What do you think?
Rate this book
The Roman Catholic Controversy
More than at any time in the past, Roman Catholics & evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements. And many evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Aren't we all saying the same thing in difference language? The Roman Catholic Controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and Scripture, the Papacy, the Mass, Purgatory, indulgences, and Marian doctrine. James White affirms that evangelicals and Catholics share common ground on some points. Yet there are crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. James White's ministry on the front lines of the Roman Catholic-Protestant debate has uniquely equipped him to write this book. It distills the strongest evidence for the Protestant position on justification by faith and the principle of Scripture alone. In an era when evangelicals seem eager to yield to Rome and set aside important differences. I'm grateful for this clarion reminder that the Reformation is not yet over. Dr. John Macarthur Senior Pastor Grace Community Church
270 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1996
28 people are currently reading
588 people want to read
About the author
James R. White
30 books487 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred forty moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto, London, and South Africa. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than thirty two years, and has two children, and one grandchild, Clementine.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred forty moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto, London, and South Africa. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than thirty two years, and has two children, and one grandchild, Clementine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
December 27, 2010
James White is a biased anti-Catholic protestant, who frankly is very confused. If you wish to truly know about the Catholic Church, and what it really teaches and believes, then why not go to the source?! The same way you'd read a book on Buddhism by a Buddhist, and not go to a Muslim for his perspective.
I suggest Dr. Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity for starters. You may also want to read books by, Frank Sheed, Fulton J. Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, and of course Pope Benedict XVI.
I suggest Dr. Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity for starters. You may also want to read books by, Frank Sheed, Fulton J. Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, and of course Pope Benedict XVI.
March 19, 2013
How I wish I could have stumbled upon this book (or one like it!) decades ago. Brilliant - and extremely dangerous.
I kind of think of Catholics the way I do Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses:
There we have people who claim to love their savior Jesus, the Bible, Heaven, God's morality, and the Church. Sounds wonderful doesn't it?
Then you find out a few years later that their Jesus, Savior, Bible, Heaven, and Church are not the same as yours. These New believer's only agreed with you until they got seriously educated in their religions OFFICIAL doctrine. Nasty eh?
The Big question is: Will Roman Catholic's make it to Heaven? It's a possibility - if they have a rebellious streak towards official doctrine and tradition. Sometimes being rebellious and stubborn is a wonderful thing. I have heard that Mother Teresa made some interesting stands against the Church. Sure would like to see her in Heaven - But did she love Mary, man's church traditions, and the Saints more than Jesus? I'm not sure.
My personal Biblical philosophy:
Did the thief on the cross make it to Heaven? Was he Catholic? OR Mormon?
Most religions would most likely disagree that the thief made it to Heaven, He just didn't DO ENOUGH. It was too simple to be effective.
But here goes: Luke 23:40-43..."Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong. Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "...today you will be with me in paradise."
This man made it to heaven - having only a one minute conversation with Jesus. No Popes, prophets, rituals, decrees, traditions, spiritual weddings or chants, (or purgatories and indulgences.) The best thing is that everything the thief said agreed fully with the ENTIRE Bible. You can run those few verses through the entire Bible and feel assured they ROCK!
The best part about this book by James White is the Catholic statements about ME. (well, not really me specifically...but in general.) Apparently I an Anathema. Many many times over. Cool eh? (look up Anathema on the web: Mostly it means I am unacceptable.)
in 1562 the 22nd session decree stated:
Canon 5 - If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema.
(tricky wording eh? fascinating)
Here's a fun statement by an infallible Pope Pius IX (Dec. 9, 1854)
"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."
Here's another: Pope Boniface VIII (Nov. 18, 1302)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I won't even bother to get into the bits about Mary being equal with Jesus. That's just too freaky!
This is a fun game for anyone: go through historical Catholic decrees and find out how often you are theologically Anathema. Then have a look at ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics together). The Catholics seem to forget these important statements given by the OFFICIAL church meetings. Weird eh?
WE should be very skeptical of any group who claims: "The Bible is just NOT enough! All our crazy rules and rituals must also be embraced...OR ELSE!"
I kind of think of Catholics the way I do Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses:
There we have people who claim to love their savior Jesus, the Bible, Heaven, God's morality, and the Church. Sounds wonderful doesn't it?
Then you find out a few years later that their Jesus, Savior, Bible, Heaven, and Church are not the same as yours. These New believer's only agreed with you until they got seriously educated in their religions OFFICIAL doctrine. Nasty eh?
The Big question is: Will Roman Catholic's make it to Heaven? It's a possibility - if they have a rebellious streak towards official doctrine and tradition. Sometimes being rebellious and stubborn is a wonderful thing. I have heard that Mother Teresa made some interesting stands against the Church. Sure would like to see her in Heaven - But did she love Mary, man's church traditions, and the Saints more than Jesus? I'm not sure.
My personal Biblical philosophy:
Did the thief on the cross make it to Heaven? Was he Catholic? OR Mormon?
Most religions would most likely disagree that the thief made it to Heaven, He just didn't DO ENOUGH. It was too simple to be effective.
But here goes: Luke 23:40-43..."Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong. Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "...today you will be with me in paradise."
This man made it to heaven - having only a one minute conversation with Jesus. No Popes, prophets, rituals, decrees, traditions, spiritual weddings or chants, (or purgatories and indulgences.) The best thing is that everything the thief said agreed fully with the ENTIRE Bible. You can run those few verses through the entire Bible and feel assured they ROCK!
The best part about this book by James White is the Catholic statements about ME. (well, not really me specifically...but in general.) Apparently I an Anathema. Many many times over. Cool eh? (look up Anathema on the web: Mostly it means I am unacceptable.)
in 1562 the 22nd session decree stated:
Canon 5 - If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema.
(tricky wording eh? fascinating)
Here's a fun statement by an infallible Pope Pius IX (Dec. 9, 1854)
"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."
Here's another: Pope Boniface VIII (Nov. 18, 1302)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I won't even bother to get into the bits about Mary being equal with Jesus. That's just too freaky!
This is a fun game for anyone: go through historical Catholic decrees and find out how often you are theologically Anathema. Then have a look at ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics together). The Catholics seem to forget these important statements given by the OFFICIAL church meetings. Weird eh?
WE should be very skeptical of any group who claims: "The Bible is just NOT enough! All our crazy rules and rituals must also be embraced...OR ELSE!"
August 18, 2025
Excellent introduction to the Roman Catholic-Protestant debate and a careful look at the current issues of tradition and scripture, sola scriptura, the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, Marian doctrine, and the heart of the Gospel (how man is "made right" with God).
To show that the modern Roman Catholic church today is not the same true apostolic church founded by Christ over 2,000 years ago, the author carefully cites official Roman Catholic church documents, Roman Catholic theologians, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in comparison with the Scriptures.
One of my favorite chapters is on justification, where Dr. White beautifully and clearly explains the difference between Rome's teaching of "infused righteousness" and the Biblical "imputed righteousness," the latter of which is how one--who is inherently unrighteous--can be declared righteous positionally in Christ. As he aptly put it: Faith alone saves, but a saving faith is never alone: it produces good works. The book clearly explains the nature of saving grace, man's utter hopelessness and helplessness apart from God's unmerited grace, and importance of Scripture alone as the infallible and sufficient source of truth on matters of faith and life.
To show that the modern Roman Catholic church today is not the same true apostolic church founded by Christ over 2,000 years ago, the author carefully cites official Roman Catholic church documents, Roman Catholic theologians, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in comparison with the Scriptures.
