Roman Catholic Resources - Help

My goal is to find resources instead that will "substantiate" their beliefs when the Bible speaks for itself. Anyone know of any good quality resources available from solid Biblical scholars that can substantiate Catholic doctrine or show where and why it is in err?

I am Catholic - by choice not rearing - and believe that you are coming at this from the wrong direction i.e. the role of scripture is not the deepest root of the differences. But if I were to try to convince you of your error, I would actually direct you towards some Eastern Orthodox sources. If I were to help you in the way that you ask, I would point you to two authors not in Logos - Scott Hahn and Mark Shea ... both former Protestants who are very firmly rooted in Scripture study. For Logos resources, I would go with the current Catechism, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott and

Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture. Hahn and Shea are reader friendly ... the others take significant dedication to work through. This will give you a very solid background on how Catholics use Scripture to substantiate doctrine. It's then up to you to find sources that show it is in err ... and to make sure those sources are arguing against what Catholics truly believe vs. what a significant group of non-Catholic believe Catholics believe ... there is a wide gap between the two.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73798#Comment_73798

While the first isn't available in Logos, I would recommend two resources.

1. http://www.amazon.com/Justification-Faith-Catholic-Protestant-Dialogue-Evangelical/dp/0567040046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263099583&sr=1-1 This is a very good read on the similarities and differences between Calvin (Protestants) and Roman Catholicism on the very important issue of justification by faith alone. Lane's book does not just discuss the 16th century debate, but discusses the current discussions between Protestants and Roman Catholics. You can read most of it on google books.

2. I would also recommend a journal article in the Trinity Journal called "Discerning the Divide: A Review Article of 'Is the Reformation Over?" (8 no 1 Spr 2007, p 37-63) by Scott Manetsch. You can purchase this article through the Trinity Journal package, or if you give me your email I will give you a pdf copy of it. This article was very enlightening. It discusses how some Protestants seem to think that the Roman Catholic church has capitulated on justification by faith alone (short answer, they haven't).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73798#Comment_73798

Hey MJ:

Thank you for replying. My goal, of course, is not to enter into discussion (just because this might not be the appropriate forum) of which side is accurate and pray you were not offended by my stance. I am familiar with Scott Hahn (my niece goes to Stuebenville) and have actually spoken with Mark Shea at length and I appreciate your recommendations.

Being a Logos Blog, I will keep my comments Logos related , but would welcome further discussion with you off-line if you desire as I'm not sure what you mean by, " the role of scripture is not the deepest root of the differences". I'm also not sure how to discuss this off-line, if desired.

That being said, I have attempted to locate the L4 version of the most recent Catechism and have been unable to locate it on the Logos website (I believe it was 1984 ... yes?).

I also would be interested in downloading Ludwig Ott's work but see that it is only available in a set including the works of Trent, etc... which I don't wish to spend the extra bucks on.

With your expertise and theological bent, would you kindly direct me to where I might locate these for download?

Thank you again.

David

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73827#Comment_73827

Here is the Trinity Journal download. http://www.logos.com/products/details/4631

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73798#Comment_73798

I would actually direct you towards some Eastern Orthodox sources.

Actually, it might be helpful for you to know where I would direct those you argue against:

In Scripture:

the Passion story (Last Supper through resurrection)
the narrative of the two disciples on the way to Emmaus
Philip and Ethiopian eunuch in Acts
the divine liturgy in Revelation

Eastern Orthodox writings:

The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church by John Breck
For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann
The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death by John Behr

If you can confidently refute the positions of these three books, you will be well equiped to argue against the Catholic/Orthodox positions. You will also understand why I say the use of Scripture to establish doctrine is not a root difference.

Sorry - I sometimes forget what I have as PBB's or free software vs. what is actually a Logos product. Contact me at mjespuiva AT aol DOT com and I'll give you sources.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73827#Comment_73827

My goal, of course, is not to enter into discussion (just because this might not be the appropriate forum)

David, I thought you were very clear in your first post on seeking Logos resources. And let me assure you, this forum is most definitely NOT the place for theological discussions.

All Catholic products available in Logos are listed here: http://www.logos.com/catholic

The Catechism is not available, nor are any Church Documents later than the early church councils.

I heartily recommend against Ludwig Ott's book - the English translation is riddled with errors: see http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm

The problem with your initial query is that it is way too vague: are you looking for resources on sacraments, church order, moral theology, veneration of the saints, justification????

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73836#Comment_73836

Hi Damian:

To keep it simple ... I'm attempting to find a L4 resource that discusses Roman theology (all items in your above list) and its scriptural support of the reasons why they believe what they believe. For example only: A Catholic resource / commentary that shows a Roman understanding of Romans 4:2-6 to see how they explain away imputational justification, etc...

Bottom line (to try to stay away from any theological discussion here), what I am looking for is a Catholic Commentary on the entire Bible (verse by verse). This way I can view each scripture verse from a Catholic viewpoint. I guess that's the best way to describe what I am looking for.

Thank you kindly.

David

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73842#Comment_73842

Hi Damian:

To keep it simple ... I'm attempting to find a L4 resource that discusses Roman theology (all items in your above list) and its scriptural support of the reasons why they believe what they believe. For example only: A Catholic resource / commentary that shows a Roman understanding of Romans 4:2-6 to see how they explain away imputational justification, etc...

Thank you kindly.

