[the papacy] [Mary] [the Bible] [further reading]
by Matt Newsome

---

Jerry Falwell....  his is a name known to many Catholics.  He is a well known anti-Catholic (though he, himself, may not own up to that label.  He does admit to believing that many Catholics will make it to heaven, despite their Catholic faith).  Well, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I went to his web site at www.falwell.com, to see just what he had to say about the Catholic Church.  He has a convenient search engine in his Q&A section.  I typed in "catholic" and it came back with a few results.  These were brief articles, prepared either by him or others at his ministry (all with his approval, I can only assume), answering questions about the Catholic Church.  What I found was far from original or thought provoking.  Indeed, it was the same anti-Catholic rhetoric repeated by almost all evangelists with deep-rooted misconceptions about the Catholic faith and Christian history.  And they are easily refuted and corrected by those willing to do a little study and research into the subject.  Often he merely disagrees with the Catholic Church on theological issues.  This is to be expected.  After all, he is a Baptist, and Baptists and Catholics believe some very different things.  The  Catholic Church would consider his theology in error, but this is an honest difference that we could discuss and talk about.  The truly regrettable thing is that he also is in error often in historic fact, or in misrepresenting what the Catholic Church does, in fact, believe.  These are the mistakes that need to be corrected and that there is no excuse for, regardless of religious affiliation.

We will examine what Falwell says about the Catholic Church on his web site, and correct his many inaccuracies.

In his article on Catholic beleifs, he says right off that Peter was not the first Pope.  He then quotes from Matthew 16 and explains why he disagrees with the Catholic interpretation.  He argument is off from the first, because it doesn't even support what he wants it to support.  You cannot argue that Peter was not the first Pope because you do not agree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16.  The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.  We, as Catholics, believe that the Pope has a special position among the bishops because of the promises Christ made to Peter (such as we read in Matthew 16), but even if you do not believe this, it does not mean that Peter was not the first Pope.  To say that he was not the first Pope would be to say that he was not the first Bishop of Rome.  This is an argument that some have tried, but which Falwell does not attempt.  Probably because he is well aware of the ample historic evidence that proves indeed that Peter was first Bishop of Rome.  Every Bishop of Rome after him has been his successor, and therefore the Pope.  But Falwell dodges this by going into his own interpretation of Matthew 16.  He tries to say that Peter was not the first Pope by claiming that what Catholics believe about papal authority is not true.

Well, he is wrong here, too.  This is the relevant passage and what he has to say about it, from his website:

Matthew 16:17-19, is as follows:
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Some people think Peter was the rock about which Jesus was talking in verse 18. However, this cannot be so. Jesus Himself is the rock upon which He has built His church. Proof of this can be found in I Peter 2:3-8, which is as follows:

"If so be ye have tested that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

It is very clear in this passage that Jesus Himself is the "chief corner stone," "a rock of offence," "the stone which the builders disallowed," "a stone of stumbling . . . even to them who stumble at the Word . . . ." It is Jesus, not Peter, who is the precious rock upon which God builds his church.

Falwell thinks that Jesus could not have possibly been talking about Peter (which means "Rock") when He says, "upon this rock I will build my church" and instead thinks that Jesus must have meant Himself as the rock.  He bases this upon the fact that Peter later on, in his epistle to the Christian communities in Asia Minor, uses the metaphor of a rock, or cornerstone, to describe Christ.  His entire argument here is based on the notion that a metaphor can only have one use, one meaning, one application.  Jesus can't call Peter a rock, because Peter later calls Jesus a rock.  If this were true, then it would mean that either Jesus or Peter was wrong.  Falwell suggests that Jesus was wrong, that Peter is not really the rock.  Of course, he would never say Jesus was wrong, so instead he asks us to believe that Jesus did not really mean what he was saying, that his words mean something other than what they seem.  As Catholics, we believe that Jesus said what he meant, and so did Peter in his epistle.  We believe both of these truths.  We believe that Peter was the rock on which Christ founded His church, and we believe that Christ is the cornerstone, the foundation of the Christian community (as well as a stumbling block for unbelievers).  Both things are true.  If Christ did not mean to establish Simon as the rock on which He would build His church, why then change his name to Rock, that is, Peter?  To ignore this is to ignore one of the most significant name changes in the Scriptures, and we know from the Old Testament how important name changes are.

