Which book "Upon This Rock", "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" or something else?

[Lori-H]

My husband and I are each reading books on the authority of Peter and the church. He claims no denomination, but is pretty much evangelical protestant. We are both reading “Is Rome the True Church” (Protestant position). In turn, we will each read 1 book on the Catholic position. Can anyone give any (name removed by moderator)ut on what is the best book out there. I have Steve Ray’s “Upon this Rock” but have not read it. I was also thinking of “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” Which is better? Thanks

 

[1ke]

Upon This Rock is great. I have not read the other one.

 

[CWBetts]

I have not read either, but Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction is excellent!

 

[Cruciform]

Yes, Upon This Rock would be one good text to study along these lines. Is Rome the True Church, however, addresses not only the papacy, but the doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology) as a whole, so its concerns are a bit broader than Ray’s book. Therefore, I’d recommend reading a few Catholic books that include material on the Church’s own ecclesiology. Jesus, Peter, & the Keys has some of this. Also, the following texts come to mind:
Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 (Ignatius Press, 2008); ISBN 978-1-58617-176-6

Mark Jordan, ed. The Church’s Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults (Ignatius Press, 1987); ISBN 0-89870-162-7 [Out of print now, but often available used online.]

Peter J. Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press, 2001); ISBN 0-89870-798-6

Patrick Madrid, Where Is That In the Bible? (Our Sunday Visitor, 2001); ISBN 087973-693-3

_____, Why Is That in Tradition? (Our Sunday Visitor, 2002); ISBN 1-931709-06-8

_____, Answer Me This! (Our Sunday Visitor, 2003); ISBN 193170958-0

Stephen Ray & Dennis Walters, The Papacy: Learning Guide (Catholic Answers, 2003); ISBN 1-888992-09-3

I’ve read Is Rome the True Church, and have pages of notes in critique of it. There are often multiple errors and distortions on nearly every page. One should know his Catholic faith very well before attempting to wade through Geisler’s treatment. I trust that the sources listed above will assist you in your efforts. They’re well worth the cost, and will provide you with a useful library of Catholic apologetics. God bless.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Lori-H]

Thanks Cruciform,

I personally would never pick to read a protestant book, but since hubby is, I said I would. It is sad to think that there are so many errors in his book, but I will be vigilant and try to catch them. Do you have any specifics that you mind sharing or could PM me?

I have decided that we will read Jesus, Peter and the Keys. I personally will supplement this with “Upon this Rock” and “The Papacy Learning Guide” .

Sincerely,
Lori

 

[steve_b]

My husband and I are each reading books on the authority of Peter and the church. He claims no denomination, but is pretty much evangelical protestant. We are both reading “Is Rome the True Church” (Protestant position). In turn, we will each read 1 book on the Catholic position. Can anyone give any (name removed by moderator)ut on what is the best book out there. I have Steve Ray’s "Upon this Rock" but have not read it.

I have this book. It is an excellent read. Copious footnotes from scripture and the Early Church Fathers. Dive in.

Lori:

I was also thinking of “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” Which is better? Thanks

I have this book also. Excellent read. Again, copious footnotes to support the Catholic position

As a suggestion, read them both but start with the book you have now.

 

[Lori-H]

Steve,

Do you find either book more convincing? I would love to have DH read both, but we are trading book for book. He picked a slim book for me, wait till he sees what I have in store!

Thanks,
Lori

 

[Scoobyshme]

If you would like to listen to something on the topic, you can listen to “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid in .mp3 format (copy it to an MP3 player, iPod, burn to a CD, etc.). It’s free to download and is broken into nice chunks that you can listen to while driving or exercising, or just chilling out.

alabamacatholicresources.com/pope_fiction.html

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Thanks Cruciform,

I personally would never pick to read a protestant book, but since hubby is, I said I would. It is sad to think that there are so many errors in his book, but I will be vigilant and try to catch them. Do you have any specifics that you mind sharing or could PM me?

I have decided that we will read Jesus, Peter and the Keys. I personally will supplement this with “Upon this Rock” and “The Papacy Learning Guide” .

Sincerely,
Lori

I read just a little of Steve Ray’s book, at least enough to know that he leads his readers on a very biased journey of Christian history. For example, Ray attempts to convince his readers that Ignatius is affirming Roman authority when he says, “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” Somehow Ray interprets this to mean that Ignatius expected the bishop of Rome to oversee the church in Antioch and appoint Ignatius’ replacement. Ray never tells you that Ignatius summoned Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to handle that. Rome had absolutely no say in the matter. Remember, Antioch was a patriarchal church, if Rome truly had authority Polycarp would not have organized bishops to choose Ignatius’ replacement - that would have been handled by the bishop of Rome.