David

Have you heard of the Sacra Pagina series? http://books.google.com/books?id=88Z0_ZJC9L8C&pg=PR9&dq=sacra+pagina&lr=&cd=24#v=onepage&q=sacra pagina&f=false

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73842#Comment_73842

I'm attempting to find a L4 resource that discusses Roman theology

You won't find it because it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as Roman theology. The Church is Catholic not Roman or Roman Catholic.

Second, you need to determine whether your interest is in theology, in which a wide variety of positions is held (you could check out the Collegeville Catholic Reference Library for some Dictionaries which contain various articles on theological themes: http://www.logos.com/products/details/5198), or official Church teaching - for this only the Catechism or Church Documents will suffice. But, these are not available in Logos.

A Catholic resource / commentary

The only Catholic Commentaries are the works of individual Catholic scholars. The Vatican has never published a Bible Commentary.

Unfortunately, the Jerome Bible Commentary is no longer available and no Catholic Study Bible has ever been produced in Logos format.

The above mentioned Collegeville Catholic Reference Library does contain a commentary but, once again, it is the work of individual scholars.

A number of the commentary series contain works by Catholic Scholars (Fitzmyer, for example). But, I'm not familiar with any of these being available individually.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73860#Comment_73860

Fitzmyer's Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans certainly critiques some aspects of traditional Catholic exegesis of Romans. It probably isn't the best place to turn for traditional Catholic interpretation. But it is a great commentary nonetheless.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73836#Comment_73836

I heartily recommend against Ludwig Ott's book - the English translation is riddled with errors: see http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm

Thank you - I was unaware of the depth of the problem in English. The priest who recommended it to me would have been reading the German. It is disappointing that the English is less reliable than I would have expected.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73867#Comment_73867

Have you seen this? http://www.logos.com/catholic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73827#Comment_73827

have actually spoken with Mark Shea at length

Mark and I belong to the same parish - our paths cross frequently but our interests differ.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/73872#Comment_73872

"you are coming at this from the wrong direction i.e. the role of scripture is not the deepest root of the differences."

One of the biggest problems in inter-religious discussion and understanding is that we often speak as though it's only a question of data (ie. this passage or that passage), when really it is a question of differing paradigms or worldview/Weltanschauung.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74013#Comment_74013

One of the biggest problems in inter-religious discussion and understanding is that we often speak as though it's only a question of data (ie. this passage or that passage), when really it is a question of differing paradigms or worldview/Weltanschauung.

Well said.

David E Haeuser

David, this may be far beyond what you are asking for, but one possible resource from the late 16th century would be Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz. This is available in Logos as part of the Concordia Electronic Theological Library. The sub-collection that includes this resource is here: http://www.logos.com/products/details/1750. This work by Chemnitz is extremely thorough - four thick volumes in its paper edition. Basically it goes through all the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and compares, contrasts with the Scriptures and the Church Fathers.

Another David

Catholic resources (ie: Karl Keating) will, of course, give me their beliefs, but this is not what I want. My goal is to find resources instead that will "substantiate" their beliefs when the Bible speaks for itself. Anyone know of any good quality resources available from solid Biblical scholars that can substantiate Catholic doctrine or show where and why it is in err?

Kindly forgive in advance if this is in any way offensive (I know it can be a touchy subject for most). I'm just looking for any available resources that can help me to study what the Bible ALONE states and help me to prove the stance that I've made in leaving the church, or to disprove my stance.

Kindly forgive in advance if this is in any way offensive (I know it can be a touchy subject for most). I'm just looking for any available resources that can help me to study what the Bible ALONE states and help me to prove the stance that I've made in leaving the church, or to disprove my stance.

In Christ's love.

David

I reply strictly from a study/research perspective, and hopefully a logic one, and not a belief/faith/apologetics perspective, because obviously many do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

But my point is this - if you are looking for proof of a decision to leave the Catholic Church, studying only the Bible or Commentaries will give you an incomplete picture, because the Catholic Church teaches that written and oral tradition, along with a teaching authority, was passed on divinely. If you have rejected that, then you already have your proof of your decision. If you want to do research/study to solidify your decision, I think you would want to study what the Catholic Church teaches on these positions, and why, in order to make a decision of whether you believe what they say or not. "Go to the source" to reject or accept based on what you read!

The other reason reading the Bible or commentaries on the Bible will not give you the proof of the validity of the Catholic position is because the Catholic Church does not take its authority from the Bible - it takes it as divinely revealed by Jesus Christ. So IMHO you need to read why and how the Church came to this position and belief in its authority, and that will not be a Bible or a Commentary in the Catholic Church's eyes (and obviously many disagree with this, which is why I said this is a recommendation on what to read not a theology/apologetic reply).

The Catholic Church actually teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 1992 edition developed under Pope John Paul II, paragraph 95, "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". The CCC is rich with footnotes that are the sources of the summaries written in the CCC, and those sources have footnotes as well. This area of the CCC will reference a Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, a prime document on this teaching. IMHO you would want to read these, and their sources, which will include scripture that supports Church's teaching, to decide if you accept or reject.

There are books also written by very credible Catholic writers that explain these teachings well, I just think if you are trying to justify whether you believe the Catholic Church your focus should be on what they and its most credible authors say, not others! The time to read non-Catholic or Bible only to form your faith will be once you have finally decided to accept your exit from the Church and have embraced another denomination's teaching, then it's time to read and understand/embrace what they teach. And to repeat myself, if you already believe that the Bible alone is the only credible source for God's salvation message, that is proof that your decision to leave is the right one, as that is not at all what the Catholic Church teaches. Time to move on and embrace other.

