The Catholic Mystery

Rating:
Summary: For crying out loud...
Review: Armstrong does an excellent job explaining the beliefs of Catholics from the Protestant side of things. I do not think that he chose his title well. You cannot tackle the Catholic mystery and explain it. He would have to write volumes to do that.

What you can do and he does well is explain the different beliefs of Catholics and Protestants. I grew up in the Catholic Church and have read several books on both sides of the issue. I think that Armstrong's book is on top of my list for someone who is interested in feeling out both sides. Unfortunately, I have not found a Catholic writer who gives such a succinct case for Catholicism. I think that this is because there is too much to tackle. I often disagree with the Catholics who try to muddy the issues with talk of "mystery." The Christian faith is full of mysteries, but it is also full of truths.

One example of Armstrong's relative (he is definitely Protestant)objectivity is his discussion of the different views of denominations on the Lord's Supper. Laying out exactly what the Catholic Catechism teaches, and what the others, Lutheran, Presb., etc.. believe, he allows you to make a decision.

I can see how a Catholic would not be very impressed with this book, because it speaks in language that Protestants are accustomed to, but I think that it is a great book for launching discussion about the differences in the two factions. I think that it is a fantastic read for Catholics who are trying to understand the Protestant side.

He discusses the three things that I find it hard for the two sides to ever find agreement on:

1. The adoration of Mary

2. The re-sacrificing of Christ at every Mass

3. The confusing blend of grace and works

4. The infallable authority of the Papacy

Each believer must take a side on these topics. They define the context of our faith. Armstrong's book is a great place to start when looking into these things.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Introduction
Review: I hope that I can bring some light ot this book in response to "a reader in Springfield, MO USA. She said that if you wanted to know about the Catholic Church, ask a Catholic. Well here I am, a once Catholic for over twenty years until I was born-again. The book is actually quite accurate as many others. I still have many Catholic family members, and they DO adore Mary. However, the Biblical term is called worship, which is forbidden in Exodus and Deuteronomy to say the least. When I was a Catholic, I used to pray to Mary and celebrate her feasts. That is called idol worship. Catholics hate this designation because it brings conviction and shows them that they are disobeying God's command. Whenever, I was approached about worshipping Mary, I would say "I don't worship her, I adore her". When told that adoration was the same as idolatry, the response will then change to "I do not adore her, I honour her." The truth of the matter is the word "worship" in a religious sense is both words! The Bible is clear: worship God, and Him alone. Stop trying to deceive others: I know the drill! Plus if you read the Councils of Trent and the New 1994 Catholic Cathecism, you will see that this book is accurate in it's assessments of Mary worship. In regards to the Mass, I am shocked that she says that "we do not sacrifice Christ at every Mass". To say such a statement to another knowledgeable Catholic (as I was, being trained in Cathecism class) would show that she doesn't even know the rudiemnts of Catholicism. The Council of Trent, with the Vatican II and 1994 Cathecism in agreement, mention that the Mass is INDEED a continual bloodless sacrifice of Jesus ( I even have a Roamn Catholic priest giving a detailed RC theological statement on the Mass and those are his very words). Is he (or she)now going to say that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about itself? Please, don't let the remarks by many Catholics, who I am sure are sincere but feel threatened, prevent you from reading this book and others, like "A Woman Rides The Beast" by Dave Hunt (also available from Amazon.com). I ususally notice they attack the credebility of the auhtors and books but offer no shred of evidence contrary to the information given. The reason for that is quite obvious: because the very documentation they use is the resources recommended by the Roman Catholic Church! And the refutation is used by none other than the Bible!

Rating:
Summary: The Catholic Mystery - Not Quite Revealed!
Review: John Armstrong starts out his book in the very beginning by saying that he doesn't think that there will ever be unity between Catholics and Protestants, no matter what efforts they can be superficially united in. He attempts to explain the Catholic Mystery using many quotes and comments, unfortunately, the reader once again ends up with a lot of misinformation about the Catholic Church!

Armstrong may have tried his best, but he falls very short. If you truly want to learn about the Catholic Church you are going to have to use Catholic sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other books, especially your Bible. Listen to some tapes by Catholic apologists and compare their arguments with Armstrong's arguments! Break open that Bible and read it all! Then you decide! The Catholic Mystery is still unfolding, yet Armstrong sheds little light on it.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Introduction
Review: John Armstrong's _The Catholic Mystery_ makes for a quick, easy read, a succinct refresher on the essential differences between Protestants & Catholics, differences that have not faded in the 500 years since the Reformation. Armstrong does not intend this book to be a thorough, scholarly study. Instead, it is designed as a simple reminder, a reminder to contemporaries about the bases on which the Protestant Reformers took their stand -- sola scriputura, gratia, Christus, fide, etc. I (as a historian & a thoughtful Protestant) found nothing with which to take issue in regards to either Armstrong's history or his theology. He provides just enough historical background to give his readers a sense of time & place. He quotes just enough official Catholic documentation to effectively illustrate that the issues over which the Reformers fought still remain. For this reason, I found the book most helpful.

One will have to look elsewhere for a detailed, scholarly discourse into the history behind & the theology emerging out of the Protestant Reformation. One will have to look elsewhere for an intricate historical understanding & defense of modern Catholic theology. _The Catholic Mystery_ is a place to begin, not a destination unto itself. Readers would be wise to keep this in mind & not expect this book to more than what Armstrong intended. It's a starting point, good for either a Protestant seeking to understand the essence of Catholicism or a Catholic seeking to understand substance of Protestantism.

