A Review of Fr. Thomas Joseph White’s The Light of Christ

Nov 20th, 2017 | By Casey Chalk | Category: Blog Posts

A friend of mine attending the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) — a Catholic adult Sunday school of sorts for those interested in learning more about Catholic doctrine and practice — asked me if I were to recommend one book for him what would it be? I told him this was a daunting, perhaps unanswerable question. Those on the outside looking in have all manner of different objections to or questions about the Catholic faith, largely dependent on their own religious background, education, and life journey. Some are focused on technical definitions of doctrine, others on Church history, still others on prayer and spiritual life. A single, twenty-year-old Reformed seminary student is perhaps more interested in getting a handle on the intricacies of the Catholic doctrine of justification than Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage. I doubt there is any such book adequately suited to address the diversity of interests of every person investigating the Catholic Church. However, one book that covers an impressive amount of ground for its labeling as an “introduction” is Fr. Thomas Joseph White’s The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism. This book, written by one of the preeminent Catholic theologians in the United States, speaks to many, if not most of the most popular questions people have about Catholicism, and is particularly relevant for those most familiar with the Reformed tradition. This is for a number of reasons, including the book’s heavy reliance on Holy Scripture to explain Catholic teaching, its engagement with a number of Protestant theologians and scholars, and its interaction with several Calvinist doctrines.

Scripture as Central

Someone familiar with many Protestant polemics against Catholicism might presume that an introduction to its beliefs and practices would rely heavily on extra-Biblical sources, Church councils, and papal decrees. Fr. White shows the reader that Catholic theology is thoroughly Biblical, especially in his treatises on such topics as the Trinity, Incarnation, and the Last Things. In each of these chapters, Fr. White cites extensively from Holy Scripture to explain Catholic teaching, while also drawing on many other historical and theological sources to clarify and expound on various sub-topics. For example, in his chapter “Incarnation and Atonement,” Fr. White begins with recourse to St. Athanasius and St. Anselm, who reflected on the question of why God became man. In seeking to answer this question, Fr. White delves deep into the wells of Holy Scripture, showing how the Bible teaches that the incarnation serves two fundamental purposes: divinization, the process by which man becomes like God, and atonement, the means by which an atoning sacrifice is made by Christ to reconcile God to man. Christ can do this precisely because He is God, as many Biblical verses explain: Phil. 2:6-11, Rev. 4, Heb. 1:6, Mat. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17; Mark 5:6, John 9:38, and Acts 7:59, among others. Fr. White even spends several pages countering an argument found in modern Biblical criticism that the Gospels do not all teach Christ’s divinity — and relies exclusively on Scripture to support his argument. Other aspects of Christology in this chapter are similarly defended or explained on Scriptural grounds: Christ’s humanity, the kingdom of God, the Eucharist, and the resurrection.

Ecumenical Reliance on Protestants

One investigating Catholicism might also presume a certain triumphalism in Catholic scholarship — if the Church is who she claims to be, the inheritor and guardian of Christ and the Apostle’s teaching, why would she bother to study extra-Catholic sources? Yet Fr. White’s explication of Catholic teaching consistently relies upon Protestant scholars and theologians where their work or ideas are compatible with Catholic doctrine. In his chapters discussing the New Testament, Fr. White draws heavily on Protestant New Testament scholars such as Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington III. He also cites C.S. Lewis, a favorite of Protestants of practically every stripe, to explain or bolster various points.

I would also add to this category Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman, whom readers might find an odd choice to lump in with Protestant New Testament scholars and popular apologists. Newman died one of the most well-known Catholic figures in the United Kingdom, as well as a cardinal, having been named as such by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. However, Newman was for many years prior to his Catholic conversion one of the most influential men in the Anglican Church (indeed, an Anglican priest for twenty years), and he accomplished some of the theological work for which is he is known while a Protestant. This is significant in reference to Fr. White’s book, because it refers so frequently to Newman. Indeed, this may very well be the most heavily “Newman-ized” explanation of Catholicism ever written. Six different texts by Newman appear in the bibliography, while the Englishman is cited in the introduction and six of seven chapters. In effect, Fr. White has declared that Newman’s perspective on the most important topics of Catholicism — faith and reason, the Trinity, Creation, Christology, ecclesiology, and the Last Things — is valuable enough to include in an introductory text on the Catholic faith. This is relevant to ecumenism precisely because Newman was for so long a Protestant; his scholarship and theology appropriated by the Catholic Church. Indeed, in some areas, such as the doctrine of development, Newman is considered by many to be the ultimate authority, at least within the field of sacred theology as a discipline. Protestants are thus capable of profoundly enriching the Catholic Church.

