What do you think?
Rate this book
Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical
This book presents a unique collection of correspondence between two friends who have spent many hours discussing their faiths-one a Catholic priest, the other an evangelical minister. Their candid dialogue illustrates how we can talk about opposing beliefs without resorting to criticism that is mean-spirited, sensationalistic, or inaccurate. The result is a one-of-a-kind, balanced presentation of six key issues including how a person becomes saved, who the teachers and rulers of the church are, and what it takes to get to heaven. The fresh insights bring clarity and respect to both sides of the ongoing dialogue between Catholics and evangelical Christians, and readers will benefit by being able to make their own informed conclusions about the differences.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
2 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 12, 2024
A DETAILED, AND NON-POLEMICAL WRITTEN DIALOGUE ON DOCTRINE
James G. McCarthy (born 1952) is also the author of 'The Gospel According to Rome,' 'Conversations With Catholics,' and 'Talking with Catholic Friends and Family.' He also produced the video, 'Catholicism: Crisis of Faith'. Father John Waiss is a Catholic priest, and a member of Opus Dei since 1977.
The Author's Prologue to this 2003 book states, "The format we designed for this book emphasizes the positive presentation of our beliefs. We address six topics, each a major area separating Catholics and evangelicals. We exchanged ten letters on each topic, and limited the length of the letters to keep things moving... We also tape-recorded conversations on each topic in which one of us asked questions of the other. A portion of these questions were submitted to the other in advance. February 2000... we began our correspondence. Neither of us realized at the time the direction our discussions would take us. This much we did know: Each of us was going to try to convert the other---in a friendly way, of course." (Pg. 11)
Waiss says, "Jim, you fail to quote a single passage for Scripture as 'the final court of appeals.' ... If Scripture really is 'the final court of appeals,' why is this never mentioned explicitly?... doesn't Jesus describe the Church as a final court of appeals for resolving disputes?" McCarthy replies, "Scripture is our chief authority, but we recognize that it delegates authority to the church, to parents, to governments. However, even the church---in the case of discipline, as we see here in Matthew 18---must use Scripture as its standard. That is what we mean when we say Scripture is 'the final court of appeals.'" (Pg. 25-26)
McCarthy says, "I'm asking about the MECHANISM by which oral Tradition was passed down from Christ to us today. Can you explain how oral Tradition can be passed on year after year without becoming lost or corrupted?" Waiss replies, "We live in a culture of written information. In our Lord's time, most people were illiterate and did not possess written materials. They told stories, however, reciting things they had heard. And if someone got something wrong while repeating a story, someone else would correct him. In this way people of that era passed on the information." (Pg. 59-60)
About Matthew 23:9, Waiss says, "If you take our Lord's words categorically, then 'no man' means absolutely no human being. Thus daughters could not call you 'father'; Christians could call nobody teacher, doctor... professor, boss, mister... and so on. Some interpret our Lord's words as hyperbole, emphasizing the Pharisees' pride and interest in titles rather than serving the people with their authority... Another possible interpretation is that our Lord is confirming that all authority comes from the Father, and that we should obey all authority and believe all teachers only to the extent they have authority from our Father, God." (Pg. 99)
He also notes that "First Timothy 3:1-7 authorizes Timothy to appoint episkopos 'bishops' not presbyter 'elders'... Whatever happened to the bishops in Christ's church? Did they disappear with the 12 apostles?" (Pg. 113-114)
In response to the approval by Calvin of infant baptism, McCarthy explains, "Unable to find support for infant baptism in the plain teaching of Scripture (there is no mention of it), Calvin took an allegorical approach. He compared circumcision to baptism, citing mystical or spiritual parallels. He then inferred that since Jews were to circumcise their infants, Christians should baptize theirs... The allegorical method can be useful for illustrating truth. But it is an unreliable tool for establishing it." (Pg. 164-165)
Waiss admits, "The Church acknowledged that Mary needs a saviour and redeemer, as did Adam and Eve---even if they had not sinned... Salvation is a spousal union with Christ (Eph 5:31-32). Even for the sinless, Christ had to take flesh and marry the Church as His bride. In this sense, Jesus saved and redeemed Mary at conception." (Pg. 311)
This is one of the most enlightening Catholic/Protestant dialogues available, and its "friendly" nature is a welcome addition to the discussion.
James G. McCarthy (born 1952) is also the author of 'The Gospel According to Rome,' 'Conversations With Catholics,' and 'Talking with Catholic Friends and Family.' He also produced the video, 'Catholicism: Crisis of Faith'. Father John Waiss is a Catholic priest, and a member of Opus Dei since 1977.