One of my favorite chapters is on justification, where Dr. White beautifully and clearly explains the difference between Rome's teaching of "infused righteousness" and the Biblical "imputed righteousness," the latter of which is how one--who is inherently unrighteous--can be declared righteous positionally in Christ. As he aptly put it: Faith alone saves, but a saving faith is never alone: it produces good works. The book clearly explains the nature of saving grace, man's utter hopelessness and helplessness apart from God's unmerited grace, and importance of Scripture alone as the infallible and sufficient source of truth on matters of faith and life.
July 15, 2024
This was heartily enjoyable. I really appreciate that James White doesn't beat around the bush or latch onto obscure Catholic dogmas to strike low blows with, but he addresses the central question of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church fundamentally understands the Gospel and believes it. Through topics of 'sola scripture', purgatory, the office of bishop of Rome, etc., White plainly submits that no, the Roman Catholic Church does not. Drawing on church councils, church fathers, and the Roman Catholic Church's own catechism, White provides an excellent source of apologetics for Christians engaging with Catholics and the undeniable truth that '...Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm...'
June 20, 2012
Mr. White would be correct in his assessment of the Catholic Church, if only he represented the facts as to what Catholics believe.
This book is another propagation of lies and it is mind blowing that any "Christian" publisher or "Christian" bookstore supports a blatant representation of disobeying the ninth commandment.
In an ironic twist..Mr. White's sister, Patty Bonds, converted to Catholicism...
Her conversion story is here: http://www.catholic-convert.com/commu...
This book is another propagation of lies and it is mind blowing that any "Christian" publisher or "Christian" bookstore supports a blatant representation of disobeying the ninth commandment.
In an ironic twist..Mr. White's sister, Patty Bonds, converted to Catholicism...
Her conversion story is here: http://www.catholic-convert.com/commu...
June 6, 2012
An excellent read. Although biased reviewers falsely equate disagreement with Catholic distinctives as anti-Catholicism, to read Dr. White's book proves this is not the case. White contrasts these distinctives to the Scriptures and church history in an effort to show the reader how the Roman Catholic church has strayed from orthodoxy. I highly recommend all of Dr. White's books.
June 24, 2015
An excellent primer on the distinctives between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and whether those distinctions even matter. As is seen in his other writings, White's background in public debates is evident in this book as it takes an easily followible form of logical construction. The author quotes primary source information throughout the text to show the beliefs of the opposing viewpoint, bringing a credence to his writing that might not otherwise have been noticeable. While the author tackles issues such as indulgences, Mass, and purgatory, the impetus of the writing is the heart of the Gospel and the peace with God that accompanies it.
May 20, 2019
One of the signs of a good teacher is their ability to bring material to their students in such a way that they enjoy, understand, and gain knowledge from what is being relayed. I always enjoy reading Dr. White's material. The Roman Catholic Controversy is no exception. Dr. White delves into the doctrines of Roman Catholicism accurately and lovingly comparing them to Scripture and sound Reformed Theology giving both Protestants and Catholics alike plenty to ponder regarding the discrepancies and differences in what we believe. I enjoyed this book and will keep a copy for future reference and referral.
April 29, 2016
A clear, precise explanation of Catholicism from a Protestant perspective. I would highly recommend this book to anyone consider Catholicism or in dialogue with someone about the differences between the two perspectives.
August 17, 2012
Outstanding book.
November 11, 2024
For full disclosure, I grew up within an evangelical tradition, and I thought I knew quite a bit about the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, etc. - but I must admit that I truly did not fully grasp the depth and scope of several Catholic doctrines until reading this book.
To say that reading about some of these doctrines was eye-opening and jaw-dropping would be an understatement.
To be fair, now that I have read about Catholic doctrines from the perspective of a Protestant author, I suppose I do need to add one or two books written by Catholic authors to my to-read list in order to achieve a balanced perspective.
I found this book to be incredibly helpful, and I would highly recommend it to others.
For my own future notes:
Page 34 - Catholic crosses typically depict Jesus on the cross while Protestant crosses typically depict the cross by itself.
Pages 42-43 - “Most of us have heard the Jewish term shalom and know it means "peace." But shalom means much more than that. Shalom is a full, rich term that speaks of wellness, health, a rightness of relationships. It does not mean merely the lack of conflict—it goes far beyond that. Shalom, for example, would never describe a cease-fire in wartime. In a cease-fire, shooting might break out at any moment. The uneasy calm would not qualify as shalom. In the same way, if our relationship with God is such that it might break down in the next instant, resulting in enmity between us and God once again, we do not have biblical peace.”
Page 45 - “The viewpoint that best defends its claim to authority rules the day. Note the words of the Council of Trent (1546)…The Roman Catholic Church claims the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture.”
Pages 46-47 - “Keating is correct: the basis for our belief in the inspiration of the Bible does directly impact how we go about interpreting the Bible.
If we believe the Bible is inspired on the basis of accepting the claims of authority made by the Roman Catholic Church, then we will obviously interpret the Bible in light of the teachings of Rome. From the very start, an external authority exists outside of Scripture that will determine what we "find" in Scripture. Rome's authority, then, becomes the foundation upon which all else rests.
Immediately we note circular reasoning: Roman Catholicism claims the final say in interpreting the Bible, yet it also points to Bible passages as the basis of its authority.”
Page 59 - “The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.”
Page 64 - “The Greek term used here, theopneustos, is most expressive. It is literally translated as "God-breathed" (as in the NIV), and it does not refer to the idea of taking merely human words and breathing something special into them. What is more, the text says it is the Scriptures, not the writers themselves, that are "God-breathed." Paul is here referring to the origin of the Scriptures, and insists in the strongest terms that they come from God himself. The foundation of Scripture, the fountain of divine revelation, is God the Almighty.”
Page 66 - “We see here, then, that Paul teaches the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean that the Scriptures are able to fully equip the man of God if not that they are sufficient for this task? If I am a store owner who can fully equip a hiker to hike the Grand Canyon—if I have the resources and abilities to provide everything he needs in the way of supplies, hiking gear, shoes, maps, food, etc.-does it not follow that I am a sufficient source of supply for the hiker? If he has to go next door to another shop for a few more things, and then to a third shop for some things that neither mine nor the other shop had, then none of us are sufficient to equip the hiker.”
Page 66 - “Rome teaches that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.”
Page 67 - “When engaged in debate with the Sadducees in Matthew 22, the Lord drew their attention to a passage of Scripture…This passage is often cited as evidence that the Lord was willing to base an argument on the words of the text. He was assuring us that God takes care of the Scriptures and protects them from wholesale corruption, and indeed the passage does indicate this very thing.
However, we should not miss the importance of the introductory phrase the Lord uses: "Have you not read (i.e., in the Scriptures), What was spoken to you by God..?" The Lord Jesus Christ held his hearers accountable for reading the Scriptures.”
Page 68 - “He launches a counterattack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God by their own traditions, specifically in this case with reference to the corban rule, whereby a man could dedicate his belongings to the Temple and not support his parents in their old age. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of Scripture and finds it wanting
It is vital to realize that the Jews viewed the corban rule as part of the "tradition of the elders." To them this was a divine tradition with divine authority. They did not simply view it as a "tradition of men," but as a concept revealed by God and passed down into the body of those teachings entrusted to the elders of the faith.”
Pages 74 - “Here is the three-part view of authority found so often in Catholic writings: the Scriptures, tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching power). Since the Magisterium defines the extent of the Scriptures (by defining the canon), claims sole right of interpretation of the Scriptures, tells us what is and what is not tradition, and defines doctrines on the basis of this self-defined tradition, in reality we see that the only one of the three "legs" of this system that is not defined by one of the others is the Magisterium itself. Because of this fact, the reasoning behind the often repeated Protestant assertion that the Scriptures are not the ultimate authority in Roman Catholic teaching is clear.”