Catholicism and Calvinism

Although not publicized in The Light of Christ, Fr. White is himself a convert to Catholicism. His grandparents were Presbyterian missionaries in central Africa. When he began serious study of theology during his undergraduate years. Fr. White explored Calvinist thought before eventually joining the Catholic Church. Indeed, he notes in one place that some of John Calvin’s teachings “function practically as a magisterium of reference for many over the centuries.”1 It is perhaps for this reason that he engages with a number of Calvinist doctrines in the course of his introduction, and why he elsewhere gives attention to some of the most common Calvinist objections to Catholic teaching. For example, among other topics, Fr. White addresses total depravity (p. 118), the role of grace in salvation (pp. 124-125), and penal substitutionary atonement (p. 170). In his explanation of justification, he goes so far as to say:

The Catholic Church teaches that justification occurs in a human person by grace alone and not by any natural moral agency or works of self-righteousness. This is not a subject of contention between Catholics and Protestants, at least so long as the true teaching of the Catholic Church is accurately understood!2

Other topics of possible interest to Reformed readers will be his treatment of the non salus teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e. “outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation”), and his defense of Marian doctrines on Scriptural and historical grounds.

…And Then There’s St. Thomas…


Fr. Thomas Joseph White

Those familiar with the charisms of the Order of Preachers, or Dominicans, will not be surprised that St. Thomas Aquinas looms large in Fr. White’s book — indeed, larger than any other source besides Holy Scripture. Readers interested in acquiring an elementary grasp on Thomistic theology — and its role in Catholic theology and practice — will find it here. These were areas I was particularly interested to explore as a Calvinist, since St. Thomas was not “recommended reading” in my Presbyterian church or seminary. Among the Thomistic topics discussed in this book include the relationship of intellect and will, the five proofs for the existence of God, and Aquinas’ Trinitarian theology. I conclude this review with St. Thomas precisely because his teachings are an area I yearn to explore further, and Fr. Thomas Joseph White’s book has helped me achieve this. It is for this reason that I recommend The Light of Christ, not only to interested non-Catholics, but also to Catholics seeking to deepen their understanding and appreciation of their own faith.

  1. Fr. Thomas Joseph White, The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2017. []
  2. Ibid. 198. []

21 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Casey, good review. I’m looking for a book about Catholicism for my wife. I’ve for several months been investigating the Catholic question and also have been talking with my wife about it. Occasionally we talk about what prevents her from becoming a Catholic, and then I try, in love, to explain her more precisely what the Church teaches (I’m more convinced than her). This is a long and delicate process, but one I’m willing to go through with my wife. Right now we are Protestants, and I would appreciate your recommendations.

    God bless,

    Matias

  2. Hi Matias (#1),

    Thanks for the comment, and excited to hear about you and your wife’s exploration of the Catholic faith. I’m not sure what to recommend for your wife in terms of books, without knowing a bit more about her particular questions or objections to Catholicism. “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn charts their journey into the Church together, which could be a useful thing to read together. I’d need more information re: your wife’s questions to offer more recommendations… in Christ,

    casey

  3. I am currently reading this outstanding book and agree that it is absolutely top shelf. Anyone, of any theological persuasion will find Fr. White compelling and a good place to start are his wonderful videos:

    http://bigthink.com/experts/thomaswhite

    I don’t think I’ve come across a more brilliant, unpretentious and likeable theologian, which probably has something to do with the fact that he’s a Southern boy with a degree from Brown. Anyway, he’s one of the reasons I will be entering into full communion with the church this Easter.

    Other book recommendations that have helped in my journey include:

    -Rebel In The Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World, by Brad Gregory: This new book is a concise, persuasive and original critique of the Reformation’s direct impact on creating secular culture. It is readable and just plain devastating to anyone holding out with a positive view of what the Reformation created.

