# Understanding Roman Catholicism



## Me Died Blue (May 27, 2005)

What are some recommended works (books or websites) for a full-spectrum treatment of Roman Catholicism with all its various issues, including a presentation and critical analysis of common Roman Catholic interpretations of the typical "faith alone" Scripture passages we often present to them? I'm trying to get deeper than the straw-man arguments people can sometimes tend to jump to, since making those types of points would probably not exactly make a convinced Catholic want to continue dialoguing over the issue. Feel free to also share personal encounters with Catholics over such passages or other key issues that come up when trying to understand where they're coming from so as to be better prepared to try and help them out of it.

One work I'm not sure whether or not would be helpful is Boettner's, because I've heard many Catholics saying it is a huge misunderstanding of their beliefs, even just amongst themselves in Catholic messageboards.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 27, 2005)

Chris,

I am currently reading two books by William Webster. Both are excellent - very well researched with primary source documentation. One is titled Roman Catholic Tradtion, the other is The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth). They are avaialbe at: http://www.christiantruth.com/. Jmaes White's The Roman Catholic Controversy is highly recommended as well. Webster and White are both up-to-date and should do you better than Boettner.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 27, 2005)

Chris,

Another good resource is Dr. W. Gary Crampton's By Scripture Alone. He first gives an exposition of chapter 1 of the WCF then deals with contemporary RC arguments. It is up-to-date and contains primary source documentation. Besides, Dr. Crampton is my good, personal friend!


----------



## kceaster (May 27, 2005)

*Chris...*

A book I got a lot out of is James G. McCarthy's _The Gospel According to Rome_. He is fourth generation RCC who converted to protestantism. He really breaks down some of the key areas that Catholics believe and then compares their own writings, dogmas, doctrines, and catechisms to the Scriptures.

It is a very easy read. I would call it introductory material.

He's written some other stuff, too. Very knowledgeable.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott (May 27, 2005)

Chris: The best way to learn official Catholic teaching is to read relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You will never have credibility with Catholics if all your info comes from anti-Catholic sources. The CCC is a great summary and provides you a great source for quoting. You will be surprised at how many Catholics hold unofficial teachings.

If you want to know that the average Catholic in the pew believes, just watch TV. For the most part they are largely secular relativists. The kind of Catholics that populate Catholic boards are extraordinary, not typical. 

If you want some low-down on what is happening in Catholicism to complement a discussion of doctrinal issues, I would recommend:

Michael Rose, Good Bye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church

Michael Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary Catholicism

There is a tendency to see Catholicism as being a behometh committed to Trent. However, in reality in America at least it is largely indistinguishable from mainstream liberalism. Liberalism is endemic in Catholic seminaries and among the priesthood. Of course, there are exceptions, and you find many of these exceptions on the Catholic Answers board and similar places. Still, conservatives and traditionalists are a minority in America. The local parish in my area, for example, has a gay and lesbian group. This could be a PCUSA church.

Scott


----------



## smallbeans (May 27, 2005)

I would go to vatican.va and just read all the encyclicals from the previous pope. That's probably the best way to get oriented to where things are, where they are headed, etc. with the RC church. You can also read the documents associated with Vatican II. Ratzinger also published pretty heavily before becoming pope - he has some books that might scratch where you're itching.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 27, 2005)

Webster and our own David King have an EXCELLENT three volume series on the authority of Scripture interacting with Rome.


----------



## crhoades (May 27, 2005)

Check out the mp3 debates between James White against whoever on whatever topic. you'll be able to see what they put forth, what they dismiss, and even see it dialogical...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2005)

> If you want to know that the average Catholic in the pew believes, just watch TV. For the most part they are largely secular relativists. The kind of Catholics that populate Catholic boards are extraordinary, not typical.



I agree. I was debating my Catholic cousin on predestination and then mid-sentence she shifted into soteriological relatavism, so I then had to debate that as well.

Also, look very hard at aomin.org for TRANSCRIPTS of White's debates for free. I have found those very helpful.


----------



## DTK (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> You can also read the documents associated with Vatican II. Ratzinger also published pretty heavily before becoming pope - he has some books that might scratch where you're itching.


Interestingly enough, virtually none of the Roman Catholics one encounters on line would agree with some of the things Ratzinger said prior to becoming pope. 

For instance...


