Best Resources on Roman Catholicism

[caJosue]

For some time now, I’ve been studying Roman Catholicism, and I wanted to recommend a few books that, in my opinion, best address this controversy.

At the beginning, the Roman Catholic opponents—though fierce (e.g., Eck, Sadoleto, etc.)—were weak in terms of argumentation. The main works from the Reformed side during this period are probably The Institutes of the Christian Religion, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, and Calvin’s well-known Letter to Cardinal Sadoleto, along with Loci Communes by Peter Martyr Vermigli. On the Lutheran side, there are Loci Communes and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession by Melanchthon, and Catalogus testium veritatis by Matthias Flacius Illyricus.


After the outbreak of the Reformation came the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. At this point, Calvin’s Antidote to the Council also appeared, and perhaps the most important work of the time: Martin Chemnitz’s Examination. But a major opponent rose on the Roman side—Robert Bellarmine—who, in his Disputations, responded to all the theologians mentioned above. His knowledge of the Church Fathers and Scripture was as extensive as that of the first-generation Reformers. And although there were more theologians like him (Gregory of Valencia, Melchior Cano, etc.), Bellarmine became the opponent to beat in virtually every controversy against Romanism from that point on. While many works were written in response to him, I want to mention two in particular that I consider the best—though sadly, they are only available in Latin: from the Reformed side, Daniel Chamier’s Panstratia, vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3., vol. 4, vol. 5; from the Lutheran side, Johan Gerhard’s Confessio Catholica. Both engage with the arguments of Bellarmine and most Roman Catholic opponents in their day, and are insanely filled with patristic citations. Other Latin works worth mentioning include André Rivet’s Catholicus Orthodoxus, Amandus Polanus’s Symphonia Catholica, and some later works that may better synthesize the broader controversy: from the Reformed side, Dissertationum selectarum sacram theologiam & Tumulus Tridentini Concilii, vol.1, vol. 2. by Heidegger and Bernardinus De Moor’s Didactico-Elenctic Theology; from the Lutheran side, Systema Locorum Theologicorum by Calov and Theologia didactico-polemica by Quenstedt.

In English, perhaps the best translated works from this era are Andrew Willet’s Synopsis Papismi, vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3, vol. 4, vol. 5, vol. 6, vol. 7, vol. 8, vol. 9, vol. 10, Pierre Du Moulin’s The Novelty of Popery, and the multiple volumes of Preservative Against Popery by Gibson.


Then came pietism and irenicism, which showed less interest in controversy until the arrival of the Tractarians (Newman, Pusey, etc.) and the corresponding evangelical reaction. The most notable authors here are William Goode’s The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3, George Stanley Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism, and John Harrison’s Whose the Fathers?


In more recent times, Roman Catholic apologists have adopted skeptical principles, questioning the credibility of non-infallible (or individual) agents. Perhaps the best remedy for this is simply to return to realism (see this article from Heideblog). They also frequently question the canon (the classic “the Church made the Bible” argument), and the best person addressing this today is probably Michael Kruger (see his book The Question of Canon). Added to that is their repeated challenge to the reliability of the Biblical interpretation. In this case, the best authors I know are Kevin Vanhoozer (Is There a Meaning in This Text? and After Babel), D. A. Carson (part one of Gagging of God), and Thompson (A Clear and Present Word). The history of the papacy is also being reassessed; here, Edward Denny is worth reading. And although attacks on justification are less frequent since the Joint Declaration, The Justification Reader by Thomas Oden remains a valuable resource, as does William Lane Craig’s defense of penal substitution. Additionally, it's worth checking out some websites like Triablogue, Christian Truth, and Beggars All Reformation.


I hope some of these books are useful to you. If you have other valuable resources, please share them in this thread.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Some other good responses to Bellarmine are found in Polanus's Syntagma, John Sharpe's Cursus Theologicus, and Ames's Bellarminus Enervatus.

 

[pianoviolin]

This is very helpful - thank you so much! I found this YouTube video (which draws on Chemnitz's Examination and Kruger's canon book) helpful, particularly if one doesn't have enough time or resources to read the books on the canon.

The ecclesialist traditions prey on epistemic uncertainty in a turbulent and rapidly changing world, typically through the canon question as well as private interpretation. This is one of the reasons I despise the papacy, because of the ecclesial anxiety it places on scrupulous consciences.

I am wondering if there are extensive resources to deal specifically with the claims of Rome post-Vatican II (and Vatican I)? I feel that most of our arguments focus on Trent and less so on Vatican II. Many modern RC apologists are quite slippery and a bit dishonest in my opinion (e.g. initial justification by faith alone - which contradicts Trent, praying to saints "is like asking a friend to pray for you," the deuterocanonicals were always seen as canonical in the same ways as the protocanonicals, "Rome is trad", etc.). They tend to paper over the practical implications of Romish theology, such as lack of assurance, no infallible list of mortal sins, latria vs. dulia doesn't really exist in practice (even if it could exist in theory), the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc. The Protestant world needs a stronger, unified apologetic against Rome and the East (especially on social media) that is not overly simplistic and that addresses modern ecclesialist claims.

