New Resource Page on Roman Catholicism

Status
Not open for further replies.
R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark

Puritan Board Senior
In light of some recent developments I'm putting together a resource page on Roman Catholicism generally and the medieval church. It contains a select bibliography (that will grow) and links to articles and other resources on related topics.

Resources on Roman Catholicism

I hope it helps.

Blessi
 
I hadn't known Chemnitz could be purchased in those handsome hardcovers! Thanks for the tip!
 
I am glad to see that the resources are scholarly and historically accurate. Glad you did not include the book "The Two Babylons" which is full of historic inaccuracies. If we are going to dialogue and debate with Catholic thought, let's use the best not the worse resources.
 
R. Scott Clark,

As a Scotsman looking into the current controversies and discussions regarding the high profile conversions to Romanism in the USA, it seems to me that years of ecumenical works, be it moral and ethical, such as the Manhattan Declaration has watered down the key differences and 2 separate Gospels between the Christian faith and Rome. What part has the evangelical community played in making it 'easier' for Protestants to join Rome?






IN Christ
 
Hi Craig,


Bob Godfrey and I discussed this problem not long ago.

The Manhattan Declaration, like other such agreements, is certainly one of the several factors. Genuine ecumenical discussion is always welcome but I'm hard-pressed to think of any. Cardinal Cassidy's (ECT) dialogues with Colson, Neuhaus & co don't qualify as neither had ecclesiastical standing or qualification to conduct such discussions. Further, they gave away the Reformation store! The mainline (e.g., LWA) discussions aren't helpful because they do the same thing (evangelicals and liberals together). I don't know that Rome has ever held serious discussions with people who actually believe the Reformation confessions.

If we could distinguish between different spheres in God's providence and sovereignty in the world we might avoid some of these messes. I mean, if the evangelicals (and liberals) could see that we don't to cobble some equivocal theological statement together in order to justify working together on a social cause, then the pressure would be removed to make inappropriate theological statements.

People are clearly, if ironically, also going to Rome to look for certainty. Ignorant of the tensions and contradictions and even chaos in the history of the medieval church and blind or indifferent to the gross errors of Trent and post-Reformation (and counter-Reformation) Romanism, people are seeking what they imagine to be a stable source of authority and coherence over against what they see as evangelical and Protestant chaos. The truth is, however, they are going to have to choose between competing councils and popes just as much as Protestant have to choose between competing interpretations of Scripture. I rather trust the perspicuity of Holy Scripture over the murkiness of medieval and counter-Reformation tradition.

This quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC) that leads to Rome is ironic because the Reformation was, to a considerable degree, a reaction to the impossibility of spiritual and intellectual certainty created particularly between the 11th and 13th centuries (with roots in earlier centuries) in the Western church.

What most people don't know and what I'm still investigating is the degree to which the things we know as distinctively Roman beliefs and practices developed very late and over a short period of time. In the 9th century there were only two sacraments. By the 13th century there were seven and even then it's only really at Trent that Rome becomes the communion we know today.
 
Thank you for the resource. I have a simple question about Roman Catholic soteriology if I may ask it here. I have read in Trent that justification by faith alone is clearly and strongly condemned. I have been told by someone that the church has changed the position in a more recent document. Is this true?
 
Hi Bruce,

It is frequently claimed that Vatican II (early 1960s) "changed" the condemnations made in session 6 of Trent (1547). There is a volume, produced by mainline (liberal) protestants entitled, Justification By Faith: Do the Sixteenth-Century Condemnations Still Apply? that argues that they do not. The evidence, however, is quite clear that Vatican II made no such change to Roman dogma. Indeed, it is impossible for conciliar (e.g., Trent) Roman dogma to change officially this way and further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published c. 1994 makes it clear that the Roman dogma on justification has not changed.

The basis for the claim that Vatican II revoked the condemnations is the use of the phrase, "separated brethren." The question, however, is what that phrase means and the Vatican has produced documents in recent years to clarify the status of Protestant churches and it's clear that, whatever liberalizing move was attempted in Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have shut the door on it.