> *Cardinal, now Pope Joseph Ratzinger:* It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what _is_: it is stated that Scripture _is_ the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it _does_: it hands on the word of God, but _is_ not the word of God. See Joseph Ratzinger´s "œThe Transmission of Divine Revelation" in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., _Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II_, Vol. 3, p. 194. Italics are Ratzinger's own.


Very few Roman Catholics past and present, whether theologians or lay people, would permit the above definition of "Tradition" without subjecting it to the death of a thousand qualifications. You can't find any uniform interpretations of such statements. It has become fashionable for Roman Catholics, both apologists and theologians, in our day to argue for what is called the material sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that every proof for every Catholic doctrine can be deduced from Holy Scripture. Ratzinger denied that concept prior to his being made pope...


> *Cardinal, now Pope Joseph Ratzinger*, while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that "œno one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine." See Joseph Ratzinger´s "œThe Transmission of Divine Revelation" in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.


One finds even in reading the official documents of the communion of Rome (whether, for example, those of Trent or Vatican II) that those documents are interpreted in different ways depending on what particular Roman Catholic theologian or apologist is addressing them.

Since our inquirer's interest in the official beliefs of Rome has been prompted by his desire to engage effectively with its members, this task is made all the more difficult by the fact that they themselves go back and forth on these issues, often with little consistency. The moment you think you've understood what they often claim in terms of material sufficiency, and have shown them that that simply won't wash with a dogma like the Assumption of Mary, you'll find that they will invariably turn right around (virtually oblivious to their own shift in methodology) and argue for a partim/partim view of special revelation when pressed. It's like riding a merry-go-round in the world of Roman theology.

As for Boettner's work, regardless of what RCs say, he was almost always accurate in what he wrote. But what makes his work so unhelpful for many of us today is that he was notorious for not providing proper documentation.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by DTK]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2005)

David,
Once again, that was great.


----------



## Scott (May 27, 2005)

"I agree. I was debating my Catholic cousin on predestination and then mid-sentence she shifted into soteriological relatavism, so I then had to debate that as well."

Yeah, it is interesting that Roman Catholic Peter Kreeft uses Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy to represent the secular view in his fictional book Between Heaven and Hell. 

Conservative and traditional Catholics (i.e. those who really care what Catholicism teaches) are a minority. It is no coincidence that the first state supreme court to approve of gay marriage was in a state that is half Catholic (Mass.) with little pushback from the state population. They are largely secular liberals. Catholic teaching from the Pope, CCC, etc is clear that gay marriage is wrong and should be resisted strongly. That did not affect a significant number of Catholics in Mass.

Still, 5 or 10 percent of 60+ million people (US Catholic population) is allot of people (several times the number of people in the PCA, which is aprox. 300k).


----------



## openairboy (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> What are some recommended works (books or websites) for a full-spectrum treatment of Roman Catholicism with all its various issues, including a presentation and critical analysis of common Roman Catholic interpretations of the typical "faith alone" Scripture passages we often present to them? I'm trying to get deeper than the straw-man arguments people can sometimes tend to jump to, since making those types of points would probably not exactly make a convinced Catholic want to continue dialoguing over the issue. Feel free to also share personal encounters with Catholics over such passages or other key issues that come up when trying to understand where they're coming from so as to be better prepared to try and help them out of it.
> 
> One work I'm not sure whether or not would be helpful is Boettner's, because I've heard many Catholics saying it is a huge misunderstanding of their beliefs, even just amongst themselves in Catholic messageboards.



Their Catechism per Scott.

Also, try to listen to Catholic radio, especially Catholic Answers. They aren't stupid and can argue their points very well. If you want to see Bahnsen do poorly in a debate than listen to his debate/discussion with some Catholic apologists.

Scott Hahn, a recent neophyte to Rome, will provide some substantive stuff on the issues as well. Beyond his home page, do a search on the web.

openairboy


----------



## crhoades (May 27, 2005)

This is a good site for understanding them from their perspective.
http://www.catholic.com/
Take the cruise! 

Our 4th Annual
Apologetics Cruise

November 2005
Mexican Riviera

Join our special guests, Teresa Tomeo, radio personality on Ave Maria Catholic radio network, best-selling author Mr. Michael Medved, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and Jerry Usher, host of Catholic Answers Live, along with Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating on the fourth annual Catholic Answers Apologetics Cruise.


