I Have Some (many) Questions

[promethius]

I’ve never had a go at the full list. Forgive me for not reading the other posts, but I’m going to attempt to breifly answer ALL of them (in the same rapid fire as the people who typed it).

**1) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? **
A) Where? There was one council which infallibly defined the canon of scripture. There was no later revision to add books.

2) Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?
A) Again, where? There was one council which infallibly defined the canon of scripture. No books were later removed. If this refers to the Deuterocanon which was blasphemously ripped from the Bible by protestants, that’s not our problem.

3) If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible…
A) The Orthodox church is not infallible. Not our problem.

4) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
A) Without the Internet, spreading infallible declarations such as the Canon of Scripture could take decades. Don’t blame us that Al Gore wasn’t around by then to invent the interwebs!

**5) If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome? **
A) Many companies hold corporate board meetings in locations other than their headquarters. I hear Carthage was a pretty nice place in those days.

6) Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut or initiative in determining the canon.
A) Conversely, it proves that the Roman magisterial authority was needed before an infallible Canon of Scripture could be declared in 397 AD.

7) Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
A) If Thomas Jefferson later became a french citizen, does that make the declaration of Independence a French document? No. Besides, what became the Orthodox church did not exist at that time. (side note: irrelevant, because the Catholic Church still remains global presence even after the schism of the orthodox. What was Carthage and Hippo, as the rest of the world, are still subject to the jurisdiction of Rome to this very day).

8) If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
A) The Deuterocanon was ALWAYS part of the bible. The Council of Trent CLARIFIED this in light of efforts to blasphemously remove it.

9) Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
A) Because it was a schism, not a split. We believe the correct church authority: the Catholic Church.

10) Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
A) Mary’s Ascension. Proof: It’s written about by the early church fathers.

11) Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?
A) Sacred Tradition cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. This isn’t possible to answer because it is a nonsense question.

12) If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
A) Catholics are not forbidden to read or interpret the scriptures. We are forbidden to believe that we can INFALLIBLY interpret the scriptures to contravene the church. If we didn’t accept the church’s infallibility, we wouldn’t have become catholic in the first place (or wouldn’t stay), and that acceptance of the Magisterial Authority of the church is based on private interpretation and acceptance.

Continued…

 

[promethius]

13) Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
A) God failed to do that? That would be news to any Jew (and Catholic)

14) How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
A) Hmmn… not once is recorded by Jesus in the Bible that any of the Scripture Canon of the Jews was incorrect. Could it be that the Jews, using the Deuterocanon which they later rejected, had correctly interpreted God’s creation of the scriptures?

**15) If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: **

• a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? → Because the Orthodox have no magisterial authority and are therefore in error
• b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? → Infallibility only regards teaching on faith and morals. It does not involve historical accuracy. The pope is entirely allowed to believe that Neil Armstrong found cheese on the moon if he likes.

**16) Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. **

A) I must have missed where Tertullian or Jerome had the magisterial authority to determine what was sacred tradition and make it binding on the church… It might be interesting, however, to study the other Rites and see if these practices are still in effect in their respective rites.

**17) Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? **
A) Because a local custom, even handed down by tradition, is not necessarily dogmatic and binding. Hence why Jerome and Tertullian were wrong to try to give force of law to something they had no authority to declare.

**18) Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? **
A) Because they’re not binding or magisterial doctrines of the church.

19) Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew?
A) Because western culture and tradition holds that kneeling is respectful, while the (non binding and non magisterial) cultures of Tertullian and Jerome did not.

**20) If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? **
A) Because this issue of practice, again, was not magisterial and binding!

**21) If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things? **
A) Whoever wrote this document is severely under educated in what constitutes doctrine, who holds magisterial authority, and under what areas those two subjects can be interpreted.

 

[Link0126]

No, seriously. In all charity the person who came up with those questions is severely ignorant of history and the Church. It’s proof that whoever runs that website has only ill-will towards the Church b/c if they were honest and had 5 minutes to spare they could have gotten an answer to all those questions quite easily. Instead of being interested in the truth though, they would rather try to spread their anti-Catholic agenda at all costs, no matter how ridiculous they seem.

 

[SPH1]

A typical shot-gun approach. They apparently think that even if some can be answered, surely all cannot.

Ask these guys: if Protestantism is the “true Church”, how come there are so many conflicting denominations? Why cannot they agree upon Baptism and Communion, if Protestantism is the true Church, built by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit and all go by the infallible Word of God.

God is not the author of confusion. 1Cor14:33. This alone shows that Protestantism cannot be founded by God.