Doing this research with the source, and prayer should help you determine if your direction is God's will for you! In my humble opinion of course [:)]

God Bless you in your journey, may the Holy Spirit guide you! I hope this helps a little.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74149#Comment_74149

Hello Dominick (and all):

I just wanted to thank you for your reply. I found it to be very well thought out and well worded. I also appreciate all other responses I have received. I certainly know that this is a touchy subject (as stated in my original email) and that I can only pray that no one was offended (also as stated in my original email).

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense to me. I wish that they had the CCC 1992 edition for L4. Remember that I am a brand new user to L4 (just purchased this past week for the first time) and am realizing what most of you others already know ... that when I search out a scripture verse, my commentaries pop up automatically, along with origianal languages, etc... due to the linking ability! I think that this is GREAT and very helpful to me in my studies. I am still excited about what is a no-brainer to you all.

What I have been looking for and why I posted this string to begin with was not to bring a sensitive subject to the foreground ... only to see if Logos had anything that I could "link" to my scripture passages that I am studying so that I can NOT ONLY read what my commentaries describe to me as the proper interpretation, but so that I can also view how the Catholic Church would describe the same scripture passage. For example (and I also do NOT wish to take any sides in my emails), Revelation 12 will certainly be interpreted one way to a Protestant and certainly interpreted another way for a Catholic. I like reading the Protestant reasoning and am simply seeking to view the Catholic viewpoints on the same scripture verses ... all linked together so that I can view both sides as I do my daily studies through the scriptures (such as a Catholic commentary might do or perhaps the CCC would do this).

Your responses have all been kind and I appreciate them. I remain open to any new ideas if someone has a brainstorm after reading this email [:S]. If such an animal does not exist, I will hope that Logos will some day develop such a source (or the Catholic Church).

Grace and Peace.

David

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74190#Comment_74190

hat when I search out a scripture verse, my commentaries pop up automatically, along with origianal languages, etc... due to the linking ability! I think that this is GREAT and very helpful to me in my studies. I am still excited about what is a no-brainer to you all.

From my perspective as one who has an MA in Buddhist Studies out of an Asian LAnguage and Literature department (rather than a religion department), what you are observing is both the strength and the weakness of Logos - so much at your fingertips makes it easy to "play scholar," i.e. think you have more understanding of Greek and Hebrew than you actually do. There are "crackpots" out there (not on Logos) who make very logical arguments for very absurd translations. I have had the misfortune of agreeing to review a book (available on Amazon) of such a crackpot.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74190#Comment_74190

For example (and I also do NOT wish to take any sides in my emails), Revelation 12 will certainly be interpreted one way to a Protestant and certainly interpreted another way for a Catholic.

David,

I would encourage you to be careful of assuming unanimity of perspectives amongst "Catholics" or "Protestants" on any passage. There exists among both Protestant and Catholic scholars a great diversity of opinions concerning Revelation 12. There is most certainly not an official Catholic position on its interpretation (as in the only one which may be believed). Raymond Brown, for example, did not believe that the woman of Revelation 12 should be identified as Mary.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74203#Comment_74203

I have been lurking on this thread for the last few days. I just wanted to post now to thank everyone who has participated for an interesting, well-reasoned, and courteous discussion. Thank you all.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74203#Comment_74203

I would encourage you to be careful of assuming unanimity of perspectives amongst "Catholics" or "Protestants" on any passage. There exists among both Protestant and Catholic scholars a great diversity of opinions concerning Revelation 12. There is most certainly not an official Catholic position on its interpretation (as in the only one which may be believed). Raymond Brown, for example, did not believe that the woman of Revelation 12 should be identified as Mary.

Absolutely true! In fact, and maybe surprisingly, there is an extremely low percentage of scripture verses where the Catholic Church has :authoritatively" (meaning you must believe) interpreted Bible verses. Contrary to the opinions of religious sisters teaching in elementary schools in the 60s, the Church has always encouraged the faithful to read and study the Bible. That should be done in conjunction with an understanding of the teaching of the Church so as not to fall into an incorrect line of thinking (in the Church's eyes). Again, others disagree...

As for Logos Catholic resources, you have been offered the one Catholic page that has some. I also encourage you to check out the current Community pricing page at http://www.logos.com/communitypricing -- placing some bids there will bring some public domain stuff to the market at absurdly cheap prices (Aquinas' Catena Aurea is there). On the Pre pub page, good discounts are offered on quite a few Catholic resources that you, through your bids, can encourage to be published at prices you will not be able to match later. You will see a Ray Brown collection (noted Catholic scholar), GK Chesterton collection, Catholic spirituality collection, Aquinas' Summa Contra, Butler's Lives of the Saints, Douay Rheims Bible works of John Henry Newman (possibly the next designated Doctor of the Church!),

the Patrologia Cursus Completus (Early Church Fathers!), Studies in Karl Barth collection, Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catholic Theory and Dogma collection are all outstanding classics that build Logos' Catholic collection significantly, if they get published. Prepubs are here - http://www.logos.com/prepub

One last point - like Damian said, even Catholic scholars have diversity of thought. Once you have a better feel, if you are interested, of the nuances between what the Church authoritatively teaches vs. those things that Catholic scholars have reasoning through their own scholarly work (which one day may actually advance the teaching of the Church; for example look at the development of the Theology of the Trinity over the first 400 years AD!), you can then start reading other scholars' work from a discriminating perspective. Many scholars of all Christian faiths have lots to offer if you have a foundation in your own faith (and that is true for all Christians); Christians of any denomination can learn from all scholars if they have a good grounding in their own faith, and I know many on this forum feel the same way, which is why they buy and read lots of stuff).

