[.ca] The Roman Catholic Controversy (ISBN 1556618190)

THINK:
First, it is true that there are TRUE Christians in the Catholic Chruch, but it is difficult to believe that they are happy. When on studies the Catholic Church one wonders why church members put up with some of the false teachings. It does not matter who wins the argument, since sometimes the most well formated debate does not always lead on to absolute truth. The question is, "Is the Roman Catholic Church a TRUE Church?" According to the teachings of Chirst and His apostles the answer is a resounding NO! The genesis of the Catholic church does not go back to Peter, but back to Constantine in the early fourth century. The idea of the Papacy as we know it today was never instituted intil AD 606 when Boniface III became the first Pope. To know church history is to cease to be Roman Catholic. As an instituion run by men, history reveales how it has evolved. AD 33-AD 312 No Roman Catholic Chruch. No Popes, no priests, no cardinals (excpet the birds), no fyars (except to make chicken). Following the death of the last Apostle, there were just pastors (biships), elders, deacons all brothers and sisters in the faith with the cause of spreading the Good News under sometimes intense persecution. AD 313 It is alleged that Constantine saw the sign of the cross in the sky. He become HOLY ROMAN EMPOER making Chrisianity legal, and later making it the state religion. This was a precusor to what would evolve into the Papacy. AD 432 Mary instituted as "Mother of God" a term UNKNOWN before the 5th Century. AD 563 The idea of Purgatory was invented also unknown in Scripture and in the first six centuries of Church History AD 650 Feast celebrating Mary began. AD 754 The power of the Popes to own huge chunks of land due to the forgery called the "Donation of Constantine" AD 788 the worship of Relics was instituted AD 854 the idea of HOLY WATER was thought up out of thin air. AD 1003 Feasts of the Dead introduced (what's that all about?) AD 1076 Roman Catholic Church is regarded as infalliable (give me a break! Just look at the catholic Church in the News TODAY!) AD 1090 the Rosary was introduced (See St. Matt. 6:7) AD 1190 Sales of indulgences (Fleecing the flock out of their hard earned money based on a lie concerning a fictional place! This is as bad a Robert Tilton's scams) AD 1215 the unfounded idea of Transubstantiation formated by Innocent III (Cut me a break!) AD 1303 Decreed that salvation is not found outside of Roman Catholic church (whatever! Most catholics don't even believe this gem decreed by Rome!) AD 1545 Roman Catholic declared itself to be on equal plane of authority as Holy Scripture, Justification by faith as St. Paul taught was condemned (Blasphemous in and of itself!) AD 1870 Papal Infalibility declared AD 1954 Mary proclaimed the Queen of Heaven by Pius XII Come on Priests and Nuns, wake up and smell the coffee. THINK, THINK, THINK! WHite's book is very good. Open and honest. The only way to disagree with it is to close your eyes to the truth and turn to the doctrines of men. I am thankful for Catholics who stand up to the false teachings from the Papacy, but I can't understand how one could stay in such a church. Oh, by the way. ALL historical evidence reveales the Apostle Peter was NEVER in Rome. THINK people THINK As Roman Catholisim comes crashing down around us, my hope is that people will put thier faith in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only way to salvation, and not the RCC.

Sincere in approach and quite thorough:
Reading through all the reviews there are several common threads. Some people say it is all wrong, some say it is great, and some people spend hours trying to point out flaws in the book. Hopefully my review adds something new to help you decide if you want to buy this book. First off, I ordered this book along with two by Ron Rhodes (10 things to tell a Catholic and Reasoning from the scriptures). I must say that James White is not only a more skilled writer, but he is much more sincere in his approach. I found Ron Rhodes books to be full of exclamation points and less than fleshed out reasonings. White however was quite thorough and handled every subject with tact. Obviously it wasn't thorough enough for some devout Catholics, but the citations from Catholic doctrine and other scholars is a very good starting point. The debate between Protestants and Catholics will go on for years I am sure. Devout Catholics will see what they want, and hardcore Protestants will be re-affirmed. However, what I think this book does is bring to light many things the Catholic church believes but is afraid to teach. For example, bible studies are almost non-existant in most Catholic churches that I've visited, but White makes it clear why. The Catholic church believes it holds complete interpretive power over the bible, so why should an fallible layperson even bother reading it? (Sorry Holy Spirit!) For Easter/Christmas Catholics, or those born into the church that have never studied the teachings of the church in depth, this book will make them ask questions. It would be interesting to know how many Catholics know/believe that they are eating the actual blood and body of Christ every mass. Some lifelong Catholics I know had never even heard this, yet it is Catholic doctrine, and if you don't believe it, then you're anathema. I digress. The book is very well written. When White would bring up an argument I would always ask "Well what would a Catholic theologian say?," and more often than not White would give me some opposing Catholic arguments. Whether these are extremely selective I cannot say, for I haven't read every Catholic theologians work, but White does a great job of presenting subjects fairly and completely. Like any other work, don't take it all for granted, but always be questioning and seeking the truth. This is subject very close to my heart. No single book will end this debate, but I believe this book is a great start to finding the ultimate truth in this life and the next. God bless you all on your search for God, who he is, and who he wants you to be.

