A small book has recently come into my hands that narrates the testimony of a former Catholic priest (Jesuit), who says he has abandoned the Catholic Church after discovering that it is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. The priest in question is Luis Pedrosa, who claims to have been a Catholic for 43 years, a priest preaching to large crowds and specialized audiences for 10 years, and 23 years of religious life in the Society of Jesus.

I began to read the testimony and I must confess that at first I seriously doubted that this story was true, since after reading him say “I know the arguments on both sides, I have analyzed them all” I found serious inconsistencies and errors that would hardly be made by someone who really knew Catholic doctrine well, let alone a priest, much less a Jesuit. However, later a good friend told me that she had already investigated the case and assured me that Mr. Pedrosa had been a priest, which dispelled my doubts about his identity.

This is how in these lines I want to analyze, not the person, which only God can judge, but the validity of the reasons he gives for his abandonment of the Catholic faith, and because the book is quite extensive, I intend to analyze everything in several installments. In this installment I will limit myself to studying his objections regarding pontifical infallibility.

Chapter One. Objections to pontifical infallibility.

You can read what Luis Pedrosa explains regarding this point HERE.

The first inconsistency that I noticed in the testimony studied here is that the author raises the issue as differences between two sides: Catholics versus Protestants, and then claims that he knows them all, and then concludes that he has leaned towards Protestant arguments, but then when he begins at this point, he makes statements with which not even Protestants (at least in their most prestigious denominations) would agree.

Objection #1: The Church did not receive the keys, only Peter

We have an example when in his denial of pontifical infallibility, alleging that when Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of heaven only to Peter, and not to the Church or his successors:

“We have repeated many times: “Peter and his successors”, because this is what the Catholic Church says. But we must note that Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not say it even once.

This alone makes anyone who judges calmly and who sincerely seeks the truth think of the possibility of sophistry. Jesus Christ explicitly says: “To you, I give the keys. So that what you open remains open, and what you close remains closed.”

Not once did he say, “Whatever you and your successors open, let it remain open.” Not once.

He did not give them to the Church either.

Not once did he say: “On this rock I will build my Church and to it I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

He did not deliver them to the Apostolic College either. I give them only to Peter: “To you.”

From Luis Padrosa’s previous comment, I have to emphasize that he states:

  1. Christ gave the keys only to Peter, not to the Church, a job that died with him, since he did not transmit it to anyone else.

  2. Nor did he deliver them to the apostolic college.

But if you really knew the Protestant position, you would realize that this is also contrary to what they profess. For example, in the Augsburg confession of 1530 (with which Protestantism was almost totally identified at the time of the Reformation) they confer:

Augsburg Confession

XXVIII. THE POWER OF THE BISHOPS

Our theologians teach that, according to the gospel, the power of the keys, or of the bishops It is a divine power and command to preach the gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to distribute and administer the sacraments., because Christ sent the apostles with the following charge: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you remit, they are remitted; and whose sins you retain, they are retained,” John 20: 21-23. This same power of the keys or bishops is practiced and realized only through the teaching and preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the sacraments to many people or individually, according to each one’s assignment. In this way, not corporeal things are granted, but eternal things and goods, namely, eternal justice, the Holy Spirit and eternal life….

Therefore, The ministry of bishops, according to divine right, consists in preaching the gospel, forgiving sins, judging doctrine contrary to the gospel, and excluding the ungodly from the Christian congregation. whose impious conduct is manifest, without using human power, but only by the Word of God.

Note how they even see the power of the keys and the power of the bishops as synonymous, a position contrary to that established by Luis Padrosa, where this power died with the apostle Peter.

The Westminster Confession, with which the Reformed Churches identified themselves and still do today, says something similar. They also recognize that this power includes ecclesiastical sanctions such as excommunication.

The Westminster Confession, Chapter 30. Ecclesiastical Discipline.

I. The Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church, has appointed in it a government directed by church officials, different from civil magistrates. (1)

1. Isaiah 9:6,7; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Thessal. 5:12; Acts 20:17,18; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Hebrews 13:7,17,24; Matthew 28:18-20.