Happy reading!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74279#Comment_74279

Contrary to the opinions of religious sisters teaching in elementary schools in the 60s, the Church has always encouraged the faithful to read and study the Bible. That should be done in conjunction with an understanding of the teaching of the Church so as not to fall into an incorrect line of thinking (in the Church's eyes). Again, others disagree...

This statement is true but also subject to misinterpretation. For the majority of the Church's life, putting Bibles in the hands of everyone was impossible - no printing presses, no mass produced Bibles. However, the Church did encourage biblical literacy through art, preaching and readings in worship. The latter slowly grew less influential as church service languages separated from spoken language (in both the eastern and western churches). However, there were continually translations of portions of the Bible into the spoken languages; prayer books and devotionals included scripture in the spoken language etc. So those wealthy enough to purchase such books had some scripture in the home. The printing press occurred at the same time as some major philosophical changes (hence the reformation). The Church, looking at the reformation's emphasis on scripture decided (not necessarily wisely), that encouraging lay reading of scripture without previous education on how to read scripture was a bad idea. This culminated in some embarrassingly stupid "official" statements near the beginning of the last century. Fortunately, the really stupid is self-evidently stupid and a number of Catholic scholars ignored the nonsense. So after a 400 year or so hiatus, the Church hierarchy got over reacting to the reformation and moved back to encouraging scripture study.

Ah yes, the theological language of "embarrassingly stupid" is a bit toned down from what a certain Dominican scholar really said.[:)]

Thomas Doud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/74190#Comment_74190

David,

Grace and Peace to you as well. I can offer you resources outside Logos. I just purchased Logos but as far as I can see there is very little here that would help. I look forward to them publishing some Catholic content but it is very weak now. If you want support in not believing Catholic doctrine that should be easy to find on Logos.

Here is a good scripture source for Catholic doctrine:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

Here is a great easy read. Best casual look at patristics from an evangelical convert:

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/dp/0898708478/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263608413&sr=1-1

If you objectively read scripture from the heart of the church you will see that all her doctrine is plausible. What you believe in the end will be determined by the philosophy you use to look at it. You will not decide by the content in the bible. Remember that when the church set the canon in the late 300's to early 400's her liturgical and doctrinal teaching had long been established. The Catholic church is not "bible based' because there was no bible in its current form until late 300's. What you are asking is a philosophical question and you will need to understand the parameters of what confirms truth. That last sentence would take books to unpack but let me state it another way. To reject Catholic teaching you need to imagine the early church without sacraments, oral tradition, hierarchy, etc. I can't point you to source but I can point you to the right time frame. Look at every commentary written pre-Nicene. Do a word search on Eucharist at CCEL.

Here is a great audio series from a scholar who is a Jewish convert:

http://hebrewcatholic.org/Studies/MysteryofIsraelChurch/mysteryofisraela.html

That would give you an honest orthodox view of how true Catholic teaching views scripture. If you listen to much of that you would at least be informed of the Catholic way of interpretation.

I look forward to reading the protestant commentaries. I love to learn how others think. Most of what disagrees with Catholic teaching seems to be protestant's disagreeing with a straw man they call catholic teaching. To be fair most were probably written before the CCC came out so it would be hard for someone to know what the Catholic church teaches.

I would help for us all to grow in an ecumenical effort is to at least have an honest rendering of the real teaching of each community.

Peace,

Tom

Blair Laird

Hello:

I just purchased L4 Silver and am now in search of more resources ... some that are geared specifically toward addressing the serious issues of Catholicism. I am looking for a Biblical perspective from both positions (preferably non-biased). I am originally Catholic and years ago, left the church due to not being able to personally "Biblically" substantiate my faith. I read many of the Catholic apologists books but found their answers lacking as far as serious exegetical "Biblical" study was concerned (even though they made many good points on beliefs of the early church fathers). The more I have dug into Biblical text myself, the more convinced I have become. This is just my personal findings and I pray it doesn't offend anyone, as this isn't the reason for the post.

I talk often to my family (some still Catholic) about my faith and to many great friends and am a sincere seeker of what the Bible has to say. I choose to believe the Bible solely ... and not rely on mans opinions of what the Bible has to say from a slanted viewpoint (from either stance). One of my MAIN reasons for purchasing L4 was to either prove or disprove my stance by more closely looking at the original biblical texts and supporting documentations.

I have tried to find any non-biased resources for L4 that cover all "Catholic" doctrines and compare it with original languages and popular commentaries, beliefs of early church fathers and how Catholic doctrines have evolved over the past 2000 years. I am trying to find a resource that discusses "what" they believe and more importantly, "why" they believe it and can it truly be justified after tough exegetical studies from God's Word? For example (rhetorical question): Did the early church fathers believe what the Catholic church teaches today, were their beliefs correct according to a close look at text and context of the Word of God, did even their beliefs evolve over time, etc... These are all things I am seeking answers for.

Catholic resources (ie: Karl Keating) will, of course, give me their beliefs, but this is not what I want. My goal is to find resources instead that will "substantiate" their beliefs when the Bible speaks for itself. Anyone know of any good quality resources available from solid Biblical scholars that can substantiate Catholic doctrine or show where and why it is in err?

