Jesus as our High Priest in heaven who intercedes before the Father on our behalf. In chapter 9, Paul compares Jesus’ heavenly priesthood with the Old Testament Levitical priesthood. In the Old Covenant, Paul explains that the priests would offer the shed blood of animals in the temple to make atonement for sins. In verse 23, Paul describes the New Covenant blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but in a way that should be startling to Protestants. Paul says that, in the New Covenant, we are purified with “better sacrifices” than those in the Old Covenant. Yes, Paul describes the New Covenant sacrifice as “sacrifices,” in the plural. How can this be, since Jesus died only once? Because Jesus’ sacrifice is re-presented over and over again in the Holy Mass. While Jesus died only once, His sacrifice is repeatedly re-enacted through His priests throughout time and space. Thus, Paul describes Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice of Christ as “sacrifices” in the context of its sacramental re-presentation on earth in the Mass. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
28. No Salvation Outside the Church
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. The popes throughout the centuries have infallibly declared that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Because Jesus saves us through His body, we must be a member of that body to be saved. This, however, does not mean that only Catholics will be saved. The Church teaches that those who are ignorant of the need to become Catholic may still be saved by living lives of faith, hope and charity. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty of their salvation, not knowing Jesus or His Church is an undesirable position in which to be. Those outside the Church lack the ordinary means of salvation, namely, the seven sacraments and the teachings of the infallible Magisterium. Christ did not purchase the Church with His own blood so that the Church would be optional. The Church is objectively necessary for salvation. In light of this divinely revealed truth, we must attend to those outside the Church with Christian charity and guide them back to Catholic truth. Through our efforts and the grace of God, we know that the Father will answer Jesus’ prayer that they may all be one. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
29. The Eucharist
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Because Scripture teaches quite plainly the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, Protestants often give one final argument against the Catholic position: they say that the Eucharist is contrary to reason. They argue that something that looks like bread and wine cannot really be Christ’s body and blood. What say Catholics in response? The Eucharist is not contrary to reason; it is above reason. In fact, it is easier to believe in the Eucharist than the Incarnation. It takes more of a leap of faith to believe that the ineffable and incomprehensible God would become a little helpless baby and submit to deicide than to believe that God gives Himself to us under the appearance of bread and wine. As my seven-year old daughter explained to me on the way to Mass, if God can create everything out of nothing (i.e, the universe), than it is easy to believe that He can change something into something else (bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood). Is the Eucharist a mystery? Yes. Is it contrary to reason? No. As the angel Gabriel told Mary, nothing is impossible with God. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
30. Transubstantiation
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. When discussing the Eucharist and transubstantiation, Protestants argue that something that looks like bread cannot really be Christ’s body. They misunderstand the concepts of accidents and substance. Accidents are what we perceive in the matter by our senses (color, texture, taste). Substance describes what the matter truly is, its essence. In transubstantiation, when the priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Jesus’ body and blood, while the accidents remain the same. In a similar way, the accidents of water can change to steam or ice, but the substance remains water. Digestion may give us the best example of transubstantiation. When we consume bread and wine, the laws of nature change the elements into our own flesh and blood. If God can change bread and wine into flesh and blood through the natural law which He created, why can’t He change bread and wine into flesh and blood immediately by His own power? The answer is that He can, for God is the author of both accidents and substance. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
31. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant
In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was for the Jews the holiest article of religious worship because it contained the word of God on stone tablets. It was so holy that when Uzzah touched it to prevent it from tipping on a journey, God killed him. God would not let anything defiled come into contact with the Ark of His Word. While the ark of the Old Covenant was holy, it cannot compare to the holiness and purity of the Ark of the New Covenant – the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she bore the Word of God, not on stone tablets, but made flesh in her womb. Just as God’s glory cloud would cover the old Ark, God’s Spirit overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation. Just as King David leaped for joy before the old Ark, John the Baptist leaped for joy before Mary at the Visitation. And when John sees the old Ark in heaven in the Apocalypse, the very next thing he sees is Mary, clothed with the sun and crowned in glory. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, holy and without any stain of sin. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