 

[dsanch1120]

Agreed that we need a stronger apologetic against modern Rome. The RCC is not the same as the RCC that the reformers reacted to.. at least not in how they present themselves. Most RCC apologetics seem to be directed at Protestants and go based on “we’re actually not all that different” and then show why they’re (supposedly) better than modern protestantisms shortcomings.

 

[particularlybaptist]

For Protestant interpretation and critique that takes Post-Vatican 2 developments into consideration, check out the work of Leonardo De Chirico and Reformanda Initiative

 

[Sam Jer]

I am wondering if there are extensive resources to deal specifically with the claims of Rome post-Vatican II (and Vatican I)? I feel that most of our arguments focus on Trent and less so on Vatican II. Many modern RC apologists are quite slippery and a bit dishonest in my opinion (e.g. initial justification by faith alone - which contradicts Trent, praying to saints "is like asking a friend to pray for you," the deuterocanonicals were always seen as canonical in the same ways as the protocanonicals, "Rome is trad", etc.). They tend to paper over the practical implications of Romish theology, such as lack of assurance, no infallible list of mortal sins, latria vs. dulia doesn't really exist in practice (even if it could exist in theory), the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc. The Protestant world needs a stronger, unified apologetic against Rome and the East (especially on social media) that is not overly simplistic and that addresses modern ecclesialist claims

Agreed that we need a stronger apologetic against modern Rome. The RCC is not the same as the RCC that the reformers reacted to.. at least not in how they present themselves. Most RCC apologetics seem to be directed at Protestants and go based on “we’re actually not all that different” and then show why they’re (supposedly) better than modern protestantisms shortcomings.

Very much agreed. We have grown complacent, while Rome has been beat down quite hard by the sword of Christ's mouth over some 4-5 centuries, leading to it's re-adoption of more subtle deceits. Now they try to lure people in by a Kumbaya Romanism and ecumenicalism on the one hand, and by appeal to their "being trad" on the other.

This is why I am so encouraged to see that a growing number of people are adopting the old Protestant view of the papacy as The Antichrist, capital T capital A.
I just listened to this sermon (with no relation to the recent threads or the death of Francis, it was sitting in my downloaded sermons for weeks):

Papal Antichrist

Robert McCurley | Greenville Presbyterian Church

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[joebonni63]

I think the RCC is interesting in some respects (do not ask me what respects). I think that some of there doctrine is off base but given the problems in Rome and Pope whatever. This could be solved to go to a Reformed Confession and you know a little at a time to get people into it. I have talked to many long time Catholics and they always talk about their Salvation in Reformed Language. I will always ask why do you go to the Catholic Church and the answer is always the same because I always have. So you can do both and it seems fine however not everyone has that type of strength to do this type of church.

The thing I was looking for was a good book on RCC Theology to see what they are and are not following????????

 

[greenbaggins]

So far, none of my favorite three books on modern RC have been mentioned, so I will. The seminal work in RCC from a protestant perspective is Leonardo di Chirico's work. Expensive, but indispensable. Then there is Allisen's work. Lastly (though the best for an introduction) is Sproul's little book. All three engage in an excellent analysis of post-Vatican II RC. The older works by the Reformed and the scholastics are excellent works for understanding RC as it was in the 16th century. But Vatican II changed RCC quite a lot, so much so that the older works do not seem nearly as relevant to me, except in engaging with ultra conservative anti-Vatican II Catholics, of which there are some.

 

[joebonni63]

So far, none of my favorite three books on modern RC have been mentioned, so I will. The seminal work in RCC from a protestant perspective is Leonardo di Chirico's work. Expensive, but indispensable. Then there is Allisen's work. Lastly (though the best for an introduction) is Sproul's little book. All three engage in an excellent analysis of post-Vatican II RC. The older works by the Reformed and the scholastics are excellent works for understanding RC as it was in the 16th century. But Vatican II changed RCC quite a lot, so much so that the older works do not seem nearly as relevant to me, except in engaging with ultra conservative anti-Vatican II Catholics, of which there are some.

I did a little checking and it seems that America as a whole rejects the Idea that RCC is Christian. That Europe doesn't even talk about this or other countries (NOW I HAVE NOT DONE AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH OR THIS). I was just pointing out something I have read.......