Kindly forgive in advance if this is in any way offensive (I know it can be a touchy subject for most). I'm just looking for any available resources that can help me to study what the Bible ALONE states and help me to prove the stance that I've made in leaving the church, or to disprove my stance.

In Christ's love.

David

You might check out the catholic encyclopedia it is on pre pub

Josh

Have you read "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" by Ron Rhodes?

He lists some of the major doctrines of the Roman Church, explains why (and what scriptures they use for defense) they believe in these doctrines, and then explains what Scripture really says within correct context.

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77797#Comment_77797

sounds like an excellent book.. Also looks like he has a few good ones.. Might be a nice add for logos..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77797#Comment_77797

Have you read "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" by Ron Rhodes?

He lists some of the major doctrines of the Roman Church, explains why (and what scriptures they use for defense) they believe in these doctrines, and then explains what Scripture really says within correct context.

While I am not familiar with this particular book beyond the first few pages available on Amazon, it does not appear to me that the book is well researched. Like many of its type, it appears to have at its starting point what the author thinks Catholics believe rather than what Catholics actually believe. Unfortunately, in apologetics on most any side, I find more books that reinforce misunderstanding than promote actual understanding and a meaningful conversation of persuasion.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78233#Comment_78233

A little know fact, you can use the "search" on that Amazon page and read any part of that book you want!

If I wanted to learn what people of another religion believe, I would read an authoritative source. I would not read a book by someone who disbelieves the religion he is writing about.

So what makes people think this non-Catholic author's description of what the Catholic Church believes will be more accurate than what the Catholic Church authoritatively states itself? It seems to indicate the existence of these books is to reinforce in people that they have good reason to disagree with religion 'x', otherwise many more books that are authoritative on their religion would be purchased.

I hazard to guess that Christians have bought a lot more books about the Quran written by Christians than they have the Quran itself. Just a guess...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78233#Comment_78233

While I am not familiar with this particular book beyond the first few pages available on Amazon, it does not appear to me that the book is well researched. Like many of its type, it appears to have at its starting point what the author thinks Catholics believe rather than what Catholics actually believe. Unfortunately, in apologetics on most any side, I find more books that reinforce misunderstanding than promote actual understanding and a meaningful conversation of persuasion.

MJ,

This seems to be your excuse for any apologetic work against Catholicism. It seems that no one can understand Catholicism but a Catholic (and I guess if you write a book disagreeing with Catholicism that it just proves that you don't understand Catholicism). And, of course, when I quoted directly from Roman Catholic sources, I just misunderstood them. (I guess this means we need a magisterium to interpret the magisterium since Roman Catholic dogma is so inperspicuous.)

Of course, you will disagree with this assessment, but anyone can read your posts here in this regard and decide for themselves. Sorry, I'm not trying to go after you or Roman Catholics, but I think the "straw-man" charge you keep throwing around needs to be put to rest.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78269#Comment_78269

So what makes people think this non-Catholic author's description of what the Catholic Church believes will be more accurate than what the Catholic Church authoritatively states itself? It seems to indicate the existence of these books is to reinforce in people that they have good reason to disagree with religion 'x', otherwise many more books that are authoritative on their religion would be purchased.

Actually, the existence of these books is to critique Roman Catholicism. People write these types of books so that average joes who don't want to spend all their time reading through Catholic dogma and all its transformations can get a basic grasp of Catholic teaching and what is (allegedly) wrong with it.

Same with Islam: not everyone has the time to read the Qur'an and all the ahadith first hand and then to formulate and organize a critique of Islam (especially since Muslims like to use the translation/interpretation thing to safe-guard themselves against being critiqued, you would practically have to learn Arabic first). It's easier and quicker to read someone else who has already done that work.

Of course, there is always the problem that the person who does such work will make a mistake or misrepresentation. But then it's also possible that your firsthand research will lead to mistakes and misrepresentation.

So I think the project of such apologetic works and person's reading of such apologetic works is perfectly legitimate and I won't venture to guess the primary motive in your objection to such material.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78338#Comment_78338

Actually, the existence of these books is to critique Roman Catholicism.

Nothing at all wrong with a critique if what it intends to critique, the premise, is factual. When the source premise is non-factual, and a formal authority and formal written source exists, the conclusions of the book will be misleading and misinformed.

I won't venture to guess the primary motive in your objection to such material.

I was just pointing out the illogic of reading a book that starts from false premise.

Of course, there is always the problem that the person who does such work will make a mistake or misrepresentation. But then it's also possible that your firsthand research will lead to mistakes and misrepresentation.

My point was avoiding the authority for the premise. If you read the authority to ascertain what is taught (since in this case it is written down by a formal authority) than you have the basis to (a) draw your own conclusions or (b) read critiques of people who know what it really says, because then the reader could draw a conclusion on whether the premise being critiqued is accurate or not.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78338#Comment_78338

Hello all:

Thank you everyone for all of your posts. They have been very helpful. I really appreciate the link to the catechism (I have added this as a link in my Logos to take me there at the click of a button). I also appreciate the suggestion on the Ron Rhodes books. I looked into them and will have to go with paper books (after Logos ... what is 'paper' again?) [:D]

They say that discussing politics or religion is taboo because people are so "tuned in" (blinders on) to what they believe that they hate to think that they may be incorrect (especially when you're messing with someone's personal convictions or faith). But should genuine Christians truly object to hearing truth? After all, Apollos was open when he was corrected by Aquila / Priscilla. Shouldn't we be? I love Jesus and only assume that the readers of this email love Him as well. I am just requesting that we seek to grow in the "knowledge" of our Lord and Savior.