    -Was The Reformation A Mistake? Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical, by Matthew Levering: Levering ranks alongside Fr. White as the new cream of the crop young, Thomistic theologians. He quotes Luther extensively in this apologetic that argues Catholic doctrine from a mostly typological point of view. I found it exhilarating. He even gives Reformed heavyweight Kevin VanHoozer a rebuttal afterward. VanHoozer is no slouch but it gave me a chuckle to think that he teaches at a seminary in which all professors must believe in pre-millennial dispensationalism.

    -The Pillar Of Fire, by Karl Stern is a completely overlooked conversion story of a famous Jewish psychologist whose family was killed in the Holocaust. It is available at Eighth Day books.

    It has taken me 14 years to finally convert, but these books, along with finding a terrific parish, got me off the fence.

    Peace to all who are searching.

    Jim in Virginia- PCA-LCMS-HOME

  4. Thank you for your answer Casey. As a Protestant, my wife’s objections focus primarily on the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide. She is convinced the Bible teaches those doctrines, so any resource looking at the issues both from the Bible and from tradition would be helpful. Regarding specific Catholic teachings, she struggles a lot with doctrines that aren’t specifically or directly taught in Scripture like certain Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, etc. All these objections have clearly one factor in common, that of authority, and whether Christ founded a Church and authorized men to preserve and take his Word to the next generations, and whether that Church has authority and is guided by the Holy Spirit to guide people into all truth. So any resource recommendation with evidence–both from Scripture and tradition–that shows that Christ did in fact found the Catholic Church, and also evidence from the same sources for Apostolic Succession would be very appreciate. I hope I’ve been specific. If not, please let me know.

    God bless.

  5. Matias – Matthew Levering’s book mentioned above takes on all the main biblical objections. It was a big help in overcoming all the solas for me. It is not the least bit polemical but presents the Catholic case from the OT in a thrilling way. Also Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots Of The Eucharist provides a theologically accessible understanding of the Eucharist that has made me hunger more than ever to be Catholic.

  6. Hi Matias (#4),

    Apologize for the delayed response to your question. There are so many good books out there on those subjects! Have you seen the CTC suggested reading page?

    /library/suggested-reading/

    You can also take a look at the books advertised on Catholic Answers’ website:

    https://shop.catholic.com/books/

    One of the best recent attacks on sola scriptura/biblicism is that by Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible. Devin Rose is another popular Catholic apologist who has several good books on common Protestant difficulties with Catholic doctrines, I’m thinking particularly of his If Protestantism is True and The Protestant’s Dilemma. Trent Horn, another good apologist, just has a book out called The Case for Catholicism — I haven’t read it, but knowing his previous work, I think it would probably address many of your wife’s objections. Hope that is at least a start… in Christ, casey

  7. Thanks for your reply, Casey. No need for apologies.

    Thanks for the book recommendations. I already heard of them, but it’s good to know that they are good resources. I bought the book “Catholic and Christian” by Alan Schrek for my wife, mainly because it helps explain basic Catholic doctrines and clarifies much of the misunderstanding.

    I’m also trying to find books for myself, but maybe little bit more academic. Bryan Cross recommended two on apostolic succession: “Apostolic Succession: Is It True?” By Felix Cirlot and “Holy Orders and Ordination” by J. Tixeront. I was able to find an available copy of Tixeront’s but wasn’t able to find Cirlot’s anywhere. Do you know where to find it? Bryan also told me that “Studies on the Early Papacy” by Chapman and “The Early Papacy” by Fortescue are also good on that topic. Please any other resources (apart from CTC’s articles) would be really appreciated.

    I thank CTC for helping me clarify and learn about the Catholic Church.

    God bless.

  8. Hi Matias (#7),

    No problem. I’m unfamiliar with the Cirlot book. I own both the Chapman and Fortescue books, and they are great! They’ve stood the test of time, both written before WWII, if memory serves right. There are some other ones worth reading — Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, by Stephen Ray, is also good. Hope that helps. Happy Reading, and I pray the Lord blesses you and your wife with great spiritual comfort and direction. in Christ, casey

  9. Read Louis Bouyer on Protestantism.

  10. I’m struggling with reconciling the notions of truths and our certitude of them.

    My understanding is that we do not have *absolute* certitude of God’s existence. Although we can probably say we have the highest degree of moral certitude. Yet aren’t we to believe in a number of propositions that He revealed? For instance, the existence of heaven is a “de fide” teaching of the Catholic Church.

