Customer Reviews

Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

WOW! What a book! I love a fair, balanced, charitable debate on doctrine. So many times one reads what "We" have to say about "Them" complete with advice on how to convert them. This book is not like that. Here the Catholic and Evangelical both speak in open dialogue. At times the reader must stretch, as the authors did, to understand other points of view. At times one can feel the tension dripping through the pages of text, but both men stay on target as much as they are able. This book took great discipline to produce and is a gift to both Catholics and Evangelicals. One word of advice needs to be given to Catholic readers. While the Catholic position can be offered with a certain amount of clarity, evangelical theology is not as easy to articulate. Some evangelical denominations might lean more toward the Catholic point of view on certain issues (like eternal security). All in all this was one of those books I just could not put down until it was finished. It was better than TV.

Has someone close to you converted? Perhaps a son or daughter left the Catholic Church to become Evangelical. Or perhaps a brother or sister married and became Catholic. This book is ideal to help bring peace and understanding: the Catholic will come to understand the biblical basis of Catholic traching and come to appreciate the Evangelical's love for Christ and the Bible; the Evangelical will be able to jettison false stereotypes of Catholics and come to respect them as Bible Christians. This is made possible by a frank yet charitable exchange of views which avoid debate and biting attacks for an honest presentation pf both sides. May this be a step forward toward true Christian unity based on truth and love.

McCarthy admits up front, in his foreword, that both he and Waiss had one aim: to convert the other. That the book is published by an evangelical publishing house testifies to the fact that Waiss failed; that the book is not titled "Letters that Converted a Catholic Priest" testifies to the fact that McCarthy failed.

Who won the debate is more a question of readers' preconceptions than anything else. Catholics will be unconvinced by McCathy's arguments, and few Protestants will be moved by Waiss's somewhat bland presentation.

Of the two, McCarthy is much more aggressive, and in many ways, much more rational. But there is a mystical element in Catholicism that doesn't mix well with pure rationalism. Recall that after consecrating the host in Mass, priest speak of the "Great mystery of faith."

At the heart of the book is the question of authority: both accept the Bible as an authority, but evangelicals stop there, where as Catholics see Tradition and the Church as on equal footing as the Bible, comprising together the Word of God. Much of the book, then, revolves around Waiss trying to show how the Church's extra-Biblical notions (i.e., those not specifically detailed in the Bible, such as the papacy, Mary's Immaculate Conception, etc.) are, in some way, Biblically based while McCarthy chips away at Waiss's arguments. The tables turn from time to time, especially discussing "sola scriptura," but by and large, it's a game of "Prove it from the Bible."

As such, McCarthy and Waiss toss one phrase (or a derivative) at each other quite often: "No where in the Bible do we find X." McCarthy fills in the variable with Papal authority, Marian devotion, the importance of Tradition; Waiss replaces "X" with the notion of "sola scriptura," the Trinity, and a couple of other ideas. With the exception of "sola scriptura," Waiss's contention seems to be that McCarthy and evangelicals are essentially "guilty" (my term, not his) of the same thing they accuse Catholics of: incorporation of extra-Biblical doctrines. Waiss could have pushed McCarthy a bit harder on this point, I think, for he doesn't even mention a host of non-Biblical based notions that "sola scriptura" evangelicals accept: Sunday worship, non-observance of Jewish holidays (i.e., no where in the Bible does it explicitly say that followers of Jesus are to stop observing the Jewish festivals), Easter, and Christmas come to mind.

This shows the Protestant notion of wanting to have its theological cake and eat it, too. Protestantism accepts the early Church councils' decisions about the New Testament canon, the proper day of Christian assembly, the appropriateness of celebrating Jesus' birth and resurrection, but most denominations (especially evangelicals) are unwilling to accept the Catholic Church's continuing authority. This is one of the paradoxes of the Protestant movement, which necessarily implies that the Church started off correctly, but somewhere got tangled up in a mess of legalism and false belief. Sadly, questions like "At which point?" and "Why would God let such a thing happen despite his promise to the contrary?" aren't mention in the book. It leaves me feeling that Waiss pulled some of his punches.

On the other hand, McCarthy demolishes some Waiss's arguments in support of Catholic theology. His handling of whether Jesus had half-brothers (i.e., whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life and whether "brothers" in the New Testament should be translated "cousins," as the Church maintains) is well done, for example.