Another thing you probably won’t find in Ray’s book is how the church handled the excommunication and replacement of Paul of Samosata, another bishop of that same church in Antioch. Apparently Rome had nothing to do with that either.

Reading only Catholic books would be like getting all your news from MSNBC. I might be wise to look in on Fox News once in a while too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read just a little of Steve Ray’s book, at least enough to know that he leads his readers on a very biased journey of Christian history. For example, Ray attempts to convince his readers that Ignatius is affirming Roman authority when he says, “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” Somehow Ray interprets this to mean that Ignatius expected the bishop of Rome to oversee the church in Antioch and appoint Ignatius’ replacement. Ray never tells you that Ignatius summoned Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to handle that. Rome had absolutely no say in the matter. Remember, Antioch was a patriarchal church, if Rome truly had authority Polycarp would not have organized bishops to choose Ignatius’ replacement - that would have been handled by the bishop of Rome.

Another thing you probably won’t find in Ray’s book is how the church handled the excommunication and replacement of Paul of Samosata, another bishop of that same church in Antioch. Apparently Rome had nothing to do with that either.

Reading only Catholic books would be like getting all your news from MSNBC. I might be wise to look in on Fox News once in a while too.

As a former evangelical, Steve Ray set out to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong.

To his own surprise and consternation, he discovered that the Catholic Church really is the Church that Jesus founded “Upon this Rock”.

Since coming into the Church, Steve has written multiple books and articles, produced the outstanding video series “The Footprints of God”, and led hundreds of evangelicals back to the true faith.

I have had the pleasure of hearing Steve speak in person on a couple of occasions, and I heartily endorse all of his work for the non-Catholic and Catholic audience alike.

But be warned…Steve is an excellent coach for those who “swim the Tiber”!

 

[Cruciform]

I read just a little of Steve Ray’s book, at least enough to know that he leads his readers on a very biased journey of Christian history…

Are you implying that Protestant histories are somehow free of bias? In your statement here, “biased” merely appears to mean “contrary to Brian’s Protestant pereferences.” Of course, this is itself an entirely biased position.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

Do you find either book more convincing? I would love to have DH read both, but we are trading book for book. He picked a slim book for me, wait till he sees what I have in store!

Thanks,
Lori

Since you have Steve Ray’s book, go with it. And its about 100 pages shorter than “JP & the keys” if that matters.

I’m a huge fan of Scott Hahn. So I should mention, a comment on the back cover of “JP & the Keys” by Scott Hahn. He says “the amount of data and useful information in this veritable compendium is simply staggering. Whoever ignores it consigns his own work to irrelevance” If I’m not mistaken, Steve Ray quotes from “JP & the Keys” in his book “Upon this Rock”

That’s why I say get “JP& the Keys” also. Both should be in everyone’s library. IMHO

 

[Cruciform]

…It is sad to think that there are so many errors in his book, but I will be vigilant and try to catch them. Do you have any specifics that you mind sharing or could PM me?

As an example of the types of problems that one encounters in Geisler’s book, I’ll critique the first couple of sections of Chapter 1:
“…that led to the papal claims…” (p. 9). Rather, “that led to the formal definition of papal doctrines that had been handed down from Christ, the apostles, and the early Church.”

“It took many centuries…” (p. 10). In fact, a basic three-fold hierarchical structure in the Church (bishop, priest, and deacon) can be seen in the New Testament Pastoral Epistles (Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus) and the book of Acts.

“…the evolution of the Roman claim…” (10). No, rather, the development of Catholic doctrine. Compare the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not formally defined as dogma by the Church until the 4th century A.D.

“…written transmission…is the only reliable source…” (10). Merely begs the question in favor of the Protestant assumption of sola scriptura. Shall we conclude, then, that the canon of Scripture (an unwritten doctrine) is at best an “unreliable” teaching of the Church?

“…the Church embraced…” (10). The authors offer no documented evidence for this claim, but simply assert it as though it were self-evidently true.

“…strong motivation to develop an ecclesiology…” (10). This seems to equate doctrinal development with theological invention based upon expediency, rather than revealed truth. A logical non sequitur (that is, a leap of logic).

“He was in fact…” (11). Highly debatable.

“Furthermore…” (11). A non sequitur, as well as a straw man fallacy: nixkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

“Even Roman Catholic…” (11). They didn’t use the term “infallible,” no. However, they taught the binding doctrinal authority of the Church and of Peter’s successors. (Of course, neither did they speak of the Bible as “infallible.” Indeed, the Bible doesn’t even speak of itself in such terms.)

Authors contrast “authoritative” with “reflective” (11). This is a false dichotomy, a false “either/or.”

