DEFENSORES FIDEI FOUNDATION APOLOGIST CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD ANSWERS PROTESTANT QUESTIONS ON BIBLE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Part 1

The Council of Chalcedon. When the Tome or Letter of Pope St. Leo the Great was read the Council Fathers stood and shouted: "Peter has spoken through Leo." And, they unanimously upheld the entire declaration of the Pope.

*******

CARLOS: Here are my belated answers to the following questions presented by our fellow apologista, milesawayman.

These are the answers to questions 1-17.

My only comment is that the Questions are all “question begging”. They are questions designed to confuse and not to enlighten.

Bible is the Final Authority.

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

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? 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?

Show me a single document, wherein either the Holy See or an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church declared as part of the Bible something that is not included in the current Canon of Scriptures as recognized by the Catholic Church.

Show me a document where the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome rejects the canonicity of Hebrews and James. Was it not Luther who actually rejected these books?

This question merely demonstrates the extreme historical ignorance of the critics of the Catholic Church who penned it.

By the way, the Church did not “give” the Bible. The Bible comes from God. However, it was given by God THROUGH the Church. The Church’s role was to recognize the divine inspiration in certain books, and to declare that these were pure witnesses to the Word of God.

2. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox 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?

I am Catholic, not Orthodox, and it is really none of my business to defend the Orthodox Church. However, for the sake of truth, I would like to point out that there are many “Orthodox Churches”, and all of these accept Revelation / Apocalypse, in practice if not in theory. They DO disagree on various other books of Scripture, and their disagreement on this merely demonstrates the necessity for ecclesiastical unity around a single authority that can pronounce on dogmatic questions with finality.

3. 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?

In the late 4th century, the Roman world was already extremely fragmented by the barbarian invasions and by cultural differences (Latin West / Greek East / Syrian Orient / Coptic Egypt) and decisions in one part of the Roman empire often took years, if not decades, to be fully disseminated to other parts of the empire.

Furthermore it should be kept in mind that the Church of the time did not have the same level of centralization as it now has. The decisions of the African synods, furthermore, were LOCAL Synods. Their decisions were not, of themselves, binding upon the entire UNIVERSAL Church (only an Ecumenical Council and the Holy See had such authority). So, why do we Catholics cite the African Councils? Because these Councils gave clear and unambiguous witness to what the Church Fathers were already teaching, and because their teaching on the Canon of Scripture was ratified and recognized by succeeding Popes and Councils, finally reaching DOGMATIC status in the Council of Trent.

4. 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 ?

Again, these questions show the sheer ignorance of whoever penned these, regarding the way Catholicism operates when it comes to doctrinal and moral matters.

The Catholic Church is, first and foremost, the Church of tradition. It conserves within itself the deposit of faith, passed on from age to age and whose guardian is both the clergy and the laity. As such, it is the Catholic faithful themselves who are the first to try to deepen their knowledge and understanding of the deposit entrusted to them. The role of the Papacy is to make sure that the faithful do not stray into the abyss of heresy and error – it is not the responsibility of the Papacy to have to provide the impetus to every initiative in the Church. To make this presupposition is to make the error of thinking that Catholics are supposed to be mindless robots who cannot think for themselves. This is true of many Protestant and “semi-Christian” sects, but it is certainly not true of the Catholic Church. The fact that so many Protestants like to make this accusation against the Catholic Church only reflects on how they themselves think and behave.

Permit me to give an analogy. The role of the shepherd is to protect the sheep from external danger, by beating away wolves and by building walls around the pastures of his flock. However, it is not his role to have to go to each sheep to tell it to wake up, eat, walk, etc. In the same way, the Pope – to whom the Lord entrusted the task of feeding His sheep – is entrusted with the task of ensuring that the faithful are kept safe, and that they do not fall into heresy or error. However, it is not his task to have to tell the faithful each and every thing that they have to do.

The African synods are merely expressions of the zeal of the north African bishops and the lay faithful, who wanted to have more exact definitions regarding the faith and teachings of the Church. Their decisions regarding the Canon of Scripture were entirely local initiatives, but were confirmed by Rome and had value as the (at that time) clearest list of which books were considered as divinely inspired.

5. 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 input or initiative in determining the canon.

