Customer Reviews

Roman Catholicism

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(44)

 

 

Given all the extreme rhetoric of many of these reviews, I'd like to attempt to present something closer to a rational evaluation, largely borrowing from a review I wrote for another book sales website.

Lorraine Boettner's thorough and expansive treatment of Roman Catholicism has certainly become a classic since its first publication in 1962, widely disseminated and used as a basis for further critiques. Boettner's book is, however, also infamous. The book's infamy stems from its method of argumentation which combines various strategies: not only biblical exegesis, citation of Reformed creeds, quotations from Protestant authorities, and social analysis, but also innuendo, guilt by association, half-truths, and distortions of Roman Catholic teaching. Today, the book is also rather dated, failing to take account of the Second Vatican Council and other developments in 20th century Roman Catholic biblical and theological studies. For all its 450 pages, there is very little of continuing and helpful substance. It is, however, fun to read and bears witness to the polemics of an earlier era (one would wish!).

I do not have the space here to give a complete analysis of Boettner's shortcomings, but will cite some representative examples. Moreover, I do not speak here as an apologist for the Roman Catholic church. I am, in fact, like Boettner, a Reformed Protestant, though also a philosophy professor at a Roman Catholic University. It does not seem to me, however, that the cause of Protestant Christianity is well-served by inaccurate portrayals of other traditions or criticisms that only attack straw men. I write this review, then, on behalf of truth.

Boettner's first chapter combines various ends: defining Protestantism, attempting to associate Catholicism with communism, accusing Catholicism of developing various heresies and inventions, and painting a portrait of the supposedly sad state of Roman Catholic nations. Let's consider his discussion of the "heresies" and "inventions" which he implies are held to be part of the unchanging and infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and thus are "binding" upon all Catholics (pages 7-10).

In point of fact, very little of what he mentions would fall into that category. For instance, fasting on Fridays, the temporal power of popes, the withholding of the cup from the laity, and the use of Latin, have all changed since they were never a matter of Catholic "doctrine" per se. Moreover, Boettner distorts the implementation of many of these practices. For instance, the "imposition" of the Latin language by Gregory in AD 600 was done in order that the liturgy might be celebrated in the common language of the people (i.e., Latin), rather than in the Greek that was widely used up to that time. Likewise, while the discipline of celibacy was required for most priests since 1079, that is only true in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern rite, married priests have always been permitted and are to this day. Nor was the Bible ever "forbidden to laymen" by a Council of Valencia in 1229. For one thing, there was no council in Valencia in 1229 since it was under Islamic control. A local council with local authority, however, was held in Toulouse that year and it did temporarily (and quite understandably) limit the use of the Bible by roving lay-preachers who were spreading the Albigensian heresy.

As another example, we can consider Boettner's treatment of the mass in chapter eight. It is evident here that the book is quite dated, presupposing a eucharistic liturgy which hasn't been enacted (except rarely) in three decades (pages 169-171). Boettner's discussion of the Roman Catholic priesthood and the "sacrifice of the mass" gives little indication of any detailed knowledge about those doctrines, their histories, or their current status. For instance, he appears unware of centuries of debate among Roman Catholic theologians on whether the notion of the eucharistic "sacrifice" is to be taken in an "oblationist" or "immolationist" fashion. The "oblationist" view focuses more upon Christ's present priestly intercesssion before the Father. The "immolationist" view, on the other hand, focuses more upon Christ's presence upon the altar in a figure of death. While the latter view is certainly problematic for Protestants and the view against which we have traditionally objected, it is the former view ("oblationism") which has gained ascendency in the 20th century and thus must be addressed today. And I know of no Roman Catholic theologian who would agree with Boettner's description that the mass is a "re-crucifixion" of Jesus and few who would even accept the language of the mass as a "continuation" of the sacrifice of Calvary (page 174). Unfortunately, Boettner's almost complete lack of bibliographical references to Catholic authorities makes it difficult to know from where he drew his information.

I cite these few examples as representative of the ways in which Boettner's book falls short. As Protestants we certainly must maintain a faithful witness to Reformation truth, but that task is not advanced by careless scholarship, distortion of one's opponents, and slipshod argumentation. While there are some things of value in Boettner's classic book, I would advise those who are interested in understanding the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to refer to offical documents (the catechism, councils, encyclicals) and their prominent interpreters among recent theologians.