“Third, if the claims…” (12). Does this include, for example, the Church’s claims concerning the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ as well? What if these should “turn out to be false”? Who has the inherent authority to pronounce upon the truth or falsehood of the Church’s established teachings? (Above and beyond the Church herself, that is.)

“…if infallibility can be undermined…” (12). This seems to be the central goal of this book: to undermine the Catholic faith.

Are non-Catholics “Christians”? (17). Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), pars. 216 and 838.

“The Church” (18). CCC, par. 216.

Note that all of these critical flaws are located within a mere four pages of Geisler’s book.

I have decided that we will read Jesus, Peter and the Keys. I personally will supplement this with “Upon this Rock” and “The Papacy Learning Guide.”

Very good choices. God bless.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Are you implying that Protestant histories are somehow free of bias?

Not at all, there are biases on both sides.

Ray’s book is an apologetics work; if you want evidence in support of Catholic doctrine his book is just what you’re looking for. But if you want the unbiased truth you will have to do a lot more work. You cannot rely on Steven Ray or any other Catholic or Protestant apologist if you are looking for truth. All you will get is their biased view. That can be useful to an extent, but it will not provide the whole picture.

I prefer not to read apologists at all, but would rather study the history for myself. In fact, I would like to recommend a book: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. You will learn more from that book then you ever will from those apologists.

 

[CWBetts]

I read just a little of Steve Ray’s book, at least enough to know that he leads his readers on a very biased journey of Christian history. For example, Ray attempts to convince his readers that Ignatius is affirming Roman authority when he says, “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” Somehow Ray interprets this to mean that Ignatius expected the bishop of Rome to oversee the church in Antioch and appoint Ignatius’ replacement. Ray never tells you that Ignatius summoned Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to handle that. Rome had absolutely no say in the matter. Remember, Antioch was a patriarchal church, if Rome truly had authority Polycarp would not have organized bishops to choose Ignatius’ replacement - that would have been handled by the bishop of Rome.

Another thing you probably won’t find in Ray’s book is how the church handled the excommunication and replacement of Paul of Samosata, another bishop of that same church in Antioch. Apparently Rome had nothing to do with that either.

Reading only Catholic books would be like getting all your news from MSNBC. I might be wise to look in on Fox News once in a while too.

Of course it also wise to get your reports from someone close to the source, and not someone that came along a minimum of 1500 years after the fact.

 

[Cruciform]

…But if you want the unbiased truth you will have to do a lot more work.

As already mentioned, there is no “unbiased truth.” All sources are biased in the sense that they communicate their ideas from a particular perspective.

I prefer not to read apologists at all, but would rather study the history for myself.

As observed, all of the historical sources you might study will be biased as well. Indeed, you will also read those sources in a biased (perspectival) manner.

In fact, I would like to recommend a book: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History…

…and this source is as biased as any other. How, then, do we decide between all of these conflicting biased sources? Who or what has such binding interpretive authority?

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Of course it also wise to get your reports from someone close to the source, and not someone that came along a minimum of 1500 years after the fact.

Exactly my point, and it’s the reason I know that Rome did not hold primacy over all the other churches fully until the fifth century, and not at all (outside their jurisdiction) prior to Nicea. The evidence is in the history.

 

[NHInsider]

Exactly my point, and it’s the reason I know that Rome did not hold primacy over all the other churches fully until the fifth century, and not at all (outside their jurisdiction) prior to Nicea. The evidence is in the history.

If the existence of dissent is your proof, then you might as well say that Rome still does not hold primacy today. That’s a non-argument.

Let’s look at that history you think is more reliable evidence. Are you willing to posit that the Gnostics, Arians, Manichees and similar groups were oppressed proto-protestants? If not, on what basis do you cling to little details like the Trinity? (Not to mention, of course, the canon?)

 

[Brian_Culliton]

If the existence of dissent is your proof, then you might as well say that Rome still does not hold primacy today. That’s a non-argument.

Let’s look at that history you think is more reliable evidence. Are you willing to posit that the Gnostics, Arians, Manichees and similar groups were oppressed proto-protestants? If not, on what basis do you cling to little details like the Trinity? (Not to mention, of course, the canon?)

The proof I presented in this discussion had nothing to do with decent.

What are you getting at in your comment? Are you trying to say that Catholic authority is responsible for me believing in the Trinity or accepting the canon of Scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The proof I presented in this discussion had nothing to do with decent.

What are you getting at in your comment? Are you trying to say that Catholic authority is responsible for me believing in the Trinity or accepting the canon of Scripture?

Your belief and your acceptance are your responsibility.

However, it is fair to say that through the working of the Holy Spirit, the early Catholic Church worked out the theology of the trinity and the canon of the scriptures which you now believe and accept.