The Catholic Church says Yes. You, Reverend X, say No. We urge you or anyone else who may be reading this response to go to any public library and you will find the list of the Popes. You will trace Pope John Paul II's predecessors all the way back to St. Peter.
You said in your letter, "If Peter was the first Pope, who was the second?" Let us answer that, now. It was Linus. The end of Peter's reign was A.D. 67; then Linus reigned until A.D. 76. Then we have Cletus until A.D. 88. He was followed by:
Clement I 97
Evaristus 105
Alexander I 115
Sixtus I 115
Telesphorus 136
Hyginus 140
Pius I 155
Anicetus 166
Soter 175
Eleutheruis 189
Victor 199
Zephyrinus 217
Callistus I 222
Urban I 230
Pontian 235
Anterus 236
Fabian 250
Cornelius 253
Lucius I 254
Stephen I 257
Sixtus II 258
Dionysus 268
Felix I 274
Eutychian 283
Caius 296
Marcellinus 304
Marcellus I 309 (a short reign)
Eusebius 309
Miltiades 314
Sylvester 335
Mark 336
Julius I 352
Liberius 366
Damasus I 384
Siricius 399
Anastasius 401
We could go all the way to our present Pope, but you said there was no Pope for the first three hundred years, until the fourth century. We just listed for you the Popes for the first four hundred years, into the fifth century. But don't take our word for it. Visit any public library; the information is there in "The History of the Popes." We Catholics have never tried to keep it a secret!
Your statement was astounding that there was no archeological evidence that Peter was in Rome. Do you think they would build St. Peter's Basilica over a tomb that didn't exist? Why would Constantine demolish sacred burial grounds in order to build St. Peter's? That was something sacred to the Romans. There had to be something there more sacred to the Christians -- the tomb of the apostle Peter.
There is archeological proof, as much archeological proof for the existence of St. Peter in Rome as there is for the Pharaohs in Egypt.
Was Peter the first Pope? Pope comes from the word "papa," meaning "father." Whether you call him Pope, shepherd, universal shepherd, vicar of Christ, chief apostle . . . it doesn't really matter because we still go back to the first apostle. Was Peter made the chief apostle? Was Peter made the rock? Was Peter given the keys to the kingdom? Was Peter made the Shepherd?
You seem to give great importance to your argument that Peter was not the first Pope or even distinguished from the other apostles in leadership. And you gather all this from how you judge the Greek words for "rock." As you said in your letter, petros means "a piece of rock" and petras means a "mass of rock." You go on to say that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus was really saying, "Peter, you are a chip off the old block, and upon that block I would build by church."
What you are saying is based on the Greek translation, but Jesus didn't speak Greek; He spoke Aramaic! In Aramaic, the word for "rock" is "kepha," and there is no distinction as you described it. Catholics prefer to stick to the Scriptures as taught by the Church. "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are 'Rock' and on this rock, I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever YOU declare loosed will be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:17). That sounds like a good argument for papal infallibility.
If we read Matthew 7:24f, we see how Christ advised building upon rock, a "kepha," not sand. Sand will be washed away by the wind and the rains as they beat against it, but a rock will stand. The wind and the rains are the pressures, peer pressures, changing times, changing theologies. If you only build on sand, those changing theologies will wash away the foundation. A rock, a "kepha," will stand. What do you think Jesus was saying to us, then?
Simon, whose name means "reed," is having his name changed by Jesus from a reed that blows in the wind to "rock" that stands firm. So even though it was translated into Greek, Christ said it in Aramaic where there is no distinction between "petras" and "petros."
In John 10:14, Jesus refers to Himself as "the good shepherd" and to His followers as His "sheep." "I know my sheep and my sheep know me. Other sheep I have who do not belong to this fold, but I shall bring them in and there will be one fold and one shepherd." Note, Christ realized even then the divisions there would be among His followers (sheep). And He will make us one!
From the above quotation in John, we can see that Christ said there would be one shepherd and one fold, and Catholics believe that Christ is that shepherd, but He handed over the fold and the care of the fold to Peter (John 21:15-18). "When they had eaten their meal, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' 'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'you know that I love you.' Jesus replied, 'Tend my sheep.' A third time Jesus asked him, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt because he asked a third time, 'Do you love me?' So he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything. You know well that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" Peter had already denied him three times, and now Christ reinstated him three times. In the 1970 New American Bible, the text of John 21:15f, you will see in bold black print, "Peter the Shepherd."
Referring back to the beginning of this booklet, to the definition of faith . . . faith is believing something you cannot prove, but not believing without a reason. In this booklet, we have presented two different Gospel accounts as reasons to believe in the supremacy of Peter.
You have given reasons (not proofs) from Scripture for not believing in Peter's supremacy. You quote from the Acts of the Apostles, "Peter stood amidst the disciples and spoke . . ." This is your reason for not believing in Peter's supremacy. Remember that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI spoke from "amidst" the gathered bishops at Vatican II. Do you doubt that they both claimed to be Pope?
Another reason you offered from Scripture was also from the Acts. "Paul withstood Peter to his face . . ." suggesting Paul considered himself an equal; therefore, Peter was not the chief apostle. Remember during Pope John Paul II's visit to the U.S., a nun "withstood him to his face." Do you think there was any doubt in the mind of any person present that Pope John Paul was still Pope?
You have offered reasons, not proofs. All we have proven is that we both have FAITH.
Our Catholic priests are constantly being accused of usurping the power of God, that they commit blasphemy when they claim to forgive sins. But refer to Mark 2:7 when Christ was accused of the same thing. "No man can forgive sins but God alone. He blasphemes." Then Jesus asked, "Which is easier for me to say to the sick man . . .?" It went on to say, that we may know the Son of Man does have the power to forgive sins. "I say to you, arise, take up your bed and walk." It was then and then only that they praised God, although Jesus had already worked a greater miracle when He healed the man's soul. But He, too, was accused of blasphemy.
