The Gospel According To Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Heartfelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Heartfelt

Guest
Hello,
I mainly lurk the sites and enjoy them immensely since my husband and I have differing views about Catholicism. We are both cradle Catholics, but he has gone a more Protestant route through his college years and beyond.

The Gospel According to ROme is written by an ex-Catholic by the name of Mcarthy. I was wondering if anyone could comment on this book and shed some insight to his point of view , etc. that would help me navigate the book with my husband. It is a book speaking against the Catholic faith and I am bewildred about what he says, etc. To be frank, it confuses me. I think the main question is…in regards to tradition vs. scripture…what tradition was handed down by the Council of Trent in the 1500’s that could speak more clearly on why Catholics do what they do. Essentially, the book covers everything since those councils, but are there any books out there that speak about what information -oral tradition and otherwise was included in the COuncil of Trent, that being the first council!!!

I guess I have 2 questions then. ONe being an opinion on the book and its validity according to you, the reader of this post…and the other being if one knows a book that speaks more accurately of the early church and the formation of the Catholic church and the first council, which I believe was the Council of Trent.
I am essentially trying to piece together the early days of Christ’s resurrection and the formation of the various sacraments that have been passed down through time. I know this is a big quest. Where do I start? IT is the only way my husband and I are going to figure this out.
phew! Thanks!
 
40.png
Heartfelt:
…the first council, which I believe was the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
The first Coucil of the Church was the Council of Jerusalem, which is record in the Bible (in Acts of the Apostles). All told there have been 22 Councils:

  1. *]Jerusalem (circa AD 49)
    *]Nicea I (325)
    *]Constantinople I
    *]Ephesus
    *]Chalcedon
    *]Constantinople II
    *]Constantinople III
    *]Nicaea II
    *]Constantinople IV
    *]Lateran I
    *]Lateran II
    *]Lateran III
    *]Lateran IV
    *]Lyons I
    *]Lyons II
    *]Vienne
    *]Constance
    *]Florence
    *]Lateran V
    *]Trent
    *]Vatican I
    *]Vatican II

    More info on the councils can be found here: ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/GENCOUNC.TXT
 
40.png
Heartfelt:
Hello,
I mainly lurk the sites and enjoy them immensely since my husband and I have differing views about Catholicism. We are both cradle Catholics, but he has gone a more Protestant route through his college years and beyond.

The Gospel According to ROme is written by an ex-Catholic by the name of Mcarthy. I was wondering if anyone could comment on this book and shed some insight to his point of view , etc. that would help me navigate the book with my husband. It is a book speaking against the Catholic faith and I am bewildred about what he says, etc. To be frank, it confuses me. I think the main question is…in regards to tradition vs. scripture…what tradition was handed down by the Council of Trent in the 1500’s that could speak more clearly on why Catholics do what they do. Essentially, the book covers everything since those councils, but are there any books out there that speak about what information -oral tradition and otherwise was included in the COuncil of Trent, that being the first council!!!

I guess I have 2 questions then. ONe being an opinion on the book and its validity according to you, the reader of this post…and the other being if one knows a book that speaks more accurately of the early church and the formation of the Catholic church and the first council, which I believe was the Council of Trent.
I am essentially trying to piece together the early days of Christ’s resurrection and the formation of the various sacraments that have been passed down through time. I know this is a big quest. Where do I start? IT is the only way my husband and I are going to figure this out.
phew! Thanks!
Click to expand...
  1. As for this book…
It’s not surprising that you’re confused by this book. It’s written by an ex-Catholic, and ex-Catholics are confused by definition. Confused people write confusing books.

Protestants reject Sacred Tradition. (If they didn’t, they’d still be Catholics.) And that’s really all this book appears to be – a rejection of Sacred Tradition in the name of sola scriptura. Protestants seem to think that if a doctrine isn’t spelled out clearly, explicitly, practically word-for-word in the Bible, it isn’t acceptable. They appear not to grasp the notion that something could be clearly implicit.
  1. As for the Council of Trent…
The Council of Trent was the Church’s response to the Reformation, and it produced a document called the Roman Catechism (aka the “Catechism of the Council of Trent.”)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Council:

“The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Roman Catechism:

“This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos), and it enjoys an authority equalled by no other catechism. The need of a popular authoritative manual arose from a lack of systematic knowledge among pre-Reformation clergy and the concomitant neglect of religious instruction among the faithful.”

In other words, it was created to correct the problems that gave rise to the Reformation in the first place. It examines the creed, the sacraments, the Decalogue, and the Our Father.