Jesus is not the rock upon which God builds His church because Jesus IS God.  He is fully God, and fully man.  Jesus is the builder of the Church, and He builds it upon the rock of Peter.

That Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter is extremely significant, and cannot be brushed aside by arguments such as Falwell's.  No one had ever been called "Rock," before--it had never been used as a personal name.  In fact, in the Old Testament, it is only ever used as a metaphor to describe God.  And in the New Testament, we see, it is used to describe Christ.  So why is this word given to Peter for his name, then?  Why is he so special?  We know that among the Jews the giving of a new name meant a change in status.  For example, Abrahm to Abraham, Jacob to Isreal, etc..  But Simon is given the unusual name of Rock that was only ever used for God before.  Christ had something special in mind for him. No anti-Catholic author yet, after disagreeing with the Catholic teaching on this passage, has been able to offer a reasonable alternate meaning for the name change.

Look at where they were in Matthew 16, when Christ tells this to Peter.  They are at Caesarea Philippi, where there is a huge rock dominating the landscape, upon which is built a temple to the Pagan god Pan, the god of shepherds.  Just as Jesus's choice of names for Peter is significant, just is His choice of location.  Here is a large rock upon which a false church to a false god of shepherds is built.  But Peter, He is indicating, is the true rock upon which Christ, the true shepherd, will build His true church.  And He follows this up immediately by His special promises, His giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and His promising that the gates of hell shall never prevail against His church.

Falwell then speaks of Matthew 16:19:

Matthew 16:19, referring to the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, speaks of the privilege not only Peter but all Christians are given of being a witness for Jesus, the privilege of telling others about Him and trying to persuade them to accept Jesus as their Savior.

Here, all one has to do is consult the original Greek of the New Testament to see his error.  Greek, like Latin and many other languages, has both a plural word for "you" and a singular word for "you."  In English, we use the same word, "you," for both instances, and one has to tell from context whether singular or plural is meant.  In Greek, in which this passage was originally written, we have the luxury of not having to guess.  We know for sure.  What Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles is this.  Addressing Peter, "I will give you [singular] the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven."  Then, addressing the Apostles at large, "Whatever you [plural] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you [plural] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It is very clear here that Jesus gave Peter, specifically, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is why St. Peter, in all classical artwork, is shown with keys, and keys have always been his special symbol--not so for any other Apostle.  The early Christians knew this was special to him.  You can't argue with the preciseness of the Greek grammatical structure.  Jerry Falwell's interpretation that all Christians were given the keys is his own private interpretation, one that cannot be supported by the Scripture that he quotes, and one that belittles Peter's special place among the Apostles.

His interpretation that the significance of the keys is that we are to go and preach to others to accept Jesus as their savior is also wrong.  Yes, we are called to go preach the Gospel, but that is not what this passage means.  Keys are a very important symbol of authority.  Even today, when we wish to honor someone, we might give them the "keys to the city."  This symbolically means that every gate, every door in the city is open to them.  And Peter has the keys to the city of heaven.  Where does the significance of this symbol come from?  Like everything in the New Testament, it is founded on the Old.  Look at Isaiah 22:20-22.

On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority.  He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.  I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

Here we see a servant being given the authority of his master, symbolized by the keys.  He is given the power to loose and to bind (open and shut).  The parallels between this and Matthew 16:19 are obvious.  Jesus was calling to mind Isaiah, where the keys symbolized authority.  In this case, He was giving His own authority to Peter, to feed His flock here on earth (Jn 21:15-18).

Don't take my word for it.  Have a look at what the early Church Fathers said about Peter and the Papacy.

While on the subject of Peter and the Papacy, Falwell then tells us that Catholics believe that the Pope "can make no mistake at all when he speaks in his official capacity as Pope."  This is a misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.  Catholics do not believe that the Pope can make no mistake.  What we beleive is very specific.  We believe that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as leader of the Christian world, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, is prevented from teaching error.  That is it.  It's called Papal Infallibility, and it is a safeguard provided by God to ensure that His teaching is left pure and whole, and available to all the faithful. Papal Infallibility is the reason why we have Catholic unity in belief, whereas the Protestant movement, before Luther's own death, had already began to branch out into various churches teaching various doctrines, and why we now have such a myriad of Protestant denominations all teaching different things about the "one true faith."

