Vatican Files - Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Roman Catholicism

November 1, 2026October 20, 2026

262. The Light of the Church is the Light of Christ? A Belated Review of “The Light of Christ. An Introduction to Catholicism” by Thomas White

If it is true that only those who have truly delved into and assimilated a subject are capable of writing an introduction to it, this book confirms it. It is an introduction to Roman Catholicism written by one of the best-known and most profound contemporary Catholic theologians in the Anglo-American world. As rector of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas J. White is a Dominican theologian who has authored important works on the Trinity and Christology, in which he reinterprets the intellectual tradition of Thomas Aquinas and Thomism in a modern context. Because of this organic connection to Thomas, White has also garnered some interest in North American Evangelical theological circles, which are particularly interested in the “retrieval” of the “great tradition.”

In the book The Light of Christ. An Introduction to Catholicism (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2017), White sets out to reconnect the general public with the intellectual and spiritual richness of Roman Catholicism. He does so through an apologetic work in which the Catholic faith is presented in a catechetical manner, highlighting its internal connections and engaging in dialogue with various currents of modern thought. In the author’s words, “my goal is to outline in a few broad strokes the form of Catholicism,” highlighting “its intrinsic intelligibility or form, as a mystery that is at once visible and invisible, ancient and contemporary, mystical and rational” (23). In all of this, the Roman Catholic Church is seen as “the trusted teacher of human and divine truths” (23).

In the Anglo-American world, the book has circulated among well-educated people engaged in scholarly inquiry, helping to present Roman Catholicism as an intellectually sound and attractive option. It is interesting that it is now also being published in Italian,[1] perhaps in the hope that it will serve to attract the attention of students and intellectuals who no longer practice the Catholicism imposed by tradition, but whose journey of inquiry leads them to return to religion after experiencing the emptiness of secularization.

Thus, the book is a reasoned presentation of the Roman Catholic faith. The table of contents gives an idea of its catechetical structure and the breadth of the topics covered: faith and reason, God and the Trinity, creation and the human person, the Incarnation and atonement, the Church, its social doctrine, and the last things.

The discussion of faith and reason begins with one of the cornerstones of Thomistic thought: faith surpasses reason, but does not oppose it. In line with Vatican II, Scripture is believed to be inspired “for our salvation” (42) and therefore not in a plenary sense. Furthermore, White maintains that the Bible and Tradition are in harmony and mutually interdependent. In this fluid vision, the authority to teach lies with the ecclesiastical magisterium. For the Catholicism presented in the book, Scripture is “merely” (46) a book that is programmatically open to the “vital flow of apostolic tradition” (48), which is found in the Church’s tradition and which requires “a concrete structure of governance dating back to the time of Christ and his apostles” (49)—that is, the bishops and the pope. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is said to manifest itself within this structure. Here, the author caricatures the Protestant position (without actually citing it, even though he mentions John Calvin a few lines later) when he claims that it rejects tradition. For the Evangelical faith, it is not a matter of rejecting tradition, but rather of subjecting it to Scripture while recognizing its ministerial—rather than magisterial—role.

Regarding the doctrine of God, White addresses the question of the “proofs” of God’s existence, consistently drawing on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Appropriately, White states that the aim of this inquiry is “to establish that God exists,” even if this does not allow us to say much about what God is in Himself (75). At this point, the Trinity is introduced, and its doctrinal presentation is interwoven with the contribution of the tradition of Roman Catholic mysticism.

In the chapter on creation, while acknowledging that God confers being upon all existing things, White echoes the Aristotelian doctrine of the hierarchy of natures (vegetal, animal, human), remaining wedded to a theory of the scale of being that owes more to paganism than to the differentiated creation described in Scripture. Regarding the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, the author argues that the purpose of the narrative is to establish a metaphysics of reality, without any historical or scientific intent.

As far as anthropology is concerned, the doctrine of the “imago Dei” is affirmed, and an essential part of it is the original justice received. With the fall into sin, this original grace was lost, and human nature was consequently “impoverished” (116). A disharmony has crept into life in the form of ignorance, malice, weakness, and concupiscence (118). Despite the Fall, there remains “good in our nature” (121), and human beings remain “fundamentally good” (122)—fundamentally inclined toward the good and therefore open to salvation (201). At this point, White falls back into the caricature of Protestantism he had already slipped into earlier when he says that the “total depravity” upheld by the Reformers meant the complete loss of the image of God (121). False. The Reformation never taught that humanity had lost the “imago Dei.” By sinning, Adam and Eve irreversibly broke their covenant with God and placed themselves under God’s righteous judgment. Here again, it is regrettable that a theologian of White’s caliber should resort to a falsehood to attribute to the Reformation something that does not belong to it.