I read this book back in the early 90's when it was given to me by a fundamentalist co-worker. I was a lax Catholic at the time who sailed through 12 years of Catholic schooling without ever really delving deep into my faith. I read the book with interest, and an open mind, since I already began having some serious challenges with what my friend was teaching me about the "obvious contradictions" (as he saw them) between Biblical teachings and Catholic doctrine. I found many of Dr. Boettner's historical accusations so over the top, and distorted that I soon began to question his scholarship (not to mention his motives) on everything else.

My curiosity was piqued and I began to devour every book I could find that would shed some light on how the early Christians read and understood scripture (starting with William A. Jurgens', "Faith of The Early Fathers") . It took the good Dr. Boettner to get me interested enough to finally begin searching for the truth - and it led me deeper into the Faith I was raised in. Thanks Dr. Boettner!

I am a Christian firmly entrenched in the same general branch of Protestantism as the author (Calvinism), and I own several of his books. I would say this has to be one of his worst. I doubt he intended to write a diatribe; I am willing to be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. But, when searching for words to describe his treatment of Roman Catholicism, "charitable" doesn't come to mind. I'm not an expert on RC doctrine, but my impression is that the book repeatedly falls into the grave error of taking an aberration of one segment of Roman Catholicism or at a particular point in time, and painting the whole church with that brush. The net result is that even though he may have had the best of intentions, the book verges on slander at times. This is a shame for various reasons. I think there is a strong case that can be formulated against the Roman Catholic church -- it is more in need of reform than ever -- so why knock down straw men? If one's book is full of grotesque caricatures, one's legitimate points will not get the hearing they deserve. On top of that, the book is sorely out of date. I think it merits two stars, but even then only with reservation. I don't recommend this book to anyone who doesn't have a strong theological background already. Then, if you are in a position where you need to do extensive research of Roman Catholicism (as a Protestant) or of Protestant critiques of Roman Catholicism, then this book should probably be just one of many that you read. Don't take anything in this book as authoritative without corroborating it elsewhere first! Let us all pray for God's working to protect all the churches from sin and error. We all have a lot of house-cleaning to do.

Boettner's work has been on my shelf for some time, has been read more than once, and frankly it amazes me that the publishers will not update or edit the work. If it's such a wonderful seller, maybe they don't want to "mess with success".

The work reads well and lacks some of the caustic tone seen in these reviews. It lacks sound references in an academic sense - i.e., footnotes, bibliographies to specific editions, etc., typical for the time but unacceptable today. The reason? Because some of Boettner's facts are just wrong. Look at "Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions in the introduction. "Baptizing of bells" is presented so the reader thinks that bells are actually baptized, a simply unexcusable stretch of the facts in a book filled with such items.

Boettner consistently uses religious terms that mean different things to Protestants and Roman Catholics. This is the root of much of the book's misleading statements and a cause of this controversy. As Christians (you potential reader) I suggest you refrain from this book and look elsewhere. There are many better books (on both sides of the controversy!) That this one sells is largely due to the nature of the audience that reads it, an audience afraid to have its assumptions challenged and afraid to undertake the difficult labor of validating this work. Don't take this short-cut. Get James White's "The Roman Catholic Controversy" or on the other side try Karl Keating's book. Both of these writers do a good job of presenting the case as Christians ought to do, and include academically rigorous footnotes, bibiographies, etc. Those are good values for the money.

Pick a side, pick a better book. But don't pick this one. It is dramatically outdated and very often clearly incorrect regarding today's Roman Catholic church.

By way of disclosure, I'm Protestant clergy with a theology training from the University of Cambridge.

"Divine tradition is the writings of the fathers and doctors of the catholic church. Now God is infallible, so divine tradition should be also. But Boettner writes that Augustine, a prolific church father, wrote a book of retractions to his writings later in life. Another Church doctor, Alphonsus Liguori, in his book, the means of salvation and perfection, wrote that if God willed all the angels to go to hell, they would willingly do so to follow the divine will. This is absurd since God cannot make a contradiction."