Healing is a gift from the Holy Spirit, and we can read that in 1 Corinthians 12. We can tune in our TV any Sunday and watch preachers claim that they have this gift. If they are asked where they get this power, and if they are real men of faith, they will tell you that God only uses them -- that the real power comes from God, and that God only uses their hands to bring about this healing. And they will eagerly tell you that their gift of healing is in the Bible. The point is, the priest's power to forgive sins is also in the Bible. See John 20:19-23. Quoting from verse 21, "As the Father has sent me, so I now send you." (Doesn't that sound like authority?) Then he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men's sins they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
In 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, St, Paul says, "All this has been done by God, who has reconciled us to himself with Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. I mean that God, in Christ, was reconciling the world to himself, not counting men's transgressions against them, and that he has entrusted the message of reconciliation to us. This makes us ambassadors for Christ."
Paul is claiming here to be a man used by God to reconcile. The Catholic Church calls this sacrament the sacrament of reconciliation. Priests are, therefore, as Paul claims, ambassadors (individuals who speak on behalf of and represent God) and ministers of reconciliation. That is the role of a Catholic priest.
To quote you, Reverend X, on page 16 of your pamphlet, "Catholic tradition states that during Mass the bread actually becomes the physical flesh of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and the wine actually becomes the physical blood (transubstantiation)." Let us correct you definition of transubstantiation. In our theological definition there is no such word as "physical." You added this. Transubstantiation is the belief that the real Christ -- body, blood, soul, and divinity (in other words, Christ Himself) -- is truly present under the appearance of bread and wine. It is not only Roman Catholics who believe this. It is also believed by all the Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and many individual Protestants. It was certainly believed by the early Church and by all Christians until the Reformation. Is it scriptural? Refer to John 6, which should be read in its entirety. It was prophesied in Malachi 1:11, prefigured in Exodus 16:15, promised in John 6:30-60, instituted in the Last Supper narrative in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Refer also to 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 and 10:16f; Acts 2:42 and 20:7. Particularly refer to 1 Corinthians 11:29 to see what Paul believed.
Jesus Himself certainly was very strong on this point, since He allowed His followers to leave Him and also demanded the apostles do the same if they could not accept His teaching. Refer to John 6:60. "For they found it a hard saying and would follow him no more."
These first followers were Jews who already had the old covenant with Moses. If Christ merely meant it as a symbolic eating of the bread and wine in which they thought about Him and made Him spiritually present, why would these Jews need to walk away? What would be so hard in believing it? But if He meant if literally, it would be hard to believe; hence, they left Him. He did mean it literally, or why didn't He call them back?
The Mass is prefigured in Genesis 14:18 and 22:13, the whole Passover Lamb story in Exodus, John the Baptist's reference to Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and Malachi 1:10-11. To understand the Mass and its sacrificial aspect, one needs to have an overall picture of the whole Jewish history of sacrifice especially the idea of the blood of the lamb that sealed the covenant made with Moses. "The spotless lamb," whose blood was shed before the Jews passed through the Red Sea into the desert to be fed with the bread of heaven supplied to them by God, is a prototype of the new covenant of which Christ is the spotless lamb whose blood was shed for the salvation of the world. Who would feed them with the bread of heaven? Refer to John 6.
In Hebrews, we are told that Christ is the Eternal High Priest Who, unlike the priest of the Old Testament, offers sacrifice once and for all. For this reason, Reverend, you have suggested that the Mass is blasphemous, since it apparently contradicts Hebrews. Is there and answer to that objection? Yes. We do not teach that we are crucifying Jesus again and again as you suggest, but that each time we are present at Mass, we are present again at the original sacrifice.
Here's an analogy: When we watch a videotape of a movie, are the actors acting again or are we watching the original performance? They did it once and once only, but we make the performance present each time we play it.
Before leaving the subject, we would like to mention three common words used by Christians at Christmas. They are "Bethlehem," "manger," and the word "Christmas" itself. What do they mean? Bethlehem means "house of bread." Manger is an eating vessel. Wasn't it rather prophetic, that Christ was born in a town called the "house of bread" and he was laid in a manger, an eating vessel? Lastly, where do you think the word "Christmas" comes from? What about "Christ Mass"? Merry Christ Mass, Reverend!
Three chapters earlier, Christ says your favorite quotation, Reverend. John 3:3: "Unless a man is born again . . ." (the Bible verse most quoted by fundamentalists). Nicodemus was confused and asked "How can I be born again?" (He took it literally.) John 3:5 is a passage you never quote, Reverend. Nor for that matter have many heard any born-again preacher quote, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot . . ." Why don't you mention the need for the baptism of water in your born-again experience? You insist on an altar call. Incidentally, you've ridiculed the idea of confessing to a priest because you claim it is not in the Bible. Where are the words altar call, Reverend? By the way, we believe in it, but it isn't mentioned specifically in Scripture either. To refer back to John 6, Christ says, "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you cannot have my life." They obviously took him literally, as did Nicodemus, whom He corrected.
The real presence in the Eucharist is a mystery like the Trinity or the two natures of Christ, something we must believe without proof but not without reason. We have given you scriptural reasons and also historical ones. Since this teaching was not questioned until the Reformation (even Luther continued to believe it) why did Christ, Who promised to be with His Church always until the end of the world, allow false teachings about such a serious matter and wait sixteen hundred years to correct it?
You have said in your pamphlet that Catholics who are trying to follow the Word of God should come out of that church. We're telling you, Reverend, that any Christian who believes the WORD OF GOD should come into it!
Click here for part 3 of the text.
Go back St. Justin Martyr Center home.