II. To these officers have been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, by virtue of which they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to close that kingdom to those who do not repent both by word and by discipline; and to open it to repentant sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from discipline as circumstances require. (1)
1. Matthew 16:19 and 18:17,18; John 20:21-23; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8.

…

IV. To best achieve these ends, church officials should proceed by reprimand, by suspension of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a time, and for the excommunication of the church, depending on the nature of the crime and the person’s offense. (1)
1. 1 Thessal. 5:12; 2 Thessal. 3:6,14,15; 1 Corinthians 5:4,5; 13; Matthew 18:17; Titus 3:10.

If we continue to investigate now the work of the reformer John Calvin (highly appreciated by the Presbyterian, Reformed and Calvinist churches for summarizing their fundamental doctrines), we recognize that Christ’s intention was not to grant this ministry to be used only once:

Institution of the Christian Religion, John Calvin. Book IV, Chapter 1.

The ministry of the keys is continually exercised with believers.

In fact, this is the reason why the Lord has given the keys to the Church, so that she dispenses grace, making us participants in it. Well, when Jesus Christ sent his apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins (MT.16, 19; 18,18; Jn.20,23), He did not want only those who converted from their impiety to faith in Jesus Christ to be freed from their sins, They didn’t even do this once, but their intention was to continually use this office in favor of the faithful.

This is what Saint Paul teaches when he writes that God entrusted the ministers of his Church with the task of reconciliation, to continually exhort the people to be reconciled to Him in the name of Christ (2 Cor 5:19-20).

In the communion of saints, then, our sins are continually forgiven through the ministry of the Church, when the presbyters, or bishops, to whom this office was entrusted, confirm the consciences of the faithful with the promises of the Gospel, certifying that God wants to show them mercy and forgive them. This, both in general and in particular, as the need requires. Because there are many who, because they are sick, need to be consoled alone and apart; Saint Paul already says that, not only in public sermons, but even from house to house he taught the people the faith in Jesus Christ, admonishing each one individually about the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20,20-21).

A Lutheran Catechism widely used today repeats like previous sources that Christ gave the keys to the Church:

Lutheran Catechism based on Luther’s catechism, by Professor Prof. Georg Metzger, Part V

1. What do we mean by the expression “the office of keys”?

to. “The office of the keys is the special power that our Lord Jesus Christ has given to his church.“This is what our catechism says. It speaks of an office, and it explains this word more precisely using another word: power. An office here is the same as a power. But the word power is not simply understood either. We speak, for example, of the office of a pastor. The pastor has an office in the church with which he serves it. By virtue of this office he has the power and the right to do much that should not be done by anyone other than the pastor of the congregation, for example, publicly proclaim the word of God, administering baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The case of a judge in the state is similar. He also has the power and right to do many things in the exercise of his office. An office, then, is a service that gives a man the power and the right to do many things that another should not do.

b. The job talked about here is that of keys. This expression is taken from the Scriptures. Matthew 16:19. Here we talk about the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It is a figurative expression. The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, is portrayed under the image of a house or a temple, which can be opened or closed. He who has the power over the keys of a house has the power and right to open and close the house. In the same way, he who has this office of the keys has the power and the right to open and close the heavens.

The office of the keys, therefore, is a wonderful office, which gives great power, the authority to open and close heaven..

2. We also ask: Who has the job of keys? Who has this power to open and close the sky? Question 294.

to. Our catechism tells us that Christ He has given his church this power...

The Heidelberg Catechism (used by Protestants) recognizes that the power of the keys includes ecclesiastical discipline and the ability to excommunicate infidels and apostates from the Church:

Heidelberg Catechism

82. Question: Should those who by their confession and life declare themselves unfaithful and impious also be admitted to this Supper?

Answer: In no way, because in this way the covenant of God is profaned, and his wrath is provoked on the entire congregation (a). Whereby, The Church must, according to the order of Christ and his apostles (using the keys of the kingdom of heaven), excommunicate and deprive such of the Supper, until they repent and rectify their lives. to. 1 Cor. 11:20, 34; Isaiah 1:11; Isaiah 66:3; Jer.7:21; Psalm 50:16.