The Author's Prologue to this 2003 book states, "The format we designed for this book emphasizes the positive presentation of our beliefs. We address six topics, each a major area separating Catholics and evangelicals. We exchanged ten letters on each topic, and limited the length of the letters to keep things moving... We also tape-recorded conversations on each topic in which one of us asked questions of the other. A portion of these questions were submitted to the other in advance. February 2000... we began our correspondence. Neither of us realized at the time the direction our discussions would take us. This much we did know: Each of us was going to try to convert the other---in a friendly way, of course." (Pg. 11)
Waiss says, "Jim, you fail to quote a single passage for Scripture as 'the final court of appeals.' ... If Scripture really is 'the final court of appeals,' why is this never mentioned explicitly?... doesn't Jesus describe the Church as a final court of appeals for resolving disputes?" McCarthy replies, "Scripture is our chief authority, but we recognize that it delegates authority to the church, to parents, to governments. However, even the church---in the case of discipline, as we see here in Matthew 18---must use Scripture as its standard. That is what we mean when we say Scripture is 'the final court of appeals.'" (Pg. 25-26)
McCarthy says, "I'm asking about the MECHANISM by which oral Tradition was passed down from Christ to us today. Can you explain how oral Tradition can be passed on year after year without becoming lost or corrupted?" Waiss replies, "We live in a culture of written information. In our Lord's time, most people were illiterate and did not possess written materials. They told stories, however, reciting things they had heard. And if someone got something wrong while repeating a story, someone else would correct him. In this way people of that era passed on the information." (Pg. 59-60)
About Matthew 23:9, Waiss says, "If you take our Lord's words categorically, then 'no man' means absolutely no human being. Thus daughters could not call you 'father'; Christians could call nobody teacher, doctor... professor, boss, mister... and so on. Some interpret our Lord's words as hyperbole, emphasizing the Pharisees' pride and interest in titles rather than serving the people with their authority... Another possible interpretation is that our Lord is confirming that all authority comes from the Father, and that we should obey all authority and believe all teachers only to the extent they have authority from our Father, God." (Pg. 99)
He also notes that "First Timothy 3:1-7 authorizes Timothy to appoint episkopos 'bishops' not presbyter 'elders'... Whatever happened to the bishops in Christ's church? Did they disappear with the 12 apostles?" (Pg. 113-114)
In response to the approval by Calvin of infant baptism, McCarthy explains, "Unable to find support for infant baptism in the plain teaching of Scripture (there is no mention of it), Calvin took an allegorical approach. He compared circumcision to baptism, citing mystical or spiritual parallels. He then inferred that since Jews were to circumcise their infants, Christians should baptize theirs... The allegorical method can be useful for illustrating truth. But it is an unreliable tool for establishing it." (Pg. 164-165)
Waiss admits, "The Church acknowledged that Mary needs a saviour and redeemer, as did Adam and Eve---even if they had not sinned... Salvation is a spousal union with Christ (Eph 5:31-32). Even for the sinless, Christ had to take flesh and marry the Church as His bride. In this sense, Jesus saved and redeemed Mary at conception." (Pg. 311)
This is one of the most enlightening Catholic/Protestant dialogues available, and its "friendly" nature is a welcome addition to the discussion.
February 15, 2020
McCarthy admits up front, in his foreword, that both he and Waiss had one aim: to convert the other. That the book is published by an evangelical publishing house testifies to the fact that Waiss failed; that the book is not titled "Letters that Converted a Catholic Priest" testifies to the fact that McCarthy failed.
Who won the debate is more a question of readers' preconceptions than anything else. Catholics will be unconvinced by McCathy's arguments, and few Protestants will be moved by Waiss's somewhat bland presentation.
Of the two, McCarthy is much more aggressive, and in many ways, much more rational. But there is a mystical element in Catholicism that doesn't mix well with pure rationalism. Recall that after consecrating the host in Mass, priest speak of the "Great mystery of faith."
At the heart of the book is the question of authority: both accept the Bible as an authority, but evangelicals stop there, where as Catholics see Tradition and the Church as on equal footing as the Bible, comprising together the Word of God. Much of the book, then, revolves around Waiss trying to show how the Church's extra-Biblical notions (i.e., those not specifically detailed in the Bible, such as the papacy, Mary's Immaculate Conception, etc.) are, in some way, Biblically based while McCarthy chips away at Waiss's arguments. The tables turn from time to time, especially discussing "sola scriptura," but by and large, it's a game of "Prove it from the Bible."
