By Stephen K. Ray
Buy new: $12.21
22 used and new from $10.25
Customer Rating:
Customer tags: catholicism(6), pope(4), roman catholicism(3), papacy(2), apologetics(2), catholic(2), catholic apologetics(2), new testament(2), early church(2), stephen k ray, study
Read more: catholic apologetics: Frequently tagged products at Amazon.com
|
55 of 72 people found the following review helpful:
well done,
By A Customer
Stephen K. Ray does an excellent job of presenting the scriptural and historical case for the papacy. He writes clearly and well. I would like to make a point about a book mentioned in the review by the Eastern Orthodox gentleman, namely Brian Tierney's "The Origins of Papal Infallibility". Moved by that review I read Tierney's book. Brian Tierney, though a good scholar, has an axe to grind, specifically a liberal Catholic axe. I am surprised that an Eastern Orthodox person would commend the arguments of Tierney, since Tierney obviously is against not just PAPAL infallibility, but ALL infallibility, including the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and the infallibility of the Church herself, both of which doctrines are believed in by the Eastern Orthodox. Tierney, as a liberal, does not believe that the Church can definitively commit herself to truths. In other words, he rejects the possibility of dogma. Essentially his position is that of Hans Kung.The mistake that this Eastern Orthodox reviewer makes illustrates a basic problem with attempts to interpret the historical evidence in an Eastern Orthodox or Anglican way: these via media are self-destructive, as Newman realized. The Orthodox accept the hierarchical authority of bishops and the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. But the scriptural evidence and the evidence from the ante-Nicene Fathers is stronger for the papacy than for the authority of Ecumenical Councils. One can pick holes in the evidence for the papacy, but only by using arguments that ultimately can be used even more effectively against other doctrines that the Orthodox would wish to uphold. Protestants have the same problem: the same arguments that are used against the papacy can be turned even more effectively against the New Testament. To return to Ray's book, I recommend it very highly.  Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you?
  |
|
20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
A Place in Every Christian Library,
James H. Dobbins, Ph.D. Author of Take My Hand Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
21 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
The best Catholic work on the papacy,
In the second half of his book, Mr. Ray attempts to prove that the Papacy was in fact granted a historical and successive power of jurisdictional rule. I think Ray does a good job of arguing for such a concept, but that his argument isn't airtight and is not a slam dunk case. First, his quotations from the Early Church Fathers are selective, and he doesn't do a good job of clarifying the context from which those quotes are taken. Second, Mr. Ray does not truly take William Webster's argument to heart because Ray never attempts to prove that the modern understanding of the papacy is the same as it was in the Early Church. Relying on an argument from silence will not work because the argument from silence could just as easily support the opposing position. What is needed is positive proof that the Fathers believed that the Bishop of Rome was the ruling Bishop supreme over the rest of the Church. In fact, I think a vast majority of Ray's proof-texts could just as easily fit in with an Orthodox understanding of the Bishop of Rome as the the bishop with the primacy of honor, and a limited role in singly defining Church issues. Finally, Ray weakens his case by not dealing adequately with all of the evidence that disproves his case. In the beginning of the book he says that no Church Father ever questioned the Pope's authority to intervene in local Church affairs, but Cyprian and Augustine did do just this. Cyprian would not abide by Pope Stephen's demands and showed that some Bishops did question the Pope's rights thus disproving Mr. Ray's assertion. Lastly, Ray does not even mention documents like the letter of Gregory the Great to the Bishop of Constantinople that completely disprove his argument. In this letter Gregory of Rome says that no bishop should be made a bishop above bishops because to elevate oneself to this rank would make all other bishops no longer bishops. Yet, this is exactly what the Gregorian Reformes did when they made themselves Universal pontiff over the entire Church, thus strictly contradicting what Gregory the Great, a previous Pope, had said. All in all, this work is a great work for any Catholic who wants to understand the historical roots and reasoning for the papacy. The case is well argued for, well developed, and well documented. Nevertheless, this book still contains some serious weak spots and is not as air tight and concrete as some would like to maintain. To understand both sides of the argument read this book in conjunction with William Webster's, The Matthew 16 Controversey. By reading both books I think the reader will be able to understand both sides of the argument and make an informed decision on their own. Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you?
|