Page 91 - “Now, Roman apologists may well say, "See, you've proven our point! You need an infallible interpreter to tell you what the Bible says because you are a sinful person, and you need a sinless, perfect guide to tell you what to believe!" Aside from the fact that such a concept is absent from Scripture, and is in fact countermanded by Scripture (did not the Lord Jesus hold men accountable for what God said to them in Scripture?), we need to observe that Rome has hardly solved the problem of fallible people. Once Rome speaks, the fallible person must still interpret the supposed infallible interpretation. As noted in the previous chapter, the element of error remains, no matter how much Rome may think it has been removed.
Indeed, beyond the problem of interpreting the infallible interpreter, you still have the fallible decision of following Rome's claimed absolute authority rather than Brooklyn's, or Salt Lake City's, or Mecca's, or whoever's. That remains a fallible decision, and the longing for those infallible fuzzies that come from turning your responsibilities over to an infallible guide remain as unfulfilled as ever.”
Page 95 - “Some have replied that our Jewish man living fifty years before Christ couldn't infallibly know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture.
Yet, as we have seen, Jesus held men responsible for the Scriptures and their teachings (Matthew 22:31). To say that such a person did not need to have an infallible knowledge, but only a sufficient knowledge-based upon the overall acceptance of God's people and the internal consistency and integrity of the Scriptures as a body—is to say nothing more than what Protestants say about all the Bible.”
Page 96 - “The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be delivered?
Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to everyone in the Church at Thessalonica.”
Page 118 - “The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the Church: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, He changes from direct address to the third person, "this rock," when speaking of Peter's confession.
He does not say, "Upon you, Peter, I will build my church." Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the étos (Petros), and the demonstrative pronoun preceding nétpa (petra), the confession of faith, on which the Church is built.
This statement is followed by the promise to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter at some time in the future, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future in tense. I Yet when we see this authority given in Matthew 18:18, it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily to him. It is conferred on all the Apostles, using the exact same language! regarding binding and loosing. If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other Apostles, as their superior, they are also forced to admit that the actual giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the Church.”
Page 123 - “The terminology used of the Pope reveals how deeply this desire is found in the heart of humankind. For example, the Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ on earth." A vicar is a substitute, as in the term vicarious. The Pope functions in the place of Christ as the earthly head of the Church as Christ is the heavenly leader. This idea at first sight provides a sense of security and assurance. But when one considers it in the light of biblical teaching, one is struck by the fact that the "Vicar of Christ" on earth, according to the Lord himself in John 14 and 16, is the Holy Spirit, not the bishop of Rome.”
Page 126 - “Roman Catholic theology separates sin into two main categories: venial and mortal. Theologian John Hardon defines venial sin:
An offense against God which does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace. It is called venial (from venia, pardon) because the soul still has the vital principle that allows a cure from within, similar to the healing of a sick or diseased body whose source of animation (the soul) is still present to restore the ailing bodily function to health.
On the other hand, mortal sin is:
An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul. Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creatures that causes grave injury to a person's rational nature and to the social order, and deprives the sinner of a right to heaven.”
Page 129 - “Sacraments, then, are "channels of grace," the means by which the grace of God is applied to individuals. According to modern Roman Catholic teaching, the Sacraments number seven: Baptism, Confession, Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction.”
Page 138 - “Note just a few of the available statements from the past:
Pope Innocent III (December 18, 1208): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved."
Pope Pius IX (December 9, 1854): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."
Page 148 - “One other item needs to be addressed to avoid confusion. I have often asked classes, "What is the biblical difference between the terms "righteousness" and "justification"? Often the responses center on seeing "righteousness" as a moral attribute, and "justification" as a legal thing. In reality, there is absolutely no difference at all between the two words as they are used in the Bible. In fact, there are not two different terms in the New Testament that are translated as the two words "righteousness" and "justification." There is only one term which is translated by both of these words. To be righteous is to be justified; to make righteous is to make just, and so on.”
Pages 156-157 - Martin Luther’s illustration of a dunghill covered in snow to explain the difference between justification and sanctification: “Luther was trying to explain how we are both justified and sinful at the same time. The dunghill is still a dunghill: but it is covered over with a blanket of pure snow. In the same way. the believer is not changed subjectively by justification, but is covered over with an "alien righteousness," the "righteousness of another," that being the righteousness of Christ.”
Pages 161-164 - The Catholic view of the Eucharist is jawdroppingly surprising.
Page 184 - “In more concrete terms, which have been carved out of centuries of the Church's reflection on revelation, there exists purgatory, in which the souls of the just who die with the stains of sins are cleansed by expiation before they are admitted to heaven. They can be helped, however, by the intercession of the faithful on earth…In discussing the sacrifice of the Mass, the Council of Trent said,
“Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it (the Mass) is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified."
Pages 187-188 - “The "treasury of merit" is a concept that developed long after the time of the Apostles and eventually became a source of great corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. The concept is that Christ had "excess merit"-beyond that required to bring about the salvation of humankind. Consequently, this excess merit goes into the treasury and is available through the Church to be given to those in need of it. It is important to realize that it is not only Christ's merit that is in the treasury. Mary, likewise, had more "merit" than was required for her salvation; therefore, her excess merit goes into the same treasury, adding to the superabundance of Christ's merit. But this is not all. The saints also had more merit than they personally needed to enter into heaven, so their excess merit is placed in the treasury along with that of Christ and Mary. The treasury of merit presents a mixture of the merit of Christ, that of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints. As the document puts it, "The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure. "
An indulgence, then, could be likened to a "withdrawal" of a portion of this merit and the application of it to the "account" of the person obtaining the indulgence.”
Page 193 - Catholics see 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 as a passage that teaches the concept of Purgatory…
“What is judged is the type of works the Christian has done. Sins and their punishments are not even mentioned. It is works that are judged and put through the fire, yet Rome teaches that it is the person who must suffer in order to be purified from the "temporal punishments" of sin. The point of the text is that if a person's works withstand the judgment, the person receives a reward. If not, the person suffers loss—not punishment—yet is saved, "but as through fire." The passage does not say the person goes through fire, is punished, or suffers to make atonement for sin. It simply says that the Christian's works are judged for their own merit, and if those works are found to be made of wood, hay, and straw, the works will be burned up and the person will receive no reward.”
Page 201 - In response to the Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless:
“Here Keating stretches the bounds of serious exegetical integrity past the breaking point. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle "kecharitomene." Does the term carry within it an entire doctrine unknown in the rest of the New Testament and unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke?
First, let's look at the root meaning of "kecharitomene," the Greek word "caritoo." Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines the usage of "caritoo" at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritoo "sinlessness." The term refers to favor-in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of caritoo is in Ephesians 1:6,
"... to the praise of the glory of His grace, which he freely bestowed (caritoo) on us in the Beloved." If the bare term caritoo means "sin-lessness," then it follows that the elect of God throughout their lives have been sinless as well.”
Page 208 - “Saints are not given latria, according to Rome. This would be doing just what the Protestants say Catholics are doing worshiping the saints. What, then, are Catholics doing when they "venerate" the saints?
Saints are rendered dulia. What is dulia? Robert Broderick defines it as follows:
Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence.
Dulia is differentiated from latria, though, according to Broderick, both are forms of worship. Latria is a "higher form" of worship than dulia. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of worshiping God alone, this refers to latria. We are, however, allowed to give dulia to others.
Hyperdulia is the highest form of dulia and is to be given to Mary alone. Broderick says,
Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest form of veneration short of adoration.”
Page 212 - Includes a Roman Catholic prayer to Mary that proclaims that she is more powerful than all hell together and that our salvation is placed in her hands.
Page 213 - Pope Leo XIII said, “Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.”
