Ran across this site...

I was googling for Catholic bibles and references, and somehow came across this site bible.ca/
By reading their about us section on the website, it seems like the church is one of the more extreme SS churches. I tried searching here on the forums for any references regarding this church but haven’t been able to find it.
The only reason I wanted post a thread regarding this site is this list bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm
I just schemed through the list and some of them seem nonsensical, e.g.

“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?”

I mean really, where did they get this stuff? :shrug:

But, since I’m still relatively new to learning about our faith’s teachings, I was wondering if anyone else has come across this list and have taken time to read through it and recognize that if one is well versed in Church teachings, the questions they raise can be easily addressed.

Thank you for any responses you may have!

God Bless,
Theresia

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.

*just wanted to clarify. It’s worth your time and effort to pray for them, but don’t waste too much of your time worry about their claims.

Yes, it really doesn’t look like this guy is open to facts.

This almost makes Jack Chick look rational. :stuck_out_tongue:

I come across similar lists with “irrefutable” claims such almost daily in casual conversation or in forums such as this. The one thing I try to do is take the statements seriously which as your example illustrates can be difficult. As ProdglArchitect has noted some are just plain simple wrong or just plain simple hilarious. Keep in mind that the Protestant and reformer come from a culture of protest and schism following a philosophy of relativism most often constrained by naturalism and need to be shown an objective Truth. Respond with the objective truth taught by the Catholic Church. (by the way, you’ll be called a mind numbed robot - however God’s Truth is never numbing but always enlightening).

Naturalism is religious philosophy that restricts the intellect to the physical, material, and nature truths. In the Protestant/reformer’s system of relativism and naturalism the supernatural acts of God do not impede the thoughts and acts of men, after all, they say the ‘truth for you is different for the truth for me’. Some who hold to naturalism cannot or will not view the reality of two realms of God, matter and spirit (more often expressed as the natural world and the supernatural world). If the supernatural is admitted it is usually relegated to a subjective ‘personal relationship with God’ whereby God acts, or envisioned to act according to the will of men. This is most often expressed when they say “are you 100% assured that you are saved?” It’s not really a question to which they want an answer, they want to know if you have performed a religious act of walking the aisle and subjectively ‘saving yourself’. The object is to pervert and prevent realization that there is a faith that contemplates both the natural world and the supernatural world as Divine Truth, Catholicism. Unconstrained by mere traditions (and truth for that matter) they become free thinkers who will that God must save them.

Freethought sometimes labeled “free-thinkers” is not the ‘freedom’ to think or to think what you will, but rather to will what is thought. That is to say thinking is liberated from morality. As in naturalism, relativism plays a big part in ‘freethought’ where reality is subject to the will of man.

By the way, let me suggest you read “Liberalism is a sin” (available online). Come to understand the why relativism and naturalism are philosophies that can mislead us.

If our reasoning is correct, it can operate in the realm of nature and the supernatural hinging on one axiom, Truth is immutable and is God. There is no limit to the number of examples as you’ve illustrated. First notice how many of the Protestant and reformer insists first on their own philosophies by simply saying that Catholic doctrine (teaching) is a ‘lie’.

In my opinion there has never been a ‘reformation’ of the Catholic Church - such a condition would in fact be her downfall. She holds the same truths, same philosophies as when Christ commissioned her. History of the ‘reformation’ by Luther was simple revolt and schism. Luther never honestly considered ‘reform’ of the Church, his goal was always schism; ultimately leading to the Church in the name of Luther. There is historical evidence to illustrate this, see Hartman Grisar, SJ. or Warren H. Carroll. In my opinion the ‘reformation’ was nothing more than civil ‘revolution’ built on the back of ‘religion’.

All of which gets us to John 1:5, the darkness cannot comprehend the light. Pull back the veil of darkness gradually for them with ‘reasoned’ responses to each and every objection - no matter how silly. It’s best done one question at a time - no doubt over and over. You’ll find that most of their objections come from heresies found in antiquity and have already been thought through. Others, like your examples, are just plain illogical - even here your response should be reasoned out.

Unless I missed the intent of the author he has mistaken Catholics for Sola Scrptorist (if there is such a word). The infallible rule of faith is Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Church. These along with the Virgin Mary focus our thoughts and deeds on our love of God.

JoeT

It might be blasphemous to say, but I don’t even know if God himself could make Jack Chick look rational >_>

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.