Can Roman Catholic Proponents Do Serious Exegesis of Central Texts?

   When you think about it, if you can write a three-volume set about a theology based upon thin air in Scripture, you can’t be too concerned about little things like facts, truth, reality, etc. And surely, Mark Shea doesn’t sweat the “little stuff” along those lines! No indeed. He noticed the Newser mistake where someone threw my picture up instead

Matthew 11:16-17 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. Mark Shea seems unhappy (link to his post). He states: Speaking of weird partisanship, here’s

   Beckwith then begins to recount, briefly, his steps back into full communion with Rome, which included David Currie’s book, Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic. The time-frame is also interesting. His reading of “the Early Church Fathers” and the Catholic Catechism began long, long ago…in January. Given I blogged his conversion in early May, which went back to late April, not even

This debate is available here in mp3 format

Unless something changes, my next debates will be in September/October, all in the area of Roman Catholicism. I have shifted my studies over to that area on my rides. For example, while climbing some 15% grades this morning I was listening to Bill Webster lecturing on penance (an interesting conjunction, in that Bill and I have ridden together in the

I mentioned on the Dividing Line a few weeks ago the quandry presented by those associated with Robert Sungenis. I have debated Sungenis five times, by my count. Some will recall a period when Sungenis actually attempted to behave in a meaningfully restrained fashion, but that period did not last long. All one has to do is track down the