32. Mary had no pain in childbirth
Many Protestants say that Mary had pain during the birth of Jesus to somehow accuse her of having sin. They point to Apocalypse 12:1 where the woman who gives birth to the Messiah “cried out in her pangs of birth.” Does this prove Mary had pain? No. The birth pangs in the Apocalypse are symbolic for the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ as the devil wages war on them. This symbolic use of birth pangs is common in Scripture. For example, in Galatians 4:19, Paul says he will have birth pangs until Christ is formed in them. In fact, in Romans 8:22 Paul says that the entire creation is groaning in travail for Christ. In Jeremiah 13:21, the prophet says Israel has birth pangs, and Micah says the same thing about Jerusalem in chapter 4, verses 9-10. Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Finally, in Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet reveals that Mary would give birth before she was in labor and without any pain. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
33. Salvation in the Old Covenant
Before the coming of Christ, how were people saved in the Old Covenant? The same way we are saved today – through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. The only difference is that the Old Covenant people were saved by the anticipated sacrifice of Christ, and the New Covenant people are saved by the ongoing sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all on Calvary and re-presented in the Holy Mass. Acts 2:33 says Jesus “was delivered up according to the foreknowledge of God” and Apocalypse 13:8 says that Jesus was “slain from foundation of the world.” Thus, the Father could forgive sins even in the Old Covenant because Jesus’ future sacrifice was guaranteed to occur. This sacrifice, which appeased the Father’s wrath against sin, brought grace to the world. In the Old Covenant, God administered His grace through the nation of Israel. In the New Covenant, God administers His grace through the Catholic Church, where all the nations are one in Christ. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
34. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant
The Scriptures make a clear and direct connection between the Ark of the Old Covenant and the Blessed Virgin Mary, who the Church calls the Ark of the New Covenant. For example, when Mary asked the angel Gabriel how she would conceive the child Jesus since she made a life-long vow of virginity, the angel said: “The Holy Spirit will overcome you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word for overshadow (episkiazo) is the same word the sacred authors used to describe God’s glory cloud overshadowing the Ark of the Old Covenant which we read in the books of Exodus, Kings and Job. Just like God’s shekinah glory cloud overshadowed the Holy of Holies of the Old Covenant, Mary, at the Annunciation, was overshadowed by the glory of the Holy Spirit and became the “Holy of Holies” of the New Covenant. As the Holiest of Holies, Mary had no stain of sin, for she was to bear the Word of God, not on tablets made of stone, but made flesh. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
35. Sacred Tradition
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. Most Protestants believe that the Word of God is contained in Scripture alone, which is called sola Scriptura. This view holds that the Bible is the only infallible authority on matters of the Christian faith. In order to be true to their theory that the Bible is our only authority, Protestants must argue that the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. If the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura, then sola Scriptura comes from a teaching authority outside the Bible, which destroys the whole theory. In light of these parameters, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 strikes sola Scriptura with a fatal blow. Why? Because 1 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches that oral revelation (the Word of God proclaimed by Paul and others) is also an infallible authority. Thus, the Bible teaches that there are two sources of infallible authority (the oral and written Word) and sola Scriptura teaches that there is only one (the written Word). This means that the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
36. Predestination and Grace
In John chapter 6, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” and “who comes to me I will not cast out.” Those Protestants who conclude that Jesus is teaching about eternal security don’t consider the freewill side of the equation. Jesus will not cast out the one who comes to Him, but there is no guarantee the person will come, nor any guarantee he will stay if he comes. This is why Jesus in John 5:40 tells the Jews “yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The Father was drawing the Jews with His grace, but they refused to respond to His drawing. Jesus in John 12:40 also says, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Because all men don’t eventually come to Jesus or stay with Jesus, freewill must be part of the drawing process. James 4:8 says, “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you.” These verses explain that God draws us by His grace, but we must respond to that grace to be saved. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