83. Question: What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

Answer: The preaching of the Holy Gospel and ecclesiastical discipline: with which heaven is opened to the faithful, and closed to the unfaithful.

84. Question: In what way is the kingdom of heaven opened and closed by the preaching of the Gospel?

Answer: When (according to the commandment of Christ) it is publicly announced and witnessed to all the faithful in general and to each one in particular, that all sins are forgiven by God, through the merits of Christ, as many times as they embrace with true faith the promise of the gospel. On the contrary, to all infidels and hypocrites, it is announced that the wrath of God and eternal damnation will fall on them as long as they persevere in their wickedness (a); According to the testimony of the Gospel, God will judge in this life as in the next. to. John 20:21-23, Matthew 16:19.

85. Question: In what way is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by ecclesiastical discipline?

Answer: When (according to the commandment of Christ) those who, under the name of Christians, show themselves in doctrine or in life to be alien to Christ, and after having been fraternally admonished on various occasions, do not want to depart from their errors or evils, They are denounced to the Church or to those who have been admonished by it. And if they still do not obey their admonition, due to the prohibition of the sacraments, they are expelled from the Christian congregation., and by God himself, of the kingdom of Christ; and received again, as members of Christ and his Church, when they promise amendment and demonstrate it by their works (a). to. Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 11; 2 Cor. 2:6-8.

In the Helvetian confession they even go to the opposite extreme, affirming that Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of heaven to the entire Church.

Article 14, Second Swiss Confession

The keys to the Kingdom.

About the “Keys of the Kingdom of God” that the Lord entrusted to the apostlesThere are many who chatter about the strangest things and with them forge swords, halberds, scepters and crowns in addition to omnipotence over the greatest kingdoms and also over the body and the soul.

Summing up, Luis Padrosa says that Christ did not give the keys to the Church or the apostolic college, while the Protestant sources cited say exactly the opposite. Have you seen all the arguments and do you know them all? Difficult to believe since by saying he supports the Protestant position, he explicitly contradicts it.

But what is the most frequent real difference between Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine?

Both Catholics and Protestants believe that Christ has given the Church the power to bind and loose, however we do believe that Peter and his successors have been given the keys and thus the Church in communion with Peter’s successor has access to these keys to bind and loose. Peter and his successors carry the keys, the united Church uses them. Protestants do not believe that communion with the bearer of the keys (Peter and his successors) is necessary in order to use them. We also believe in apostolic succession, and this power was transmitted as the Bible attests through an uninterrupted succession of bishops.

If we study the Scriptures we will see that the Catholic position has a lot of biblical support. Firstly, because Christ cites as an example the well-known ancient monarchical model, where the supreme authority was the king, who in turn had a group of ministers at his service. Of all of them, there was a minister called the steward, who had the keys to the palace and had the authority to bind and loose in the name of the King (see Isaiah 22:22). Thus, although all the ministers, together with the butler, tied and untied, only he had the keys.

It is also important to note that both Catholics and Protestants recognize that ministries are trades that have to always be exercised by someone. It is not inconsistent with this to understand that when someone exercises a profession, but subsequently dies, another takes his place. We have an example in chapter 1 of the Acts when Peter himself noted the need for another to occupy the ministry of the apostleship that Judas Iscariot had had, and how the apostles organized the Church by establishing bishops and presbyters with the intention that the ministry would not remain vacant.

Thus, we frequently hear Protestants claiming that all Christians received the keys (also a false argument), but certainly the position of the former priest is not at all the Protestant position, although there are so many doctrinal differences between them, it is not impossible to rule out that some denomination identifies with his position. In any case, it is an objection that does not overcome the simplest biblical and hermeneutical analysis.

Objection #2: The power of the keys is useless because Christ will be the one who judges the living and the dead.

Another objection that Luis Padrosa raises as a dilemma that no Catholic can solve is that the power of the keys is of no use if Christ will finally be the one who in the final judgment will decide who is saved and who is condemned:

“Let us argue then: Could it be that on the day of Judgment Jesus Christ will take the keys from Peter and his successors and review the cases decided by them?

If this were the case, we ask again: What is the point of Peter and his successors opening now if Jesus Christ has to close later, and vice versa?