 

[particularlybaptist]

I did a little checking and it seems that America as a whole rejects the Idea that RCC is Christian. That Europe doesn't even talk about this or other countries (NOW I HAVE NOT DONE AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH OR THIS). I was just pointing out something I have read.......

I think this may have been true when the divide between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism was especially pronounced in early America, but I don't think this is true today. I would wager most people in America consider RCC to be Christian. That is why there is hardly any evangelism from Protestants directed toward Catholics.

 

[alexanderjames]

Whilst we can be thankful for these resources, it does seem like the modern ones that tackle Rome head on are few and far between.

 

[davejonescue]

So far, none of my favorite three books on modern RC have been mentioned, so I will. The seminal work in RCC from a protestant perspective is Leonardo di Chirico's work. Expensive, but indispensable. Then there is Allisen's work. Lastly (though the best for an introduction) is Sproul's little book. All three engage in an excellent analysis of post-Vatican II RC. The older works by the Reformed and the scholastics are excellent works for understanding RC as it was in the 16th century. But Vatican II changed RCC quite a lot, so much so that the older works do not seem nearly as relevant to me, except in engaging with ultra conservative anti-Vatican II Catholics, of which there are some.

Would it be a good resource to get, I think, the Vatican Council II documents (by Austin Flannery) and just read them verbatim to understand where Rome sits presently? Logos has them. Or is there a reason a Protestant must write on it to be viable?

 

[particularlybaptist]

Would it be a good resource to get, I think, the Vatican Council II documents (by Austin Flannery) and just read them verbatim to understand where Rome sits presently? Logos has them. Or is there a reason a Protestant must write on it to be viable?

Nothing beats acquaintance with primary source material. I'd read it, coupled with Leonardo De Chirico's works.

Post automatically merged: Apr 30, 2025

Bonus points if you can read John Henry Newman, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and Henri De Lubac- the most influential theologians upon the council and post-conciliar theological developments.

 

[greenbaggins]

The single most important original source for understanding the RCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995). Nothing else even begins to compare to it. If you want specific original source material on Vatican II, then the Flannery volume is very important. Also critical is the Denzinger Enchiridion (now in its 43rd edition, which is great, because it has both the Latin and the English).

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Unpopular opinion but the evangelical counter-Romanism effort largely fizzled out with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement of the late 90’s. Primarily created to aid in the creation of a unified political coalition, Rome however never stopped its veiled theological attacks.

Aside from the resources many are listing, I’d say it’s best to be deeply familiar with the Standards.

Many Romanists and EO apologists rely on deliberate and subtle misstatement to advance their apologetic narratives.

 

[En Kristo]

A while back I made a hobby out of listening to “The Catholic Channel” on the radio (EWTN). There used to be a program (and there may still be) where the Roman Catholic faithful could call in questions to be answered by the resident priest. I haven’t had the time to keep up with this practice, but I found it a good way to hear Roman Catholic teaching from the horses mouth. It was very enlightening. I have to say that the slight of hand used by the priests to answer questions was maddening. On one episode a caller asked for an explanation of what happens to unbaptized infants. The priest did his best to explain limbo. At one point he had to correct himself after saying something that sounded as if the doctrine of limbo was obsolete. He caught himself and said that this is still the doctrine of the church. But then he ended his explanation by saying, “but the church no longer emphasizes this doctrine.” Well, how is that for comfort to the mother of an infant who died prior to being baptized, the consolation of knowing that the church no longer emphasizes that doctrine. What even does that mean? In another show a caller asked why Roman Catholics call their clergy priests. Apparently the caller had a Protestant friend who tried to explain that the Levitical office of priest ended with the resurrection of Christ. The priest assured the caller that his Protestant friend was simply ignorant; the word priest is merely another word for pastor or minister and there is nothing at all significant about the word priest. I could go on and on. It was hard to know if the priests were genuinely ignorant or intentionally dissembling. At times they were very well educated and biblically literate to the degree that it seemed unlikely that they misunderstood the meaning of the biblical text and the incongruence of their answer. One common theme seemed to run through all of the broadcasts. They have no sense of Biblical theology, progressive revelation or a grasp of the unity of the Bible. They cherry pick verses and explain them with total disregard for context. They habitually read their theology into texts instead of allowing texts to form their theology. I will add, however, that spending time deconstructing the answers given and crafting Biblical responses is a very good way to teach yourself theology while learning how to answer questions that your Roman Catholic friends may have.

 

[EvanF]

In another show a caller asked why Roman Catholics call their clergy priests. Apparently the caller had a Protestant friend who tried to explain that the Levitical office of priest ended with the resurrection of Christ. The priest assured the caller that his Protestant friend was simply ignorant; the word priest is merely another word for pastor or minister and there is nothing at all significant about the word priest. I could go on and on.

