|
R e v i e w s
CATHOLIC NO MORE
IF good intentions could lure me away from Holy Mother Church, then Once a Catholic by Tony Coffey would have been effective. Good intentions aside, this work is seriously lacking in scholarship and a sense of fair play.
The tone is set on the first page. Regarding Church authority, Coffey states: "The fullness of truth, they maintain, is contained not in Scripture alone, but in both Scripture and tradition." Coffey then shows his bias against the Church by adding, "By tradition I mean the teachings of the Catholic Church." He explains what he means by tradition, not what the Catholic Church means. When quoting Vatican Council II, he imposes his meaning on Catholic writings by using the small T for Tradition. This is a good example of his lack of effort to portray the Catholic position accurately.
To Coffey's credit, he realizes that the usual proof texts ("All Scripture is God-breathed" [2 Tim. 3:16], etc.) are impotent for proving that Scripture is the final authority, since the canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Catholic Church. Instead, he begins by appealing to a fanciful "proof" of the Protestant Old Testament canon: "Jesus endorsed the thirty-nine books that compose the Old Testament Scripture as being the authentic Word of God." He bases this on Luke 24:27: "Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in an the Scriptures concerning himself."
Coffey asks, "What conclusion can we draw from Jesus' words? Since the Lord came to fulfill all that was written about him in the Scriptures, there had to have existed a recognized canon of Scripture. How did these thirty-nine books which compose the Old Testament come into existence?" He evidently feels no need to give further proof for the Protestant Old Testament canon.
I sometimes need to remind myself that most Evangelicals will believe almost any argument that supports their view, so long as it uses Scripture as its authority. With that in mind, let's look at several gaping holes in Coffey's argument.
The first problem with his proof text is that it mentions Scriptures, but doesn't mention any particular Scripture by name. It mentions Moses and the prophets, but doesn't give any prophets' names or hint at how to tell a true from a false prophet. Does "beginning with Moses" mean that, before the birth narrative of Moses, nothing is inspired? Or perhaps it means nothing is inspired before Moses himself wrote books. What about the non-prophetic writings of the Old Testament? Are they not inspired? You get the idea. Coffey is doing exactly what he accuses the Catholic Church of: reading things into Scripture that aren't there.
Another problem with his proof text is that his authority for the Old Testament rests on the New Testament. Even if Luke 24 did list the thirty-nine books, we would still need to prove the inspiration of Luke!
Coffey maintains that the New Testament is inspired because of the "unique position" the apostles held. He cites numerous New Testament passages to prove that their writings were on a par with the Old Testament prophets. Here again he is using Scripture to prove that Scripture is inspired. Coffey appeals to the New Testament to support the Old Testament, then appeals to the Old Testament to support the New. This circular argument is self-defeating.
Finally, consider the portion of Luke 24 where Christ explains the Scriptures concerning himself. What happens to Coffey's position if the following is thrown into the mix with the other passages that Christ might have referred to as "concerning himself"?
"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and calls himself a child of the Lord. . . . [I]f the righteous man is God's son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries . . . Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected" (Wisdom 2:12-30).
As most Catholic readers will recognize, this quotation is from Holy Scripture. The book of Wisdom is not one of the thirty-nine books accepted by Coffey, yet it does closely resemble other Old Testament writings that point to the Redeemer who was to come. One needn't to be a biblical scholar to recognize the striking similarities between this text and the passion of our Lord. Since it fits neatly with Coffey's proof text, he has absolutely no reason to exclude the book of Wisdom from the Old Testament-yet he does. This powerfully illustrates that, apart from the authority of the Catholic Church, the inspiration of Scripture cannot effectively be proven.
Especially frustrating in Once a Catholic are statements such as "The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has come up with positions that directly contradict Scripture" or "many of the doctrines . . . are in contradiction to the written Word of God." I wouldn't have a problem with such statements if Coffey would back them up. But every time he makes such a comment, he lets it stand on its own, as if just printing it makes it true. This may be proof enough for some, but it shouldn't satisfy a serious reader.
I found amusing his willingness to state a Catholic teaching accompanied by only a few of the verses on which the Church bases the teaching. He then gives verse after verse from Scripture showing how the Catholic doctrine is wrong. What he actually has done is to demonstrate, better than I ever could, that his real problem is that the Catholic Church contradicts his interpretation of Scripture.
Look at how Coffey treats repentance and forgiveness. He says that true repentance is turning away from sin, turning toward God, living in obedience to him, changing our behavior as well as our belief. As a biblical example of true repentance, he cites the response of Zacchaeus, who vowed to repay fourfold anyone he had cheated (Luke 19:1-10). He paints a good picture of repentance as faith in action.
In the next section, though, Coffey says that the "gift of forgiveness cannot be earned by anything we do." In the same paragraph, he cites Peter's words: "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:37-38). His purpose is to show as false the practice of infant baptism, but in fact he undercuts his own position. He says that we can do nothing to obtain forgiveness, while at the same time he shows Scripture saying we must do something (repent) in order to obtain forgiveness.
As a further example of the lack of fair play in Once a Catholic, consider Coffey on statues. He quotes Exodus 20:4-5: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God." Then he comments: "What God prohibits is stated very plainly, yet this divine law is never mentioned in the Catholic catechism."