In response to this post and this book, all I can say is that people need to do a better job of understanding what it is they are trying to condemn. First, Boettner misleads the reader to believe that Augustine "comes to his senses later in life". Maybe the reader should, himself, read Augustine to find the TRUTH. Boettner also attempts to build up a Catholic strawman and then knock it down. He does it well (who couldn't). In fact, if this was actually what the Church taught, I would be objecting myself. Furthermore, he is dishonest, which is a cardinal sin for a "scholar".

For starters, Catholic tradition is not the "writings of the fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church". The Church fathers bear witness to Apostolic Tradition, but they aren't in themselves "Tradition". Thus, a Church Father OR Doctor CAN err. Their writings are only accurate in as much as they agree with what the Church has always taught. This does not mean that our understanding cannot grow or expand. However, teachings cannot be contradicted (i.e. cold-blooded murder is never morally acceptable). The teaching on infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals. And that only extends to the Magisterium. Thus, a Pope declaring that one Bible is better than another one is not a contradiction on infallibility. "Faith and Morals" simply put are articles of the faith that are necessary for our salvation along with moral teachings that guide our faith.

Furthermore, the teaching on infallibility only states that the Holy Spirit will PREVENT the CHURCH from teaching error in these areas. It does not extend to INDIVIDUALS, except the Holy Father (in Ex Cathedra pronouncements). These rarely occur. Thus, both the author's accusations and all critics of Catholic (Apostolic) Tradition are unfounded. Remember, all you critics of Catholic Tradition, the words of St. Paul, "So then Brothers, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS we brought to you, whether by word of MOUTH or by LETTER" (2 Thess 2:15). Also, that the "CHURCH of the living God, (IS) the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH" (1 Tim 3:15). Thus, Scripture (which is a part of Tradition itself, said St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15) bears witness to the Church's teaching on Tradition. A teaching that was handed down by Christ and the Apostles in the once and for all, complete deposit of faith.

To sum it up, let us see what the Church teaches about it's own beliefs on Tradition. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (CCC, 80). "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a WRITTEN NEW TESTAMENT, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Traidition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various THEOLOGICAL, DISCIPLINARY, LITURGICAL, or DEVOTIONAL traditions (little "t"), born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition (Big "T") is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium" (CCC, 83). Thus, man-made traditions can be modified or abandoned, but Apostolic Tradition is objective truth revealed by God and cannot ever change. This is what the Church claims infallibility over. Don't take my word for it, do your research, and try reading something other than anti-Catholic sentiment if you ACTUALLY want to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.

"Roman Catholicism" by Loraine Boettner is easily one of the worst pseudo-histories/studies of the Catholic faith ever written.
Boettner most definitely did not do his homework, even when it may appear to the uninformed that he has.
He was among the worst of the anti-Catholic bigots of the 20th century and like anyone with a hateful prejudice he swallowed hook, line and sinker every lame and groundless piece of nonsense he could scrape up concerning the Church and the faith instituted by Jesus Christ.
He managed to get Church history, theology, doctrine, practices and beliefs wrong all at the same time. There is probably not a single page in this book that is not riddled with errors, but that is what one would expect from a misguided, misinformed and spiteful man with a terrible axe to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ.
If you are interested in a much higher level of reading about the Catholic Church I would recommend "Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church" by H.W. Crocker III for honest and accurate history, and for an explanation and discussion of Church doctrine, "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keating.
Don't waste your time and money on Boettner. If this is the best that anti-Catholic bigots can do, they should hang their heads in shame.

I'm sorry to have to write a bad review, but this book is the silliest attack on the Church there is in print. Any Catholic (or Protestant who is knowledgeable in the least about theology) could refute this book without much effort.

The case for Catholicism is made more by this book than by many modern Catholic apologists. Such slanderous attacks, having no foundation in truth, led me to consider that the Catholic Church is the one Church which Jesus promised would be so hated. This search led me to the deepest of convictions, and one which as a former Baptist I did not even want to consider, that the Catholic Church indeed is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostle's Creed and the Creed of the Council of Nicea.

