Customer Reviews

Church of Rome at the Bar of History

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I believe this to be a 5-star book, but I am concerned about who reads it. I can't imagine any Catholic reading this book and believing the material; unless you're a Catholic who is genuinely questioning the authority of your church this will only get your hackles up. Protestants who are strong in their faith don't need historical evidence to be convinced of their beliefs, so I am afraid that this book will only serve to poison your spirit against Catholic brothers and sisters.

To those very close to a Catholic: this book is immensely helpful in deciding what to believe. You are bomabarded constantly with Catholic claims to "catholicity"; that is, that Christ instituted only one church (naturally, the RCC) and that all Christians everywhere and for all time have believed exactly what the RCC says. Along the same lines, Reformation beliefs are johnny-come-lately's and that Protestants should return to the "real" church. This is the most difficult argument of Catholics to wrestle with, because Bible verses can be interpreted differently as can fruits of the Spirit but history is a fact.

Well, Webster blows the "catholic" argument out of the water. He has an easy job, because he doesn't have to show that Church Fathers would have been Protestant, merely that some beliefs of each father go against modern Catholicism. By quoting historical documents (which are extensively referenced), he shows that the early Church contained a mix of "Catholic" and "Protestant" beliefs (at best) or were entirely opposed to an idea like a papacy at the beginning. He admits that the doctrine of the Eucharist is the best supported historically, but even so, some authoritative writers explicitly supported views more like Calvin's on the topic.

I would say, then, that Webster succeeds in using his book to show that Reformation beliefs had support in the early Church and that the RCC is unjustified in dismissing Protestant beliefs as going against history, and that even some of its own beliefs contradict the statements of those it uses for support. Even if it does not convince, for whatever reason, a single Catholic, I am convinced that I should not be swayed by any claims of the RCC to sole ownership of history.

This book is a must read for those who are unaware of the actual extent to which historic church fathers disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church's claims on various matters of dogma. This is very important for a number of reasons: 1) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed a place as the only true legitimate church intended by Christ. 2) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that its doctrines were universally taught by early church fathers. 3) The Roman Catholic Church insists on adherence to its dogma as requisite for salvation.

William Webster does not solely rely on openly debatable or elusive scripture passages to make his case. More impressively, Webster takes a look at the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church "on its own turf" as he quotes from the early church fathers and demonstrates how they contradicted the teachings of the Roman Church. This is a powerful argument against a church which relies on the unanimity of consent of historical early Christian Church leaders as a basis for its own credibility and divine authority.

Roman Catholics who are honest seekers of historical truth regarding the claims of their own church will appreciate the non-combative, matter-of-fact manner in which historical facts are objectively presented in this book. This is definitely not an "in your face" anti-Catholic book. Non-Catholic Christians who question Roman Catholic claims to supremacy and having an unbroken, consistent chain of theological thinking and dcotrine throughout history will appreciate the informative, concise, and organized presentation of the real historical truth.

Webster begins the book establishing the debate between Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) as a basis for Christian teaching, versus scripture and "tradition." He then moves on to discuss the papacy, and how various dogmas such as Papal Infallibility, Marian Dogmas, the priesthood, Penance, the Eucharist, and Justification changed and evolved throughout the centuries. The book also contains excellent appendices and notes.

An excellent, informable resource and a must for anyone's apologetics library.

In the Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster demonstrates that Protestant ideas were not invented in the 16th century as some would suggest. Webster deals with four major concerns in his book: the authority of Scripture, church government, the Lord's Supper, and justification by faith alone; he quotes the church fathers on these important issues.To begin with, William Webster shows how Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. After all, Scripture was authoritative before any church council. From here, he shows that the first infallible council to determine the canon did not come until The Council of Trent (Webster lays out a multitude of reasons why The Council of Carthage was not considered "infallible," and how the Apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. A fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests). After this, Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith. He quotes many of the church fathers. St. Augustine stated: "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." He also examines the church fathers use of the term "tradition," and compares and contrasts it with the way the term came to be used in the Medieval Church. In the area of church government, Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church. He includes writings from the fathers on the meaning of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 showing that many believed the term was speaking of "faith" or "Christ". Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on. Webster also looks at beliefs about the eucharist in the early church. Although some of the church fathers said things that are irreconciliable wtih the Reformed position, there is also a tradition in the early church that is in blatant opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He provides quotes from the church fathers using the word "symbol" to describe the bread and wine. For example, Clement states, "The Scripture accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." He also provides Augustine's homily on John 6, in which Augustine interprets the passage figuratively: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." Webster goes on to show the development of Marian dogma within Roman Catholicism and how the Protestant view of justification has support in the writings of the church fathers. This book is definitely the most thorough Protestant apologetic available in the area of church history in the last decade. In it, he shows that Protestant ideas were present in the early church, yet he doesn't try to turn every church father into John Calvin (he doesn't look at the past with rose colored glasses). In the back of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Webster includes about 50 pages of primary source material from authorities in the chruch. This book is also "Catholic friendly" in that Webster, who was once a Roman Catholic, is not rude, sarcastic, or mean. I thank God for such a needed book.