You can find it here:

Catechism of the Council of Trent

Let’s face it, Catholicism isn’t easy. Sometimes, it’s hard work–morally, spiritually, and intellectually. But this fact is no objection to it. In my opinion, some people don’t see the necessity of the work. That’s too bad.

Scullinius
 
Well, I have no ability save that the Holy Spirit gives me in finding the information. Thank you all for your support and help. God Bless you all.
 
There are many things I don’t understand in our faith, but the basic stuff I do. In my opinion any longtime former Catholic who outrightly denies the flesh and blood of our Lord in the blessed Eucharist is a heretic, plain and simple. The same can be said for baptism that removes original sin. This truth is so evident, denying it is a disgrace. These truths have been believed in the church for a thousand years, both from the bible and our church tradition. How men like McCarthy can now deny these truths is beyond me? Heck, I just feel guilty missing mass for a long time and these people deny the reality of the mass altogether? Those books should be thrown in the trash I say.
 
These books are trash, one of them seriously gave me doubts as I was thinking about returning to the Catholic Church. If I had just read it and accepted it as true, I might not be Catholic today. Curiousity made me look into the book and usually what it did was take parts of the Catholic faith out of context, quotes and such and attacked that or took a Catholic belief, changed it or twisted it and attacked that.

Example:
Call no man father… Why are priests called father when the Bible says you shouldn’t.

Short answer which could be fully backed up.
In the Bible Jesus, Paul, Stephen, Peter and John call men father. Jesus wasn’t giving a vocab lesson, he was just making a point. Don’t let men substitute as your God.

Another says that Catholics believe that they will become Gods, ala Mormon belief. This is twisting the meaning of the Catechism.

I might have given the best examples here but things like this really are stumbling blocks, for nominal or non-Catholics, even devoted Catholics who don’t know the answer can be thrown off by these misguided books.

It saddens me when people use their anger, non-understanding or ignorance and use it to attack. My brother who was a nominal Catholic used to attack the Church with the craziest things, his pastor told him. Now that his pastor has shown him the way the Catholic Church must be evil for not showing it to him, so he attacks. Maybe if he went to Mass, payed attention and studied a little he would have a different attitude. But for him it is the Church’s fault. He is coming around but it will take a little bit.

So my shorter answer to this big answer is …
These books are trash, usually written by people with misguided beliefs. They are not written to convey truth just to attack the Catholic Church, their common enemy. Study history, use logic, the Catechism read entire Bible passages in context and look at the Catholic explanation and the protestant. Which in the end is always consistant? Who has the authority to interpret?
 
These books are trash, one of them seriously gave me doubts as I was thinking about returning to the Catholic Church. If I had just read it and accepted it as true, I might not be Catholic today. Curiousity made me look into the book and usually what it did was take parts of the Catholic faith out of context, quotes and such and attacked that or took a Catholic belief, changed it or twisted it and attacked that.

Example:
Call no man father… Why are priests called father when the Bible says you shouldn’t.

Short answer which could be fully backed up.
In the Bible Jesus, Paul, Stephen, Peter and John call men father. Jesus wasn’t giving a vocab lesson, he was just making a point. Don’t let men substitute as your God.

Another says that Catholics believe that they will become Gods, ala Mormon belief. This is twisting the meaning of the Catechism.

I might have given the best examples here but things like this really are stumbling blocks, for nominal or non-Catholics, even devoted Catholics who don’t know the answer can be thrown off by these misguided books.

It saddens me when people use their anger, non-understanding or ignorance and use it to attack. My brother who was a nominal Catholic used to attack the Church with the craziest things, his pastor told him. Now that his pastor has shown him the way the Catholic Church must be evil for not showing it to him, so he attacks. Maybe if he went to Mass, payed attention and studied a little he would have a different attitude. But for him it is the Church’s fault. He is coming around but it will take a little bit.

So my shorter answer to this big answer is …
These books are trash, usually written by people with misguided beliefs. They are not written to convey truth just to attack the Catholic Church, their common enemy. Study history, use logic, the Catechism read entire Bible passages in context and look at the Catholic explanation and the protestant. Which in the end is always consistant? Who has the authority to interpret?
 
If you don’t want to pony up any cash, here’s a couple of refutations here:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a64.htm

cathinsight.com/apologetics/mccarthy/

I would direct you to the following websites for some very exhaustive articles on some of these matters:

Steve Ray’s
catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx
Go under the “Resources” tab.

Phillip Porvaznik:
bringyou.to/apologetics/
Very young guy, lots of resources, known to make appearances on the forums here under the name PhilVaz

Hope that helps!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top