If your view of the Catholic Church is formed upon this book, you will have a very warped and inaccurate view indeed. It is my prayer that people will not be deceived by the elementary- school level of presentation available through a reading of this book.

If it weren't for the misinformation and outright lies, I wonder if there would be anything left to this book. Boettner's depiction of Catholism and Catholics doesn't square with the practice or history of the Catholic faith. Go elsewhere for useful information. 1 star is too many in this case.

Being torn (and Protestant) I read this AND Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" and I have to say - Boettner would have gotten a firm "F" in a Divinity School for this. His Bibliography appears to be a random selection of books that may or may not have anything to do with the text. He makes claims that can be easily refuted by actually opening the texts he claims (very badly) to quote. Footnotes are required for a reason - if you take a quote, you must note the exact text and page. He relies on academic laziness in the hope that people won't actually go hunting and fishing to find some of his secondary heresay. If he doesn't botch the quote completely, he mis-attributes it or worse. His phenomenally bad grasp of Italian and Latin is the equivilent of claiming that because you eat at Taco Bell qualifies you to be Ambassador to Spain. His understanding of English is worse. This book has more mistakes than text. Simple examples:
1. The "chair" of St. Peter isn't a piece of furniture - it's like being a "Committee Chair."
2. To claim a the Bible was banned at a Church Council in Valencia in 1229. Problem: There never was a Church Council in Valencia, or that in 1229, Valencia was in Muslim control.
3. Boettner seems to confuse Connotative and Dennotative English ad-nauseum. He finds what he wants to find without regard to the context or intent of what the writer was trying to convey.

This is less an academic analysis of the Roman Catholic Church as a ranting blog with no accountability.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said something along the lines of, "Few people in America hate the Catholic Church, but many hate what they mistakenly think is the Catholic Church." There is a great deal of truth in Sheen's observation. Oppositions to the Catholic Church are often full of misrepresenations and misconceptions concerning its teachings and practices, such as the accusations that Catholics worship Mary or think the Pope is sinless. In some cases these misrepresentations may be deliberate, the result of hateful bigotry. More often, however, those who make such assertions have been unfortunately misled by anti-Catholic propoganda - propoganda like Lorainne Boettner's Bible of anti-Catholicism.

Whether Lorainne was himself misled or in fact deliberately misrepresented the Catholic Faith, his book, Roman Catholicism, is full of inaccuracies.

Here are some of his historical inaccuracies in his list of "Catholic Inventions":

Transubstatiation was not invented in 1215. It had been believed for over a thousand years prior to this. 1215, however, was the first time it was formally defined and given the name Transubstantiation.

Contrary to Boettner's claim, the Bible was not forbidden to laymen and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1229. The Bible could not have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which did not yet exist and would not for another several hundred years. At the Council held at Toulouse, France (which is certainly the council Boettner mistakenly thought was in Muslim occupied Valencia and called by that name), a inaccurate translation of the Bible published by an heretical sect (which claimed that there were two gods and that marriage was evil) was condemned.

The Sign of the Cross was practiced by Christians since before Tertullian wrote of it in 211 (not 300, as Boettner states), perhaps even since the time of the Apostles.

The worship of images was authorized in 786. In fact it was never authorized, as Catholics do not worship religious images anymore than the United States worships the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Rushmore, but merely use them as reminders of God and his followers or as aids in prayer. In 787, a council condemned the iconoclastic heresy which asserted that statues of Jesus were unacceptable. The council did not condone worship of such images, however.

Confession to a priest existed long before 1215. Cyprian, Origen, and others refer to it nearly a millenia earlier. Nor do Catholics go to a priest instead of to God for the forgiveness of sins.

Finally, the "Apocryphal books" (seven dueterocanonical books which Protestants do not accept as Scriptural) were not added to the Bible at the Council of Trent. Rather, Martin Luther had removed them, and the Council affirmed what had always been held - that they were truly books of the Canon of Scripture which was established definitively at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century.

These are only some of the inaccuracies contained in Lorainne Boettner's inaccurate, unreliable, and seriously misleading book, Roman Catholicism. It is unfortunate that many have been led into a false view of history and the Church by this book, and whether one is Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, nothing should justify going to it for information regarding the Roman Catholic Church.