As I mentioned earlier, who won the debate depends on readers' preconceptions. As a non-Christian skeptic, I found the debate to be a draw. This is because "Letters" is a debate about the tenants of a religion based on a self-contradictory book, a notion neither McCarthy nor Waiss would take into account. For example, is one saved by faith alone or by faith and works? It depends on where you look in the Bible. Did Saul/Paul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear a voice or not? It depends on which chapter of Acts you read. Does the bread and wine become Jesus' actual body? It depends on how you read a couple of different NT passages. With such a flawed starting position, a draw is the best outcome either participant could hope for.

When such contradictions arise, the great literal/figurative differentiation arises. Indeed, much of the book also seems to be an argument as to whether or not to interpret this or that passage literally or figurative, with each side accusing the other of taking the passage out of context.

On the other hand, it is refreshing to see debate that doesn't often (though sometimes, to a slight degree) slip into personal insults. While many Protestants (and this almost always includes fundamentalists, and often includes evangelicals) think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Anti-Christ and many Catholics regard Protestants as heretics, McCarthy and ____ keep things civil the whole time.

One final criticism: the length precluded truly in-depth discussion, and many of McCarthy's and Waiss's comments go unanswered.

Overall, I would say it's an interesting read for the simple fact of seeing to opposing views clearly (though perhaps too succinctly) presented.

Pastor Jim McCarthy and Fr. John Waiss made an admirable effort to engage each other not only on a polemical level, but on a human level and as men of faith. They discuss the great issues which divide Evangelicals from Catholics: Scripture - Tradition, who has teaching authority, how one obtains salvation, the meaning of Last Supper and the relation of the Christian to Mary, angels and saints. In a culture like ours, with its reliance on sound bites and quick answers, a book like this is quite remarkable. It's like diving into ice water after a siesta. Not for the timid. One small disappointment: McCarthy chose to conclude with a taunt: "Your unquestioning loyalty to Rome, however, makes me question if you can interpret Scripture objectively..." But I guess that underscores the fact that it will ultimately take something much greater than human effort to unite us as Christians.

As a formal Roman Catholic who has been Methodist for twelve years, I have refuted many misconceptions from evangelicals over the Roman Catholic Church. This book it fair and balanced because both authors are experts in their branch of the Christian faith, and they are given a chance to express their views on such issues as God's word, Ruling Authority, Salvation, Worship, and praying to Mary, Angels, and Saints. Both men get heated at times but always expressed brothery love during their exchanges. I thought that this book was fair to both branches of the Christial tree. My only complaint is that both men did not have time to answer all the questions between members of the two faiths.

This is an excellent book for understanding the basic differences between Catholic and Evangelical beliefs and the sources and logic behind those beliefs. It is by no means comprehensive but is an in-depth overview. It presents the views of both sides accurately and according to their beliefs. In almost every other book on this subject, the authors from one side or another present and refute what they believe to be the beliefs of the other side and end up refuting beliefs not embraced by the other. That does not occur in this book since each author presents his own beliefs and is given the opportunity to refute misconceptions that the other person holds concerning those beliefs.

I am Catholic and gained a great deal of knowledge and respect for the Evangelical beliefs. It did not convert me. After reading this book twice, I am more firmly committed to the Catholic faith. I also loaned this book to a good friend of mine who is Evangelical. He told me that he also gained a great deal of knowledge and respect for Catholic beliefs but It did not convert him and he feels more firmly committed to his Evangelical faith.

I would have given this 5 stars if it wasn't for the occasional derogatory remarks made by Mr. McCarthy towards the Catholic Church, its beliefs, and its members. It seems difficult for him to say "Catholic Church" and frequently refers to it as simply "Rome" in an attempt to make the Church seem foreign, remote, and not a church.

Try to ignore Mr. McCarthy's anti-Catholic side comments and strive to understand the differences and more importantly the beliefs we hold in common.

I am a recent convert from Evangelical Christianity to the Catholic Church. I read James McCarthy's previous book, The Gospel According to Rome, in a desperate attempt to find a refutation of Catholic exegesis of Scripture before my entrance into the Church.So when I had a chance to buy this book I read it with interest. James McCarthy still does not refute Catholic interpretation of scripture but he and Fr. John honestly express their differences in a charitable way. This book will definitely help both faith traditions better understand each other.