The keys are of no use to them..

Or is it perhaps that on Judgment Day, Jesus Christ will only come to solemnly ratify what Peter and your successors have done?

In this case Jesus Christ is not telling the truth when he states that he will come to judge., nor when he declares in the Apocalypse: “This says the Holy One, the True One who has the key of David, who opens and no one shuts and shuts and no one opens.” (Rev. 3:7).

This dilemma, the Catholic cannot solve, and no Catholic apologist connects the granting of the keys to Peter with the Final Judgment, for fear of the obvious consequence.”

I must confess that this was another comment that surprised me quite a bit, coming from someone who claims to know the doctrine and reasons of both parties, but not knowing Catholic doctrine in this regard.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the office of keys as follows:

CCC 53 Jesus has entrusted Peter with specific authority: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19). The power of the keys designates the authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, “the Good Shepherd” (Jn 10, 11) confirmed this commission after his resurrection: “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21, 15-17). The power to “bind and loose” means the authority to absolve sins, pronounce doctrinal sentences, and make disciplinary decisions in the Church.. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles (cf. Mt 18:18) and particularly through that of Peter, the only one to whom he explicitly entrusted the keys to the Kingdom.

In summary, for the Catholic Church, the office of the keys designates authority to:

    1. Rule the house of God

    2. Pronounce doctrinal sentences
    3. Absolve sins

 

  1. Make disciplinary decisions in the Church.

It is not necessary to mention, because we have just read it, that the Protestant sources previously cited understand something similar about the office of keys. But we must start from this definition to demonstrate that the supposed dilemma that no Catholic can solve originates from a lack of understanding of the office of the keys on the part of Mr. Padrosa.

Christ did not grant the office of the keys so that the Church could definitively dictate who is saved and who is condemned, but to govern the Church in the name of Christ, and that certainly includes, as we already said, absolving sins, defining dogmatic doctrine (doctrinal sentences) and although our friend Padrose does not like it, making disciplinary decisions, in which excommunication is included. This is where Mr. Padrosa’s confusion may arise, when he confuses excommunication with a definitive sentence of condemnation.

Excommunication implies a break with the ties that bind the excommunicated person to Christ through his Church. Excommunication does not put the person outside the Church but it does separate them from participating in its communion. It must be emphasized that the excommunication of the Church has a solid biblical basis. We have an example in 1 Corinthians 5 where Saint Paul does not hesitate to excommunicate one of the believers who was living in adultery. In 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17 Paul comments on the excommunication of Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus.

The purpose of excommunication is not to condemn anyone, but to remove the man from the community so that he can understand his evil and repent. Paul summarizes this by saying that through the “destruction” of his flesh he will be saved for eternity (1 Corinthians 5:5).

It is true that excommunication endangers man’s salvation, but because he himself, in his obstinacy, rejects the Church, which is the body of Christ. To be united to Christ is to be united to his Church. Although many Protestants do not like the idea, it was Christ who said:

“Whoever listens to you, listens to me; and whoever rejects you rejects me; “And whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

Objection #3: The power of the keys is limited to inaugurating the Church age.

Now, Mr. Padrosa not only alleges that the office of the keys was given only to Pedro and he died with him, but which affirms that the office of the keys is limited to inaugurating the era of the Church:.

“We must not confuse, therefore, the privilege of keys, which is given to one, with that of binding and loosing, which is given to many.

There is only one thing that Saint Peter did uniquely and no one else has been able to do. Inaugurate the Church Age, opening the doors of the Kingdom of heaven, first to the Jews and proselytes of Judaism on the day of Pentecost, then to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-4.

Evidently Jesus Christ wanted to give the keys to Saint Peter as one gives the minister or the governor the keys to a building that is going to be inaugurated.

The Apostle Saint Peter himself refers with satisfaction and legitimate pride to this unique privilege granted by his Lord, at the Council of Jerusalem: “After a long deliberation, Peter stood up and said to them: “Brothers, you know how God long ago determined here among you that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.” (Acts 15, 7).

