The site is rather toxic, because it combines Truth with falsehood. Best to be avoided.
It's "challenges" are easily answered. For instance:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
I'll try to avoid answering for the Vatican, but as for the Orthodox, the Church, being all authority by Christ, it was fully within the competence of the Orthodox Church to examine the book of Revelation to accept it as part of the Church's public dogmatic proclamation or not. Revelation had no competence to judge the Orthodox Church. Revelation draws its authority from being part of the Tradition of the Church. The Church does not derive its authority from Revelation. That is easily proven: the earliest Scripture we have is I Thessalonians, and it already presupposes the Church. If the Church had to wait for Scripture for its existence, how did she exist those two decades between Pentecost and Thessalonians?
The author doesn't seem to know what infallible means. Otherwise they'd be asking, if Revelation was infallible on the basis of sola scriptura, why wasn't it accepted as part of the canon (something not in the scriptura) from the beginning? And he also would not open himself to his larger problem, that if the Orthodox Church (and for the purposes of this argument, the Vatican) is not infalllible, then what are we to make of him depending on the text that the Orthodox Church canonized and transmitted, whence he got it?
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
This "question" is simplistic, not simple.
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Few of the Ecumenical Councils were the initiative of Rome, and none exclusively, and one (the Fifth) was held over Rome's opposition. Given that, I don't see the point of arguing this.
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
No. When Rome followed the principle of conciliary, there was a lot of back and forth between Rome (and the other Patriarchates) and the lesser sees. Councils always sent their results to other bishops for their confirmation and imput.
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Need I say more (except that both Hippo and Carthage were in the jurisdiction of Rome in the 4th century)?
If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
What first time is he talking about, as Hippo and Carthage agree with Trent?
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
The author rejects the Apostles and takes the rabbis as his guide, accepting the Masoretic Text of the Jews c. 800 over the text used in the days of the Apostles (LXX) and copied by Christians: no Christian OT manuscript lacks what he calls apocrypha. That the Jews used that books is proved by the feast of Hanukkah (which has scriptural warrant only in Maccabbees), etc. The Vulgate and LXX canons of the OT overlap, that of the NT is identical.
What we know is not to believe the 'church authority' which wasn't around in the first centuries of the Church to determine the canon.
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
The canon itself. The scriptures do not contain a table of contents. The Fathers that the Apostles personally consecrated (SS Clement, Ignatius) quote from what is contained in that canon.
Another Tradition is the instution of the priesthood, as opposed to the episcopate and diaconate. The NT speaks of the latter two but the parish presbyters were not seperate from the bishops yet. But they were by 95 (when the Apostle John yet lived and Revelation not yet written), a fact that both SS Clement and Ignatius, to whom the Apostles personally entrusted the Church, attest to.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
Since the Scritpure arises from Tradition, there would be no sense for them to contradict themselves.
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
The one that can point to an unbroken chain of witnesses to its interpretation from the Apostles onward, i.e. the Orthodox. In every generation from the Apostles until today, we have persons who would (actually are) in communion with us.
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
Because the OT is understood only in the Light of the NT, in the Light of Christ.
How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
The author seems to be ignorant of the Hebrew Church.
If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?
One is wrong. And a lot of the doctrines and dogmas they have in common, opposed to this eglise du jour who wrote that site.
b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
The author has the bigger problem of his sect having no documented existence at all.
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
We are not in communion with the Vatican because it does not follow apostolic Tradition exactly.
How is it that Protestants all follow sola scriptura and teach doctrines so different.
Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8 ) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
Because the Church exercises discernment. Just like the Lord accepted the synogogue (not warranted by the OT) but rejected their traditions which became their Talmud. The Church, like Christ, does not speak like one of the scribes, but with authority.