Falwell throws out the whole notion of Papal Infallibility by saying, "However, Scripture clearly teaches only Christ lived and spoke at all times without sin (Romans 3:10, 23 and Hebrews 4:15)."  Well, not quite.  We basically agree with Falwell here, but feel that we have to point out what these passages really do say.  At various points on his webpage, Falwell invites us to read the Scripture passages for ourselves.  So we did.  Romans 3:10 says that Jews and Greeks alike are under the domination of sin.  Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned.  Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus is our high priest, who like us was tested in every way, but unlike us was without sin.  Falwell is basically interpreting these passages correctly--but we would argue, from the Catholic viewpoint, that the passages in Romans were speaking of the human condition in general, but cannot be taken literally, for if they were, it would mean that Jesus Himself (who was fully human) must have sinned, for all men sin.  But the Hebrews passage clearly tells us that He did not sin, so we know there are certain divine exceptions to this general rule.  This paves the way for the Catholic beliefs of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, which tell us that Mary was conceived without original sin.  Again, this is a divine exception to the general rule, that Mary was set apart by God to be the earthly mother of His divine Son.  But Falwell doesn't mention the sinless nature of Mary, and so we won't go into too much detail.

His main point is that the Pope is not without sin.  None of us are.  And on this we agree with him.  But this has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  To be without sin is to be impeccable, and Catholics do not believe that the pope is impeccable, although this is how infallibility is often portrayed by non-Catholics.  Infallibility simply means that the Pope will not teach in error on matters of faith and morals.  He can be a very great sinner in his private life, and even in his public life, and still not teach in error on faith and morals.  Impeccability and Infallibility are two different things.  Falwell errs in believing that he can prove that the pope is not infallible by showing that he is not impeccable.  This is like saying that a piece of fruit cannot be an apple because it is also not a banana.

Having said all he feels needs to be said about the Pope, Falwell then gives his attention to Mary.

The whole question of having so many statues is disturbing. However, it is even more disturbing to go into some Catholic chapels and see a statue of Mary which is larger and which is above that of Jesus. This is a good illustration of the unscriptural position they give to Mary.

Falwell finds our statues "disturbing."  I would use this opportunity here to remind him that statues and paintings and icons and the like are merely remembrances, like photographs of our loved ones in our wallets or in our homes, meant to remind us of those Christians who have gone before us and set the examples we are to follow.  No Catholic worships a statue.  It is silliness to suggest so.  However, since the fact that he finds the statues "disturbing" is not a very convincing theological argument, we won't belabor the point too much.  Maybe he just doesn't like statues.

But then he draws conclusions about the place of Mary in our worship by the size of the statue.  Apparently, he has been to a few Catholic churches where a large statue of Mary dwarfs a smaller statue of Christ.  Now I, as a Catholic, and one that has done a bit of traveling, have not had this experience.  But perhaps he has.  It is not out of the realm of possibility.  But in most all of the Catholic churches I have been in, the layout is similar.  All of them have a crucifix (it is required).  This is Christ, on the cross, and it is displayed prominently above or behind the alter, where all the faithful can see it.  If there is only one statue in the church, this will be it.  Churches will often have other statues, usually a statue of whomever the church is named for.  The Holy Family are favorites, of course.  Usually, if they are displayed together, they are the same size.  Why one might be bigger than another is anyone's guess.  Artistic interpretation?  Maybe it was designed to fill a larger space?  Maybe it came from another church that had bigger statues?  Maybe the smaller statue was added later and it was all they could afford at the time?  Who can say.  The only truth here is that it would be inaccurate to draw too many conclusions from the size of a statue.  Anyone who has ever attended a Catholic mass and paid attention would realize that Christ is the center of all of our worship, the only one we worship, and the focal point of the entire Catholic faith.  To suggest that Mary has this role is to admit to knowing nothing whatsoever about what Catholics believe, and an insult to the many Catholic faithful, humbly serving Christ as their Lord.