Let us observe that Saint Peter does not say: “Men and brothers, you know how, for a long time, God chose that I be the infallible head of the Church and therefore I declare and define ex cathedra the matter that is being debated in this Council.” But only: “God determined that by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”

This is how Saint Peter himself interpreted the privilege of the keys. Can we understand it in any other way?”

I have heard this interpretation mostly in Pentecostal ecclesial communities, but as we saw in the Protestant sources consulted, it is only one interpretation among others, on which Protestants have not been able to agree.

Now here I must ask On what basis does Mr. Padrosa establish that the office of the keys was limited exclusively to inaugurating the era of the Church?. Here Acts 15:7 is cited where Peter testifies that God has chosen him among the rest of the apostles so that the Gentiles would hear the gospel through him and believe.

It is true that by virtue of the office of the keys, Peter was responsible for opening the doors of the Church to the Gentiles, but assuming that the office of the keys extended to that extent is only an assumption. Scripture does not establish those types of limitations regarding the powers of the office entrusted to Peter, Christ rather establishes:

“everything you tie on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you unleash on earth it will be released in heaven” Matthew 16:19

Note that Christ refers to “whatever you tie” already “whatever you unleash.” Thus, Padrosa’s entire argument is based on a failure of reasoning: Assuming that when Pedro exercises his office in a particular way, that already limits his office to only what he performs or sentences at that moment.

You should also ask: On what basis do you suppose that the office of keys has no relation to the power of binding and loosing?. Not even Protestants deny this. What we Catholics maintain is that the office of the keys gives the Church, in communion with the “butler” and bearer of the keys, the power to bind and loose. But this authority comes precisely from the keys that Christ has given to his Church.

Objection #4: Quotes from the Church Fathers rejecting the papacy.

Padrosa then quotes the church fathers to argue that their interpretation was similar to the Protestant position:

You, the twelve, together and supported by Peter, whose declaration of faith in divinity is the basis, the fundamental stone of my church (St. Cyril, in his book IV on the Trinity, says: “I believe that by the rock you must understand the Unchanging faith of the Apostles.”

Saint Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, in his book on the Trinity, says: “The rock (stone) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Saint Peter.”

Saint John Chrysostom, in his Homily 55 of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, says: “On this rock I will build my Church. That is, on the faith of its confession.” Now: What was the Apostle’s confession? Here it is: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

St. Augustine, in a commentary on the 1st Epistle of St. John, states: “What do the words, “I will build my church on this rock?” About this faith, about this that you tell me: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Here Padrosa selectively quotes three fathers of the Church (Saint Augustine, Saint Hilary and Saint John Christopher) and makes a mistake that most Protestants frequently make. This consists of taking the texts where some of the fathers interpret that the stone in Matthew 16:18 is the faith of Peter, to assume that this is a rejection of the office of the Papacy. But if he had really studied the doctrine that these fathers taught, he would know that neither this is true, nor did those fathers deny that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. I will not address this topic again here, because there is already a good explanation here:

Matthew 16:18 the Primacy of Peter and the fathers of the Church

Objection #5: Confusing impeccability with infallibility.

Jesus Christ said: “I will be with you until the end of the ages”…

It is true that Christ will also be with us until the end of the ages, those of us who seek Him, love Him and believe in Him and in His Gospel.

Which he confirms in another passage when he says: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am among them.” (Saint Matthew 18:20).

He will never abandon us. But it is evident that this does not give us infallibility.

And it is true that the gates of hell will not be able to destroy it. As long as there are men, there will be those who love Him and observe His commandments, and there will be the Church founded by HIM.

Certainly the fact that Christ is with us (as individuals) always does not give us infallibility, but it does give it to the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

What can it help that Christ is always with his Church and has granted it the power to bind and loose (which includes doctrinal sentences), if at the same time I do not accompany it with the charisma of preaching the truth, despite the devil’s attempts to prevail against it?

Now, Luis Padrosa’s perspective is somewhat ambiguous, and to realize this, let us meditate a little on the Protestant vision of the Church as an invisible organism, which is composed of Christians who here and there fulfill the commandments.