This is technically true. The word literally means presbyter/elder. However, because it has also been used to translate Hebrew כהן (kohen) in English, it has an additional shade of meaning that agreeably suits Romanist sacerdotalism.

 

[En Kristo]

I don’t think so.

Let me clarify. What the Roman Catholic Priest said was, "the English word, priest, is a word that comes from the Greek word πρεσβυτέρους (presbuterous). When the Roman Catholics refer to a priest, they are only using a different word to refer to the same thing as the Protestants are referring to. The words priest, presbyter or elder are just different English words that refer to the same thing."

Well, that is simply wrong.

He was familiar enough with with the Greek language to argue that the word priest was derived from the Greek word presbyterous, the same Greek word from which Protestants derive the words that they use for their clergy, pastor, minister or elder. In other words, the only difference is semantic.

But was that answer satisfactory?

According to https://www.etymonline.com/word/priest there are two theories of the derivation of the word, priest:

Old English preost, which probably was shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter"presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros "elder (of two), old, venerable," comparative of Presbyterians "old" (see Presbyterian-).

An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos.

In short, the derivation of the English word priest is uncertain. It could have come from either a word meaning elder or a word meaning placed in charge.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was for many years the only English version of the Bible boasting the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is itself a translation into Latin from the original Hebrew and Greek language manuscripts. The Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome, who consistently translated the Greek word, πρεσβυτέρους, into the Latin, presbyteros, both words meaning elder and referring to the leaders of New Testament churches.

All English versions of the Bible, with the exception of the Douay-Rhiems, similarly translate πρεσβυτέρους into either elder or presbyter - never priest.

When the Douay-Rhiems comes to the Greek word πρεσβυτέρους/presbyterous, it translates it into English two different ways. It sometimes translates it as ancients and sometimes as priest (e.g. James 5:14, Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.). The literal meaning of the Greek is elder, but the context indicates that elders were church leaders.

The word πρεσβυτέρους appears 12 times in the New Testament. Each time the word appears, the King James Version renders it “elders.” The Douay-Rhiems renders the same Greek word as “ancients” 8 times (Luke 7:3, Luke 22:52, Acts 4:5, Acts 6:12, Acts 11:30, Acts 20:17, 1Pet. 5:1, Rev. 4:4), and priest 4 times.

Usually, the Douay-Rheims renders the word “ancients” when it refers to Jewish leaders, but renders it priests when it refers to New Testament Church leaders (except in Acts 20:17 and 1 Pet 5:1); In Revelation 4:4 where the word uniquely refers to people who cannot be identified as either Jewish priests or New Testament church leaders, the Douay-Rhiems translates it as “ancients”).

So, what difference does the translation make? Are the leaders of the New Testament churches priests?

To answer those questions it is necessary to know two other Greek words, ἱερεῖ (hierei) which means priest and ἀρχιερεῖς(archiereis), which means high priest (singular) or chief priests (plural). Hierei is used 31 times in the New Testament, archiereis is used 122 times. In the Greek New Testament manuscripts, both hierei and archiereis are used to refer exclusively to Jewish priests. They are never used to describe a person in the New Testament church. Every English translation of the New Testament, including the Douay-Rheims version, translates this word using the English words priest, high priest or chief priests. So, the King James Version of the Bible and every English translation distinguishes between Jewish priests (hierei or archiereis) and the leaders of the New Testament church (presbyterous). Not so the Douay-Rheims Bible. In the Douay-Rheims Bible, Jewish priests are always referred to as priests. However, New Testament church leaders are also referred to as priests. Whereas there is a clear distinction in the original Greek manuscripts between Jewish priests and New Testament church leaders, on four occasions, Douay-Rhiems confuses the two offices, using the same Latin and English words used to describe Jewish Priests to describe New Testament church leaders.

The confusion is significant.

There are two reasons why the Douay-Rheims does not distinguish between the Jewish priests and New Testament church leaders. The first reason is the Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek manuscripts. In the Vulgate, 7 occurrences of the word πρεσβυτέρους were translated into Latin as seniores (Luke 7:3, Luke 22:52, Acts 4:5, Acts 6:12, Acts 11:30, 1Pet. 5:1*, Rev. 4:4**), one occurrence as maiores (Acts 20:17). In each of these cases, the Douay-Rhiems translates the Latin into English as “ancients”. In four occurrences of πρεσβυτέρους, the Vulgate renders the Greek as presbyteros, corresponding to the Douay-Rhiems “priest.” These four occurrences all refer to leaders of a New Testament church.

But the second reason for the translation in the Douay-Rhiems is theological. The Douay-Rhiems Bible confuses the roll of the Jewish Levitical priesthood and New Testament church leaders. Since the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church understands their clergy to function just as the Jewish priests functioned; they offer sacrifices (the mass)