    How can I say that I have absolute certitude of heaven’s existence if I cannot say that about its Source?

  11. Hi Joe,

    God’s existence can be known with scientific certitude, where by “scientific”, I mean by way of demonstration within the science known as “philosophy of nature”, a science preliminary to and epistemologically supervenient upon the practice of the modern sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). Some describe the certitude we may have of God’s existence as “metaphysical” certitude. However, I think that approach sows confusion since the certitude that attaches to our knowledge of God’s existence can be demonstrated without recourse to metaphysics proper (as Aristotle demonstrates in “Physics” Book VIII).

    However, the act of faith directed at revealed truths which cannot, in principle, be demonstrated by human reason (such as the existence of heaven, that God is a communion of Persons, that Christ is one Person with two natures, etc.) is ultimately an assent founded upon the veracity and goodness of God who reveals. Nevertheless, such an act entails that the person making the assent of faith in revealed truths ought minimally to have at least some reasonable grounds for thinking (a) that God exists, and (b) that God has in fact revealed supernatural truths to mankind. Otherwise, the assent of faith would be both irresponsible and fideistic.

    Now, to be sure, the Church holds that the existence of God *can* be known with the sort of scientific certitude I mentioned above. Further, the Church holds that one *can* have (at least) moral certitude that God has in fact communicated a divine revelation within the contours of human history. Such moral certitude concerning the *fact* that a revelation has been given (as distinct from the *content* of that revelation) can be achieved through a deep study of rationally accessible motives of credibility such as fulfilled prophecy, miracles (especially the resurrection), the social miracle of the Church, etc.

    However, not all Catholics have the time, treasure, or aptitude to carry out a formal demonstration of God’s existence or to fully survey and weigh the host of evidences which make it morally certain that mankind has received a divine revelation from God. Consider children, illiterate persons, the infirm, disabled, etc. What the Church requires is that Catholics, so far as they are able, should have some reason(s) for affirming both that God exists and that God has provided a divine revelation. Having such reasons enables one to avoid the error of fideism when giving assent to the deposit of faith. For many, trust in an authority such as a parent or pastor is a perfectly rational basis for affirming both propositions. In such cases the light of faith enables firm assent of the will, not only to the truths of faith proper, but also to the existence of God and the fact of divine revelation.

    Persons who *are* able to conduct a scientific demonstration of God’s existence may come to *know*, rather than simply believe, that God exists. Likewise, those who are able to carefully and thoroughly study the motives of credibility which underwrite the proposition that God has provided a divine revelation to mankind, may come to *know* (with moral certitude) the fact that a divine revelation has been given. Nevertheless, even a person who has scientific certitude that God exists and moral certitude that a divine revelation has been given, must still make an assent of faith relative to the *content* or truths of divine revelation proper (i.e. the articles of faith); for those truths are, in principle, beyond the reach of human demonstration and must therefore be willingly affirmed based on the veracity and goodness of God alone. If you have not done so already, I recommend that you read “Dei Filius”, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Vatican Council I, including the canons that follow the body of the document.

    Peace,

    -Ray

  12. Ray,

    Thank you for that thorough response. I very much appreciate it!

    I’d like to ask you another question related to certitude as well. As a Catholic, upon making a good sacramental confession, what type of certainty would you have of your salvation within minutes of leaving the confessional? I’m thinking of St. Paul saying “For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.” (1 Cor 4:4) But if you are in a state of grace after confession, can you say something more than St. Paul?

  13. Hi Joe,

    In the passage from St. Paul which you quote, it is by no means clear that he is referring to mortal sin or his fundamental orientation to God (i.e. whether he is presently in a “state-of-grace” or enjoys the grace of justification). Plausibly, he is merely referring to the fact (common to us all), that the mere absence of any subjective awareness of moral fault, is by no means a guarantee that – objectively considered – there might not be dimensions of his active or interior life which are in fact disordered, and which God knows require further healing and conversion. Conversion is a process since the effort to “know oneself” is both arduous and demands an ever increasing influx of grace from God both to recognize, and finally to correct, objective moral disorder. That process is carried out even within the context of active union with God – “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. In any event, this passage like any other should be interpreted within the larger context of the deposit of faith.