Falwell then says that, "Some Catholics teach 'Mary was a virgin all her life.'"  Actually, all Catholics teach that.  Or all Catholics should.  It's a Catholic doctrine (read what the Church Fathers had to say about it).  But Falwell says this has no Scriptural support.  But he does cite Scripture against it.  He quotes from Matthew 1:25.  This passage says that Joseph and Mary did not have normal marital relations till Jesus was born.  Falwell accurately says that this means that Mary was a virgin up to that point, but he inaccurately says that this implies they had normal marital relations afterwards.  This might be true according to our modern use of the word "till" or "until" but not according to the usage of the word in the Bible.  All it means in Biblical use is that the described action did not take place before a certain point.  It has no implications, positive or negative, about what might have happened after that point.  Here are some other examples of the Biblical use of "till" or "until."  Look in 2 Samuel 6:23.  It says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death."  Does this "imply" that she had children after her death?  No, of course not!  In Dueteronomy 34:6, it tells us of Moses' grave that no man knows its location "until this present day."  Does that mean that the location was known at the time of writing, or has it been known afterwards?  Again, no.  These are but two examples out of many that can be found.  But it is enough to prove that Falwell's argument here is wrong.  Nothing can be implied simply by the use of the word "till."  More evidence would be needed to suggest that Mary did not remain a virgin all of her life.  (In fact, some modern translations purposefully avoid this word, to give a better sense of the real meaning of the text:  "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (NAB), and "he had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox translation.)

Falwell, realizing that this initial argument is without weight, backs it up by suggesting that Jesus had brothers.  The Bible makes mention several times of the brethren of Jesus.  But today's fundamentalists want us to believe that these are his blood brothers, other children of Mary and Joseph.  This can be shown to be false, from the Scriptures themselves, if examined.

First, Falwell points us towards Matthew 12:46-47 and Mark 3:31-35.  These two passages, he tells us, speak of a time when Jesus was teaching the people and Mary and His brothers stood outside the crowd, desiring to talk with Him. But the thing that you need to remember is that the word "brother" or "brethren" has a very broad meaning in the Bible.  It is not reserved for children of the same parents, like in today's usage.  Here is one example.  In Genesis 14:14 Lot is said to be Abraham's brother.  But Genesis also tells us that Lot was the son of Aran, who was Abraham's dead brother.  This means that Lot was really Abraham's nephew.  Similarly, in Genesis, Jacob is called the brother of Laban, who is really his uncle.  These are both cases of close kinship, but elsewhere in the Bible the term is used to mean more distant kin, as in the forty-two "brethren" of Ochozias in 2 Kings 10:13-14.  The word could even mean a friend, as in 2 Samuel 1:26, or an ally, as in Amos 1:9.

One reason for this is that Hebrew, and Aramaic, which was the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke, had no separate word for "cousin."  So the general term for "brother" was used to mean almost any male relation, and even close non-relations.  Greek does have a separate word for brother (adelphos) and cousin (anepsios).  But when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), the term "adelphos" or "brother" was used in all cases.  And the writers of the New Testament did the same, using the word brother in a "scriptural" sense.  So one cannot simply say out of hand that everyone called a brother of Jesus in the Bible is a son of Mary and Joseph.  One needs to look at the context, in each case, to see what "brother" means.

Falwell recognizes only two possible uses of the word "brother"--physical and spiritual.  He cites John 7:5, which says that Jesus' brethren did not believe him, and says these must be his physical brothers, not spiritual, because they lacked faith.  But he ignores the many other meanings of the word brother besides that of a male sibling.

Falwell cites Matthew 13:55, where it names Jesus' brethren as "James, and Joseph, and Simon and Judas."  Karl Keating, in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, deals well with one of these four, James.  Keating shows us how this James cannot be the literal brother of Jesus, that is, another son of Mary and Joseph.

We know that James' mother was named Mary.  Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross:  "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Mt 27:56); "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome" (Mk 15:40).  Then look at what John says: "And meanwhile his [Jesus's] mother, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and mary Magdalen had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus" (Jn 19:25).  If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas.  So far so good.
    An arguement agaisnt this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus.  One solution is that she was widowed once, then remarried.  More probably Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as Alphaeus or Clopas.  Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way Saul took the name Paul.
    So it is probable, anyway, that James is the son of this other Mary and Cleophas.  If the testimony of Hegesippus, a second-century historian, is believed, Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus.  James would thus be Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.  This identification of the "brethern of the Lord" as Jesus' cousins is open to legitimate question--they might even be relatives more distantly removed--and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary's children.