I want to sincerely understand better what Romanism teaches. As stated in my original email, my goal is to have a better understanding of what goes through a Catholic's mind when they read the Biblical passages that appear (to me) to disagree with their church's doctrine rather than seeking to back up a decision that I've already made. This is why I have been searching through the Logos website for some sort of Roman-thought "commentary", etc... so that when I turn to Romans chapter 4 (only for example) and see what seems obvious to me as imputational righteousness, then this seemingly non-existent magical Logos program would show me how a Catholic might explain away this text. Without this, how can anyone agree with anything other than what seems (to me) to be obvious. I'm not interested in seeking "anti-Catholic" propaganda "if" their explanation of what Catholicism teaches is not truly what Catholics believe, yet if it is nothing more than "incorrect propaganda", then I am interested in owning true Catholic explanations of the scriptures that I found most disturbing as a Catholic and why I eventually ceased to be one.

My online L4 friends ... we all agree that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. Do we not? I can only assume that there is a foundational base of agreement on this if we all spent the big bucks to purchase L4. In John 17, Jesus said (to the Father), "your word is truth". If we all can agree that the Bible as God's Word is truth, then let's dig into God's Word and see what He has to say on these important subjects. I'm confused by the posts that state that if I read God's Word "alone", then I will not find Catholic answers. Shouldn't I be able to? If not, then I personally have to question why not.

I understand that this is not the proper forum (as this is strictly about L4 available software) and that's kewl, but maybe someone can assist me in finding the proper forum to discuss this as I believe that this is the 800lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about.

Just my 2 cents.

Written in love and sincerely seeking Catholic answers to the difficult Biblical questions,

David

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78269#Comment_78269

Hi Dominic:

How can one search through an entire book (instead of just the first few pages) on Amazon.com? I didn't know one could do this.

Thank you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78356#Comment_78356

Hi Dominic:

How can one search through an entire book (instead of just the first few pages) on Amazon.com? I didn't know one could do this.

Thank you.

Well for example, to look in the book "The Shack" http://www.amazon.com/Shack-William-P-Young/dp/0964729237/ref=pd_ts_b_12?ie=UTF8&s=books, look under the graphic of the book on the left - it says "Search inside this book". Many times I use the Table of Contents to look up a page number, or a topic, or something. It's not the best interface in the world (it's not Logos!) but it works! Many books have the "Search" link, especially if they have the sample pages.

Brandon Vaughn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78332#Comment_78332

Of course, you will disagree with this assessment, but anyone can read your posts here in this regard and decide for themselves. Sorry, I'm not trying to go after you or Roman Catholics, but I think the "straw-man" charge you keep throwing around needs to be put to rest.

I think my biggest prayer is that the term "straw-man" might be banned from eternity. No offense to John in using it either. But it certainly seems the "catch phrase" in Christiantiy today. I think I've heard just about everything that everyone believes in called a "straw-man" at this point.

Maybe we aren't in Kansas anymore?!

Blessings,
Brandon

Stephen Egge

David ...

I recently built a new computer and it is running Windows 7 - 64 bit ... that being stated because it caused me to be unable to use many non logos Catholic resources (from Harmony Media Inc ). I suppose I could run them if I rebooted into xp mode. At any rate I found a program with a rather "clutzy" interface with catholic docterine such as the CCC and others that will run on my machine and is relatively inexpensive. You might find it useful "The Faith Database" ( http://www.faithdatabase.com/ )

Logos does have some good Catholic resources ... pointed out in a previous post. The Collegeville reference library being one of the better ones. On prepub you will see The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library which contains a number of interesting Cathoic resources ... many from Raymond Brown and John P Meier. It is a bit pricey however.
I wish you well on your journey.

steve

Steve

Thomas Doud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78352#Comment_78352

" I'm confused by the posts that state that if I read God's Word "alone", then I will not find Catholic answers. Shouldn't I be able to? If not, then I personally have to question why not."

This is simply demonstrated by the vast number of extremely gifted, talented and dedicated bible scholars who have read the bible and not found some of the most obvious of Catholic doctrines that have not wavered in 2000 years. There are many who do eventually see the Catholic view independently of course. Just one example as a demonstration - abortion. The earliest Catholic document (the Didache) teaches against and the Catholic teaching has not wavered. How many churches disagree with that now? I can imagine two protestants discussing how silly Roman Catholic teaching is yet they come from traditions that differ on whether "thou shall not kill" is still in effect.

Act 8:30-31 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah
the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip
to get in and sit with him.
What would be the point in Logos if we can't stand on the shoulders of people who have gone before us and studied the bible. Why do you have Logos if you can pick up the bible and understand it perfectly already? Why do you need a book to tell you the Catholic church is in error when if it is self evident?
The question doesn't change if you are outside the Catholic church. How do you determine doctrine? Are you telling me that the 30,000 protestant denominations all agree on all doctrinal issues? The Mormons, Jehovah Witness, and Muslim traditions all agree with your rejection of the Catholic teaching. They all find the truth in their books self evident. That is one of the reasons Chesterton converted is he noticed how all people explain themselves in relation to the Catholic teaching.
The fact that you need to read from inside a tradition seems to me self evident. We should let Luther speak for Luther, Calvin speak for Calvin should we not? Otherwise we are creating a clay - man (following Brandon's no straw man rule:).
I trust that as I use Logos I will grow in my understanding of scripture from the work of many protestant brothers. I applaud their love and dedication to the Lord and His word.
Peace,
Tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78424#Comment_78424

Are you telling me that the 30,000 protestant denominations all agree on all doctrinal issues?