Page 216 - “St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that "when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour," and the reason he gives for it is, "that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness." Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son.”
To say that reading about some of these doctrines was eye-opening and jaw-dropping would be an understatement.
To be fair, now that I have read about Catholic doctrines from the perspective of a Protestant author, I suppose I do need to add one or two books written by Catholic authors to my to-read list in order to achieve a balanced perspective.
I found this book to be incredibly helpful, and I would highly recommend it to others.
For my own future notes:
Page 34 - Catholic crosses typically depict Jesus on the cross while Protestant crosses typically depict the cross by itself.
Pages 42-43 - “Most of us have heard the Jewish term shalom and know it means "peace." But shalom means much more than that. Shalom is a full, rich term that speaks of wellness, health, a rightness of relationships. It does not mean merely the lack of conflict—it goes far beyond that. Shalom, for example, would never describe a cease-fire in wartime. In a cease-fire, shooting might break out at any moment. The uneasy calm would not qualify as shalom. In the same way, if our relationship with God is such that it might break down in the next instant, resulting in enmity between us and God once again, we do not have biblical peace.”
Page 45 - “The viewpoint that best defends its claim to authority rules the day. Note the words of the Council of Trent (1546)…The Roman Catholic Church claims the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture.”
Pages 46-47 - “Keating is correct: the basis for our belief in the inspiration of the Bible does directly impact how we go about interpreting the Bible.
If we believe the Bible is inspired on the basis of accepting the claims of authority made by the Roman Catholic Church, then we will obviously interpret the Bible in light of the teachings of Rome. From the very start, an external authority exists outside of Scripture that will determine what we "find" in Scripture. Rome's authority, then, becomes the foundation upon which all else rests.
Immediately we note circular reasoning: Roman Catholicism claims the final say in interpreting the Bible, yet it also points to Bible passages as the basis of its authority.”
Page 59 - “The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.”
Page 64 - “The Greek term used here, theopneustos, is most expressive. It is literally translated as "God-breathed" (as in the NIV), and it does not refer to the idea of taking merely human words and breathing something special into them. What is more, the text says it is the Scriptures, not the writers themselves, that are "God-breathed." Paul is here referring to the origin of the Scriptures, and insists in the strongest terms that they come from God himself. The foundation of Scripture, the fountain of divine revelation, is God the Almighty.”
Page 66 - “We see here, then, that Paul teaches the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean that the Scriptures are able to fully equip the man of God if not that they are sufficient for this task? If I am a store owner who can fully equip a hiker to hike the Grand Canyon—if I have the resources and abilities to provide everything he needs in the way of supplies, hiking gear, shoes, maps, food, etc.-does it not follow that I am a sufficient source of supply for the hiker? If he has to go next door to another shop for a few more things, and then to a third shop for some things that neither mine nor the other shop had, then none of us are sufficient to equip the hiker.”
Page 66 - “Rome teaches that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.”
Page 67 - “When engaged in debate with the Sadducees in Matthew 22, the Lord drew their attention to a passage of Scripture…This passage is often cited as evidence that the Lord was willing to base an argument on the words of the text. He was assuring us that God takes care of the Scriptures and protects them from wholesale corruption, and indeed the passage does indicate this very thing.
However, we should not miss the importance of the introductory phrase the Lord uses: "Have you not read (i.e., in the Scriptures), What was spoken to you by God..?" The Lord Jesus Christ held his hearers accountable for reading the Scriptures.”
Page 68 - “He launches a counterattack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God by their own traditions, specifically in this case with reference to the corban rule, whereby a man could dedicate his belongings to the Temple and not support his parents in their old age. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of Scripture and finds it wanting
It is vital to realize that the Jews viewed the corban rule as part of the "tradition of the elders." To them this was a divine tradition with divine authority. They did not simply view it as a "tradition of men," but as a concept revealed by God and passed down into the body of those teachings entrusted to the elders of the faith.”
Pages 74 - “Here is the three-part view of authority found so often in Catholic writings: the Scriptures, tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching power). Since the Magisterium defines the extent of the Scriptures (by defining the canon), claims sole right of interpretation of the Scriptures, tells us what is and what is not tradition, and defines doctrines on the basis of this self-defined tradition, in reality we see that the only one of the three "legs" of this system that is not defined by one of the others is the Magisterium itself. Because of this fact, the reasoning behind the often repeated Protestant assertion that the Scriptures are not the ultimate authority in Roman Catholic teaching is clear.”
Page 91 - “Now, Roman apologists may well say, "See, you've proven our point! You need an infallible interpreter to tell you what the Bible says because you are a sinful person, and you need a sinless, perfect guide to tell you what to believe!" Aside from the fact that such a concept is absent from Scripture, and is in fact countermanded by Scripture (did not the Lord Jesus hold men accountable for what God said to them in Scripture?), we need to observe that Rome has hardly solved the problem of fallible people. Once Rome speaks, the fallible person must still interpret the supposed infallible interpretation. As noted in the previous chapter, the element of error remains, no matter how much Rome may think it has been removed.
Indeed, beyond the problem of interpreting the infallible interpreter, you still have the fallible decision of following Rome's claimed absolute authority rather than Brooklyn's, or Salt Lake City's, or Mecca's, or whoever's. That remains a fallible decision, and the longing for those infallible fuzzies that come from turning your responsibilities over to an infallible guide remain as unfulfilled as ever.”
Page 95 - “Some have replied that our Jewish man living fifty years before Christ couldn't infallibly know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture.
Yet, as we have seen, Jesus held men responsible for the Scriptures and their teachings (Matthew 22:31). To say that such a person did not need to have an infallible knowledge, but only a sufficient knowledge-based upon the overall acceptance of God's people and the internal consistency and integrity of the Scriptures as a body—is to say nothing more than what Protestants say about all the Bible.”
Page 96 - “The first thing we note is that this is a command to stand firm and hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be delivered?
Does he say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church, not just to the episcopate, not just to the bishops, but to everyone in the Church at Thessalonica.”
Page 118 - “The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the Church: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, He changes from direct address to the third person, "this rock," when speaking of Peter's confession.
He does not say, "Upon you, Peter, I will build my church." Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the étos (Petros), and the demonstrative pronoun preceding nétpa (petra), the confession of faith, on which the Church is built.
This statement is followed by the promise to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter at some time in the future, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future in tense. I Yet when we see this authority given in Matthew 18:18, it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily to him. It is conferred on all the Apostles, using the exact same language! regarding binding and loosing. If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other Apostles, as their superior, they are also forced to admit that the actual giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the Church.”
Page 123 - “The terminology used of the Pope reveals how deeply this desire is found in the heart of humankind. For example, the Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ on earth." A vicar is a substitute, as in the term vicarious. The Pope functions in the place of Christ as the earthly head of the Church as Christ is the heavenly leader. This idea at first sight provides a sense of security and assurance. But when one considers it in the light of biblical teaching, one is struck by the fact that the "Vicar of Christ" on earth, according to the Lord himself in John 14 and 16, is the Holy Spirit, not the bishop of Rome.”
Page 126 - “Roman Catholic theology separates sin into two main categories: venial and mortal. Theologian John Hardon defines venial sin:
An offense against God which does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace. It is called venial (from venia, pardon) because the soul still has the vital principle that allows a cure from within, similar to the healing of a sick or diseased body whose source of animation (the soul) is still present to restore the ailing bodily function to health.
On the other hand, mortal sin is:
An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul. Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creatures that causes grave injury to a person's rational nature and to the social order, and deprives the sinner of a right to heaven.”
Page 129 - “Sacraments, then, are "channels of grace," the means by which the grace of God is applied to individuals. According to modern Roman Catholic teaching, the Sacraments number seven: Baptism, Confession, Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction.”
