People who reject the Church will eventually, if they look into it honestly, realize that they have no valid objections, and so then they start fabricating reasons that are a few steps shy of intelligent and logical, and you get stuff like that.
I will say, glancing over that list, that they #1, don’t give citations for their question (like the first one, about rejecting James / Hebrews.). They also seem to have flawed understandings about what Church teachings actually are (infallibility, divine inspiration, etc.) People who ask these sorts of questions will never accept our answers because they refuse to move past their flawed preconceptions.
The person who made that site has an axe to grind, and no amount of rational discussion or logical example… or fact, for that matter, will ever influence what they think. It’s a sad reality of the state of human existence, many people hate the Church. Their hate is irrational, and it runs so deep that only God can pull it out of them. Pray for those people, but don’t listen to them, because they are irrational, and will only anger you.
To answer a few of the questions though.
#1 & #2 are derived from a flawed understanding of infallibility and, frankly, a completely flawed understanding of history. The writer seems to suggest that because the protestants decided that they didn’t need parts of the Bible, that the Catholic church was wrong to include those books. That’s like saying that, because this one group of people say 2+2=5, everyone who has said that 2+2=4 must be wrong. Frankly, it’s moronic.
#3: The writer seems to think that changes were instantaneous, as though they were dictated by Rome and then could instantaneously be adopted across the whole of the Christian world. Such a thing simply isn’t possible in that era, not like it is now. It would have taken years of effort to let all the various diocese know, and even longer to ensure it was enforced. The writer also seems to reject the notion of heretical sects, who refused to adopt the Church’s teachings. He seems to give them the same level of authority as the church, as though the fact that they refused to fall in line disproves the church. (ref. the 2+2 example, it’s a similar thing)
#4 is stupid at the fact of it. They’re “African”; councils because they took place in Africa. Just like the council of Nicaea took place in Nicaea… Geographical location has no affect on the authority of a council.
#5 Just because the Pope couldn’t be present for a council doesn’t negate the council. The order of Bishops met and discussed canon, just like with every last other Church council, ever. Since the pope wasn’t present for this council, they sent the canon along to him for review.
#6 Those churches were still Roman Catholic at the time. That’s like claiming any part of the world that became protestant couldn’t be counted as Catholic when they gave input. Again, highly illogical, and frankly pretty stupid.
#7 Is a lie born of protestant bull***… sorry, this is one that irk me big time. This nonsense is a lie that was thought up by various protestant sects to support their removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible. It’s a bold-faced lie that is completely unsupported by a single shred of historical evidence. Quite the opposite, history supports the Catholic Church in this regard, as there are several illuminated manuscripts (Hand-written Bibles, absolutely beautiful) which contain the Apocrypha, written several centuries before it was supposedly added… This one is absolute nonsense.
… It think I’m going to stop here, because that last claim removed any shred of respect I had for this writer. I pray for them, but the writer of that site is a moron who pays absolutely no attention to the reality of the world around them. I know that’s harsh, but it’s true, and they’re not worth your time or effort.