Your understanding is contrary to a plain reading of the sentence that you cite. On the contrary, it proves that the final word in determining the Canon lay with Rome . The Synod of Carthage had no independent authority, but depended on the authority of Rome , in matters of doctrinal importance.

6. 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?

Hippo and Carthage are in north Africa west of Egypt , and this area belonged to the “Latin” or “Roman” Church before Islamic invasions destroyed Christianity in the area.

7. 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?

How strange it is that the authors of this question, who are evidently aware of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, would repeat the lie that the Church waited until 1546 to add the Apocrypha to the Canon, when it was the aforesaid African Councils that already recognized (NOT added, but simply recognized) that the “Deuterocanonicals” are part of the Bible!!!

Trent merely REITERATED, in the face of Protestant attacks on the traditional Canon of Sacred Scripture, the canonical status and authority of the seven books of the Deuterocanonicals. Trent also gave DOGMATIC status to something that was already a DOCTRINE of the Church – meaning that in 1546, the Church felt that it had become necessary to make adherence to the 73-book Canon of the Bible something necessary in order to remain in communion with the Church. What this means in simple language is that prior to 1546, the Church already believed in the 73-book Canon, but did not feel it necessary to anathematize (to cut off from communion) those who did not believe in it. In 1546, due to the seriousness of the attacks on the true canon of the Bible by Protestants, the Church took this drastic step, precisely to protect the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.

8. 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?

Just because two parties make different claims about the truth does not mean that none of these parties is correct about the truth. If one wishes to determine which of these two Churches is the true Church, then let that person study the history of both Churches, and learn which had been faithful to the well-attested teachings of the Church from earliest centuries, as can be found in her Councils and the writings of the Fathers. However, the mere fact that the Roman and Greek Orthodox Churches have different Canons of Scripture is no argument against “church authority”!

In fact, the same argument can be used against Protestants much more easily. The HUNDREDS of different families and groupings of Protestant sects and communities all claim to be “Scripture based”, and yet have different teachings on the most basic issues. If the Protestants say that the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are mistaken in believing in “church authority” because these two Churches have differing doctrines, then so much more should the Protestants admit that they themselves are mistaken to believe in “sola Scriptura” because their hundreds of different groupings all have different doctrines even on the most basic things.

9. 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.

Your understanding of Apostolic Tradition is mistaken. The Church maintains that Scripture and Tradition form the “one single source” that safeguards the Deposit of Faith that the Lord, the true Word of God, transmitted to the Church through the Apostles. This means that every doctrine that is in Scripture is mirrored in the Tradition, and every doctrine in Tradition is echoed in Scripture. The difference is that Tradition often presents what is in Scripture in a more historically developed and elaborated way, with nuances that are not found in Scripture.

10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

This question is too vague to be even answered. What does “differ” mean here?

11. 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?

The absence of “private interpretation” is not the same as the “exclusion of the individual”. The individual must always choose and must always use his mind – but for an individual to make a choice does not mean that he is therefore using “private interpretation”.

Private interpretation is simply the arrogant assumption that any individual can decide, without reference to any other authority, which Christian doctrines are right or wrong, and which Scriptural interpretations are correct or not. This is the reason why so many persons who founded various Protestant churches felt entitled to declare all other churches to be in one error or another, and they alone having the most perfect key to scriptures. This is the reason why many Protestant preachers have the temerity and arrogance to contradict even the Apostolic Fathers, who themselves were taught by the Apostles, and had known the very people who knew Christ in person. Some European Protestants have even condemned St. Luke and St. James for their Catholic tendencies!

However, it is possible for an individual to choose to believe in a particular Church without falling into the trap of “private interpretation”. Such an individual, rejecting the Protestant neglect of history and taking the Lord at His word that He will never abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church, will realize that – if Jesus is no liar – then there has always been a Church that has kept His teaching pure and unadulterated, and that it is his (the person’s) task to approach that Church which has kept this teaching unchanged and intact. Such a person will NOT decide what is right and what is wrong entirely on his authority, and will not dream of overruling the early Church. Rather, he will endeavor to understand what the early Church overwhelmingly taught, then taking this to be true (without subjecting it to his judgment), trying to find out which modern Church has managed to keep all that the generality of the early Church taught. In all this, of course, he must be prayerful and invoke divine grace and guidance.

12. 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?

