Church of Rome at the Bar of H:

by William Webster

Focusing on major issues and in a non-polemical way, William Webster raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.

• Format: Library Binding
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0851516734
• ISBN13: 9780851516738
• Release Date: January 1996
• Publisher: Banner of Truth
• Length: 256 Pages
• Weight: 1.04 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 5.7" x 8.8"

Customer Reviews

Found wanting

An excellent introduction to the writings of the church fathers. A must read for Catholics and Protestants alike. Were the characteristic doctrines of the modern Roman Catholic Church taught and believed in the early church? William Webster proves from the patristic writings that such doctrines as auricular confession, the marian dogmas and papal infallibility did not originate in Scripture or the tradition of the early Christian church. The church of Rome is placed at the bar of history and she is found wanting.

Be Careful how you use

I believe this to be a 5-star book, but I am concerned about who reads it. I can't imagine any Catholic reading this book and believing the material; unless you're a Catholic who is genuinely questioning the authority of your church this will only get your hackles up. Protestants who are strong in their faith don't need historical evidence to be convinced of their beliefs, so I am afraid that this book will only serve to poison your spirit against Catholic brothers and sisters.To those very close to a Catholic: this book is immensely helpful in deciding what to believe. You are bomabarded constantly with Catholic claims to "catholicity"; that is, that Christ instituted only one church (naturally, the RCC) and that all Christians everywhere and for all time have believed exactly what the RCC says. Along the same lines, Reformation beliefs are johnny-come-lately's and that Protestants should return to the "real" church. This is the most difficult argument of Catholics to wrestle with, because Bible verses can be interpreted differently as can fruits of the Spirit but history is a fact. Well, Webster blows the "catholic" argument out of the water. He has an easy job, because he doesn't have to show that Church Fathers would have been Protestant, merely that some beliefs of each father go against modern Catholicism. By quoting historical documents (which are extensively referenced), he shows that the early Church contained a mix of "Catholic" and "Protestant" beliefs (at best) or were entirely opposed to an idea like a papacy at the beginning. He admits that the doctrine of the Eucharist is the best supported historically, but even so, some authoritative writers explicitly supported views more like Calvin's on the topic. I would say, then, that Webster succeeds in using his book to show that Reformation beliefs had support in the early Church and that the RCC is unjustified in dismissing Protestant beliefs as going against history, and that even some of its own beliefs contradict the statements of those it uses for support. Even if it does not convince, for whatever reason, a single Catholic, I am convinced that I should not be swayed by any claims of the RCC to sole ownership of history.

Is the Catholic Church the unwavering repositor of truth?

This book is a must read for those who are unaware of the actual extent to which historic church fathers disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church's claims on various matters of dogma. This is very important for a number of reasons: 1) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed a place as the only true legitimate church intended by Christ. 2) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that its doctrines were universally taught by early church fathers. 3) The Roman Catholic Church insists on adherence to its dogma as requisite for salvation.William Webster does not solely rely on openly debatable or elusive scripture passages to make his case. More impressively, Webster takes a look at the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church "on its own turf" as he quotes from the early church fathers and demonstrates how they contradicted the teachings of the Roman Church. This is a powerful argument against a church which relies on the unanimity of consent of historical early Christian Church leaders as a basis for its own credibility and divine authority.Roman Catholics who are honest seekers of historical truth regarding the claims of their own church will appreciate the non-combative, matter-of-fact manner in which historical facts are objectively presented in this book. This is definitely not an "in your face" anti-Catholic book. Non-Catholic Christians who question Roman Catholic claims to supremacy and having an unbroken, consistent chain of theological thinking and dcotrine throughout history will appreciate the informative, concise, and organized presentation of the real historical truth.Webster begins the book establishing the debate between Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) as a basis for Christian teaching, versus scripture and "tradition." He then moves on to discuss the papacy, and how various dogmas such as Papal Infallibility, Marian Dogmas, the priesthood, Penance, the Eucharist, and Justification changed and evolved throughout the centuries. The book also contains excellent appendices and notes. An excellent, informable resource and a must for anyone's apologetics library.

A must for those who want to read church history

A definite 5-star rating book of prime importance. Webster focuses on major issues and in a non-polemical way, raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.This book is becoming more and more popular in challenging the alleged authority and supremacy of the Roman Church. Webster certainly puts the Church of Rome to the Bar of History and finds it lacking in that court. The book is well organized, fully documenting the claims of the Roman Church as derived from official source documents and depicting the shortcomings of those claims from both historical sources and Scriptural interpretations as given by the early church fathers. Webster was well educated in the Catholic Church, attended parochial schools until a teenagers, and then a Benedictine monastery throughout high school years. He thoroughly understands the Roman Catholic faith and its doctrines.Both the Councils of Trent and Vatican I contented "that the Roman Catholic Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. And secondly, that no one, the Church included, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Webster does an excellent job in not only challenging Rome's authority in interpretating Scriptures but also proves that "the Church cannot even claim unanimous consent from the early Fathers onwards for it current teaching on the nature of tradition itself, much less for a comprehensive body of doctrine with the exception of the broad biblical doctrines such as the existence of one God; the inspiration of Scripture; the recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and baptism." -p. 31.Challenged also is the Roman Church belief in 'development of doctrine' or 'unfolding of doctrinal truth'. This is a theory that the apostles left truth in germ form in Scriptures which took centuries to develop fully and was revealed to the Church as the need arose. "If any doctrine is claimed as a true development it must be consistent with the truth of Scripture (its alleged source) and should be supported by the testimony of the Church to the manner in which it has been increasingly understood in the course of history." -p. 19. Webster states that no one denies that there can be a development in understanding the deep truths of Scripture over time (such as the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ), "but the theory now under consideration cannot legitimize Roman Catholic tradition for its fails two very important tests - the test of Scripture and the test of history." Of importance to Webster is to examine what interpretation of Scripture was held by the early church fathers. I would recommend this book to anyone that needs to do research on the historical claims of the Roman Church and wants to be able to defend his views against tho

GREAT PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL!

In the Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster demonstrates that Protestant ideas were not invented in the 16th century as some would suggest. Webster deals with four major concerns in his book: the authority of Scripture, church government, the Lord's Supper, and justification by faith alone; he quotes the church fathers on these important issues.To begin with, William Webster shows how Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. After all, Scripture was authoritative before any church council. From here, he shows that the first infallible council to determine the canon did not come until The Council of Trent (Webster lays out a multitude of reasons why The Council of Carthage was not considered "infallible," and how the Apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. A fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests). After this, Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith. He quotes many of the church fathers. St. Augustine stated: "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." He also examines the church fathers use of the term "tradition," and compares and contrasts it with the way the term came to be used in the Medieval Church. In the area of church government, Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church. He includes writings from the fathers on the meaning of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 showing that many believed the term was speaking of "faith" or "Christ". Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on. Webster also looks at beliefs about the eucharist in the early church. Although some of the church fathers said things that are irreconciliable wtih the Reformed position, there is also a tradition in the early church that is in blatant opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He provides quotes from the church fathers using the word "symbol" to describe the bread and wine. For example, Clement states, "The Scripture accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." He also provides Augustine's homily on John 6, in which Augustine interprets the passage figuratively: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." Webster goes on to show the development of Marian dogma within Roman Catholicism and how the Protestant view of justification has support in the writings of the church fathers. This book is definitely the most thorough Protestant apologetic available in the area of