    Therein we learn that a sin can only be mortal (i.e. capable of destroying one’s relationship with God) if the sin meets two criteria; it must concern grave matter *and* be consented to with full knowledge of its gravity. Moreover, just as the current state of our moral development can be considered both objectively and subjectively as described above: so too, the efficacy of the sacrament of penance may be considered both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, the efficacy of the sacrament; that is, its power to restore the grace of justification to the sinner, should be considered (at least) morally certain since the affirmation of its efficacy is part of the deposit of faith, and we may be (at least) morally certain concerning the truths of faith – as I explained in my previous post. In addition, according to the deposit of faith the sacrament of penance makes available the grace of justification ex opera operato; that is, by virtue of the act of absolution itself carried out according to proper matter and form. Its objective power is independent of the holiness of the priest who acts In persona Christi. Therefore, the conviction that justifying grace is made available in the sacrament is about as objectively certain as one could wish.

    On the side of the penitent, what is subjectively required for reception of the objectively available grace of justification is (a) confession of all known mortal sin, and (b) a firm intention to turn away from sin. Therefore, subjectively, insofar as a penitent in availing himself of the sacrament, is unaware of any unconfessed grave sin, and is aware of a real intention to avoid grave sin in the future (even if in the future he should in fact sin again); he may rightly leave the confessional as certain of his real union with, and justification before, God as is possible in this life. He need not “feel” anything or worry for lack of emotion, or wonder whether God has really forgiven him. The forgiveness and justification available in the sacrament is guaranteed by God himself since the sacrament’s ex opere operato provision of justifying grace is part of God’s revelation to mankind. I hope that helps.

    Peace,

    Ray

  14. Ray, why is it that our certainty immediately post-confession is only of moral certitude? Should it not be higher? What am I missing here, unless I misunderstand “moral certitude”?

    (I’m sorry but I have not been able to figure out how you fellas link/paste pertinent portions of comments to which you’re replying.)

  15. Hi Joe,

    “Moral” certitude is sometimes explained differently by different writers. The sense in which I use it is this: we can and should be morally certain that the persons and sources by which we have come into possession of the data which support the evidences for a divine revelation are trustworthy.

    For instance, we can have moral certitude in the veracity of the scholars who have performed the research which reaches the conclusion that all of the books of the OT were written before the advent of Christianity. Why? Because of their verifiable academic credentials, training, expertise, independent confirmation, etc. This conclusion about the dating of OT texts is a datum which crucially enters into one of the key evidences for the fact of a divine revelation in history. For, given the pre-Christian dating of the OT books, if we find in those texts clear instances of specific predictions concerning the course of human history which are in turn fulfilled in precise ways (and without the possibility of human contrivance) by Christ and His Church; then we have a key motive of credibility for the claim that a divine revelation has occurred in human history. For obviously, if many and precise predictions about momentous future events are precisely fulfilled by later events – especially if such events are dependent upon the actions of thousands of free agents across many centuries – we would have a definitive case of an effect which no known natural cause can account for (i.e. accurately foretelling the future on a grand scale).

    Now if we come to know of an effect such as this, one which cannot be produced by a known natural cause; that constitutes an instance of what is technically termed “physical” certitude – which is stronger than the moral certitude I just described. However, in the case at hand, such physical certitude depends crucially upon the premise that all of the OT books were written prior to the rise of Christianity; but *that* premise, in turn, is usually sustained by a moral certitude concerning the trustworthiness of the scholarship which unanimously affirms the pre-Christian dating of OT texts. Since a chain is never stronger than its weakest link, we must say that the argument from fulfilled prophecy ultimately rests upon a moral certitude. Nevertheless, such moral certitude is quite strong. It would be entirely un-reasonable to deny truths known with moral certitude. Additionally, there is some debate about whether all of the motives of credibility which underwrite the claim that a divine revelation has occurred are only known with moral certitude. Perhaps some such motives reach the level of physical certitude. That is why I have carefully claimed that the fact of divine revelation can be known with *at least* moral certitude.