Page 138 - “Note just a few of the available statements from the past:
Pope Innocent III (December 18, 1208): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved."
Pope Pius IX (December 9, 1854): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."
Page 148 - “One other item needs to be addressed to avoid confusion. I have often asked classes, "What is the biblical difference between the terms "righteousness" and "justification"? Often the responses center on seeing "righteousness" as a moral attribute, and "justification" as a legal thing. In reality, there is absolutely no difference at all between the two words as they are used in the Bible. In fact, there are not two different terms in the New Testament that are translated as the two words "righteousness" and "justification." There is only one term which is translated by both of these words. To be righteous is to be justified; to make righteous is to make just, and so on.”
Pages 156-157 - Martin Luther’s illustration of a dunghill covered in snow to explain the difference between justification and sanctification: “Luther was trying to explain how we are both justified and sinful at the same time. The dunghill is still a dunghill: but it is covered over with a blanket of pure snow. In the same way. the believer is not changed subjectively by justification, but is covered over with an "alien righteousness," the "righteousness of another," that being the righteousness of Christ.”
Pages 161-164 - The Catholic view of the Eucharist is jawdroppingly surprising.
Page 184 - “In more concrete terms, which have been carved out of centuries of the Church's reflection on revelation, there exists purgatory, in which the souls of the just who die with the stains of sins are cleansed by expiation before they are admitted to heaven. They can be helped, however, by the intercession of the faithful on earth…In discussing the sacrifice of the Mass, the Council of Trent said,
“Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it (the Mass) is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified."
Pages 187-188 - “The "treasury of merit" is a concept that developed long after the time of the Apostles and eventually became a source of great corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. The concept is that Christ had "excess merit"-beyond that required to bring about the salvation of humankind. Consequently, this excess merit goes into the treasury and is available through the Church to be given to those in need of it. It is important to realize that it is not only Christ's merit that is in the treasury. Mary, likewise, had more "merit" than was required for her salvation; therefore, her excess merit goes into the same treasury, adding to the superabundance of Christ's merit. But this is not all. The saints also had more merit than they personally needed to enter into heaven, so their excess merit is placed in the treasury along with that of Christ and Mary. The treasury of merit presents a mixture of the merit of Christ, that of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints. As the document puts it, "The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure. "
An indulgence, then, could be likened to a "withdrawal" of a portion of this merit and the application of it to the "account" of the person obtaining the indulgence.”
Page 193 - Catholics see 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 as a passage that teaches the concept of Purgatory…
“What is judged is the type of works the Christian has done. Sins and their punishments are not even mentioned. It is works that are judged and put through the fire, yet Rome teaches that it is the person who must suffer in order to be purified from the "temporal punishments" of sin. The point of the text is that if a person's works withstand the judgment, the person receives a reward. If not, the person suffers loss—not punishment—yet is saved, "but as through fire." The passage does not say the person goes through fire, is punished, or suffers to make atonement for sin. It simply says that the Christian's works are judged for their own merit, and if those works are found to be made of wood, hay, and straw, the works will be burned up and the person will receive no reward.”
Page 201 - In response to the Catholic doctrine that Mary was sinless:
“Here Keating stretches the bounds of serious exegetical integrity past the breaking point. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle "kecharitomene." Does the term carry within it an entire doctrine unknown in the rest of the New Testament and unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke?
First, let's look at the root meaning of "kecharitomene," the Greek word "caritoo." Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines the usage of "caritoo" at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritoo "sinlessness." The term refers to favor-in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of caritoo is in Ephesians 1:6,
"... to the praise of the glory of His grace, which he freely bestowed (caritoo) on us in the Beloved." If the bare term caritoo means "sin-lessness," then it follows that the elect of God throughout their lives have been sinless as well.”
Page 208 - “Saints are not given latria, according to Rome. This would be doing just what the Protestants say Catholics are doing worshiping the saints. What, then, are Catholics doing when they "venerate" the saints?
Saints are rendered dulia. What is dulia? Robert Broderick defines it as follows:
Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence.
Dulia is differentiated from latria, though, according to Broderick, both are forms of worship. Latria is a "higher form" of worship than dulia. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of worshiping God alone, this refers to latria. We are, however, allowed to give dulia to others.
Hyperdulia is the highest form of dulia and is to be given to Mary alone. Broderick says,
Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest form of veneration short of adoration.”
Page 212 - Includes a Roman Catholic prayer to Mary that proclaims that she is more powerful than all hell together and that our salvation is placed in her hands.
Page 213 - Pope Leo XIII said, “Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.”
Page 216 - “St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that "when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour," and the reason he gives for it is, "that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness." Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2012
This book did more towards steering me towards Catholicism than any I have read in a long time. Protestants who are debating about crossing the Tiber will certainly get their bathing suits on after reading this jewel. Between White and de Sales I am almost ready to sign up.
January 22, 2009
Quite good.
January 31, 2019
James R. White's The Roman Catholic Controversy seems oddly titled. I managed to see his idea of the controversy to be a willingness on the part of some Protestants, and even Evangelicals, to minimize the importance of the theological distance between Rome and Reformed. I would guess that those who see that as a controversy would not be in need of being convinced by this book. What the book does aim to do is put Roman Catholic beliefs logically outside of the Gospel as defined by the New Testament. Some of his arguments are more persuasive than others, but ultimately I feel the book lacked the ability to bring about a change of mind in someone who is more open-minded toward Rome than he.
I was especially alarmed by chapter three of the book in which it states that since the New Testament speaks of a Gospel of peace, and Catholics do not believe that one can be certain of his status before God as one who is eternally secure at any moment prior to departing this earth, then the Catholic faith cannot bring peace of mind, and thus cannot truly be in keeping with the Gospel. This to me is not a solidly Biblical argument, and to initiate one's critique of Catholicism in such a less than scholarly manner does not lend much credibility to the author. He is essentially also throwing any non-Calvinist believers under the bus along with Catholics here, though he's not willing to follow his logic to the point of stating that.
I also question his trust in the clarity of the Scriptures with regard to the Gospel - what is required to be saved. If it is so clear, why can so many scholarly and well-meaning people disagree about it? But to be as invested in sola scriptura as he is requires one to see the Bible as clear, able to interpret itself, and self-authenticating. His attempt to paint the Catholic view of authority as being the one truly guilty of circular reasoning seems weak.
His section on the Catholic view of development of doctrine is likewise feeble, but interesting in the light of Pope Francis's teachings that appear to reverse the Church's prior teachings on capital punishment. I was drawn into reflection on this based on the article by Monica Migliorino Miller in the December 2018 issue of The New Oxford Review. If anything makes the unquestioned authority of the church seem to be a doctrine ready to topple, it is the reckless teaching of Pope Francis. And speaking of the papacy, the book seems to bring its strongest case against the theology of the papacy. White brings up several convincing points in the New Testament that would make one question this stance of the Catholic Church.
I could go on. Though there are a couple good arguments he makes against the Catholic Mass as a sacrifice, he doesn't seem to deal with John 6 very convincingly. The theology of justification isn't handled well by him. He is not able to show persuasively that all the passages dealing with it are speaking of forensic justification that is imputed and not speaking of the infusion of Christ's righteousness in those who are justified. If the just shall LIVE by faith, that means a bit more than just having a legal slight of hand going on in one's heavenly accounts. He shows the weaknesses of extreme Mariology in terms of Biblical evidence against it. He also pokes a pretty big hole in some of the beliefs about purgatory.