As such, McCarthy and Waiss toss one phrase (or a derivative) at each other quite often: "No where in the Bible do we find X." McCarthy fills in the variable with Papal authority, Marian devotion, the importance of Tradition; Waiss replaces "X" with the notion of "sola scriptura," the Trinity, and a couple of other ideas. With the exception of "sola scriptura," Waiss's contention seems to be that McCarthy and evangelicals are essentially "guilty" (my term, not his) of the same thing they accuse Catholics of: incorporation of extra-Biblical doctrines. Waiss could have pushed McCarthy a bit harder on this point, I think, for he doesn't even mention a host of non-Biblical based notions that "sola scriptura" evangelicals accept: Sunday worship, non-observance of Jewish holidays (i.e., no where in the Bible does it explicitly say that followers of Jesus are to stop observing the Jewish festivals), Easter, and Christmas come to mind.
This shows the Protestant notion of wanting to have its theological cake and eat it, too. Protestantism accepts the early Church councils' decisions about the New Testament canon, the proper day of Christian assembly, the appropriateness of celebrating Jesus' birth and resurrection, but most denominations (especially evangelicals) are unwilling to accept the Catholic Church's continuing authority. This is one of the paradoxes of the Protestant movement, which necessarily implies that the Church started off correctly, but somewhere got tangled up in a mess of legalism and false belief. Sadly, questions like "At which point?" and "Why would God let such a thing happen despite his promise to the contrary?" aren't mention in the book. It leaves me feeling that Waiss pulled some of his punches.
On the other hand, McCarthy demolishes some Waiss's arguments in support of Catholic theology. His handling of whether Jesus had half-brothers (i.e., whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life and whether "brothers" in the New Testament should be translated "cousins," as the Church maintains) is well done, for example.
As I mentioned earlier, who won the debate depends on readers' preconceptions. As a non-Christian skeptic, I found the debate to be a draw. This is because "Letters" is a debate about the tenants of a religion based on a self-contradictory book, a notion neither McCarthy nor Waiss would take into account. For example, is one saved by faith alone or by faith and works? It depends on where you look in the Bible. Did Saul/Paul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear a voice or not? It depends on which chapter of Acts you read. Does the bread and wine become Jesus' actual body? It depends on how you read a couple of different NT passages. With such a flawed starting position, a draw is the best outcome either participant could hope for.
When such contradictions arise, the great literal/figurative differentiation arises. Indeed, much of the book also seems to be an argument as to whether or not to interpret this or that passage literally or figurative, with each side accusing the other of taking the passage out of context.
On the other hand, it is refreshing to see debate that doesn't often (though sometimes, to a slight degree) slip into personal insults. While many Protestants (and this almost always includes fundamentalists, and often includes evangelicals) think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Anti-Christ and many Catholics regard Protestants as heretics, McCarthy and ____ keep things civil the whole time.
One final criticism: the length precluded truly in-depth discussion, and many of McCarthy's and Waiss's comments go unanswered.
Overall, I would say it's an interesting read for the simple fact of seeing to opposing views clearly (though perhaps too succinctly) presented.
Who won the debate is more a question of readers' preconceptions than anything else. Catholics will be unconvinced by McCathy's arguments, and few Protestants will be moved by Waiss's somewhat bland presentation.
Of the two, McCarthy is much more aggressive, and in many ways, much more rational. But there is a mystical element in Catholicism that doesn't mix well with pure rationalism. Recall that after consecrating the host in Mass, priest speak of the "Great mystery of faith."
At the heart of the book is the question of authority: both accept the Bible as an authority, but evangelicals stop there, where as Catholics see Tradition and the Church as on equal footing as the Bible, comprising together the Word of God. Much of the book, then, revolves around Waiss trying to show how the Church's extra-Biblical notions (i.e., those not specifically detailed in the Bible, such as the papacy, Mary's Immaculate Conception, etc.) are, in some way, Biblically based while McCarthy chips away at Waiss's arguments. The tables turn from time to time, especially discussing "sola scriptura," but by and large, it's a game of "Prove it from the Bible."