    At any rate, the rational certitude which we can have for the general claim that God has actually communicated or revealed a deposit of faith is (at least) moral certitude in the sense described above. As I say, that certitude can be achieved from a deep study of the motives of credibility which support the claim that there really has been a divine revelation in human history. Since the intrinsic efficacy of the sacrament of penance is *part* of the deposit of faith, and since the knowledge of the part in this case depends upon knowledge of the whole; it follows that certitude concerning the efficacy of the sacrament of penance will be (at least) moral certitude as well. Also, I am not making any claim about how divine grace might heighten or strengthen subjective certitude following confession.

    Peace

    -Ray

  16. Haha, all of this talk of “certitude” brings up confusions I had years ago about the assent of faith. Bryan Cross and Mike Liccione tried their best to help me; I will have to find their comments and reread them. Perhaps I can better understand now in the intervening years.

    Ray, perhaps you can shed some light. To set up my dilemma, take these two quotations:

    Rev. George D. Smith, “The Teaching of the Catholic Church”:

    “The human mind, then, is able to learn with certainty the existence of God; is able, by the proper investigation of the facts, to conclude that Christ is the bearer of a divine message, that he founded an infallible Church for the purpose of propagating that message; and finally, by the process indicated in apologetics, to conclude that the Catholic Church is that divinely appointed teacher of revelation. These things, I say, can be known and proved, and by those who have the requisite leisure, opportunity and ability, are actually known and proved with all the scientific certainty of which the subject is patient. The preambles of faith, therefore, rest upon the solid ground of human reason.”

    Rev. John Brunsmann, “A Handbook of Fundamental Theology”:

    “Fundamental Theology must demonstrate with scientific accuracy that the religion which is embodied in the Catholic Church is based on divine supernatural revelation and that, consequently, the belief which the Church demands in the revealed truths which she proposes, can be fully justified before the tribunal of reason.”

    As far as I know, all of the statements above are consistent with the relevant councils and magisterial documents (e.g., the First Vatican Council, Lamentabili Sane, and others). Here is the dilemma:

    Divine faith requires a free assent of the intellect toward the truths that God has revealed and the support of grace. Now, if it is “certain” (as the above quotes say) that God exists, that he revealed himself in history, and that he founded the Catholic Church to be the bearer of his divine revelation, are not we compelled by this certitude toward a kind of natural faith? If something is certain, your mind adheres to it as truth without any “free” movement of the will. Your intellect acts by the power of the “certain” truth, not by your will moving it toward acceptance.

    So the dilemma, how can this muscular account for the rational foundations of theism and Catholicism be compatible with a free assent of faith that is aided by grace?

  17. Hi Brian,

    The intellect has no direct knowledge of the truths of faith (divine revelation) proper, such as God’s triune nature, Christ’s divinity, the order of grace, etc. Such truths are neither self-evident nor known through effects. Therefore, there is no immediate understanding, nor are there any mediate premises which compell the intellect to affirm such propositions. The natural intellect, therefore, remains necessarily undetermined with respect to the truths of faith themselves. Knowing *that* God exists and knowing *that* such truths have been revealed by God, while immensely helpful for underwriting the *reasonableness* of assent to the truths of faith, does not enable or entail any direct knowledge of the truths proposed. Quite the contrary, such truths are, by the very nature of the case, known only indirectly based on divine testimony. Therefore, one must chose to believe each and every article of faith proper based solely on trust in the veracity and goodness of the God who reveals. Such assent pertains to the very definition of catholic faith. I hope that helps.

    Peace

    -Ray

  18. Ray (re: #17),

    Thank you! Your comment is very clear and helpful.

    Best,
    Brian

  19. Three books that I read in December 2004 that opened my eyes, ears, heart and mind to be in full communion with the Catholic Church were:

    Boring fundamentalist born-again Catholic, by David Currie

    Home sweet home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn

    Surprised By Truth, vol. 1, by Patrick Madrid

    I read David Currie’s book on Saturday Scott and Kimberly Hans book Sunday and Patrick Madrid’s book on Monday. Tuesday night we went to Mass, it was the vigil of Our Lady of Guadalupe! No looking back! No regrets. Only gratitude. God bless you on your journey.

  20. It was “Rome Sweet Home.” I occasionally forget to check my comments after speaking into my phone. 😉

  21. Reading The Light of Christ right now. Awesome and inspiring. Very helpful for those coming into the RCC.

    Blessings

Leave Comment

Subscribe without commenting