Answers to my own questions

So I have decided, due to lack of responses on this blog (not surprising, since it is not really known and I have not posted it anywhere really) that I shall have to answer my own "Questions for Protestants." Mind you, it is said for Catholics to practice ecumenicism at this time by papal decree so this is more for the anti-Catholic folk out there.

So here I go.

1) If Christ is the One True God, would it not make sense to have One True Church?

Of course it would, that is why He laid down one church in Matthew 16:18, not multiple churches. Keep in mind, however, that to spread God's message around the world you do have to have multiple locations but as laid out in the Bible, all are in communion with one another, being one Church. See Matthew 7:24-27 and Ephesians 1:10 for further emphasis.

2) Having answered that, is Christ divided?

No, Christ is not. That can be best explained by 1 Cor 12:21 - And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

3) With that, can you explain why there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations?

The only explanation of this can be put down in point number 4.

4) How can you endorse and practice sola scriptura when the Bible did not become widespread until the 15th century with the advent of the printing press?

It is funny how history gets twisted around! Sola scriptura is the belief, held by many Protestant denominations, that the "bible alone" holds all the answers to exercising the Christian faith. While that may seem noble and good on the outside, history and Church Tradition says otherwise.

For starters, to have sola scriptura you actually have to have a Bible. Almost for 400 years, Christianity did not have what has been termed as a Bible. While the manuscripts existed and could be studied, they were spread out at individual churches and were only assembled when the Third Council of Carthage in 397 was initiated and the Canon of Scripture (the original 73 books) was laid down.

Then, one has to actually own a Bible to practice sola scriptura. Considering the fact that the printing press wasn't invented until the 1450s or so, it was beyond the financial means for most families to have a handwritten copy of the Bible, which generally cost 3 years salary to procure. This is why most Bibles were chained to a church on a pedestal so that anyone could see it but not anyone could walk away with it.

Then there is the time factor. In order for the doctrine of sola scriptura to work, you have to have time to read it, pore over it and analyze it, not to mention either learning the original Biblical languages to maintain context OR being in educational pursuit with someone who is learned in such hermeneutical manners, PLUS one has to have an accurate translation so as to not be lead astray. For 3/4 of Christianity's history, people did not have such leisure time to pursue such endeavors, as much of their daily toil was spent in manual labor. Only with the the advent of Industrial Revolution and better technology did more leisure time become available and the Reformation of the 1500s to bloom.

To clarify point 3 as mentioned in point 3, sola scriptura is one of the main reasons for the highly schismatic nature of the Protestant religions, as the authority of one's salvation ultimately rests on one's shoulders. This sort of viewpoint is rejected in the Bible, for as it says...

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2 Peter 1:20-21

Which then leads to the question of... WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? How do you know what is and isn't a matter of private interpretation? See point 5 for clarification.

Remember, the Church came before the Bible, just as the chicken came before the egg!

5) Since sola scriptura necessitates the rejection of so-called "human traditions," how do you explain the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say to actually ASSEMBLE the Bible? Nowhere that I can find it in Scripture.

Let me rephrase that question, as it is ambiguous. The origin of this question is from Amanda (my estranged love) and the original impetus was the statement that we must "reject human traditions" as they are not of God.

The problem with the blanket statement of rejecting human traditions comes from the fact that the Bible itself is a human tradition. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to assemble the Bible nor does it say what the Bible even is. A common Protestant misconception is the usage of Matthew 15:1-20, but it is exemplified by this:

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites." Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

The correct usage of this passage can only be attained through the eye of Tradition and with historical basis. Jesus said the previous fruits of wisdom because Jewish males were abusing the temple tradition of Korban, or giving their wealth to the temple, to negate the responsibility of caring for their parents. Obviously, denying the care of your parents is a violation of the 4th commandment and therefore a human tradition made to violate God's commandments.

Does this passage negate the emphasis of Tradition in the practice of Christianity? Not in the least! No Catholic doctrine or understanding of Tradition transgresses the 10 Commandments in any shape or form and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise. I will be just all warm and fuzzy inside to take a look at any solid and undeniable proof of said transgressions if they are brought forth to me.

On another note, I would like to add that in order to know what Scripture is, one HAS TO submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, for the simple reason that if you do not know what Scripture is, how do you know that the Bible you are reading is not inherently false? The correct answer to this question is this... Because the Catholic Church infallibly declared the authenticity and canonical nature of Scripture and therefore it is true.