37. Sacred Tradition
In his letters to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, Paul teaches that we are to obey the oral apostolic Tradition. Because Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible alone, they argue that oral Tradition existed during the period of revelation but not beyond it. In other words, the churches in Corinth, Thessalonica and elsewhere were to obey the oral Tradition they had received from Paul as he commanded. However, once John finished the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, these churches were to forget everything they heard from Paul! When John penned that last “Amen,” Protestants would have us believe that a giant bell went off and Paul’s disciples were to erase from their memories everything that he and his successors taught about Jesus Christ! Not only is the argument unreasonable, the Protestant cannot prove it from Scripture, which his theory requires him to do. If the Protestant cannot prove from Scripture that the oral apostolic Tradition ceased with the completion of Scripture, then the debate about Tradition is over and the Catholic position prevails, which it does. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
38. Church Authority
In the Old Testament, Moses had divine authority to interpret God’s Word and pronounce judgments over the people. In Numbers 16, we learn about a man named Korah who rose up against Moses and attempted to usurp his divine authority. He and his followers thought they could interpret God’s Word on their own. As a punishment for their rebellion against Moses, God killed Korah and his fellow rebels by causing the earth to swallow them alive. Why is this relevant to Christians? Because the Apostle Jude warns the Church not to “perish in Korah’s rebellion” (Jude 11). This raises a most critical question for Protestants: If the Bible is the only authority for Christians, how can we rebel against an authority other than the Bible? Korah didn’t rebel against Scripture; he rebelled against God’s chosen leaders. Jude’s warning makes absolutely no sense unless there is a hierarchy in the Church with divine authority that we must obey. Indeed, there is: As Paul says in Hebrews, they are the successors to the apostles who are “keeping watch over your souls” (Heb 13:17). This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
39. Sola Scriptura
While each Protestants interprets Scripture for himself, Catholics submit to the Church’s judgment on the proper interpretation of Scripture. In doing so, Protestants argue that Catholics divest the Scriptures of authority. This is a fallacious argument. It is like saying a decedent’s will has no authority because the probate judge must interpret it. Scripture is an authority because it reveals the Word of God, just like the will is an authority because it reveals the intentions of the decedent. The question is not one of authority, but about protecting the authority. If there is no probate judge to interpret the will, the authority of the will will be undermined. The family would be fighting about its contents and nothing would get resolved. The same is true with Scripture. If there is no Church to interpret the Scriptures, the authority of the Scriptures will be undermined as well. The family of God will fight about its contents and nothing will be resolved. This is Protestantism, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
40. Isn’t being a Christian enough?
Some Protestants argue that being a Christian is enough, and the particular denomination doesn’t matter. How should a Catholic respond? I would first confirm that the Protestant believes in the First Commandment – that thou shalt not worship false gods. After confirming he does, I would tell him that I worship what appears to be an ordinary piece of bread. Based on Scripture and 2,000 years of Tradition, Catholics believe that the substance of the bread becomes the flesh and blood of Christ in the Mass, and is thus worthy of worship. Jesus also said if we don’t eat His flesh, we have no life in us. Here is the dilemma: Either I am risking damnation because I am committing idolatry by worshiping a piece of bread, or the Protestant is risking damnation because He is not eating the flesh of Jesus Christ and has “no life” in him. This means that there is “no middle ground.” Those who argue that being a Christian is enough are compromising the gospel and really demonstrating that they are lukewarm in their own Christianity. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
41. Revocation of the Old Covenant
In the Old Testament, God made two principal covenants, one with Abraham and the other with Moses. In the first one, God promised Abraham, while he was a Gentile, that He would bless his descendants with an eternal dwelling place. Because this covenant was based on Abraham’s faith, God transformed it into the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. This is why Paul in Galatians 3:29 says Christians are the “seed of Abraham.” The second one, commonly known as the “Old Covenant,” God made with the Jews only and it was based on law, not faith. In 2 Corinthians 3:14, Paul says that the “old covenant” has been revoked by Jesus Christ. Paul says the same thing in Hebrews 7:18; 8:13 and 10:9. This means that, like the Gentiles, the Jews are now saved only in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. In fact, in Galatians 3:28 Paul says that in the New Covenant, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