This is simply a false statistic. See here for the debunking of it. From the link, for example, we see that the source often cited for this statistic includes Roman Catholicism...

As for the rest of what you say, as the retired philosopher turned blogger Bill Vallicella writes, "It is worth noting that thinking for oneself is no guarantee that one will arrive at truth. Far from it. The world is littered with conflicting opinions generated from the febrile heads of people with too much trust in their own powers. But neither is submission to an institution's authority any assurance of safe passage to the harbour of truth. Both the one who questions authority and the one who submits to it can end up on a reef. 'Think for yourself' and 'Submit to authority' are both onesided pieces of advice. You thought things were easy?"

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78436#Comment_78436

I think we all should remember one thing.

When we stand in front of God we will not be judged on what anyone taught us.. If we listen to the pope, and take his word without checking out what he says, and the pope is wrong, the pope will not be blamed for leading us astray, we will be charged wrong for not testing. This goes to whoever or whatever it is we are studying.

Logos gives us the ability to read what many scholars from different beliefs have to say, It is up to us to test them and make sure what they say lines up with the word of God.. to take anyone blindly is just plain foolish.

Scripture tells us to study to show ourselves approved,, If we do not study we can not know what is truth and what is not.

Commentaries, Dictionaries and many books allow us to see what people believe, it is up to us to study what they say and decide of we believe them or not.. when we stand in front of God we will be judged on what we believe not what we were taught..

We should have this attitude, One that says this is what I believe and why. If others do not believe that is their peragative. But to condemn them or to say they appose or "protest" what we believe is a bit pridefull.,. I think we all should have learned that lesson with Christ and the pharisees.

The disciples did not always understand what Christ said. but they kept checking it out for themselves. Eventually they realised everything Christ said and did lined up with the word of God. The pharisees made the excuse they listened to moses, so they had the authority given by God through him.. This is why they rejected Christ. their pride would not allow them to humblke themselves. I just pray we all do not make the same mistake.

Just because someone claims to be speaking for God. does not mean they do, even if they say they got it directly from peter.. We need to do as paul says, Test each spirit ( truth) to see if it is from God or from men.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78332#Comment_78332

MJ,

This seems to be your excuse for any apologetic work against Catholicism. It seems that no one can understand Catholicism but a Catholic (and I guess if you write a book disagreeing with Catholicism that it just proves that you don't understand Catholicism). And, of course, when I quoted directly from Roman Catholic sources, I just misunderstood them. (I guess this means we need a magisterium to interpret the magisterium since Roman Catholic dogma is so inperspicuous.)

John,

Unfortunately, it is true of nearly all Protestant apologetics against Catholicism. If you want apologetics against Catholicism, the sources that are most reliable are Lutheran and Orthodox.

The sort of thing that caught my attention in the first few pages of this book were:

treating priest's celibacy as a doctrine - it is a discipline that does not apply to all rites within the Catholic church
indicating that Catholic church began circa 590 A.D. - if one does not accept apostolic succession, there is no logic that would date the Catholic Church foundation any earlier than the split with the Orthodox. A solid argument could be made for that date.
treating the creation of technical theological terminology e.g. transubstantiation as the "emergence" of a new doctrine. Note that with alternate vocabulary this same "misunderstanding" of eucharist occurred universally in the Greek and Eastern Church.

I am quite willing to give credit where credit is due ... but if you read my posts, you also must realize that I am a stickler for accuracy. If that appear to you to be an "excuse" so be it - I won't lower my standard for accuracy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78338#Comment_78338

Actually, the existence of these books is to critique Roman Catholicism. People write these types of books so that average joes who don't want to spend all their time reading through Catholic dogma and all its transformations can get a basic grasp of Catholic teaching and what is (allegedly) wrong with it.

Same with Islam

I have no problem with apologetics as a class if they accurate portray what they are critiquing. This is true whether they are dealing with science, politics, religion, or literary analysis. Unfortunately, there is a market in this arena for books in which the author is more concerned with reinforcing previously held positions than with understanding a position and presenting a logical argument against it. And yes, I hold authors I agree with to the same standard I hold those I disagree with.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78352#Comment_78352

If we all can agree that the Bible as God's Word is truth, then let's dig into God's Word and see what He has to say on these important subjects. I'm confused by the posts that state that if I read God's Word "alone", then I will not find Catholic answers. Shouldn't I be able to? If not, then I personally have to question why not.

You are asking the right questions. I would suggest (again) For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann because it is a favorite of an older evangelical preacher friend. It contains a great deal you would probably agree with and a smaller amount that you would disagree with. And it is very firmly in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition ... at the deep presuppositional level.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78436#Comment_78436

It is very complicated, for sure if anyone could reliably interpret the Bible completely there wouldn't be as many disagreements about what it says, whether that's 100 different opinions or 10,000, as everyone would agree with that interpretation!