7) If everything in the religious life is to be Bible based, then how do you explain various aspects of your lives, such as the marriage ceremony? (Hint: most of a marriage ceremony is pagan)

HAHA, one might consider this kind of a low blow. From all the Protestants that I have talked with, they always try to maintain an air of spirituality and proclaiming that they follow the Bible in everything they do in their spiritual lives but, as one sort of example, I have yet to find the marriage ceremony in the Bible. This can be explained by the tradition (notice the lowercase "t" to signify human traditions and the big "T" of Church Traditions) of men and that the development of the marriage ceremony descended from pagan rituals. There is nothing wrong with accepting ancient pagan customs, as long as they do not cross swords with the Church doctrine, the 10 commandments and the Gospel.

It is nice to note at this juncture that the Catholic definition of marriage is the only definition that truly holds to the idea of "until death do us part". Most Protestants seem to overlook this and the Bible's clear understanding of marriage (See Private reading notes 8-18-08) and insist on divorce, etc.

Take this little fun fact as an example of extra-biblical and human customs.... did you know the best man was, at one time, the best man with a sword? In case the marriage went awry, it was the best man's job to start hacking people up to protect the bride and groom (mind you, we are talking Huns and all those barbaric people!) This is just one example of the origins of the marriage ceremony. Take a look sometime, you will be surprised.

8) Assuming Christianity is a "fellowship," why am I, a Catholic, not part of it?

Aaah yes, the "fellowship" principle. I will come back to this one at a later time.

9) If the Canon of Scripture was set down in 397 and affirmed several more times before Martin Luther edited Romans 3:28 and took out what displeased him, why is the Catholic church accused of adding to the Bible?

Well, that has kind of been addressed several times in my notes but for clarification purposes for all the naysayers, unless you're using the original Bible with 73 books, you are bastardizing the Bible.

Related to the accusation of Catholics messing with the Bible is the COUNTER-accusation to the Protestants for going against sola scriptura and taking out the books that did not give benefit to their doctrines. In order to use sola scriptura, you have to know which books are in Scripture ahead of time. To remove books from the Canon of Scripture is to alter the doctrine which shows that the derivatives of Luther's theological finagling are not entirely accurate in any sense.

That will be all.

10) If you accept the Bible as infallible/inerrant/perfect, then how do you come to terms with the fact that it says the Earth is flat with 4 corners, that bats have feathers and hares/rabbits chew a cud, not to mention the fact that the order of creation is different (but close!) than what the fossil record shows us?

Since the Bible does not claim to be a scientific treaty, then we don't have to regard such statements as Gospel truth. That said, if Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalists hold so dearly to every word written to the Bible, then either you believe the statement above OR you have a serious fundamental (hehe) flaw in your "logic."

11) Where does it say that if you accept the Good Lord, Jesus Christ, as your personal Lord and Savior that you are saved forever, regardless of works?

It doesn't say it definitively. I really don't want to hash this one out right now, just take a look on catholic.com for more info.

12) To add emphasis to point number 4, where in the Bible is the Trinity explained or the Eucharist mentioned by that name? (Hint: Christ revealed these things to us, but we Christians, more specifically the Catholics, wrote a doctrine to explain them)

So how about it Protestants... got an answer for that one? The only hint that I can give you is that most Protestant beliefs/doctrines are merely skeletons of Catholic ones.

13) If none of the theology that exists in Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist circles existed before the advent of Calvin and Luther, then how is it that the Catholic church is accused of creating man-made traditions?

Well, that might be a real hard one to swallow, but let us list the doctrines...

-Sola scriptura
-Sola fide
-Anti-Marian devotions.
-Bible alterations
-Schismatic sects
-The list goes on.

For 2000 years the Catholic Church has not watered down the original doctrine. What can you say about your church?

Thus ends my tirade. I shall finish my dad's taxes now like a good little accountant.

Sincerely,

Nathan

P.S. Please note that what I have written here is, for better or worse, my own viewpoint. I have not made any claims to be entirely correct and I have made my best attempt to be in line with Catholic doctrine and present the relative history in a manner that is generally understandable. If there are any errors on this page of a theological or scholarly matter OR if you have an issue with how it is presented, please feel free to contact me at your leisure.

Edited on 8-25-08 to include some further clarification on a few items.