DEFENSORES FIDEI FOUNDATION APOLOGIST CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD ANSWERS PROTESTANT QUESTIONS ON BIBLE AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Part 2

The Lord Jesus Christ in Majesty, artwork on a Medieval Bible manuscript

*******

Here is Part 2, the responses to Questions 18-27 [Carlos Antonio Palad]

18. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

Three points:

1) Scripture IS united with Sacred Tradition and has been referred to as “the heart of Tradition.” Also, Athanasius was writing at a time when the Church had not yet codified the “Canon of Scripture”, and as such, the custom of referring to “Scripture” as something distinct from tradition had not yet taken root.

2) “Scripture tradition”? Now, there’s a novel phrase, unknown to both Protestant and Catholic usage. The fact is that “tradition” has always been a dirty word for many types of Protestants, and in coining this phrase you are merely trying to avoid admitting the fact that the Catholic Church is correct in pointing out that even Scripture witnesses to the existence and validity of tradition.

3) We do not assume that the “tradition” mentioned in many verses of the New Testament excludes Scripture. However, it should be pointed out that the Bible itself makes note of the fact that the tradition from the apostles has come down to us in oral and written form: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2;15)

19. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it.

The text, as found in the Revised Standard Version, reads as: “..how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit…”

Nothing here indicates that we can understand the Scripture merely by reading it. Indeed, these verses can be interpreted as a powerful warning against Sola Scriptura. Here, St. Paul speaks of HIS insight into the mystery of Christ, and of the fact that the mysteries of Christ are revealed to the “apostles and prophets”, which obviously implies that these are not revealed to just anyone. Obviously, the lay faithful are expected to perceive HIS insight, NOT THEIR INSIGHT. St. Paul is here reminding his hearers of HIS authority as an Apostle to interpret Divine Revelation. Nothing here indicates that St. Paul is telling his readers to come and interpret the divine mysteries themselves.

They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers , On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers , On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

I find it interesting that you quote no Fathers to support your assertion. In addition, given that all the Fathers strenuously wrote in favor of the Church and of so many doctrines that Protestants despise and abhor, I find it ironic that in your battle against Catholicism you would try to seek refuge in the Fathers, who abhor and condemn the very heresies that you teach.

Who denies that the Scripture could be understood by being read? Not even the Catholic Church makes this absurd denial. The fact that Bible-reading is encouraged by the Church refutes this strange claim. The fact that Catholic apologists use the Bible refutes this assertion, which reveals more about the ignorance of its author than anything about the Catholic Church.

What both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do deny is that Scripture ALONE is the source of the truth, and that Scripture can be read BY ITSELF without any other aid or reference or authority. But, yes, the Scripture can be read clearly by anyone who is instructed in the faith and lets himself be guided by the Church, for as Scripture itself declares: “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God” (2 Peter 1:20-21). See also Acts 8: 30-31 and 2 Peter 3:16.

In the time of the Church Fathers, the link between Scripture and Tradition was known and accepted by all. Even the heretics against whom the Fathers contended, accepted this. “Sola Scriptura” is an innovation of the Protestants and their ancestor-heretics of the second millennium. The Church Fathers were addressing heretics who had been born in the Church, and who had consciously dissented from the Tradition of the Church. These heretics could not claim that they never knew the Apostolic Tradition that had been passed from one generation of bishops to the next. As such, since they had the benefit of knowing the Tradition and of being able to read the Bible in relation to this Tradition, they could rightfully be rebuked for not understanding Scripture.

Context, my friend, context!!!

20. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

Only someone totally ignorant of Catholicism would fail to take note of the fact that the Scriptures are ALWAYS read in the majority of Catholic churches on a DAILY basis, in the form of the daily liturgy. (The Orthodox do, in theory, but in practice they don’t, and that is their problem.)

Furthermore, historically, the Church has always endeavored to bring the Bible to the masses in the following manner:

a) Preaching. One only has to open the books of pious readings and of sermons from ages past, to realize that Catholic preaching has always been saturated with Scripture. (People tend to forget that, back in the days when there were no radio and TV, no malls, no movies, etc. very lengthy sermons were preached in public very, very frequently, and these were well attended. Especially during Lent, lengthy expositions of Church teaching, full of quotes from Scripture, were often preached every evening.)

b) Sacred art. The sacred art of the Church has always been a magnificent tool to instruct the masses about the mysteries of the faith and about the Bible. It is striking to note that the sacred art of ancient and medieval times are full of scenes from even the most obscure Bible episodes, scenes that were explained in preaching.

c) The liturgy. The Church has always read a significant portion of the Bible in the course of the liturgical year. The liturgy of the Church itself, by means of its visual spectacle – something seldom appreciated by Protestants – brought numerous Bible scenes to life.

d) Literature. The Church has always promoted literature that brought Bible scenes to life, especially drama and poetry. Prior to the 19th century, on certain major feasts and seasons, it was common to put on the stage (for the common people) all sorts of plays that dramatized most of the Bible. In the Philippines , we had the (now fast-disappearing) “Senakulos”, which in many places were performed every day of Lent, as well as the singing of the “Pasyong Mahal” (which covered not just the Passion, but a significant portion of the Bible). These have slowly disappeared with the growth of literacy and the advent of religious mass media, which took over the didactic role that sacred literature once served.

21. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

This reflects the strange fantasy of not a few Protestants that the Catholic Church is some kind of gigantic robot, where every word and command must emanate from some super-powerful center (Rome). It also reflects the strange belief of many Protestants that the Pope is some sort of super-oracle, whose every word must be taken to heart by all Catholics. This scenario is foreign to Catholicism, although it is descriptive of the cults that have been set up by not a few Protestant ministers and preachers.