Faith is based on grace, so don't expect to be able to "prove anything", our own position, why someone else is wrong, or anything else. While the Bible is the inspired Word of God, things that Christians believe are not explicitly in it - even those that are the most hard-lined "Bible only" scholars. For example - the books to be contained in the Bible are not in the Bible (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox at a minimum disagree on this). I also think you would have a very hard time finding all that we believe about the Trinity in the Bible, if you wrote down every point you believe and tried to find it. Not that the Bible contradicts it, but it took over 400 years to clarify some of it, so it sure couldn't be explicitly in the Bible.

Christian positions have changed in some big ways over the years, for example in moral law, nand the changes are so drastic that one would have to believe God's view of this has never changed. For example, prior to the 1930's virtually every Christian believed that birth control was immoral. Now very few believe that. So the Bible must not be explicit enough on that topic, as both sides believe they have a foundation in scripture for their positions. But I bet God's position hasn't changed.

That doesn't mean that what you believe isn't "supported" in the Bible, or that what you believe is not "consistent" with the Bible, and you may not find anything that contradicts what you believe. But because the details of Christian faith are all not explicitly found in the Bible, everyone thinks their faith is found there.

Every Christian religion has changed their views from the 1t century - whether through theology development, change of doctrine, errors they think they have corrected, etc. That also proves the Bible isn't explicit enough for anyone to be able to prove or disprove a theology that defines a religion.

God must have a plan for us, maybe he wants us to love and serve each other even though we think we have faith disagreements. Maybe God has a sense of humor and wants to see if we can get past this and truly unite in Christ, stop telling people that we are right and they are wrong, and we can prove it. No you can't. We all have our faith, and hopefully we are all where God wants us.

Maybe this is a great job by Satan to take a treasure from God and turn it against him to the point people argue, debate, and even kill each other over perceived differences in the Bible. One day I hope we find out the true story, I know who knows and you do too.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78436#Comment_78436

Are you telling me that the 30,000 protestant denominations all agree on all doctrinal issues?

This is simply a false statistic. See here for the debunking of it. From the link, for example, we see that the source often cited for this statistic includes Roman Catholicism...

Actually I agree with the article that to assume 1 reason for the number of denominations is not credible. But the number has a basis in fact.

The (or a, I heard the original source was Internal Revenue Service, and if so that would substantiate this definition of denomination) actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001). The source does refer to 33000+ total "Christian" denominations, but it defines the word "denomination" as an organized Christian group within a specific country:

Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.

It seems a pretty safe bet that there are disagreements in doctrine among many of them. Just my opinion...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78436#Comment_78436

This is simply a false statistic. See here for the debunking of it. From the link, for example, we see that the source often cited for this statistic includes Roman Catholicism.

From Adherents.com: National & World Religion Statistics - Church Statistics - World Religions: New edition of World Christian Encyclopedia published: tabulating 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations. I am not about to set out to count how many might have been missed and how many fall inside the Catholic-Orthodox-Eastern Churches. Sloppy statistic - probably there is no way to get precise numbers. False - not really - it clearly depends on rounding.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78464#Comment_78464

That also proves the Bible isn't explicit enough for anyone to be able to prove or disprove a theology that defines a religion.

So the Bible must not be explicit enough on that topic, as both sides believe they have a foundation in scripture for their positions.

These conclusions aren't necessarily entailed by the data you cite. It's also possible that the problem resides in the persons.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78472#Comment_78472

From Adherents.com: National & World Religion Statistics - Church Statistics - World Religions: New edition of World Christian Encyclopedia published: tabulating 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations. I am not about to set out to count how many might have been missed and how many fall inside the Catholic-Orthodox-Eastern Churches. Sloppy statistic - probably there is no way to get precise numbers. False - not really - it clearly depends on rounding.

Presented as a statistic of protestant denominations when it includes Catholicism etc. seems false to me.

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/78469#Comment_78469

Are you telling me that the 30,000 protestant denominations all agree on all doctrinal issues?

This is simply a false statistic. See here for the debunking of it. From the link, for example, we see that the source often cited for this statistic includes Roman Catholicism...

Actually I agree with the article that to assume 1 reason for the number of denominations is not credible. But the number has a basis in fact.

The (or a, I heard the original source was Internal Revenue Service, and if so that would substantiate this definition of denomination) actual source: World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001). The source does refer to 33000+ total "Christian" denominations, but it defines the word "denomination" as an organized Christian group within a specific country:

Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.

It seems a pretty safe bet that there are disagreements in doctrine among many of them. Just my opinion...

By this defenition, The roman catholic church would be considered one of those denominations. The thing that makes so many people mad is that you will not hear a catholic admit that. There is there church, and the 30000 other churches.

My argument against his is this. Yes many of these cvhurches may have different beliefs, Some of which are not explicitely stated or backed by the bible. Yet paul makes it clear in romans 14 that we are not to judge on questionable matters. but we are to recieve each other with open arms. The problem is man is a prideful creature. so instead o9f welcoming others that have differences of faith in questionable matter, we seperate ourselves. which is a problem..

the other side of the story is how does one make it to heaven.

there might be 30,001 denominations ( including catholic) but there are only three doctrines concerning salvation. and all three are even spoken of in scripture.

1. the legalistic, or works based gospel.

2. the liscenteous or "I can say a few words and continue to live in sin group.

3. The faith through grace group - God saved me bacause of hsi work on the cross, I humble myself and recieve his free gift.

you will not find any other doctrines concerning how to get to heaven, unless you wish to take the athiest view.. there is no heaven..