According to the Roman Catholicism presented in the work, sin has taken away original grace, but not the inclination toward the good. The latter is merely weakened and wounded by sin. Only an additional gift of grace can “complete and fulfill the human person” (122). Here we are immersed in the Thomist view of the relationship between nature and grace, but far removed from the Gospel’s perspective on the irreparable tragedy of sin. Later on, justification is viewed as an “infusion” of grace, but without any recognition of its legal significance (193–194). The relationship between nature and grace is one of the key interpretive frameworks of Roman Catholicism: a nature that is weakened but still good corresponds to the conception of grace as uplifting, with the Church mediating grace through the sacraments. This is the foundation of the type of Christianity defended in the book.

Regarding Christology, while White upholds the Nicene account of the person of Christ, with regard to His work he rejects the understanding of atonement as penal substitution, this time rightly associated with John Calvin (167). As for the presence of Christ, it is associated with sacramental activity, holy ministers, and the mystical body that is the Church (174–175), but not with His Word.

In outlining the Roman Catholic vision of the Church, the author places great emphasis on the “apostolic hierarchy” (179) and the “Petrine ministry,” which he claims was established directly by Christ (181). Once again, at this point, White takes a jab at Protestantism, claiming it has experienced many doctrinal divisions because it rejected the primacy of the pope (182). This, too, is a specious argument. Protestantism, though internally diverse, has maintained a degree of doctrinal unity regarding the fundamentals of the faith in the absence of the papacy, testifying to the fact that the Church is guided not by a human leader but by the Holy Spirit through the written Word.

Regarding the sacraments, White admits that their institution cannot be empirically proven (183), even though the Council of Trent states that all seven were instituted by Christ Himself.

As for purgatory, White admits that prayer for the dead is a “pre-Christian” practice (256), but then places it within church tradition, according to which we can pray for the souls in purgatory just as they can intercede for us (264).

It is in the concluding pages that we find a reference to the other axiom of Roman Catholicism, in addition to the aforementioned relationship between nature and grace. Reflecting further on the Church and quoting the 17th-century French Catholic and anti-Protestant apologist J.-B. Bossuet, White writes: “The Church is Jesus Christ extended and transmitted…Ultimately, the light of the Church is precisely the light of Christ” (271). This is a way of summarizing the heart of Roman Catholicism: the interconnection between Christ and the Church, in that the latter prolongs the Incarnation—no longer in physical form, but sacramentally.

One final note. Among the recommended readings listed at the end, there are several that belong to the realm of Roman Catholic polemical apologetics (Bellarmine, Bossuet, Francis de Sales, the Tridentine Catechism) directed against Protestants, demonstrating that this introduction to Roman Catholicism, despite its gentle and ecumenical tone, also carries anti-Evangelical polemics in its very DNA. This is to say that the Roman Catholicism skillfully presented here is distinct and distant from the Evangelical faith, not merely in some secondary doctrines, but in the overall framework of doctrine and life.

[1]La luce di Cristo. Un’introduzione al cattolicesimo (Roma: Città Nuova, 2026). I have actually read the book in Italian and the page numbers will refer to this edition.

October 1, 2026September 29, 2026

261. Reformanda Initiative Turns 10. Reflections on the Evangelical Engagement with Roman Catholicism

Note: This article summarizes the introductory talk given at the eighth edition of the Rome Scholars and Leaders Network (Rome, June 15–18, 2026).

Ten years are just the blink of an eye in the normal course of events. We shouldn’t attach too much importance to them. However, for Evangelical initiatives that originated in minority contexts and have an international profile, ten years is no trivial period. It was in 2016 that the first Rome Scholars Network (RSLN) was launched and the Reformanda Initiative (RI) began its work. In 2016 RI also launched “Is the Reformation Over? A Statement of Evangelical Conviction” which was signed by hundreds of Evangelical scholars and leaders. The statement helped Evangelicals see that the Reformation’s problems with Roman Catholicism are still current problems for Evangelicalism. Despite the same words used by Rome and Evangelicals (e.g. faith, grace, sin, salvation), Rome’s gospel is not committed to Scripture alone and to salvation by faith alone, and is therefore flawed.