42. The Catholic Approach to Scripture
When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular. First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents. Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15. Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
43. Old Testament Sacrifices and Grace
In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul says that Old Testament figures like Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham, Moses and David were justified by faith and have received their eternal reward. However, these men offered blood sacrifices to God throughout their lives. If these men were justified by faith alone as Protestants believe, then these sacrifices, which sought God’s favor, would have been an affront to God and brought about a loss in their justification. Protestants cannot explain why these men who were justified by faith continued to offer sacrifices to God with God’s blessings and approval. But Catholics can: We are justified by grace through both faith and works, not faith alone. These works of offering sacrifice brought about their justification before God, just like our works and sacrifices do as well. Just as offering sacrifice justified sinners in the Old Covenant, it does the same in the New Covenant, most especially in our offering of the supreme sacrifice: Jesus Christ the Holy Mass. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
44. The Heavenly Priesthood of Christ
In Hebrews 5:1 and 8:3, Paul says that a priest’s duty is to offer sacrifices for sins. Then, describing Jesus’ priesthood in heaven, Paul says “it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” This offering must be a sacrifice for sins for, according to Paul, that is what priests offer. We cannot separate Christ’s sacrifice from His priesthood since Christ is a priest only by virtue of His sacrifice. This poses a problem for Protestants who view Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary as completed. What sacrifice for sins could Jesus be possibly offering in heaven? It could only be the sacrifice of the cross which He now makes present in heaven. This makes sense, for if the Father could be appeased only by the sacrifice of the cross while Jesus was on earth, it follows that the Father would have to be appeased by this same sacrifice while Jesus is in heaven. Christ makes His Calvary sacrifice present not only in heaven, but also in the Mass, through His New Covenant priests. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
45. The Blood of the Covenant
In Hebrews 13, Paul says “may the God of peace…by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will.” For those who refuse to “meet together” to celebrate the Eucharist, Paul says such people have “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Why is this significant? Because the New Testament uses the phrase “blood of the covenant” only one other time: when Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Note that Paul is speaking of the actual shed blood of Christ for only Christ’s true blood can “equip” us to do God’s will, and be “profaned” if we refuse Him. Thus, it necessarily follows that Christ’s actual shed blood is also present in the Eucharist (which is what the people celebrated by “meeting together”). This means when we meet together in the Mass, we are sharing in the very blood that Jesus shed on the cross and continues to offer the Father for our sins, the blood of the New Covenant. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
46. The Mystery of the Eucharist
Protestants often object to the Church’s teaching that Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist in just one drop or particle of the consecrated elements. But this shouldn’t trouble the Protestant any more than the fact that the infinite God resides in our human bodies. In Romans chapter 8, Paul says that “the Spirit of God dwells in you” and “Christ is in you.” If God can dwell in our finite bodies, then Christ can be present in the Eucharist. Scripture also shows us that the risen Jesus is not subject to the laws of space or time which is why He could appear to His apostles when the doors were shut. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not much different than the soul’s presence in the human body. The soul is present throughout the entire body just as Christ is present in every particle or drop of the Eucharist. We cannot see our souls in our bodies, but they are there. And we cannot see Jesus in the Eucharist, but He is there. As Paul says, “we walk by faith, not by sight.” This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
47. The Old Testament canon and the Church
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. To deny the authority of the Church, Protestants often ask Catholics how the Jews of the Old Covenant knew what Scriptures were inspired if they didn’t have the Church to tell them. Don’t be caught off guard with this question. First, the Jews didn’t have an established canon of Scripture. They disagreed on many books such as we see with the Sadducees, who only believed in the Pentateuch, and the Pharisees who believed in the more expanded canon. Second, the consensus the Jews did have about Scripture came not from what Scripture said about itself, but from the prophetical Tradition and divinely-appointed authorities God placed over them. In other words, the Jews knew Isaiah, for example, was inspired Scripture because of Tradition and authority (which is the Catholic position) and not because of Scripture (which is the Protestant position). This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