(For more information on the "Brethren of the Lord" please see this article from Catholic Answers.)

Falwell makes one more stab at Our Lady's virginity by saying that "first born" does not mean first and only child (thus implying that there were more following).  This can be refuted easily by simply reasserting that neither does it mean the first of many!  Under Mosaic law, the first born son was to be sanctified (Ex 34:20).  This was true even if the parents only had one son.  The first born was the first born regardless of whether or not any siblings followed.

Falwell is concerned that Catholics give an unbiblical place to Mary.  But I would accuse him of ignoring her in an unbiblical fashion.  The Bible tells us that Mary said, "from now on will all ages call me blessed" (Lk 1:48b).  Elizabeth tells her, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Lk 1:42).  When Jesus told John, at the foot of the Cross, "Behold, your mother" (Jn 19:27), we as Catholics believe this is symbolic of Jesus giving his mother to us all.  The popular phrase among today's youth is, "What would Jesus do?"  He would love his mother.

Falwell's final swipe at the Catholic Church deals with the Bible itself, in the texts called the Apocrypha.

In their Bible, Catholics have, between Malachi and Matthew, books which they accept as divinely inspired and as belonging in God's Word. However, Christendom as a whole does not accept these books as belonging in God's Holy Word. Unscriptural teachings, such as Purgatory, come out of those noncanonical books which the Catholics accept in their Bible.

His first sentence above is true.  From there, he goes wrong, however.  The fact is, that Christendom, as a whole, did indeed accept all of these books as being divinely inspired and a part of Sacred Scripture, until the sixteenth century Reformers threw them out.  And even today, the vast majority of Christendom, that is the Catholic Church (the largest Christian church, outnumbering all Protestant churches combined) and all of the Eastern Orthodox churches (the second largest Christian body), still accept these texts as canonical, as they always have.  Only the various Protestant churches, growing out of the sixteenth century revolt, do not accept these books. The Protestants are the ones going against "Christendom as a whole."  His argument that these books do not belong in the canon of the Bible because they contain "unscriptural teachings" just throws logic to the wind.  These teachings are only unscriptural if you first accept that the books themselves are uncanonical.  If you accept the books as Scripture, then any teaching contained therein is scriptural.  One could use the same circular logic to throw any book out of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Falwell has devoted an entire article to the subject of the Apocrypha, giving reasons for rejecting these books.  I have dealt with this issue in detail in my history of the Bible article, but I will address a few specific points that he brings up here.  Falwell lists 10 reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha, which illustrate his ignorance of Biblical history.

1.  No recognized authority includes these books.  What recognized authority is Falwell looking for?  The Jewish authorities who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek at Alexandria between 285 and 246 BC included these books.  But the Jewish authorities at Jamnia in 100 AD did not include these books in the canon of Jewish scripture.  These same Jewish authorities also rejected Christianity.  Christian authorities accepted these books, and included them in the canon of Sacred texts (they used the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testamanet, called the Septuagint).  In 382 AD Pope Damasus included them in a decree listing the 73 books in the Christian canon.  The Catholic church officially canonized these texts at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and again at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.  And Pope St. Innocent I recognized all 73 of these books in 405 AD.  So it seems pretty obvious the Christian authorities included these books, and the early Jewish authorities, but not the post-Christ Jewish authorities.  So what authority is Falwell recognizing when he says no authority ever recognized them?

2.  It was never quoted by Jews or New Testament writers.  Again, why should Falwell be concerned about Jewish writers quoting the texts.  Pre-Christian Jewish writers certainly did, for they are themselves pre-Christian Jewish texts!  I, personally, have not gone through the New Testament to see if any of the seven books in the Apocrypha have been quoted, but the Septaguint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that included all seven books of the Apocrypha, is quoted over 300 times in the New Testament, even by Christ Himself.  So it is a fact that the version of the Jewish scriptures that Christ and the Apostles used did include these seven books.

