Catholic Apologetics
Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of
the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it
necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation?
As a matter of fact, Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally
accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently
by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it
can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example,
expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another.
Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus,
Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius;
finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions
caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the
interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance
with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (St. Vincent
of Lérins, Commonitorium 2, A. D. 445).
Breathing Catholic Air: Our
journey to the Catholic Church, by David Palm
The Real Presence, by David
Palm
The Reformation: A Break With Christian
Consensus, by David Palm
James White vs. "Jesus, Peter, and
the Keys", by David Palm
A Response to James White on Jesus,
Peter, and the Keys, by Robert Sungenis
James White and Robert Sungenis
on Matthew 16:18, by David Palm
The Byzantine Plot, by Luke
Rivington
The
"Robber Council" of Ephesus, by Vladimir Soloviev
The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy,
by James F. Loughlin
The Supposed Fall of Honorius and
His Condemnation, by J. H. R.
The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius,
by P. J. Harrold
Back to home page
Revised: August
19, 1997.