There are more essays to go up on the resource page and one of them deals with this question. I'll put it up when possible. Keep checking back.
 
R. Scott Clark said:
Hi Craig,


Bob Godfrey and I discussed this problem not long ago.

The Manhattan Declaration, like other such agreements, is certainly one of the several factors. Genuine ecumenical discussion is always welcome but I'm hard-pressed to think of any. Cardinal Cassidy's (ECT) dialogues with Colson, Neuhaus & co don't qualify as neither had ecclesiastical standing or qualification to conduct such discussions. Further, they gave away the Reformation store! The mainline (e.g., LWA) discussions aren't helpful because they do the same thing (evangelicals and liberals together). I don't know that Rome has ever held serious discussions with people who actually believe the Reformation confessions.

If we could distinguish between different spheres in God's providence and sovereignty in the world we might avoid some of these messes. I mean, if the evangelicals (and liberals) could see that we don't to cobble some equivocal theological statement together in order to justify working together on a social cause, then the pressure would be removed to make inappropriate theological statements.

People are clearly, if ironically, also going to Rome to look for certainty. Ignorant of the tensions and contradictions and even chaos in the history of the medieval church and blind or indifferent to the gross errors of Trent and post-Reformation (and counter-Reformation) Romanism, people are seeking what they imagine to be a stable source of authority and coherence over against what they see as evangelical and Protestant chaos. The truth is, however, they are going to have to choose between competing councils and popes just as much as Protestant have to choose between competing interpretations of Scripture. I rather trust the perspicuity of Holy Scripture over the murkiness of medieval and counter-Reformation tradition.

This quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC) that leads to Rome is ironic because the Reformation was, to a considerable degree, a reaction to the impossibility of spiritual and intellectual certainty created particularly between the 11th and 13th centuries (with roots in earlier centuries) in the Western church.

What most people don't know and what I'm still investigating is the degree to which the things we know as distinctively Roman beliefs and practices developed very late and over a short period of time. In the 9th century there were only two sacraments. By the 13th century there were seven and even then it's only really at Trent that Rome becomes the communion we know today.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the reply,

That's a great wee site there.








In Christ
 
I've spent a number of years studying Roman Catholicism and interacting with their latest defenders. Here's a source that has been most valuable:

David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura . This book is part of a three volume set. All three books are excellent (vol. 2; vol. 3) , but volume one is the best current treatment of sola scriptura in regard to refuting Rome's recent defenders. If I recall David King has participated on this forum. He is a virtual treasure chest of citations (with contexts!) of the church fathers.

I'm a bit biased here since I contribute to his website blog, but the live debates that Dr. James White has had with Roman Catholic apologists have also been very helpful. It's very interesting to hear an argument in an active exchange, and hear how Rome's defenders respond. They can't hide behind pages of written words in a live exchange. Dr. White has proven time and again that Roman Catholic apologetics fail when scrutinized. He was debating these guys long before the rest of us realized what was going on with their active proselytizing.
 
Thanks Dr. Clark. I did swim the Tiber for 10 years but swam back. PTL. I do recommend removing Boettner's Roman Catholicism though. I don't have a copy anymore but it is not respected by Roman Catholicsm and those tempted by Rome. It contains numerous oversimplifications and historical innaccuracies about Roman Catholicism. Better things have been written since. Boettner should have stuck to the doctrine of predestination.
 
I paused before adding Boettner for the reasons you mention. I also paused before adding Noll/Nystrom for similar reasons. Perhaps i should add some notes.

I'm grateful to God that yours was a round trip!
 