In this vision of the Church, how could I be sure that what is believed is really an orthodox doctrine? To this question a Protestant will answer: Based on the Bible. But in practice we see how those who are governed only by the Bible have not only divided into multiple groups, but they cannot agree on important matters of faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the nature of the sacraments, salvation, etc. How can a model where private judgment is placed above the judgment of the united Church in council maintain unity? Was that the attitude that Christians took throughout the conflicts of the first centuries, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem in the first centuries?

However, he answers these objections:

“For the Church to err in doctrine is to err in the main thing. Therefore, Jesus’ promise would not be fulfilled.

In order for the divine promise to be fulfilled: “And the gates of hell will not prevail against it,” it is necessary that there can never be any error in its doctrinal statements.

To this we respond that when Jesus Christ said that the infernal forces would not prevail against her, he was referring to the preservation or duration of the Church.

He never wanted to indicate that in his Church there would be no sins of all kinds…

Among the twelve Apostles, chosen by Him, one was a traitor, and the rest committed many mistakes and fell into countless errors..

Jesus Christ had to continually correct them. And after the Assumption of the Lord, the Apostles always had to fight against the doctrinal errors and deviations that arose among their disciples.

No; Jesus Christ did not give any privilege of infallibility, or at least there is no evidence that he gave it to anyone, outside the Apostolic College, when they spoke and wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is, in doctrinal matters. ”

And this is where it is unjustifiable for someone who claims to know all the arguments (Catholic and Protestant) to confuse impeccability with infallibility, an error that today is difficult to find in serious Protestant apologists. Surprising that he objects:

“He never wanted to indicate that in his Church there would be no sins of all kinds.

Which is completely a fallacy, since it has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that there would be no sinners or sins in it, however with this statement it tries, establishing its point, to insinuate that it does.

The failure becomes more evident when confusing errors of conduct with errors in teaching doctrine:

“Among the twelve Apostles, chosen by Him, one was a traitor, and the rest committed many mistakes and fell into countless errors.”

And after confusing errors of conduct with doctrinal errors, he concludes:

“And after the Assumption of the Lord, the Apostles always had to fight against the doctrinal errors and deviations that arose among their disciples.”

To which we respond regarding doctrinal errors, that yes, the Church has had to fight against heresies that have tried to emerge from its ranks, but that were rejected thanks to the fact that by maintaining the unity of the body of Christ, it could identify and eradicate them.

“My children, it is the last hour. You have heard that an Antichrist was going to come; Well, many antichrists have appeared, so we realize that it is already the last hour. They came out from among us; but they were not ours. If they had been one of us, they would have remained with us. But it happened like this to show that not everyone is one of us” 1 John 2:18-19

We had an example that we cite at the Council of Jerusalem, when the first Judaizers tried to introduce heresies into the Church by forcing Gentile Christians to Judaize. What would have happened if the Church had opted for the Protestant way? Each person would have gone his own way, arguing that nothing could separate him from the “invisible” Church (to which only true believers belonged – that is, those who thought like him) and the Church would have begun to divide at that very moment. However, the Church met, deliberated and the magisterium spoke out. The heresy was eradicated, and today we do not see anyone saying that one must be circumcised to be saved. Likewise with all the heresies that were eradicated little by little (Sabelianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monothelianism, etc. Etc. Etc.) which thanks to the Protestant model have been able to re-emerge and against which Protestants have no way to fight, while they penetrate more and more within them and doctrinal confusion increases.

Objection #6: A very silly, strictly historical anecdote.

Luis Padrosa tells an anecdote where some young Baptists supposedly refute a Jesuit priest who approached them with a Catholic argument. I quote the anecdote:

On a train there was a group of young evangelicals chatting happily on their way back from a Baptist youth rally.

