Once a Catholic (Paperback)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

A clear and simple presentation of the differences between Roman Catholic tradition and the teachings of Scripture. Use this sensitive, thoroughly biblical guidebook for personal reference or as a gift to Catholic family members and friends.

Product Details

• Paperback: 168 pages
• Publisher: Harvest House Publishers (May 1, 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1565070453
• ISBN-13: 978-1565070455
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.1 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (21 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #977,006 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Wildly Inaccurate Portrayal of Catholicism, December 23, 2001

By A Customer

It's hardly suprising that Tony left the Catholic Church given his limited (and often incaccurate) understanding of Catholicism.

For a more honest treatment of Catholicism from a Protestant, check out R.C. Sproul. Or even better--go to the horse's mouth and read 'The Faith of Our Fathers' by Cardinal Gibbons.

17 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Lapsing into Gnosticism, January 1, 2004

By	Christian Book Reviews "www.christianbookrevi... (Philadelphia, PA United States) - See all my reviews

The deluge of books published in the last few years by former Evangelical Protestant pastors converting to the historic Churches raises an interesting question - what about those going in the opposite direction? What is their take on the issues that divide Christians? Tony Coffey, a former Catholic turned Evangelical Protestant evangelist, intends such a response in Once a Catholic but succeeds only in defining a narrow ahistorical version of the Christian faith confined to the parochial outlines of shallow pop culture and its modernist ethos.

Coffey's troubles begin early when he attempts to attack the idea of tradition. Focusing on the passages where tradition (the Greek paradosis - which simply means that which is passed down) is criticized and ignoring passages where it is praised, he is seemingly unaware of the wealth of scholarship on the issue and instead recycles lame arguments long since refuted. All Christians - including Evangelicals like Tony Coffey use their own tradition as a template for understanding Holy Scripture. The dispute is really not over tradition per se but which of these traditions best reflects Apostolic teaching. 

This misreading of the issue of tradition leads many modern Evangelicals astray method of scriptural exegesis. The individualistic paradigm so common in Evangelicals circles is of modern vintage and completely alien to the culture and life of the early Church. Until modern Evangelicals take seriously the witness of the early Church, they are doomed to descend ever more deeply into triviality and irrelevance.

If his understanding of the early Church is evidence, Coffey obviously does not take this witness seriously. Firing a barrage of simplistic judgments on topics ranging from the formation of the New Testament Canon to the liturgy, Coffey aims at any and all Roman Catholic position differing from his own. All along, he appears blissfully unaware many of the positions he now supports are unique to his modern version of the faith and have little historical support.

In his zeal to attack Roman Catholic doctrine, Coffey often lets his emotions get the better of him and sinks into unintended heresy. For example, in his attempts to refute the Catholic interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse in the Gospel of St. John as Eucharistic, he latches on to the passage "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing." He thus implies Jesus is saying His flesh counts for nothing and that His words should be taken "spiritually." This exegesis of the passage is, to put it mildly, problematic. If the flesh of Christ profits nothing, then what are we to make of the Cross? By inferring our salvation had no physical aspect, he implicitly negates the Incarnation. Like the crowd who listened to the Jesus speak these words, he recoils when faced with an uncomfortable byproduct of the Word becoming flesh. In the end, he prefers lapsing into gnosticism to fully accepting the Incarantion.    

Even when turning to the more problematic Roman positions of the papacy and the Marian dogmas, Coffey is surprisingly weak. Rather than giving an accurate portrayal of the development of these beliefs and a proper critique, he builds up straw men and proceeds to knock them down. It is interesting that many arguments he uses are the same ones noted converts to Rome believed prior to their conversion and later discovered were erroneous. Thus, despite his claims of fairness, Coffey never ventured to understand the reasons behind the doctrines of his former ecclesial home and is parroting arguments used in his own conversion. The centrality of personal experience in his faith is evident by his confidence that if he didn't have answers to these objections to the Catholic position, then there mustn't be any. Ironically, he makes no use of far more telling criticisms of Rome put forward by many Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox scholars. His entry into this debate is best interpreted as well meaning but misguided and uninformed. 

With all the obvious weaknesses, it must be said to Coffey's credit that he never engages in the scandalous sensationalism common to some anti-Catholic literature. He is a very sincere man, but is sincerely unequipped for this debate. One may agree with him in rejecting many Roman Catholic claims, but his refutations of those claims are both historically naive and factually flawed.    

It is doubtful any properly catechized Roman Catholic (or a knowledgeable Christian of any persuasion) would find Once A Catholic convincing. He may well make converts, but only among those with little or no understanding of the faith of the Church through the ages. It is precisely this lack of historical perspective leading many thoughtful Evangelicals to leave the movement. Some, sadly, reject Christianity entirely; others, less shaken, move to a richer expression of the Christian Faith within Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, confessional Protestantism, and, increasingly, Roman Catholicism. It would be a strange irony if, by his own inaccuracies, Coffey planted the seeds of future Roman Catholic apologists - hardly fruit he is seeking.

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Primer on the Topic, May 20, 2001

By	K.H. - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Tony Coffey's book is easy to read, and covers most of the problems Evangelicals have with many Catholic teachings. In this, the book does well, because it is so easy to understand. His writing style is very conversational. Yet, there is a lack of in-depth analysis and at times he overeaches in his assertions.

In example of this is when he writes about traditions, "The tragedy of tradition is that it blinds people from seeing God." (p. 24). This is overreaching since one, God determined set up many traditions and therefore, would be in some way at fault; and secondly, the blame is on people who misplaceses the focus on tradition on tradition itself and not on God. Many Catholics (I'm not one) gain a rich, fresh relational expiernece with the living Christ through their traditions.

Similiarily, almost all Protestants have traditions. Try changing the style of music in many churches and watch the uproar or consider the battle some churches have faced over such non-formal traditions as pews or chairs, choirs or contempory bands, and alter-calls. I think Protestants must admit their traditions before engaging in dialouge on this point.

His strongest chapter is "Is the Papacy taught in Scripture?" and "What About Mary?" These chapters are good introductions into these polemic issues, but one should study more in regards to these areas.

This book is probably best suited for someone who is new to the subject. My advise would be to read more material after engaging this text. This engagement should be from both sides of the ailse.