Christusregnat said:
It would be a great blessing to get Turretin's Necessity of our Secession from the Church of Rome translated....
Click to expand...
I agree with Adam above and want to also say:Thank you Scott for this resource it’s been 6 years since I left the Roman catholic church and became a Protestant. This I find very helpful. I liked the article “Which Church Would the Reformers Join Today? Avoiding a False Choice” Jun.12, 2012 by Michael Horton.
I particularly note the following statement from Horton.
“However, the men and women who risked their lives in the sixteenth century to defend the sufficiency of Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ would refuse the false choice between a chaotic Protestantism and a Roman Catholicism that still maintains the theology of Trent. (See, for example, the most recent Catholic Catechism.) It would be perverse to imagine that Luther or Calvin would find Rome more acceptable today than it was in their day. Even in the much-publicized “Joint Declaration on Justification,” it was the mainline Lutherans who surrendered their confessional convictions; Rome did not change any of its official positions. In any case, the Vatican has made it clear that this consultation in no way has any magisterial weight.
If anything, Rome is a more confusing place today. The magisterium tolerates views that contradict its official teachings—even on points that we share in the ecumenical consensus. In Rome today there are as many competing schools, sects, and the spectrum from fundamentalist to liberal, as in Protestantism. The only difference is the one doctrine that really matters to Rome: implicit faith in and obedience to the authority of the pope. And make no mistake about it: Anyone who does convert out of a desire to surrender responsibility for interpreting Scripture in exchange for the infallible certainty of an earthly teacher is making a very “Protestant” move. At least that first leap is a personal judgment and interpretation of Scripture, every bit as individual as Luther’s “Here I stand.” The decision to embrace any confession or ecclesiastical body is a personal commitment that involves (at best) one’s own discernment of the plain teaching of Scripture.”

I found the above very interesting. I know when I became a Reformed protestant in 2010 I renounced the pope and papal authority and Roman Catholicism and I embraced the Reformed protestant faith. I believe now as did John Calvin and all the Protestant Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the one comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung. I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I believe all glory and honor is given to God alone. I renounce Roman Catholicism, her pope and all her false teachings which are contradictory to the scriptures and that Our Lord gave us in His commands. It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope.
I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation. I submit in discipline to the Presbyterian Book of Confessions and I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Reformed Protestant Faith in tenets and doctrine and life. I believe in justification by faith alone. I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity. I embrace all the teachings of the Reformed Protestant faith and proclaim myself to be a Protestant. I believe being a Protestant means we protest heresy and false teachings which are contrary to and transcend the scriptures and we proclaim the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I proclaim as you do in the Gospel song above which is from the letter of Paul to the Ephesians 1: 4-6 (King James Version) “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” I praise God today that through His grace that he lavished on me with all wisdom and understanding, the true Gospel of salvation which is taught in the Reformed faith and it is because of that grace I am thankful to be among the elect , I am thankful I am now a Protestant.
The other articlle I enjoyed reading was" Discussion of the Necessity of Reforming the Church by John Calvin" I agree today with most of Calvins positions in this paper and I would say I became a Reformed Protestant becuse I see the church of Rome today not really changed at all that much since Calvins time.
 
Last edited:
R. Scott Clark said:
I paused before adding Boettner for the reasons you mention. I also paused before adding Noll/Nystrom for similar reasons. Perhaps i should add some notes.

I'm grateful to God that yours was a round trip!
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was trip I wished I had not made though. Broke a lot hearts going and coming. As difficult as it is for some I encourage people not to lose heart when somebody goes to Rome. They may be back !!!

I should have added that there is nothing wrong with listing the works as negative examples of friendly fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
where can i read about formation of Roman Catholicism online?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Peter
P
Charles Johnson
New Resource of Augustine's Soteriology
Replies
5
Views
774
Charles Johnson
Charles Johnson
T
Looking for resources on Catholicism in England from 1600-1650
Replies
0
Views
452
tolleLege
T
D
  • Locked
John Owen distinguishing between Romanism and Catholicism
Replies
0
Views
828
DTK
D
arapahoepark
  • Locked
Catholicism and Paganism
Replies
11
Views
2K
Ken
K
Back
Top