Take a look at what three catechisms really say:
The old Baltimore Catechism, Number 1, question 96:
"Q. Do we pray to the crucifix or to the images of Christ and the saints?
"A. We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images of Christ and of the saints, but to the persons of whom they remind us."
The Baltimore Catechism, Number 2, question 220:
"Q. When does the first commandment forbid the making or the use of statues and pictures?
"A. The first commandment forbids the making or the use of statues and pictures only when they promote false worship."
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"The first commandment . . . requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other dignities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols; of silver and gold, the work of men's hands" (CCC 2112).
Coffey's accusation is unfounded. It seems to me that he either can't-or won't-present the Cath olic position accurately. Throughout Once a Catholic a pattern is followed: unsupported accusations, weak arguments, and a biased, inaccurate representation of the Catholic position.
One last example shows just how unqualified Coffey is to render judgment on the Church. In the section "What About Divorce?" he states that the Catholic Church absolutely forbids divorce. He then gives his interpretation of Scripture, "proving" that Christ allowed for divorce in some situations. He gives four examples of "valid" marriages being "dissolved" by various popes, contrary to Catholic teaching: "Its own history exposes its inconsistency in that it has granted divorces while lamely trying to maintain that marriage is indissoluble."
Coffey seems unaware that these "examples" prove absolutely nothing. Even supposing that the popes in question knew that these were valid marriages and attempted to dissolve them anyway, would that prove that the teaching on marriage was false? No, it would only prove that a pope can sin, just like any other man. For that matter, a pope himself could marry, then get "divorced" so he could marry a rich, younger woman. That again would only prove that a pope can sin. Only if the pope then formally stated that all Catholics must now hold, as a matter of faith, that divorce and remarriage are permitted under God's law would the Church's infallibility be in question.
Should you read Once a Catholic? If you are looking for a typical example of what Fundamentalists think of the Catholic Church, then this is the book for you. If you are looking for logical, well-thought-out arguments that take an honest look at both sides, you will be disappointed.
-- Brian T. Jacobs
Once a Catholic
By Tony Coffey
Eugene, Oregon:
Harevest House, 1993
166 pages
20,000 & Counting
During the summer movie blitz, there usually is one that turns out to have been a "sleeper," a movie that drew big crowds even though no one expected it to.
Sometimes the same thing happens with books. We put the Handbook of Denominations in our last catalogue because we thought it would appeal to a few people on our list, those most active in dealing with people of other churches. After all, you never know when someone will ask you, as someone asked me last week, what the Unity School of Christianity is. I was able to turn to the Handbook for a concise explanation. In two pages it gave me the basic data, and I was able to answer my inquirer accurately and promptly. (Side benefit: My inquirer probably thought I kept all this information in my head - not so, of course, but every trade has its tricks.)
Frank Mead, who died in 1982, was a consulting editor to publishing houses and wrote articles for Christian magazines and Reader's Digest. The first edition of his Handbook appeared in 1951. This is the tenth edition, revised by Samuel S. Hill, a professor of religion at the University of Florida.
In the introduction the inspiration for the work is identified. It is familiar to all of us: the religion section in the Sunday newspaper. Like me, you look at those small ads for churches and wonder what makes one church different from another.
"You begin to develop a hunch that each ad tells quite a lot about what that congregation stands for. If it is grouped with other congregations of the same denomination, you sense that even more information is available. That fact, whether it is grouped with other churches or stands alone, is one of the early clues to solving the mystery that religious diversity - confusion, perhaps - can present."
Each word in the ads has meaning, and the meanings are not always obvious. "An example: 'Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church' is Lutheran, not Evangelical. There the word ['Evangelical'] is traditional (from Luther's era in sixteenth-century Germany) and refers to its commitment to the gospel, the message of and about Christ, for which the Greek word is evangelion." Don't make the mistake of thinking Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church is made up of Evangelicals of the Pat Robertson variety. It isn't.
There are said to be over 20,000 distinct denominations within Protestantism. Add to those the apostolic churches of the East, the Catholic Church, the variants of Judaism and Islam, and the numerous groupings, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, that have Christian origins but can no longer be termed Christian - what a mishmash.
Are you able to distinguish the Amish from the Mennonites? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - and both of those from a third group, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Strangite)?
What is the difference between the Episcopal Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church, other than that one apparently arose from the other? Can you explain how the Anglican Orthodox Church relates to the Episcopal Church, and what about the African Orthodox Church, which sprouted from the Episcopal Church in 1919? What is the difference between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, and how does the group known as Jewish Reconstructionism fit in?
Most of us would be at a loss (I surely am) to explain the differences among the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), and the Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama), but those differences are not unimportant.
The Handbook doesn't attempt to categorize all 20,000-plus churches, but does a fine job of covering the chief 200. Especially instructive are the appendices. One is a chart of the 14 kinds of Evangelicalism (I learned much from it),another groups Evangelical churches into four chief divisions, another does the same for the Pentecostal churches, and a fourth appendix gives the mailing address for each denomination. These are followed by an extensive glossary and bibliography.
Mead and Hill have produced a book originally aimed at the curious reader of the newspaper's religion section but well suited to today's evangelism-minded Catholic. You could call it a What's What of churches; it organizes in your mind that jumble on the religion page.
--Karl Keating
Handbook of Denominations
By Frank S. Mead
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1995)
352 pages
$15.95
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