And who makes this strange claim? The Catholic Church simply uses as its Old Testament, the Jewish Bible as it existed prior to 70 AD. It is the PROTESTANTS who, in using a Hebrew Bible codified after 70 AD in the Council of Jamnia, imply that the Jews didn’t know what the Bible was before the Temple was destroyed.

You’re barking up the wrong tree my friend! Go ask the Protestants, not us Catholics!

13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

They had access to the inspired voice of a continuous stream of patriarchs and prophets, ending with John the Baptist. We can also point to the Seat of Moses (a reference to the teaching authority of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin).

14. 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? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

In answer to a: Please refer to the answer to question number 8

In answer to b: what a nonsensical question! It is you Protestants who think that we Catholics have committed error. Your question is akin to asking: “then how do you Catholics explain the fact that Protestants are correct”? We don’t grant this premise. It is strange that you should even frame the question this way. It is as weird and as offensive as asking a Muslim to defend the cleanliness of pork.

15. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

In answer to this, please refer to my answer to question number 8. Also, the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox Churches do not follow apostolic tradition in everything, for if they did, then they will have to accept papal primacy, which the East itself clearly confessed and defended for the first 8 centuries of Christianity.

That having been said, isn’t it nice that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches still have an overwhelmingly identical set of beliefs regarding almost everything else aside from papal primacy and a few other points of disagreement? In contrast, Protestants can’t even agree on the most basic things (such as whether there are Three Persons in One God, or not). The only thing they agree on is their opposition to the Papacy.

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". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? 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? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

Practicefrom Tradition Orthodox Catholic

disown the devil before baptism

thrice immersed

Drink milk and honey after baptism

don’t bath for a week after baptism

kneeling in worship is forbidden

Sign of cross on forehead

Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4

Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8

My answer will come in two parts.

First, I would like to point out that most of these practices are still found, one way or another, in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches . Only someone ignorant of the practice of both Churches will say that these practices have completely disappeared.

In both Churches, exorcisms – the disowning and casting away of the devil – are still practiced during the rite of baptism.

The practice of threefold immersion remains the normal way of doing baptism in the Orthodox Church and in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and remains an option (which many priests practice) in the Roman Catholic Church.

Making the sign of the cross on the forehead remains common for Roman Catholics (especially at Mass, before the reading of the Gospel).

Kneeling in worship is forbidden on SUNDAYS in some (but not all) Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches .

Second, NONE of these traditions are considered by the either the Catholic or Orthodox Church as having DOGMATIC status. And this is where the ignorance of so many Protestants comes in. Both Churches make distinctions between the little “traditions”, mainly customs in the form of rituals and disciplinary matters, and the “Apostolic Tradition” which resides in the DOGMAS and DOCTRINES of the Church. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church has ever claimed to be bound to maintain all customs that were once practiced by the early Christians, nor should Protestants wish that they did. If they did, for example, then Catholics and Orthodox should totally shun Protestants as filthy heretics, for that is how the early Christians treated those who had embraced heresies. Is this what Protestants want?

As for the practice of not taking a bath for a week after Baptism, and that of drinking milk and honey after baptism, these have been discontinued for practical reasons.

Both Churches have always maintained that they have the right to modify or abandon ancient customs that do not have dogmatic significance. What both Churches regard as beyond modification are the DOGMAS that are to be found in the DEPOSIT OF FAITH left by the Apostles.

17. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople ? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

Baloney. The Catholic Church maintains the necessity of the apostolic succession. However, it has NEVER taught that no bishop will ever fall into error. What it does maintain is that the apostolic succession will never be extinguished. It has never taught that anyone who traces his succession to the apostles will never fall into error. As usual, this question demonstrates a total ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

In the eyes of the Catholic Church, the Greek bishops of Ephesus eventually fell into schism -- one of them, Mark of Ephesus, led resistance against the reunion between Rome and Constantinople in 1439 -- and today, the Greek Orthodox See of Ephesus lies extinguished, the city in ruins, its long-destroyed churches empty, save for one chapel – the House of the Blessed Virgin -- where the CATHOLICS worship.

However, our Protestant questioners might be interested to know that the LATIN See of Ephesus still exists as a Titular Archdiocese of the Catholic Church. Although currently vacant, the Holy See retains the prerogative of appointing an eminent and worthy prelate to that position.