The Pope is the visible head of the Church. This does not mean that he is the ordinary teacher of all the faithful as well. The task of preaching to, and teaching the flock, is the task first and foremost of the local pastors, the priests and bishops of the local Church. The Church has never claimed that the lay faithful have the obligation of trying to research every new papal document or every new papal massage, although they are encouraged to do so.

The Church does not command the impossible, and in the days when communications were slow, expensive, and quite primitive, popes tended to communicate very sparingly with the rest of the Church. Then as now, the day-to-day business of running the local Church is the province, not of the Pope, but of the local priests and bishops. Popes intervened only on the most important and urgent occasions. The collected declarations of ancient and medieval popes can be compressed into several dozen volumes, excluding the papal bulls and other documents that merely had to do with routine business.

By the 18th century, though, international communications had begun to markedly improve, and as a result the pace of changes and developments in society had begun to pick up as well. In sync with the changing times, Popes (beginning with Benedict XIV, pope from 1740 to 1758) began to issue numerous letters addressed to the bishops of the whole world; we now know these as “encyclicals”. Beginning in the 19th century, with the phenomenal spread of print media, enyclicals began to be targeted more and more to the lay faithful as well. Today, with all the possibilities afforded by digital communications, and with people more than ever connected to the wider world, it has become feasible for Popes and their closest collaborators to issue messages that can be accessed and read from anywhere in the world at the click of a button.

Nevertheless, the principle remains that the local priests and bishops have the primary duty of educating the faithful under their care.

22. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

How tiresome and repetitive. Please see the answer to no. 20.

23. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

We do not live in a perfect world where everyone is omniscient, and we need to trust people to do their job well if we are to keep society running. That is why there are EXPERTS in every conceivable field of human expertise. The same thing applies in religion. The priests are trained in philosophy and theology (much more rigorously than Protestant ministers and Orthodox priests, let it be added) and are expected to teach correct theology to their flocks. Furthermore, the Church has always had many pious and learned laypeople that, despite not being priests and bishops, know the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and can protest against erring priests and bishops when they teach strange doctrines and novelties.

24. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

And from what lying Jack Chick tract did you get the idea that Catholics have no access to these documents? The fact is that the Church has spared no expense in publishing its documents, and anyone with the means to do so can have access to these, especially in our days when the Internet has made it possible even for poor Catholics to access thousands of Church documents.

Also, it should be pointed out that the Catholic Church has existed for 2,000 years, and has produced thousands of volumes of documents. No person alive can ever hope to read all of these. To make it easier for the hierarchy, the clergy, and the lay faithful to have access to the teaching of the Church without having to read everything that the Church has published, the Church has published official Catechisms and Compendia of Doctrine, while eminent theologians have, through the centuries, published comprehensive Church-approved “manuals” that treat of the various branches of sacred theology.

25. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)

Show me where the Catholic Church has proclaimed it a dogma that the book of Hebrews was written by St. Paul . Show me where the Catholic Church has declared that all their faithful must adhere to this position under pain of sin. It is an ANCIENT tradition, and a fully respectable one, but the Catholic Church has never declared with finality that the Book of Hebrews was indeed written by St. Paul the Apostle. As such, Bible scholars may respectfully question the attribution.

That having been said, what practical difference does it make? Whether or not written by St. Paul , the Church still officially considers this book to be part of Sacred Scripture.

26. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)

Some strange question you have here! I’m Catholic, of course I don’t believe in the Orthodox Church! And what a silly challenge you have here! Is apologetics just a game for you? This question says much more about how you think!

27. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)

I would invite the “new believer in Christ” to contemplate the marvelous unity of the Catholic Church through the ages, under the leadership of the Pope and in obedience to Christ her head, founder and spouse. Yes, it is true that many individuals and even entire nations have fallen from the Catholic Church, but inside the Church the unity of the bishops in acknowledging the authority of the Pope and the authority of his teaching has always been substantially united, and not torn by insoluble disagreements. It is true that not a few bishops criticize and disobey the Pope, but their disobedience is always of a practical level, never on the level of actually denying his authority or the authority of his statements.

In contrast, the Orthodox have formal and public disagreements on the canon of Scripture, the morality of abortion and contraception, the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs and the proper role of the state. The Orthodox Church claims to be one, but her many patriarchates and “autocephalous” Churches disagree even on the Canon of Scripture, which is so basic!

Also, no other Church fulfils this verse: “for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 1:11) In the majority of the parishes, cathedrals and monasteries of the Catholic Church, the pure offering of the Holy Mass is said daily, forming an unceasing band of praise all over the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Orthodox Church, in theory, has daily Mass (“Divine Liturgy”) but in practice this is carried out only in some monasteries and cathedrals and in a small minority of parishes, and in nowise can the Orthodox Church be said to offer the pure offering “from the rising of the sun to its setting”.

______________________

FR. ABE: May I also add that after the First 7 Ecumenical Councils the Orthodox Churches failed to organize one because of their lack of One Supreme Authority that is absolute and universal. Thus, they became pastorally, theologically and doctrinally stagnant. The Catholic Church has successfully summoned more Ecumenical Councils based on the needs of the time so that now we have 21 Ecumenical Councils. Several times already the Orthodox Patriarchs tried to call for a Pan-Orthodox Synod but nothing materialized. Without a Universal Pastor like our Pope no Ecumenical Council or Synod shall be binding for local churches that is why only the Catholic Church possesses this privilege just like the Apostolic Church during the reign of Peter and the Apostles.