There is a great deal of information in this book, but on some subjects not enough. Granted it would take a separate book on each subject to really address the issue, but a little more information would have been nice. One area I would have liked to have more information was on the beginnings and development of the priesthood, the meaning of "alter Christus," and how they all congeal in the Mass and Eucharist, etc. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the Roman Catholic Church. I would also recommend Mr. Webster's three volume series, Holy Scriptures: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. He details how the early chruch fathers relied on Scriptures, and not an oral tradition separate and distinct from Scriptures, as means for establishing doctrine.

An excellent introduction to the writings of the church fathers. A must read for Catholics and Protestants alike. Were the characteristic doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church taught and believed in the early church? William Webster proves from the patristic writings that such doctrines as auricular confession, the marian dogmas and papal infallibility did not originate in Scripture or the tradition of the early Christian church. The church of Rome is placed at the bar of history and she is found wanting.

If you have any interest in history or Roman Catholicism, you MUST read this book. The author couldn't be more informed, well studied, and passionate about the topic. I found myself excited to turn each page as I read this well cited account of Roman Catholicism.

It is a unclear whether or not the previous reader has even read the book...

1. Addressed in the book. See pp 10-11.
2. Maybe the reviewer should read the book. Webster states, "Some of the Fathers taught that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that the presence is spiritual, while others maintained that the elements are changed into Christ's body and blood and that his presence is physical." etc.
3. Addressed in the book. See pp 147-148.
4. See pp 9-11 etc...
5. See pp 5-6, 151, etc...
6. See pp 56-57... Obviously he has read the Epistle of Clement.
7. See pp 49-50.

In conclusion, having read the book and the review I don't believe the reviewer has ever read the book.

As a former Roman Catholic, turned agnostic, now Christian after studying the Bible for myself; this book misses the mark.

The author does a reasonable good job of trying to present basic Catholic Doctrine in a non-controversial manor. For the casual reader is it a good start. But for anyone who wants the truth presented without candy coating it, look elsewhere. Perhaps to avoid `controversy', or out of lack of knowledge, the author avoids mentioning well documented Catholic doctrine which fly in the face of the Bible.

Here are just a few examples:

On the role of the priest in forgiving sin, from a Biblical perspective, it is considered blasphemy for man to believe he can forgive sin (Read Mark 2:7). The author never mentions this fact.

In appendix 6, the author cites a letter from Pope Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople, expressing his concerns about the title of `universal' Bishop. Yet there are three letters where Gregory equates the title of `universal' bishop to that of antichrist (Register of Letters, Book V Letter 21, Book VII Letter 33 and 31).

The author makes no mention to the fact that most Protestant Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Wesley all considered the Roman Catholic Church and specifically the office of the papacy as the office of the antichrist. My issue is not with whether or not the author/reader agrees but the fact that it is never mentioned.

Other gems missing include quotes from the handbook entitled Dignity and Duties of the Priest by St. Alphonsus Liguori. Here is just a sampling of what you will find.

"... And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. ...
...Priests are called Vicars of Jesus Christ, because they hold his place on earth. "You hold the place of Christ," ...
... According to St. Ambrose, a priest, in absolving a sinner, performs the very office of the Holy Ghost in the sanctification of souls.

But the biggest surprise of all is that the author never mentions the fact that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a different Ten Commandments than what is written in the Bible! Even more astounding, the Roman Catholic Church claims it has the right to change the Ten Commandments which God wrote with His own finger. Yet these facts are never even mentioned in the book.

I wish there was a book I could recommend in its place. I can't. With the age of the Internet, you actually will gain more insight into Roman Catholic theology by searching through the online versions of the Catholic Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia. In most cases the Catholic Church does a better job of presenting the criticisms against itself than do Protestants/Evangelicals.