But I see two problems that make the book less than capable of warning his audience away from Rome. First, he claims that the church has authority to teach, but isn't willing to invest it with any Holy Spirit guided guarantee to be able to teach the truth. He is willing to give that guarantee to individuals, but not to the church as a whole. Secondly, I just never sense anywhere in the book that he has any admiration or love for any Roman Catholic. If I felt he were trying out of love for misguided people to steer them toward the truth, I would be more drawn to his arguments. Instead, I sense an eagerness to shoot down the tricksters who are trying to toy with his Gospel of peace.
I was especially alarmed by chapter three of the book in which it states that since the New Testament speaks of a Gospel of peace, and Catholics do not believe that one can be certain of his status before God as one who is eternally secure at any moment prior to departing this earth, then the Catholic faith cannot bring peace of mind, and thus cannot truly be in keeping with the Gospel. This to me is not a solidly Biblical argument, and to initiate one's critique of Catholicism in such a less than scholarly manner does not lend much credibility to the author. He is essentially also throwing any non-Calvinist believers under the bus along with Catholics here, though he's not willing to follow his logic to the point of stating that.
I also question his trust in the clarity of the Scriptures with regard to the Gospel - what is required to be saved. If it is so clear, why can so many scholarly and well-meaning people disagree about it? But to be as invested in sola scriptura as he is requires one to see the Bible as clear, able to interpret itself, and self-authenticating. His attempt to paint the Catholic view of authority as being the one truly guilty of circular reasoning seems weak.
His section on the Catholic view of development of doctrine is likewise feeble, but interesting in the light of Pope Francis's teachings that appear to reverse the Church's prior teachings on capital punishment. I was drawn into reflection on this based on the article by Monica Migliorino Miller in the December 2018 issue of The New Oxford Review. If anything makes the unquestioned authority of the church seem to be a doctrine ready to topple, it is the reckless teaching of Pope Francis. And speaking of the papacy, the book seems to bring its strongest case against the theology of the papacy. White brings up several convincing points in the New Testament that would make one question this stance of the Catholic Church.
I could go on. Though there are a couple good arguments he makes against the Catholic Mass as a sacrifice, he doesn't seem to deal with John 6 very convincingly. The theology of justification isn't handled well by him. He is not able to show persuasively that all the passages dealing with it are speaking of forensic justification that is imputed and not speaking of the infusion of Christ's righteousness in those who are justified. If the just shall LIVE by faith, that means a bit more than just having a legal slight of hand going on in one's heavenly accounts. He shows the weaknesses of extreme Mariology in terms of Biblical evidence against it. He also pokes a pretty big hole in some of the beliefs about purgatory.
But I see two problems that make the book less than capable of warning his audience away from Rome. First, he claims that the church has authority to teach, but isn't willing to invest it with any Holy Spirit guided guarantee to be able to teach the truth. He is willing to give that guarantee to individuals, but not to the church as a whole. Secondly, I just never sense anywhere in the book that he has any admiration or love for any Roman Catholic. If I felt he were trying out of love for misguided people to steer them toward the truth, I would be more drawn to his arguments. Instead, I sense an eagerness to shoot down the tricksters who are trying to toy with his Gospel of peace.
May 9, 2025
As I have recently been reading about the Catholic church and it's doctrine, I naturally wanted to ready this book, since James White is at the forefront of the anti-Catholic group of Protestants. I have watched/listened to most, if not all, of his debates with Catholics likewise. What I have found, nothing has changed in over 30 years since he started debating Catholics and writing this book. His arguments are largely the same, without change. The only difference between 30 years ago and now, he has become increasingly angry in his interaction with Catholics.
Now, the core of my issues with James White (hereafter JW) and this book is this: the crux of his arguments is centered around Sola Scriptura. JW asserts that Sola Scriptura (hereafter SS) is a true doctrine, quoting Paul's letter to Timothy. From there then goes after Catholic doctrine after that. Now, while that is not a bad approach, there is a problem with his argument. He asserts that SS is true, but doesn't provide a good positive case for the doctrine. More specifically, he does not, then or now, offer an argument of the scripture proving the doctrine of SS is true. Does the Bible actually teach SS? This is a question I have yet to find an answer. Of all the debates I have watched, no protestant can provide a sufficient argument that the Bible teaches SS. JW did not provide this in the book, nor has he done so in the last 30 years (insofar as I have watched his content).
A few additional things about my issues with the book. JW only deals with official Catholic teaching about 5-10% of his citations. The other 90-95% of the citations were from Theologians. Now, in Protestantism, that is fine and normal. However, this is not how the Catholic church works. They have official teaching and dogma, and the church's theologians do not hold ultimate authority. This path of dealing with Catholic doctrine is disingenuous. He looks at them from Protestant SOPs, instead of dealing with their doctrine view Catholic SOPs. I was shocked, to be honest, that in this book that JW actually cited official Catholic doctrine via some from the Council of Trent and the Catechism. This was actually the first time I have seen him use those citations to deal with what they say. So JW 29 years ago was better than JW of today.
The other main thing, which I hear all the time from Protestants, especially reformed folks, that justification by faith *is* the gospel. Justification by faith is *not* the gospel. JW accuses Catholics of having a different gospel, when he himself has another gospel. The reformed gospel. If justification by faith=the gospel, then this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. If JW's argument for being Protestant is one of the best, as is purported, then Protestantism is cooked.
Now, the core of my issues with James White (hereafter JW) and this book is this: the crux of his arguments is centered around Sola Scriptura. JW asserts that Sola Scriptura (hereafter SS) is a true doctrine, quoting Paul's letter to Timothy. From there then goes after Catholic doctrine after that. Now, while that is not a bad approach, there is a problem with his argument. He asserts that SS is true, but doesn't provide a good positive case for the doctrine. More specifically, he does not, then or now, offer an argument of the scripture proving the doctrine of SS is true. Does the Bible actually teach SS? This is a question I have yet to find an answer. Of all the debates I have watched, no protestant can provide a sufficient argument that the Bible teaches SS. JW did not provide this in the book, nor has he done so in the last 30 years (insofar as I have watched his content).
A few additional things about my issues with the book. JW only deals with official Catholic teaching about 5-10% of his citations. The other 90-95% of the citations were from Theologians. Now, in Protestantism, that is fine and normal. However, this is not how the Catholic church works. They have official teaching and dogma, and the church's theologians do not hold ultimate authority. This path of dealing with Catholic doctrine is disingenuous. He looks at them from Protestant SOPs, instead of dealing with their doctrine view Catholic SOPs. I was shocked, to be honest, that in this book that JW actually cited official Catholic doctrine via some from the Council of Trent and the Catechism. This was actually the first time I have seen him use those citations to deal with what they say. So JW 29 years ago was better than JW of today.
The other main thing, which I hear all the time from Protestants, especially reformed folks, that justification by faith *is* the gospel. Justification by faith is *not* the gospel. JW accuses Catholics of having a different gospel, when he himself has another gospel. The reformed gospel. If justification by faith=the gospel, then this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. If JW's argument for being Protestant is one of the best, as is purported, then Protestantism is cooked.
April 28, 2020
Though this book was written many years ago, in the time in which we find ourselves in, we still have Protestants lax with regards to doing ministry alongside of Roman Catholics (RC) whether in the area of abortion ministry or in other ministries. Our Protestant history and heritage has been forgotten.
I believe this book should be bought and read by all my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. As one who came out of Catholicism many years ago as a young boy and missing out on confirmation, I was appalled learning about doctrines the RC Church teaches and still holds to; such things involved knowledge in which I had little understanding of or knew nothing of at all. I appreciate Dr. White changing my mind on how RC’s view the saints and Mary, and I appreciate the citations of RC sources to make his points. This book has further solidified for me why I cannot in good conscience do ministry alongside of RC’s. In essence, Rome teaches a different gospel message than what Scripture teaches and teaches many things which runs contrary to God-breathed Scripture itself.