Aside from the two-year hiatus caused by the pandemic, the RSLN has met regularly ever since, with at least two hundred international Evangelical scholars and leaders participating. Over these ten years, there have been dozens of conferences and symposia in Europe and around the world, the publication of books in various languages, the launch of a podcast, and more, all sponsored or led by RI.

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the state of Evangelical theological engagement with Roman Catholicism and on how the RI has sought to contribute to it. Of course, my reflections are biased, since I have been involved with the RI since its inception, and they are impressionistic, as I will highlight some general points without delving into them in depth or documenting them academically. I believe three areas can be identified in which the RI has done significant work.

1. Call to Action: From a Blind Spot to a Field of Work
Over the past ten years, Evangelical interest in the Roman Catholic Church has grown, and RI has played a small part in this phenomenon. At the time of its launch, no Evangelical initiative worldwide was dedicated to studying Roman Catholicism. In Evangelical circles in general, there was a sort of blind spot. Roman Catholicism was—and is—everywhere, yet the Evangelical radar paid little or no attention to it. With few exceptions, seminaries and Bible schools did not offer specific courses on Roman Catholicism; mission agencies paid scant attention to the need to train their staff on how to engage with Roman Catholicism in an Evangelically responsible manner. Churches did not include any training on Roman Catholicism in their catechesis or discipleship programs. New books on the subject were few; those that did exist—if not outright obsolete—tended to rehash past controversies.

Ten years later, the situation has changed slightly—not solely because of RI, of course—but RI has played a small role in what has happened. It is necessary to briefly mention several factors that have contributed to this change:

The conversion of former Evangelicals to Roman Catholicism—certainly amplified by social media—has drawn attention to the fact that there are people who not only cross the Tiber in the right direction but also in the wrong one. That said, statistics continue to show that more people are leaving Roman Catholicism to embrace the Evangelical faith than are making the reverse move.
The growing visibility of Roman Catholic apologists who intentionally reach out to Evangelicals with their sentimentalized and selective view of Rome. Roman Catholicism has suddenly become trendy on social media.
The resulting reaction from Evangelical apologists (such as Gavin Ortlund and Wes Huff), who offer rebuttals and responses to the growing challenge posed by Catholic apologists. Ten years ago, only a few marginal Evangelical voices spoke about Roman Catholicism. Now it has almost become fashionable.
The general impression that Roman Catholicism is attracting the attention of younger generations as an alternative to superficial Evangelicalism and secular emptiness. One cannot even begin to understand the “quiet revival”—whatever it means and however it is defined—without having an idea of the appeal exercised by Roman Catholicism.
The growing popularity, in certain sectors of conservative theological circles, of the “great tradition,” championed by some eminent Roman Catholic theologians. All this excitement surrounding the “great tradition” has drawn attention to Roman Catholicism as the tradition that, more than any other, preserves it and claims it as its own.

Over the past decade, it has become clearer that Roman Catholicism is not merely a regional and local issue for Evangelicals in predominantly Catholic countries, but represents a theological challenge for Evangelical theology as a whole.

2. Epistemic Shift: From Particulars to System
In 2014, Gregg Allison published his seminal book Roman Catholic Theology and Practice. In it, he argued that Roman Catholic theology is a “coherent and all-encompassing system.” Not since Gerrit Berkouwer’s The Conflict with Rome (1948; English edition: 1958) had the category of “system” been used to address Roman Catholic theology in Evangelical books. Furthermore, Allison identified the two axioms of the Roman Catholic system: the interdependence of nature and grace and the interconnectedness of Christ and the Church.

Regarding the first, here is how Allison explains it: “Nature, while wounded by sin, retains a capacity for grace, and grace elevates or perfects nature. The two continue to operate interdependently” (p. 47). As for the interconnection between Christ and the Church, here is the summary: “Nature, being open to grace, is capable of receiving the grace mediated to it by the Church… This mediation also depends on the principle or law of incarnation” (p. 56)—that is, Christ sacramentally present in the Church. In his book, Allison addresses specific Roman Catholic doctrines as presented in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, but from the perspective of their systemic interrelationship and their derivation from the two axioms. This approach stood—and stands—in sharp contrast to Evangelical treatments of Roman Catholic doctrine, which are based largely on the analysis of individual doctrines alone.