Mr. Webster takes a swing at reading the early Christians and the Church Fathers, which is commendable for a Protestant Christian, but he selectively and sparsely quotes from their writings to try to prove they supported Protestant teachings.

One example is his claim that St. Augustine taught sola scriptura. One quote from Augustine is given in the footnotes at the back of the book. However, Webster does not mention even one of the avalanche of quotes from Augustine where he praises Tradition, the authority of the Catholic Church, etc., which sink his claims about Augustine.

Also, though Augustine allegedly taught sola scriptura, later on in the book Augustine is teaching the truth of Purgatory! What a strange thing for a sola scriptura believer to do, right? Similarly, St. Jerome, who Webster alleges didn't think that the deuterocanonicals (aka the apocrypha) were inspired, also taught the belief in Purgatory! This is in spite of the fact that, Webster maintains, 2 Maccabees (one of the deuterocanonicals) contains the primary support for Purgatory. What were Jerome and Augustine thinking?

Mr. Webster's main argument rests on his own personal and erroneous definition of "unanimous consent". He asserts that this means that all the Fathers of the Church always agreed on matters of both Tradition and Scripture interpretation. This is a false definition. Unanimous consent refers to the moral unanimity of the Fathers in interpreting Scripture (not Tradition). Moral unanimity means some of them could (and did) disagree about some scriptural interpretation. Why didn't he research to see what this phrase actually meant before staking his entire claim on it?

It is about St. Thomas Aquinas, however, that Mr. Webster shows the level of his scholarship. Webster "summarizes" Aquinas' landmark work, the Summa Theologica, in six (six!) short sentences and then "concludes" that Aquinas does not teach that a Christian must have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved. This is like a modern-day scientist mischaracterizing the discoveries of Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, and then concluding that they were bad scientists. It is worse than irresponsible.

As another reviewer mentioned, Webster undercuts his entire thesis when he runs into Baptism. By his own admission, the early Christians, the direct disciples of the apostles themselves, immediately went off the rails and into error by teaching baptismal regeneration. All the Fathers also taught this; the Church taught it; Luther taught it; everyone got it wrong except Webster got it right (thank goodness!). If Christ's Church immediately fell into error on a fundamental issue of the faith like baptism, what else did the Church get wrong? How about the 27 canonized books that make up the New Testament? How do we know those are inspired and none others are? How about Jesus and the Father being declared "one in being" with each other at Nicaea in 325 AD? Etc.

But don't take my word for it or Webster's. Instead, I challenge you to go and read what the early Christians and Fathers wrote yourself--it is all freely available online on both Protestant and Catholic sites. Read Aquinas yourself and Augustine yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

Let's just take a few of the claims.

1) That the apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. Jerome included it in the Vulgate 11 centuries prior to Trent. The Orthodox Churches (who broke with Rome 5 centuries before Trent) accept these books. Almost all NT quotes of the OT are from the Septuagint, the earliest existing copies of these books. In fact, it was the Pharisees, in the their council of Jamnia, after the fall of Jerusalem, that rejected these books, precisely because they were used by christians

2) That the Early Church rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Perhaps the author should read the earliest Apostolic Fathers (i.e., the earliest Christian writings besides the NT, such Ignatius of Antioch). To one who wishes to understand, this doctrine is there.

3) "Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church". Scripture says that THE CHURCH is the foundation and pillar of the truth.

4) "Scripture was authoritative before any church council." This is laughable, and certainly indicative of the author's ignorance. The content of the New Testament wasn't finalized until the last decade of the 4th century, at the councils of Carthage and Hippo. However, the first Church Council on record is the Council of Jerusalem, Acts chapter 15. The criterion of the decision? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us". Certainly, scripture which had not been written was not authoritative.

5) "Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith". And the scriptural proof for this? Paul told the Thessalonians to pay heed to what had been delivered to them in writing and in word of mouth.

6) "Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church". It's unfortunate that he's never read the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (an early pope, died c. 96)

7) "Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on" Cyprian of Carthage, who died in 250 (80 years before the earliest Protestant assertion of the beginning of the Catholic Church), wrote, "Christ built the church on one man, and if a person is not in communion with him, can he really be called a christian?"

I have no doubt that those who wish to find reasons to attack the Catholic Church will love this. However, I would ask one thing; if the teachings of the Reformation are the true patristic teachings, and the disappeared for so many centuries, how can it be said that Christ led the Church? How can it be said that He's been with the Church if His central teachings disappeared? I, for one, could never accept such an impotent Christ.