As such, McCarthy and Waiss toss one phrase (or a derivative) at each other quite often: "No where in the Bible do we find X." McCarthy fills in the variable with Papal authority, Marian devotion, the importance of Tradition; Waiss replaces "X" with the notion of "sola scriptura," the Trinity, and a couple of other ideas. With the exception of "sola scriptura," Waiss's contention seems to be that McCarthy and evangelicals are essentially "guilty" (my term, not his) of the same thing they accuse Catholics of: incorporation of extra-Biblical doctrines. Waiss could have pushed McCarthy a bit harder on this point, I think, for he doesn't even mention a host of non-Biblical based notions that "sola scriptura" evangelicals accept: Sunday worship, non-observance of Jewish holidays (i.e., no where in the Bible does it explicitly say that followers of Jesus are to stop observing the Jewish festivals), Easter, and Christmas come to mind.
This shows the Protestant notion of wanting to have its theological cake and eat it, too. Protestantism accepts the early Church councils' decisions about the New Testament canon, the proper day of Christian assembly, the appropriateness of celebrating Jesus' birth and resurrection, but most denominations (especially evangelicals) are unwilling to accept the Catholic Church's continuing authority. This is one of the paradoxes of the Protestant movement, which necessarily implies that the Church started off correctly, but somewhere got tangled up in a mess of legalism and false belief. Sadly, questions like "At which point?" and "Why would God let such a thing happen despite his promise to the contrary?" aren't mention in the book. It leaves me feeling that Waiss pulled some of his punches.
On the other hand, McCarthy demolishes some Waiss's arguments in support of Catholic theology. His handling of whether Jesus had half-brothers (i.e., whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life and whether "brothers" in the New Testament should be translated "cousins," as the Church maintains) is well done, for example.
As I mentioned earlier, who won the debate depends on readers' preconceptions. As a non-Christian skeptic, I found the debate to be a draw. This is because "Letters" is a debate about the tenants of a religion based on a self-contradictory book, a notion neither McCarthy nor Waiss would take into account. For example, is one saved by faith alone or by faith and works? It depends on where you look in the Bible. Did Saul/Paul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear a voice or not? It depends on which chapter of Acts you read. Does the bread and wine become Jesus' actual body? It depends on how you read a couple of different NT passages. With such a flawed starting position, a draw is the best outcome either participant could hope for.
When such contradictions arise, the great literal/figurative differentiation arises. Indeed, much of the book also seems to be an argument as to whether or not to interpret this or that passage literally or figurative, with each side accusing the other of taking the passage out of context.
On the other hand, it is refreshing to see debate that doesn't often (though sometimes, to a slight degree) slip into personal insults. While many Protestants (and this almost always includes fundamentalists, and often includes evangelicals) think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Anti-Christ and many Catholics regard Protestants as heretics, McCarthy and ____ keep things civil the whole time.
One final criticism: the length precluded truly in-depth discussion, and many of McCarthy's and Waiss's comments go unanswered.
Overall, I would say it's an interesting read for the simple fact of seeing to opposing views clearly (though perhaps too succinctly) presented.
July 11, 2009
This book is well done and completely worth the read.
My initial response to how each letter/discussion begins, e.g. "Dear John, I miss the long discussions we enjoyed when you lived nearby in Berkeley...", was "come on guys, just get to the discussion!" But, as the book goes on, those comments are actually kind of useful- they remind us that the two authors are friends despite their theological differences. Any sniping or shots in the book lack the personal rancor that might otherwise be suspected.
Overall, the arguments in the book are clearly presented on both sides, and followed up by useful conversation. Though it does take the two a while to get to the fundamental distinction between Catholics and Protestants (not just Evangelicals specifically). In Letter 54 (of 60), the McCarthy (the Evangelical) writes: "Only when we realize the futility of trying to find acceptance with God through living a good life can we cast ourselves upon God's mercy, trusting Jesus as our Savior" (367).
Waiss (the Catholic) responds: "You imply that obedience opposes faith, whereas Scripture says disobedience opposes faith."
Of course, both sides agree that sin seperates us from God, the fundamental distinction comes in when we begin talking about virtue. This is the primary breaking point between Protestantism and Catholicism (and no doubt my own belief will show here). This is best seen in the different approaches to Philippians 3:4-9
A Catholic, on the other hand, would read this passage and conclude that Paul was not wrong to try to be a good person, he was merely talking about being a Pharisee. It's not that his intentions were wrong, it's that he was going about it in the wrong way.
All of this leads to the larger conversation of "what is the point of the law", which the authors get into in the last letters in the book.
For the Catholic, God provides the law so that His people can obey and grow in their relationship with him.
For the Protestant, God provides the law to show that we have not obeyed, and to point to the life and death of Christ as the means to escape God's righteous anger at our disobedience.
It seems to me (though the authors don't say this explicitly) that all of the other arguments center around this one. Other treatments of the issue are Luther for Armchair Theologians and On Being a Theologian of the Cross Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518.