3.  The great Jewish historian, Josephus, excluded it.  Maybe so, I have not checked.  But the author of the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings, included it, as did the Apostle Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and countless other Church fathers.  Why ignore all of them because of one Jewish historian?  Again, the Jewish authorities did not recognize these books as divinely inspired--nor did they recognize Christianity!

4.  The Jewish philosopher, Philo, did not recognize it.  Read the above.

5.  The early Church fathers excluded it.  Really?  Again, read above, and add to the list Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, all those at the council of Rome, and St. Jerome.  In fact, you can read for yourself what the early Church fathers had to say about the Old Testament canon here.

6.  Jerome didn't really accept these books, but was forced by the Pope to include them in his translation.  Let me interject here that whether Jerome, Josephus, or any other individual accepted or rejected these books is a moot point.  The real issue is whether or not the recognized Church authorities (the Pope and church councils) accepted these books.  They did from the very beginning.  But since Falwell brings it up, let's talk about St. Jerome.  Yes, he did express concern with these books.  He was translating the Old Testament into Latin from Hebrew, and he could find no Hebrew manuscripts of these texts.  (The Jewish authorities at Jamnia also used this reason for not including them in the Jewish canon.  However, in the 20th century, original Hebrew versions of these texts were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so this argument is now a moot point).  This presented a problem with his translation, but he never suggested leaving these books out of the canon altogether.  In fact, Jerome tells us that he most certainly did not intend to leave these books out of the canon.

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

7.  None of the books claim divine inspiration.  Well, there are many books in the Bible that do not claim this for themselves!  On the other hand, I could claim this web page to be divinely inspired and it would not make it so.  This cannot possibly be a test for inclusion.

8.  Some books contain historical or geographical errors.  Again, one could say the same about other books in the Bible, so this cannot be a legitimate reason.

9.  Some books teach false doctrine, such as praying for the dead.  This is the same illogic used above when he said these books could not be scriptural because they contain "unscriptural" teaching.  If one accepts the legitimacy of these books, then one also accepts the doctrines they teach, as the Catholic church does and always has.  These doctrines have only been questioned by the Protestants, who are the same ones who discarded these books from their canon.

10.  No list of books during the first four centuries includes them, and the Catholic Church did not recognize them until the council of Trent in 1596.  This is simply false.  Pope Damasus included these books in his canon in 382.  These books were included in the canons agreed upon at the council of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, and were officially included when Pope St. Innocent I closed the canon of the Christian Bible in 405.  No books have been added or taken away since then, except the books that the Protestants rejected.  The Catholic church, at the sixteenth century Council of Trent, was simply restating the old position in response to the Protestant heresy of rejecting these books that had always been in the canon.

The only two reasons out of these 10 listed that would hold any weight, if they were true, are the first and last ones.  If indeed no recognized authority had ever included these books, and if indeed the Catholic church had not recognized them until 1596, then he might have a point.  But both of these statements are patently false.  A recognized authority, the only recognized authority, that is the Catholic church, did include these books in the canon of Sacred Scripture at the fourth century councils of Hippo and Carthage.  And we would be amiss if we also did not bring up the point that these councils decided on the issue of all of Sacred Scripture, not only these seven books.  Every book from Genesis to Revelation was canonized at these councils and it is only because of them that we have the Bible that we do today.  If Jerry Falwell does not recognize the authority of these councils, and he seems not to according to his statements quoted here, then he also cannot claim to recognize the place of any book in the Bible.

The arguments that Falwell uses against the Catholic Church are the same basic ones that you will find most anti-Catholics using, especially in "evangelical" or "fundamentalist" circles.  These arguments are easily shown to be founded on illogic or falsehoods, and can be easily corrected when done with care.

For more reading, please see:
 

• Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers.  A great handbook for Catholic Apologists.
   
• The Catholic Church and the Bible, by Fr. Peter Stravinskas.  A response to Fundamentalist critics and an explanation of the Catholic biblical tradition.
   
• Upon This Rock:  St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, by Stephen K. Ray.  An explanation of papal authority and its legitimacy.
   
• Biblical Truths for Baptists
   
• From Catholic Answers:
• Fundamentalism
• Fundamentalist or Catholic?
• Articles on the Papacy
• Articles on Mary

---

this page webbed by MAC Newsome on 12/26/01.