They wore insignia of the Baptist Young Men’s Union to which they belonged.
A Jesuit Father approached them and, suspecting what they were, said to them:
—What insignia is this that you carry?
—From the Baptist Youth Union.
– Possible? Protestants? But who has kidded you?
And after a few brief sentences, the ironic Jesuit wanted to fire the coup de grace against the faith of those young people.
— Let’s see. Who tells you what you should believe?
– The Bible – they answered,
-Magnificent! But you already know that the Bible is made up of several books selected from many. They called some saints and inspired by God and others, apocryphal or simply human history. Tell me: Who has selected these holy books and who guarantees that it is these and not those that you should believe? If there is no infallible authority, your belief in the Bible alone is without foundation.
For the moment everyone remained silent as if surprised by the argument. But one of them politely addressed the Jesuit and asked:
—Do you know how many parts Dante’s Divine Comedy has?
“Three,” said the Jesuit, “Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.”
—And do you know who the Odyssey and the Iliad belong to?
– Clear! From Homer.
—Are you sure?
—Very sure.
—If I told you that Dante’s Divine Comedy has a fourth part describing Limbo, and that the Odyssey and the Iliad are by Virgil, what would you say to me?
—That you are ignorant..
—And you would be right. But now I ask you: to have this certainty, Have you had to consult a team of infallible critics and historians?
-No. 
—Obviously not. Neither you nor anyone. ANDThe man who to admit that the Divine Comedy has three parts and not four, and who to believe that the Odyssey is by Homer and the Aeneid by Virgil would require a Literary Academy with the gift of Infallibility, we would consider him ignorant and foolish.. We know or can know with certainty, if we want, what Homer said, what Horace said, and what Virgil said. And not only what he said, but how he said it. And we distinguish the editions with assumptions, interpolations or deformations of their style, without the need for infallible teaching.

If what the young Baptist proposed is read carefully, he affirms that just as no one needs an infallible magisterium to know who wrote the Divine Comedy, the Odyssey or the Iliad, there is no need for an infallible magisterium to know which books are Scripture and which are not, and whoever does not know, according to the same priest they make him confess, is “ignorant.”

The truth is that this entire anecdote is based on a fallacious analysis of reality. If today it is accepted that who are the authors of the Aeneid, the Iliad or the Odyssey, it is because there was a group of learned specialists on the subject whose opinions established that as a fact. It is true that the priest does not have to consult them now to know, and it is because the opinions of these scholars at the time were transmitted to us in such a way that it is now an accepted fact, but this is so precisely because these scholars initially held it.

Now, if the judgment of those scholars had been flawed, they had not known the facts well or had access to poor information to form their opinion, today we could be wrong in believing that it was Homer who wrote the Iliad, or Virgil the Aeneid, and we could be believing something that is not true even if the whole world takes it as such. Likewise, whether or not there is a probability that what they stated is true depends on the infallibility of the scholars who affirmed that these books were written by these authors.

The same goes for the Bible. If certain books are recognized as Scripture today, it is because there has been an authority (The Catholic Church) that ruled definitively and authoritatively on this, such that it can be believed as true. If the Church had fallen into apostasy and its judgment had been perverted, today we could be believing that certain books are inspired by God without being so, and that even if it were universally accepted that they are.

Another thing that Padrosa omits is that the question of which book is inspired or which is not, is not a question that any ignorant person can elucidate without the need for infallible teaching. If Padrosa had done his homework in his history chairs he would know that the biblical canon was not something that was definitively defined overnight, in fact for many books of the New Testament their canonicity was disputed for quite some time, because the apostolic tradition was not equally clear and evident in all Churches. We have an example in the fact that the Muratori Fragment (from the end of the 2nd century), being the oldest catalog known to date, does not have Hebrews, James and 2 Peter among the list of sacred books. Even in a catechesis (Catechesis 4,33-36) written around (+386) by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem he gives a complete list of the books of the New Testament and omits the Apocalypse. Even at the time of the Reformation, Luther rejected Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, going so far as to write:

“We must distinguish between books and books. The best are the gospel of St. John and the epistles of St. Paul, especially that of the Romans, the Galatians and the Ephesians, and the 1st epistle of St. Peter, these are the books that reveal Christ to you and teach you everything you need for salvation; even if you do not know any other book. The epistle of James, before these, is nothing more than straw, because it does not presents no evangelical character” Luther, Prologue to the New Testament of 1546 (Bibel VI, 10)

The very fact that even today Catholics and Protestants have differences regarding inspired and canonical books, completely destroys Padrosa’s objection, with his anecdote.

Author: José Miguel Arraiz