My initial response to how each letter/discussion begins, e.g. "Dear John, I miss the long discussions we enjoyed when you lived nearby in Berkeley...", was "come on guys, just get to the discussion!" But, as the book goes on, those comments are actually kind of useful- they remind us that the two authors are friends despite their theological differences. Any sniping or shots in the book lack the personal rancor that might otherwise be suspected.
Overall, the arguments in the book are clearly presented on both sides, and followed up by useful conversation. Though it does take the two a while to get to the fundamental distinction between Catholics and Protestants (not just Evangelicals specifically). In Letter 54 (of 60), the McCarthy (the Evangelical) writes: "Only when we realize the futility of trying to find acceptance with God through living a good life can we cast ourselves upon God's mercy, trusting Jesus as our Savior" (367).
Waiss (the Catholic) responds: "You imply that obedience opposes faith, whereas Scripture says disobedience opposes faith."
Of course, both sides agree that sin seperates us from God, the fundamental distinction comes in when we begin talking about virtue. This is the primary breaking point between Protestantism and Catholicism (and no doubt my own belief will show here). This is best seen in the different approaches to Philippians 3:4-9
...I myself [Paul:] have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a rightousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.A Protestant will read this passage and conclude that Paul is saying that his attempts to, as McCarthy puts it, "sincerely seek God and do good in this life" (370) were not only insufficient to bring him into a relationship with God, but were actually "rubbish." (And "rubbish" is a huge gloss- the old translation of "dung" is better, but the nearest English equivalent to the Greek word would be "shit." Paul is not pulling his punches!) Being a good person does not save. In fact, the Christian is the person who recognizes that his attempts to be a good person are absolutely worthless in terms of creating a relationship with God. Only faith in the life and death of Christ can create such a relationship.
A Catholic, on the other hand, would read this passage and conclude that Paul was not wrong to try to be a good person, he was merely talking about being a Pharisee. It's not that his intentions were wrong, it's that he was going about it in the wrong way.
All of this leads to the larger conversation of "what is the point of the law", which the authors get into in the last letters in the book.
For the Catholic, God provides the law so that His people can obey and grow in their relationship with him.
For the Protestant, God provides the law to show that we have not obeyed, and to point to the life and death of Christ as the means to escape God's righteous anger at our disobedience.
It seems to me (though the authors don't say this explicitly) that all of the other arguments center around this one. Other treatments of the issue are Luther for Armchair Theologians and On Being a Theologian of the Cross Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518.
Read
January 4, 2011This book, by a current Catholic priest and a former Catholic evangelical minister, was very telling in that Mr McCarthy focused on numerous side issues (such as his refusal to call his priest friend "Father" for one), and his apparent refusal to even accept Father John Weiss, the co-author and a very compassionate, open hearted man of God, as a "true Christian."
It is the exact type of rhetoric that actually drove me back to Catholicism--both times. I have been back in the Church for 5 years (however recently took a short 4 month stint away towards Anglicanism but have again returned, and to stay this time!), and I had forgotten just how technically minded some within fundamentalist sects can actually be, all while saying how much they "love Catholics."
Thanks Mr McCarthy--you opened my eyes nearly as much as your friend John MacArthur did a few years back when he proclaimed on the radio Pope John Paul II to " be in hell" (to the congregation's audible laughter)shortly after this saintly man's death. He, too, claims to "love Catholics." I would hate to think how rough these guys would be if they hated us!!!
Catholicism isn't perfect, all--but it is definitely Christian. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the Bible we both use and cherish.
It is the exact type of rhetoric that actually drove me back to Catholicism--both times. I have been back in the Church for 5 years (however recently took a short 4 month stint away towards Anglicanism but have again returned, and to stay this time!), and I had forgotten just how technically minded some within fundamentalist sects can actually be, all while saying how much they "love Catholics."
Thanks Mr McCarthy--you opened my eyes nearly as much as your friend John MacArthur did a few years back when he proclaimed on the radio Pope John Paul II to " be in hell" (to the congregation's audible laughter)shortly after this saintly man's death. He, too, claims to "love Catholics." I would hate to think how rough these guys would be if they hated us!!!
Catholicism isn't perfect, all--but it is definitely Christian. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the Bible we both use and cherish.
August 10, 2011
As a person who grew up Catholic and is now Evangelical, this was a great book to read. It really outlines the differences between the two perspectives. The book is kind of a downer though because it makes you realize that there is a long way to go before any kind of unity occurs.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews