Appearance
Roman Catholicism
I'm sorry to have to write a bad review, but this book is the silliest attack on the Church there is in print. Any Catholic (or Protestant who is knowledgeable in the least about theology) could refute this book without much effort.The case for Catholicism is made more by this book than by many modern Catholic apologists. Such slanderous attacks, having no foundation in truth, led me to consider that the Catholic Church is the one Church which Jesus promised would be so hated. This search led me to the deepest of convictions, and one which as a former Baptist I did not even want to consider, that the Catholic Church indeed is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostle's Creed and the Creed of the Council of Nicea.If your view of the Catholic Church is formed upon this book, you will have a very warped and inaccurate view indeed. It is my prayer that people will not be deceived by the elementary- school level of presentation available through a reading of this book.
Roman Catholicism
This book is based totally on prejudice. How could anyone take it seriously? I nearly laughed out loud when I saw people recommending it as a book to learn more about Catholicism, but they were serious. I hope they are seriosly misinformed about Catholic teaching, so it's not totally their fault. If that's the case, then I suggest they read the Catechism (so they can know what the Catholic Church actually teaches). However, if they do know what Catholics believe, then I want to know why they feel it necessary to instead look to a book filled with straw-man arguements, misquotations, misrepresentations, lies, deceit, etc. such as this one? The only reason I can think of is if they're afraid of the truth. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people simply disagreeing with Catholicism; that's one thing. Many Protestants have sincere questions about Catholicism. But this book is more than simply disagreement; this is plain trash. It relies on people's total ignorance and prejudice. If anyone thinks this book is an "excellent book", then I think they need to do a little more research. Because either they are very ignorant of Catholic teaching, or they just like Catholic-bashing (as opposed to honest disagreement, which many good Protestants have).
Roman Catholicism
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said something along the lines of, "Few people in America hate the Catholic Church, but many hate what they mistakenly think is the Catholic Church." There is a great deal of truth in Sheen's observation. Oppositions to the Catholic Church are often full of misrepresenations and misconceptions concerning its teachings and practices, such as the accusations that Catholics worship Mary or think the Pope is sinless. In some cases these misrepresentations may be deliberate, the result of hateful bigotry. More often, however, those who make such assertions have been unfortunately misled by anti-Catholic propoganda - propoganda like Lorainne Boettner's Bible of anti-Catholicism.Whether Lorainne was himself misled or in fact deliberately misrepresented the Catholic Faith, his book, Roman Catholicism, is full of inaccuracies.Here are some of his historical inaccuracies in his list of "Catholic Inventions":Transubstatiation was not invented in 1215. It had been believed for over a thousand years prior to this. 1215, however, was the first time it was formally defined and given the name Transubstantiation.Contrary to Boettner's claim, the Bible was not forbidden to laymen and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1229. The Bible could not have been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which did not yet exist and would not for another several hundred years. At the Council held at Toulouse, France (which is certainly the council Boettner mistakenly thought was in Muslim occupied Valencia and called by that name), a inaccurate translation of the Bible published by an heretical sect (which claimed that there were two gods and that marriage was evil) was condemned.The Sign of the Cross was practiced by Christians since before Tertullian wrote of it in 211 (not 300, as Boettner states), perhaps even since the time of the Apostles.The worship of images was authorized in 786. In fact it was never authorized, as Catholics do not worship religious images anymore than the United States worships the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Rushmore, but merely use them as reminders of God and his followers or as aids in prayer. In 787, a council condemned the iconoclastic heresy which asserted that statues of Jesus were unacceptable. The council did not condone worship of such images, however.Confession to a priest existed long before 1215. Cyprian, Origen, and others refer to it nearly a millenia earlier. Nor do Catholics go to a priest instead of to God for the forgiveness of sins.Finally, the "Apocryphal books" (seven dueterocanonical books which Protestants do not accept as Scriptural) were not added to the Bible at the Council of Trent. Rather, Martin Luther had removed them, and the Council affirmed what had always been held - that they were truly books of the Canon of Scripture which was established definitively at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century.These are only some of the inaccuracies contained in Lorainne Boettner's inaccurate, unreliable, and seriously misleading book, Roman Catholicism. It is unfortunate that many have been led into a false view of history and the Church by this book, and whether one is Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, nothing should justify going to it for information regarding the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholicism
The anti-Catholics' Bible, it contains lots of misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church, plenty of alleged quotations but without many citations to any source. Full of blunders and misunderstandings, it is one of the worst things you could ever spend your monsey on. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, "There are not many people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but thousands of people who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be." A refutation of parts of this book can be found in Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." Boettner clearly demonstrates his little knowledge of Roman Catholic history
Roman Catholicism
I always find it interesting when certain groups of people attack the Catholic Church based on the assertion of "inventing" doctrine. They often point to the dates when the Church officially names such previously shared and accepted beliefs. They say 'That proves that it was "invented" by the Church because it was documented well after the death of the apostles." The Catholic Church, when a long standing, all the way back to the first and second centuries, tradition becomes challanged or distorted will establish a special council to lay out the exact meaning and often name to a doctrine (example being - The Trinity) to do away with misconceptions. I use the example of the Trinity because most protestants are unaware of the Council of Nicene back in the fourth century that officially defined and named what was considered to be a commonly held TRADITION, but had at that time come under attack from various heretics. The word TRADITION scares most protestants because in order to discredit the Catholic Church they have decreed that all TRADITION passed down from the earliest of times is false if not found in the Bible. If you are a protestant reading this, read about the history of forming the New Testament. It wasn't handed directly from God's hand to Christians, but was a long process of evaluation in determining what was divinely inspired and what was not. Many books were left out that some wanted to include - they are known as the "Gnostic Gospels". It was the Catholic Church who determined which books were to be included and which ones were not. This was 300 years after the Apostles. Please tell me what bible were the earliest of Christians using to verify and justify their beliefs prior to the fourth century. They relied on TRADITION. I could go on forever about the many gross misconceptions that protestants have concerning Catholic beliefs, but there is already a good number of sites and books that could properly educate if people are truly interested in the truth.
Roman Catholicism
The problem with this book is that is wholly unscholarly. The author makes all sorts of extravagant claims against the Roman Catholic Church and almost always either fails to correctly cite the material or it is found to be completely out of context. There are dialogs that could be opened about Roman Catholicism but this author's work can only serves as an embarrassment for the arguments Boettner and his modern constituents are making. There are many more balanced and scholarly materials available throughout amazon.com and the Internet. I would suggest looking there.