I believe this book should be bought and read by all my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. As one who came out of Catholicism many years ago as a young boy and missing out on confirmation, I was appalled learning about doctrines the RC Church teaches and still holds to; such things involved knowledge in which I had little understanding of or knew nothing of at all. I appreciate Dr. White changing my mind on how RC’s view the saints and Mary, and I appreciate the citations of RC sources to make his points. This book has further solidified for me why I cannot in good conscience do ministry alongside of RC’s. In essence, Rome teaches a different gospel message than what Scripture teaches and teaches many things which runs contrary to God-breathed Scripture itself.
April 30, 2019
Very good book on Roman Catholicism. White is a good debater. He avoids inflammatory language and conspiracy theories, and strives to accurately represent his opponents position through their own writings. His writing style is solid, though not often elegant. He clearly and consistently uses the Gospel as the grid for determining what issues deserve the most attention. And he combats unsound teaching by consistent contextual exegesis of Scriptures. I would definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in the topic.
March 20, 2023
I heartily recommend this book both for Protestants who want to learn more about the teachings of Catholicism and for Catholics who want to hear some of the best arguments from the Protestant side. White has clearly done his homework and takes great pains not to misrepresent Catholic doctrine, quoting liberally and extensively from Catholic sources and letting them speak for themselves. So much so that I would wager that most who accuse him of misrepresenting haven’t read the book. He does a great job focusing on the key issues, devoting just enough time to cover them without drawing the book out too long, and manages to avoid being unnecessarily offensive while also not pulling any punches.
December 5, 2022
An excellent overview of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism
June 3, 2021
I would not recommend this book. There are likely better defenses of Protestant doctrine that more accurately represent the teaching of the Catholic Church. James White certainly misrepresents the Church’s teaching in a few subtle way. Although he cites many primary sources, he then expounds on them in a way that is not consistent with the Church’s own explanations of her teaching. Whether White does this intentionally or due to misunderstandings of his own is irrelevant.
December 29, 2025
Incredibly helpful in dissecting what exactly Roman Catholics and Protestants do not have in common— and boy, are the differences both significant and consequential.
I would’ve preferred a bit more content on addressing things like Rome’s claims to apostolic succession and whether or not there was true unity/ uniformity amongst the Church Fathers on issues like the Eucharist, but those are just some nit-picky things. Overall, really enjoyed this book.
Praise God for His love and finished work on the cross, once and for all.
I would’ve preferred a bit more content on addressing things like Rome’s claims to apostolic succession and whether or not there was true unity/ uniformity amongst the Church Fathers on issues like the Eucharist, but those are just some nit-picky things. Overall, really enjoyed this book.
Praise God for His love and finished work on the cross, once and for all.
August 29, 2017
As a Reformed Protestant who grew up in a Roman Catholic household, I am grateful for the many good things that my Roman Catholic background gave, such as a good sense of morality and a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible. However, I have since come to know the truth of the Gospel and my desire for other Roman Catholics is the same.
In witnessing to Roman Catholics, however, we need to know what exactly are those issues divide us, and why they matter. While it is uncommon, there are some Roman Catholics out there who understand the issues well enough to pose a challenge when witnessing to them. Some Evangelicals have even been persuaded into joining Rome. The same might have happened to me had it not been for Dr. James R. White and Alpha and Omega Ministries. He has had dozens of exchanges with Roman Catholic clergy and apologists. This book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is the fruit of his extensive ministry in defending the Biblical Gospel from Rome's claims. It makes the issues clear and helps to focus in on what exactly those important differences are and how to biblically defend the central doctrines of the Reformation, such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
I highly recommend this book to Protestants who are involved in witnessing to Roman Catholics, be they friends, relatives, co-workers or even just passing acquaintances. I also recommend it to Roman Catholics who want an explanation as to what Protestants differ with them on, and hear an apologetic as to why.
In witnessing to Roman Catholics, however, we need to know what exactly are those issues divide us, and why they matter. While it is uncommon, there are some Roman Catholics out there who understand the issues well enough to pose a challenge when witnessing to them. Some Evangelicals have even been persuaded into joining Rome. The same might have happened to me had it not been for Dr. James R. White and Alpha and Omega Ministries. He has had dozens of exchanges with Roman Catholic clergy and apologists. This book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is the fruit of his extensive ministry in defending the Biblical Gospel from Rome's claims. It makes the issues clear and helps to focus in on what exactly those important differences are and how to biblically defend the central doctrines of the Reformation, such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
I highly recommend this book to Protestants who are involved in witnessing to Roman Catholics, be they friends, relatives, co-workers or even just passing acquaintances. I also recommend it to Roman Catholics who want an explanation as to what Protestants differ with them on, and hear an apologetic as to why.
March 27, 2020
This is a helpful and lay-accessible introduction to some of the key differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. It's written from an unabashedly conservative Protestant viewpoint, and the author makes no attempt to hide his premise: that Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants are preaching two different gospels. Those who agree with that premise will appreciate this book; those who don't will, quite naturally, have some serious bones to pick with Mr. White. Those who are unsure would be advised to read this book for themselves.
It is a major strength of this book that the author endeavors to present Roman Catholic doctrine fairly and accurately. He engages with the decrees of church councils (primarily but not exclusively Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II), papal encyclicals, and works by significant Catholic theologians and apologists. His interaction with medieval/scholastic theologians is less substantive; for instance, there is no mention of Aquinas, much less figures such as Lombard or Anselm. Some more emphasis here would, I think, strengthen his case; however, it should be observed that this book is aimed at layman and apologists, not scholars and academics. Although White approaches each issue from a Protestant perspective (which, again, is or isn't an issue depending on one's own convictions), he has clearly made a genuine and significant effort to be informed about Roman Catholic theology, and for that he is to be commended.
In outlining differences between these two opponents, White has two audiences at mind. This book is not just aimed at Roman Catholics. It's also aimed at Protestants who are ignorant of Roman Catholic theology. This is another significant strength of the book. White has no desire to see Roman Catholicism rejected on the basis of straw men, and he handily takes Protestants to task for buying into shallow and reductionist stereotypes. He also implicitly supports a pastoral approach to the matter by noting that, despite the very real and serious differences, he firmly asserts the real possibility of believers within the Roman church - a possibility for which some Protestants unfortunately will not allow.
For White, the fundamental difference between Rome and Protestantism is over the issue of authority. Protestants assert the self-evident and self-asserting authority of Scripture; one of White's central theses is that Rome's ultimate argument is in its own self-evident and self-attesting authority. Rome is the final arbiter; it sets the terms of debate and then answers how it wishes. In essence, the concept of Sola Scriptura represents the primary dividing line between Rome and its detractors. All of the other differences flow out of this: Rome's view of tradition, the papacy, justification, the mass, purgatory, and Mary all emerge from its claim to be the sole authoritative teacher and interpreter of Scripture. Likewise, Protestantism's rejection of Roman views on these issues stems from a rejection of Rome's claim to authority. Why? In the end, Roman theology leads to a different gospel, and one that does not provide the peace and assurance of the Protestant gospel. (As an aside, it is worthwhile reading White's comments in light of classic Reformed statements on assurance by figures such as Luther, Calvin, and the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism; it's also worthwhile to note Bellarmine's comments on the significance of this issue as a point of division.)
This book is not without its flaws. As mentioned above, it is not aimed at laymen and not scholars, which is both a strength and a weakness. White remarks several times that various issues cannot be addressed at length, and the book is not intended to be exhaustive in any sense. Nonetheless, some issues receive surprisingly little attention, such as Catholic eucharistic doctrine. In light of the centrality accorded to the Eucharist in Roman theology (and readily observed in encyclicals by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI), I would have expected the author to spend some time on the issue. Likewise, while he spends time addressing exegesis and textual issues on numerous hotly-debated passages, the disagreement over James 2 is relegated to a footnote. And while he makes passing reference to this, he should have (in my opinion) spent more time dwelling on the ambiguity and evasiveness that is a consistent feature of Roman Catholic argumentation.