Throughout its ten-year history, RI has served as a laboratory where this systemic approach has been tested and explored in depth. Rather than viewing doctrines and practices as independent units or elements, we seek to develop a systemic vision of the Roman Catholic Church. We recognize that everything Rome believes and does has a theological “DNA” consisting of commitments that operate across all areas of Roman Catholic doctrine and life. Although their impact may vary—from doctrinal aspects to devotional practices—with differing emphases and intensities, these commitments are omnipresent within the system, as they constitute the Roman Catholic Church’s epistemic infrastructure and operational perspective.

From a theological perspective, the Roman Catholic system is “flawed” and needs reformation in accordance with the Gospel. Such a reformation should address not only certain doctrines and practices, but Rome’s theological core, which lies at the intersection of the interdependence of nature and grace and the interconnectedness of Christ and the Church.

To borrow the title of Vittorio Subilia’s book (1962; English edition: The Problem of Catholicism, 1964), the problem with Catholicism does not lie in additions or subtractions that can be easily removed or reinserted. The problem with Catholicism is its system as a whole. Additions or subtractions are not Lego bricks that, once added, can be removed. They are elements that have become integral to the system. Roman Catholicism is no longer biblical Christianity with a few additions. It is not half Gospel and half additions. It is an integrated whole in which non-biblical additions define its fundamental vision and not merely its secondary and tertiary aspects.

Christ warns us: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matthew 16:6). Paul adds: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9). Rather than the result of various additions, the metaphor of leaven is appropriate for describing the problem with Roman Catholicism: a core of theologically and even dogmatically defined commitments that shape the whole. Considering the Roman Catholic Church as a system, RI has served as a laboratory where we have sought to observe the impact of the leaven of Roman Catholicism on the whole dough.

3. Theological Approach: From the Outcomes to the Heart of the Matter
A recurring theme, even in Evangelical analyses of Roman Catholicism, is that all historical Christian traditions (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, various streams of Protestantism) differ in how they understand salvation (e.g., justification, renewal, deification) and the nature/role of the Church and the sacraments, but agree on the principles of the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Christology. An example of this approach can be found in N. Geisler and R. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (1995).

Although this is formally true on some level, a closer look reveals some cracks. The contrast between the traditions becomes most evident in the areas of salvation and the Church, yet both are organically and inextricably linked to Trinitarian doctrine as the core of Christian theology. As Gerald Bray states, “The great issues of Reformation theology—justification by faith, election, assurance of salvation—can be properly understood only against the background of a trinitarian theology which gave these matters their peculiar importance.”[1] In this context, the supposed consensus on the Trinitarian framework of the Christian faith turns out to be more limited than is often assumed.

All attempts to point to “Nicene Christianity” (i.e., unity based on the Nicene Creed) as common ground between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism are historically simplistic and theologically superficial. The way in which the Trinitarian framework is received, believed, and applied highlights a significant distance between the two traditions, despite formal points of agreement. The words used are the same, but the theological worlds they open up are different.

At RI, we have just begun to analyze the shift from approaching Roman Catholicism as theologically situated within soteriology and/or ecclesiology to addressing it at the level of Trinitarian foundations. In other words, the question is: Does the true, central, and essential problem of Catholicism lie in one or two doctrines, in one or two theological clusters, in one or two distinctive practices, or does it lie in its ultimate doctrinal presuppositions—that is, in the fundamental commitments concerning the confession of God as Trinity and what follows from it?

Concluding Remarks
Ten years have passed since the launch of RI. We are grateful for the small contribution it has made in reviving Evangelical interest in Roman Catholicism and in suggesting and advocating that the theologically most responsible way to engage with it is through a systemic approach.
We pray that RI will continue to serve the purpose of “uniting, equipping, and resourcing Evangelical leaders” to understand Roman Catholic theology and communicate the Gospel.

[1] G. Bray, The Doctrine of God (Leicester: IVP, 1993), pp. 197–198. On this crucial point see also M. Reeves, “The Holy Trinity” in M. Barrett (ed.), Reformation Theology. A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), pp. 189–216.