I found myself challenged by Armstrong's reminder that both Protestants & Catholics continue to share a common acceptance of early church doctrine, as prescribed in the early church creeds. It is only over the mid to late Medieval theological understanding of redemption for which the Reformers objected. I also appreciated Armstrong's reminder that it is in the Scriptures themselves (not in the Eucharist, in ancient tradition or ritual, or in subjective person experience) where the Reformers believed we meet God most clearly & resolutely. This is why preaching God's word is the focal point & climax to all Protestant worship services.

I only take issue with Armstrong's conclusion, where he restates the differences between Protestantism & Catholicism most starkly. Despite Vatican II, Catholics must still look at Protestants as Xn brothers lacking in most of what is essential to fully experiencing the Xn faith (the Eucharist, ancient tradition & ritual, participation is a church directly descended from Apostolic authority, the headship of the Pope, etc.), while Protestants must continue to look at Catholicism as ultimately heretical in their presentation of the Gospel (particularly in the matter of Redemption) as recorded for us by the Apostles in the New Testament. However, it is my understanding that Catholicism, when interpreted properly, ultimately points the believer toward Xt, whether that's Xt through the church, Xt through the saints, Xt through Mary, Xt through the Eucharist, Xt through tradition & ancient ritual, Xt through the institution of the Pope, or Xt through some religious experience, Xt through a relic, or Xt through a religious order. Ultimately, when all is said & done, Catholicism is pointing the believer toward Xt. It is not necessary for a practicing Catholic to pray to the saints, pray the rosary, use a relic, etc. What is necessary is a conviction of, focus on, & trust in Xt.

It is just that, in my judgment, with all the superfluous theological & institutional layers Catholicism wraps around Xt & the plain Gospel as presented by the New Testament, there is too much to distract the believer from Xt Himself, too much to convolute and/or distort the simple truths of the Gospel message. Much room is left for error, either corporately as a church or individually as a believer. There are too many Catholics who simply do not understand the true teachings of their church, while the Reformer suggested that over the long 1500 year history of the Xn Church theological errors or misrepresentations had interjected themselves. Even so, is it not possible for a Catholic believer to follow the sign posts & come to a true, proper understanding of Xt, even without all their theological I's dotted? Is it our proper theological understanding that saves us or Xt? Is it not possible to fail to possess a purely Biblical understanding of salvation, and yet trust in Xt enough to ultimately gain the reward of heaven? This is not to suggest that I am fine with contemporary Catholicism. I firmly believe that the Reformation was a necessary & needed outcome, however unfortunate. It is, in my judgment, better to remove as much possible misunderstanding & distraction from the essence of the Gospel than to unintentionally lead someone astray. But, this does imply that we should assume that all Catholics are heretics & unable to possess true salvation. Now, to Armstrong's credit, he never states or even implies that all Catholics are themselves heretics, just that the many Catholic teachings are misleading enough to be heretical. Perhaps this point represents more my intellectual struggle than anything in Armstrong's work itself.

Rating:
Summary: A sincere try, but inadequate
Review: This book does a fairly accurate job of delineating the differences between Catholic and evangelical beliefs, including some subtle areas that are often misunderstood by members of both groups. For instance:

* In the evangelical vocabulary, "faith" is a sense of assurance of one's salvation, and "justification" is a one-time salvific event.

* In the Catholic vocabulary, "faith" is intellectual belief in Christ, and "justification" is an ongoing process of growing in holiness.

* The Mass isn't a new sacrifice. It's a re-offering of Christ's initial sacrifice.

Where Armstrong fails, though, is in his attempt to disprove Catholic beliefs. Sometimes he gives inadequate evidence, and sometimes he gives no evidence at all - apparently assuming we'll agree that the Catholic view is "obviously" incorrect. (For instance, he claims that the Real Presence is "clearly" unscriptural, while admitting that Christians have believed in it from the earliest centuries all the way to the Reformation. Surely it can't be that "clearly" wrong, if even Luther believed in it?) He also mentions that former Protestant minister Scott Hahn converted to Catholicism because he became convinced, through years of scholarship, that the Reformation doctrines of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" were unbiblical innovations. You'd think Armstrong would go on to explain and refute Hahn's reasoning, or at least give sources where we can find counter-arguments. But he doesn't.

Hmm. Does this mean Scott Hahn was correct? Since all Armstrong's claims against Catholicism are based on "sola fide" and "sola scriptura", it's an important question.

If you're an evangelical who wants to know more about Catholic beliefs, or a well-informed Catholic who wants to know more about evangelical Protestantism, this book could be a useful starting point. But read some Catholic apologetics books too (like Catholic for a Reason, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, or Surprised by Truth). They give strong arguments in favor of Catholicism, which evangelical authors have yet to refute. Read them prayerfully. You might be the one who's surprised.

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir.
Review: This book isn't quite as bad as "A Woman Rides the Beast" by David Hunt, although the later is much more entertaining.

Like most modern Protestants, Armstrong tries painfully hard to convince the reader that the reformers were in step with the modern American evangelical movement. He even goes as far as calling them the "Evangelical Reformers" every time they are mentioned. Nowhere does he state the fact that Luther and Calvin hated each other, nowhere does he mention Luther's theology of "Sin and sin boldly," nowhere does he quote the early Church Fathers to back up his claims, nowhere does he even attempt to explain away the countless Biblical verses that run contrary to his theology. The list goes on and on.

One of the most outlandish charges Armstrong makes is that the Church never even used the title "Catholic" until the fifteenth century. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

If you want to learn history at third grade level, or if you want to understand what goes on inside the mind of a fundamentalist, read this book. Otherwise, waste your brain cells on something more useful.