I would also point out some minor disagreements that I have with White's theological presentation itself. Most notably, he leaves the door open to some valid counter-attacks in his hermeneutic of "authorial intent" and "Biblical word usage". A strong sense of Holy Spirit authorship allows room to find meaning in Biblical passages beyond what the human authors realized or intended - something Peter himself acknowledges in 1 Peter 1. Likewise, Protestant theologians readily acknowledge the importance of carefully defining terms in ways that don't necessarily accord with Biblical usages, such as the term "regeneration", defined in Protestant systematic theologies in a precise sense not really identical to its usage in Titus 3:5. Bavinck helpfully addresses the issue of "dogmatic formulations" in Vol. 4, pg. 589-90 of his Reformed Dogmatics. This undercuts White's method of arguing against Rome's latria/dulia distinction, among other things, and it would be better here to acknowledge that this is an *invalid* use of a *valid* argumentation technique. Protestants define terms more carefully than Scripture. Protestants allegorize and Protestants make note of implicit Scriptural allusions to true doctrines (or, at least, they should!) - note the Westminster Confession on deducing truths from Scripture "by good and necessary consequence". However, we do so with final recourse to the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit, and not to the authority of Rome. White misses an opportunity to highlight the work of the Holy Spirit and its vital importance in making his case for Protestantism as a Biblically faithful alternative to Rome's departures from the gospel.
Overall, this was a helpful and very worthwhile read. For all Protestants who desire to witness to Catholic friends and to engage with them charitably and winsomely, I would recommend this book along with Sproul's "Justification by Faith Alone" as useful and well-written guides.
It is a major strength of this book that the author endeavors to present Roman Catholic doctrine fairly and accurately. He engages with the decrees of church councils (primarily but not exclusively Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II), papal encyclicals, and works by significant Catholic theologians and apologists. His interaction with medieval/scholastic theologians is less substantive; for instance, there is no mention of Aquinas, much less figures such as Lombard or Anselm. Some more emphasis here would, I think, strengthen his case; however, it should be observed that this book is aimed at layman and apologists, not scholars and academics. Although White approaches each issue from a Protestant perspective (which, again, is or isn't an issue depending on one's own convictions), he has clearly made a genuine and significant effort to be informed about Roman Catholic theology, and for that he is to be commended.
In outlining differences between these two opponents, White has two audiences at mind. This book is not just aimed at Roman Catholics. It's also aimed at Protestants who are ignorant of Roman Catholic theology. This is another significant strength of the book. White has no desire to see Roman Catholicism rejected on the basis of straw men, and he handily takes Protestants to task for buying into shallow and reductionist stereotypes. He also implicitly supports a pastoral approach to the matter by noting that, despite the very real and serious differences, he firmly asserts the real possibility of believers within the Roman church - a possibility for which some Protestants unfortunately will not allow.
For White, the fundamental difference between Rome and Protestantism is over the issue of authority. Protestants assert the self-evident and self-asserting authority of Scripture; one of White's central theses is that Rome's ultimate argument is in its own self-evident and self-attesting authority. Rome is the final arbiter; it sets the terms of debate and then answers how it wishes. In essence, the concept of Sola Scriptura represents the primary dividing line between Rome and its detractors. All of the other differences flow out of this: Rome's view of tradition, the papacy, justification, the mass, purgatory, and Mary all emerge from its claim to be the sole authoritative teacher and interpreter of Scripture. Likewise, Protestantism's rejection of Roman views on these issues stems from a rejection of Rome's claim to authority. Why? In the end, Roman theology leads to a different gospel, and one that does not provide the peace and assurance of the Protestant gospel. (As an aside, it is worthwhile reading White's comments in light of classic Reformed statements on assurance by figures such as Luther, Calvin, and the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism; it's also worthwhile to note Bellarmine's comments on the significance of this issue as a point of division.)
This book is not without its flaws. As mentioned above, it is not aimed at laymen and not scholars, which is both a strength and a weakness. White remarks several times that various issues cannot be addressed at length, and the book is not intended to be exhaustive in any sense. Nonetheless, some issues receive surprisingly little attention, such as Catholic eucharistic doctrine. In light of the centrality accorded to the Eucharist in Roman theology (and readily observed in encyclicals by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI), I would have expected the author to spend some time on the issue. Likewise, while he spends time addressing exegesis and textual issues on numerous hotly-debated passages, the disagreement over James 2 is relegated to a footnote. And while he makes passing reference to this, he should have (in my opinion) spent more time dwelling on the ambiguity and evasiveness that is a consistent feature of Roman Catholic argumentation.
I would also point out some minor disagreements that I have with White's theological presentation itself. Most notably, he leaves the door open to some valid counter-attacks in his hermeneutic of "authorial intent" and "Biblical word usage". A strong sense of Holy Spirit authorship allows room to find meaning in Biblical passages beyond what the human authors realized or intended - something Peter himself acknowledges in 1 Peter 1. Likewise, Protestant theologians readily acknowledge the importance of carefully defining terms in ways that don't necessarily accord with Biblical usages, such as the term "regeneration", defined in Protestant systematic theologies in a precise sense not really identical to its usage in Titus 3:5. Bavinck helpfully addresses the issue of "dogmatic formulations" in Vol. 4, pg. 589-90 of his Reformed Dogmatics. This undercuts White's method of arguing against Rome's latria/dulia distinction, among other things, and it would be better here to acknowledge that this is an *invalid* use of a *valid* argumentation technique. Protestants define terms more carefully than Scripture. Protestants allegorize and Protestants make note of implicit Scriptural allusions to true doctrines (or, at least, they should!) - note the Westminster Confession on deducing truths from Scripture "by good and necessary consequence". However, we do so with final recourse to the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit, and not to the authority of Rome. White misses an opportunity to highlight the work of the Holy Spirit and its vital importance in making his case for Protestantism as a Biblically faithful alternative to Rome's departures from the gospel.
Overall, this was a helpful and very worthwhile read. For all Protestants who desire to witness to Catholic friends and to engage with them charitably and winsomely, I would recommend this book along with Sproul's "Justification by Faith Alone" as useful and well-written guides.
August 11, 2013
In this book, James White states: What is the gospel? What does the Bible teach about the gospel? What does Rome teach about the gospel? If there is a difference, what is it? Where does it come from? Everything else pales into significance.
One of my favorite sections was in the last chapter, Sola Gratia, in a section titled "What about peace with God?" White discusses reasons to reach out to the Roman Catholic in order to become a "messenger of life" in case "he does not know the peace that comes from being justified by God's grace through faith".
One of my favorite sections was in the last chapter, Sola Gratia, in a section titled "What about peace with God?" White discusses reasons to reach out to the Roman Catholic in order to become a "messenger of life" in case "he does not know the peace that comes from being justified by God's grace through faith".
September 20, 2010
Excellent source for those who wish to learn more of Catholic theology in relation to Christian theology...good read!
September 3, 2011
Probably one of the best books on the false teachings and heresies within the Roman Catholic institution.
October 9, 2012
Good book on the differences between biblical Christianity and Catholicism.
July 15, 2013
Excellent rebuttal of the Roman Catholic apologetic.
June 21, 2016
Excellent, informative primer to Roman Catholic Vs protestant debate!
March 7, 2016
An excellent introduction to the fundamental problems with Roman Catholic theology, easy to read but thorough enough to give to a serious Roman Catholic believer.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews