Rating: 
Summary: Good example of charity displayed
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Open Dialogue for once
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Author's Take
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Surprised and Fair
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: On a scale of 1 through 5...Its a -5
Review: I am a evangelical christian. I haven't been converted but I must say that this is a great book. Both discuss in a charitable fashion. I bought this book because I have catholic friends and I'm always wanting to say, "here's why you are wrong!" But after reading this I have more respect for catholic. I can't say I'll become a catholic but it is a great way to understand the differences, probably the best book to understand the differences. The book is layed out so well. First one writes a letter then the other. Then they come together for a conversation (4 - 6 pages) then back to the letters. Its great. A must buy for the curious and for those wishing to understand the other's beliefs.
Rating:
Summary: Open and Honest exchange of views
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: That all may be one
Review: I think dialogue between all Christians is always beneficial. It always pains me to see people disagreeing over our Savior. It is sad that for 2000 years the Church has taught objective Christian truth and yet has been misrepresented and misunderstood by so many. This book is truly a good dialogue between two believers in the same Christ. Both Father John and Mr. McCarthy have prayfully written and shared with us ther love for Christ by defining each religions traditions. I don't think we are mutually exclusive, but rather should strive for Christian Unity, the unity that has existed for 2000 years in the universal, Catholic Church Like our Lord, I pray "that they all may be one, like the Father and I are one"
Rating: 
Summary: A Draw
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Like Ice Water After a Siesta
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Like Ice Water After a Siesta
Review: 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.
|
