he Catholic Apologetics section of
is dedicated
to providing our visitors with conventional Catholic Apologetics, including biblical,
theological, and historical issues surrounding the Catholic Faith. Each topic-page
is divided into sub-categories: articles, dialogues, debates, and Q&A. Visitors who
are interested in suggesting an article or asking a question are encouraged to
e-mail us their request.
Question: I had been going through an article on the "spurious" nature
of the canon, written by William Webster, and in the process of researching
what he says found your refutation (much better than anything I was coming
up with). However, I have a question about one of his quotes: "Now,
according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and
Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible)
are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming
matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the
nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received
and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose." Is Cardinal
Cajetan's classification of canonical versus non-canonical technically
correct? Meaning, might the deutero books be considered "non-canonical" because
they cannot be used to prove the faith, even if they are canonical because
they included in the canon? Or is his statement simply wrong on all counts?
Question: Why does James White maintain that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 sinks the
Catholic position on Sola Scriptura?
Question: I'm arguing for an authoritative interpreter so that
accurate understanding is guaranteed, not just probable. My
opponent has asked if my choice of an authoritative interpreter
is an fallible choice? What's the answer to this? I mean,
obviously it's a fallible choice, but…it's a confident
choice in a way that Sola Scriptura can't provide – but
what "way" is that? I know he's going to say, "Then you
aren't guaranteed of anything, because all your 'guaranteed' answers
are based on that first 'probable', fallible choice." I've
always tripped on this one…how would you answer it?
Question: Eric Svendsen writes this about the canon:
The New Testament
canon that we currently have was first recognized (not determined) by the
Eastern church (not Rome), represented by Athanasius in his Easter Letter
(mid fourth century). Rome had adopted a New Testament canon that
excluded Hebrews, but eventually adopted the New Testament canon decided
upon by the Eastern church by naming the same books at the synods of
Carthage and Hippo (late fourth century, early fifth century).
What do you have to say about that?
Question: This is a question on the use of Matthew and Josephus to support
only the Palestinian canon of the OT. If someone uses Matthew
23:35 – "from Abel to Zecheriah" – to support the idea that Jesus
only recognized the Palestinian canon, what does this passage really
mean in relationship to the OT canon. In other words, Maccabees
came after Zecheriah, so it wasn't recognized by Jesus? Something
sounds very fishy about this and I need your analysis of it. He
also quotes Josephus Contra Apion (1.38) to the same end. Thanks
for your great help!
Question: Can you tell me why the Douay Rheims includes the Johannine
Comma? I thought it was based on St. Jerome's Latin
Vulgate. Do we even have St. Jerome's original work? Did
that insertion come AFTER St. Jerome's original, of which we no longer have?
Question: How do you, as an apologist, handle objections by
non-Christians who use parts of the OT dealing with God condoning
massive slaughter, incest, the destruction of entire cities, or any
of the other various moral objections we would have to some of the
occurrences in the OT?