----------



## openairboy (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Mr. Michael Medved



Isn't he a Jew?

openairboy


----------



## crhoades (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I dunno...just copying and pasting...


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 27, 2005)

I think he is. There's another Jew from San Francisco, believe it or not, who is very conservative. He has an am radio talk show. He even attacks policies of our President - some of which I agree with him on (i.e., protecting the border and bailing out CA hospitals due to servicing illegals).


----------



## Shane (May 28, 2005)

My humble opinion. As I would not say I am an authourity, but I was Catholic for 30 years and now Christian for 2 years.

As a Catholic many times when confronted with somone saying that you are in a unChristian church you laugh the person off as a nut who does not know what his talking about. The sad thing is that allot of what you get out their against Catholocism loses all credibility as they attack and expose things fanaticaly and even incorrectly at times. 

eg. You worship Mary and the Saints - A Catholic will respond we dont as they simply do not see it that way. They call it reverance. ( Which is the same thing of course.)

Some will attack the authority of the Pope and say but Christ is head of the Church. - A Catholic believes Christ is the head of the church so again he looks at you as uneducated in his beliefs so how can you honestly correct him.

While all the statemsents above are correct the Pope is head on earth and Mary is really worshiped and I see this clearly since becoming a Christian a Catholic is so indoctrinated since a child that they have there special way of seeing the Pope, Mary etc. Your claims often come accross as ignorant and fanatical, in there eyes there faith is the one true faith and you will gain little ground like this. 

What truly influenced me is the Gospel and the forgiveness I have in Christ. I realize it may not always be the same but truly the place I believe one should start is Sin. Then move on to salvation and expose it biblically without attacking the red herrings, also try and stay on the subject as when trapped often the subject will get changed to another doctrine. The rest will fall on their own once the true Gospel is understood.

When I started seeing the light it was questions like. 

How in light of the Sermon on the mount and other scripture does my faith get Mortal and Venial sin??? Only one text supported this against everything else the bible said??

If all sin leads to death in scripture then all sin is mortal, so if their is no venial sin pergatory is not possible. All sin will have to be cleansed for me to go to heaven.

These were just some of my thoughts. But I truly believe instead of attacking other doctrines one should focus on the Gospel. Also make no mistake some Catholics can defend their belief very well and they use the bible although many versus are clearly taken out of context and are a long stretch at times.

My


----------



## Scott (May 31, 2005)

Good advice Shane. Some of the things strike me as pretty weak, and I am a Protestant. 

Another suggestion is to use their own sources, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Another good source is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is available online at newadvent.org. 

So, for example, on praying to saints, you could start with a question like wouldn't prayer be worship. They would say it is just reverence. You could point them to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on canonization and beautification of saints, which says this: 

"The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Now, the article expressly says that saints are worshiped, albeit it nuances different kinds of worship. It is an interesting admission of a respected, conservative Catholic source.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 31, 2005)

Thanks for the advice and recommendations, everyone. I'll definitely look at their catechism, and thanks Shane for the helpful reminder of beginning with and centrally focusing on the Gospel with the biblical doctrines of sin and salvation.


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 31, 2005)

Chris,

I enjoyed reading "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. Traces the origins of many papal practices. Fascinating book.


Anyone else out there read this? Your thoughts?


----------



## DTK (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Chris,
> 
> I enjoyed reading "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. Traces the origins of many papal practices. Fascinating book.
> ...


Actually, I would humbly suggest that this is the kind of books we need to read cautiously and critically, and avoid using unproven connections it suggests in our dealings with Roman Catholics. The fact is that it's difficult enough to get them to be honest with information quoted from their own sources, let alone speculative connections that will reap nothing but their mockery. 

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 31, 2005)

DTK,

Good point. The book does have some unproven connections... still very fascinating and interesting hypothesis on many areas.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (May 31, 2005)

"The Two Babylons" may be fascinating, but it's full of misinformation. Ralph Woodrow wrote an anti-catholic book, basing all his information on "The Two Babylons", but later apologised for much of it's content. He had simply assumed that all the information in Hislops book was accurate.

Mike


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jun 1, 2005)

Mike,

Did you actually read Hislop's book or just Woodrow's perspective and apology on the issue? Just curious... what were some of the "major" issues concerning Hislop's misinformation?


----------