I am about 3/4 of the way through this book and I have to say-although the format and concept are promising-the book was less than satisfying. I do not like admitting it, but I felt that Mcarthy trounced Waiss on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. In other areas Waiss made a good defense, particularly baptism and the Eucharist and of course the Catholicity of the church fathers on these points, although frankly there is a lot more that he could of done here. I felt the Waiss was sometimes too generous and 'charitable' in places where protestant doctrine is totally at odds with the historical record of how the apostolic fathers actually worshipped and how they believed. On the other hand, I find myself really shocked by how easily Mccarthy was able to take apart Waiss' arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary. When scripture failed to support or even seems to contradict this teaching, Weiss relies on all kinds of wierd analogies and fuzzy wuzzy pictures that might do for explaining the faith to a five year old, but didn't arise to the scholarly challenge that Mccarthy presented.

In several places, instead of making a rational defense of some Catholic doctrine, Waiss encourages Mccarthy to "pray about it", as if to concede the indefensibility of his position. He did better on the other Marian doctrines, but failed to cite the numerous apostolic fathers who (over and over again) call Mary the New Eve. Why? I found this book frustrating in some places (where I knew a much stronger argument for the Catholic position could be made) and downright unsettling in others (where the Catholic position seemed hard to defend). The book felt incomplete most of all and it seems to me that incompleteness of this sort always favors the minimalism of protestantism rather than the catholicity of the Catholic Church.

The fatal error that Waiss made from the begining was in effectivelly conceding the priniciple of sola scriptura, not explcitly (he denies it) but implicitly by trying to rely so much on scripture as if scripture contained all christian doctrine, something that is neither probable in itself, nor stated anywhere in scripture nor consistent with the writings of the church fathers on this issue. He ought to have emphasized from the begining that the Church was over 300 years old before the New Testament was even formally canonized and that the very men (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp) whom the apostles instructed in the early faith and who (like the apostles) were martyred in the early persecutions left writings which specifically adress those points of doctrine that Protestants deny and affirm these fathers Catholic position, even using the adjective "catholic" to distinguish the apostolic church from the gnostic churches. Having said this though, I still found the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity rather weak, although I'm loathe to say it.

I'll give the priest and evangelical credit, they both laid it on the line as to what they believed and didn't believe. Father John Waiss and evangelical Jim McCarthy started their dialogue as friends and apparently somehow ended as friends when it was over. In between, they were very frank over the theological differences. I think at the beginning, there was some hope by either party of converting the other to his point of view; but that diminished as they saw the gulf that separated their points of view on such things as how salvation is attained, the basis for the authority of Rome, Mary's role in the Catholic church, the priesthood, Catholic Tradition.

I thought that Jim was on the offensive more than John because of the role of Tradition in the Catholic Church; John only believes what is in the Bible, whereas Jim believes that Tradition and the Bible are equal partners in Christian belief. John did attack Jim's belief in Sola Scriptura, the belief that only the Bible is trustworthy for core Christian beliefs. That is where the discussion of Tradition entered in. John asked several times to see where Tradition was written down, and Jim did not really answer him directly on that. There was some talking past one another in these debates, by both parties, and that was one example.

John was patient, and projected sincere emotion for his beliefs, while Jim was more academic and incisive, letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. John, as a matter of fact said that he (John) was about the heart and that Jim was about the head. That's probably an oversimplification, but not too far off the mark.

I was raised Catholic and became a born-again, reformed evangelical some years ago. I know both sides of the argument, but learned quite a bit from this book anyway. I don't think there was a winner or loser. I think the readers of this book will be winners. It is a chance to clearly see what both sides think. It probably won't convert you to the other camp, but you will gain a better understanding of the other camp. May God bless both of them and their friendship in Christ.

Having read McCarthy's Gospel According to Rome, I expected more strawmen and one sided debates. Fr. Waiss did a very good job defending the Catholic faith, and Jim McCarthy also did a nice job and was charitable. I still dont like his assumptions of Catholics not being Christian, but that is his perogative. A very useful book.