Saddened:
As far as the book itself I thought it was an easy read. After reading his book and listening to him in debates, he is gifted with communication skills(reason for the 5 stars). As for content(religion is such a hot topic), I read it and was captivated. Being a recent convert to Catholicism, he certainly captured my attention with the way he presents the issues. Most Protestants will enjoy the book because it reafirms what they think the Church says. Catholics who are weak in their faith could easily be drawn out of the Church. Catholics who are strong in their faith will be challenged in the way issues are presented. Mr. White comes across as some one who truly wants to follow Christ and wants to share his understanding on the faith. After researching some of his footnotes(especially the early Church fathers) it became clear that he is very selective in what he presents on his behalf, and will mis-lead readers in what is true. I get the impression that because he has a relationship with Jesus and he's not a Cathlic, then the Catholic Church must be wrong and he is on a mission to prove it. Faith is a journey, Mother Theresa once said, "whatever your faith, be the best. If your a Buddist, be the best Buddist, a Muslim, then be the best Muslim, a Christian ,then be the best Christian". And to be the best Christian means to love one another, because all love comes from God. When we focus on teaching what divides us we are then unable to focus on what unites us, Jesus. God bless you all.

Kind And Diplomatic Yet Riveting:
I enjoy James White's books, and this one was no exception. I think one only need to look at the reviews of it to see that it certainly captivates. Catholics have different degrees of like or hate for it while Protestants (which I am) generally affirm it. And the irony is that White even discusses that in the book itself. Mr. White is NOT an 'anti-Catholic.' That term of derogation used by someone to discredit him before he starts should give objective persons pause. He is also clear that - as many of the Catholic reviewers here have done - many of them engage in circular argumentation. The Church wrote the Bible is the basic claim. White deals with that by pointing out the obvious: who wrote the OT since there was no functioning Church? He does not avoid issues, he deals with them. He also does it in a kind way, and he is clear that there ARE Christians in the confines of Rome as well as lost persons at home in the Protestant churches. I would add that most of those who have commented that he misrepresented view A or view B usually do so because it doesn't fit in with what their church, bishop, or church leader told them. White makes it clear that he will deal with those issues but they must be set up systematically. One more thing. One reviwer commented about White being one of the better Protestant apologists. Is it not ironic that one of the better known Catholics, Scott Hahn, REFUSES to debate White? White also mentions this...and I think it says all that needs to be said about the book. The truth will set you free.

Give credit where credit is due:
I have to give credit where credit is due. James White is one of the better Protestant apologists today. He has a unique talent of ignoring inessentials and engaging the true differences between Catholics and Protestants, which is sorely lacking on the Protestant side. Although this work is not exhaustive (I don't think it's meant to be), it is a good treatment from a Protestant perspective. Having said that, I must point out the many more negative aspects of the book. One of White's major problems in his work, and especially in public debates, is the fact that when he is encountered with an argument he cannot answer or refute, he will instead engage in off-the-cuff remarks, shifting the burden of proof, dancing and dodging the argument, and basically ignoring it. This doesn't reflect White's character, but instead the futility of the Protestant position vs. Catholicism. White is also one of those Protestant apologists who love to read into history his own beliefs. Although he isn't as bad as some others, he definitely loves to misquote the Church Fathers. White ignores the incredible amount of evidence against Protestantism from historical Christianity, and prefers to pick and choose out-of-context quotations which seem to support the Protestant position. 4 stars since White is such a gifted apologist, but subtract 2 to reflect his inability to admit when he is wrong. I'll be praying for his conversion (although this is highly unlikely), since he would be an unstoppable Catholic apologist.