48. Baptism
In John 3:5, Jesus says unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. In Titus 3:5, Paul says “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” In these texts, both Jesus and Paul are referring to the sacrament of baptism. Notice the definite parallels: In John 3:5, we enter the kingdom of God and in Titus 3:5 we are saved; in John 3:5 we are born of water and in Titus 3:5 we are washed with water; in John 3:5 we are born of the Spirit and in Titus 3:5 we are renewed in the Spirit. In these passages, Jesus and Paul teach that baptism is not a mere symbolic act as many Protestants believe. No, in baptism, what was contracted by generation (which is Original Sin) is washed away by regeneration (which is baptism). In baptism, the person is literally reborn into eternal life and becomes an adopted child of God by grace. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
49. Purgatory
This is John Salza with Relevant Answers. In Matthew 5 and 18 and Luke 12, Jesus teaches us, “Make friends quickly with your accuser on your way to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard and you be put in prison.” Jesus then assures us that we will not get out of this prison until we pay the last penny. The word “accuser” Jesus uses in His teaching is the same word Peter uses in 1 Peter 5:8 to describe the devil. The devil is the accuser against man and God is the judge. If we do not adequately deal with the devil and sin in this life, we will be spiritually imprisoned until our entire debt to God is satisfied in the next life. Luke’s version of the Our Father in 11:4 also equates debt with sin, where Jesus says “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” This prison that Jesus refers to is purgatory, where we will not get out until we have paid the last penny. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
50. Baptism
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter says “baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience.” In Hebrews 10:22, Paul similarly says “let us draw near to God with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” In these texts, both Peter and Paul are referring to baptism. Notice the parallels: In 1 Peter 3:21 we are saved and in Hebrews 10:22 we draw near to God; in 1 Peter 3:21 we are saved with water and in Hebrews 10:22 we are sprinkled clean and washed with pure water; in 1 Peter 3:21 we are given a clear conscience and in Hebrews 10:22 we are purified from an evil conscience. Because the conscience deals with the interior life of a person, these teachings demonstrate that baptism is not a mere external, symbolic act. No, baptism changes the interior of a person by washing away his sins and infusing his soul with sanctifying grace. This is how being washed with water saves us from an evil conscience so we can serve our God as His sons and daughters. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
51. The Virgin Mary
In Matthew 1:24-25, it says Joseph knew Mary not until she had borne a son. Because the Scripture says “not until,” some Protestants say this proves Mary had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus. This is incorrect. The Greek phrase “not until” is an action that describes only the past, not the future. The phrase “he knew her not until she bore a son” means “he knew her not up to the point that she bore a son.” It has nothing to do with Joseph’s relationship with Mary after she gave birth to Jesus. For example, when Jesus says He will be with us “until” the end of the world, “until” refers to the past only; it doesn’t mean Jesus won’t be with us after the end of the world. In Luke 2:37 it says Anna was a widow until she was eighty-four. This does not mean Anna was not a widow after she was eighty-four. In 2 Samuel 6:23 it says Michal had no child to the day of her death. This doesn’t mean Michal had a child after her death. Anyone who uses Matthew 1:24-25 to deny the virginity of Mary has completely misunderstood the text. This is John Salza with Relevant Answers.
52. Justification
When discussing justification, many Protestants argue that we don’t really become righteous; instead, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us. Luther even analogized the righteous Christian with a dunghill covered by snow. Scripture, however, refutes this theology. For example, in Matthew 6:1, Jesus tells us to practice our own righteousness, which means righteousness is a quality within us. In Apocalypse 19:8 it says the fine linen is the “righteous deeds of the saints.” In Luke 1:6, it says Zechariah and Elizabeth are righteous. In Romans 5:19, Paul says by disobedience many were made sinners, but by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Finally, in 1 John 3:7 John says “he who does right is righteous, just as God is righteous.” In Catholic theology, God doesn’t just declare us righteous. He doesn’t say something that isn’t true for that would infringe on His character. Instead, God loves us so much that, by His grace, He makes our righteousness a reality. This is the God of the Catholic Church, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.