Just saw this, wanted to offer a response, and to once again invite “Scholastic” to join us on the Dividing Line. Might not work this Tuesday AM, as we hope to have Marty Minto as our guest, but surely on Thursday. 877-753-3341. Here’s the comment:
How many times does James White have to paint caricatures of his Catholic opponents? (As a challenge to White enthusiasts, show me one Catholic opponent that White hasnt portrayed in an extremely negative light)
Easy: Mitch Pacwa. Now, care to answer to the documentation I provided regarding the moderator of the board you are posting on, years ago, at this URL? 🙂
Its happened loads of times….he has to name any cause but an intellectual reason for why scholars convert to catholicism. As an example, look how he portrayed his own sister in a horrible light, devoting a whole article to just that?
A little confused here…my sister is not a scholar, so you must have made a leap there; secondly some specifics might be in order. How about noting something I’ve actually said, like, with a quote, and a source? That always helps. And thirdly, care to provide direct citations from my article on my sister’s conversion for this “horrible light” statement, or is that just meant to say “He dared to point out the theological realities of the situation” and, in a post-modern culture, that’s enough basis for the accusation?
I think White thinks that the only reason why people convert to Catholicism is because of the “mystique” of the liturgy (it is true that that is an attractive feature, but it is hardly why so many have converted to it).
Ever listened to the Coming Home Network, “Scholastic”? In the large majority of those “testimonies,” including my sister’s, that was, in fact, central, was it not? How do you get the idea, however, from identifying a major, central reason, that it follows that I think it is the only reason? I don’t expect an answer, sadly, but could you maybe provide some citations, references, from what I’ve said/written, to back up your conclusions?
Any objective person would realize that his “apologetics” career uses just as much rhetorical strategies as it does solid rational arguments (if white reduced his apologetics, for example, to just laying out the arguments in clear, unhindered bullet-style format, he’d lose every written debate).
Fascinating speculation. Is that why I write on so many other topics outside of Roman Catholic apologetics, and in fact deal with many other apologetic issues, outside of Roman Catholicism, I wonder? How would you go about backing up that assertion, anyway?
IMO, this man has some serious issues, especially with his pride.
Why is it that you folks are so consistent in 1) not citing anything from my published works, but 2) always including personal ad-hominem by 3) people who do not know me? You do realize that such tactics reveal, to the serious minded person, anyway, that your case is weak?
This is a perfect example of what an apologist should NOT be like. Perhaps a large part of it is simply the environment of Reformed churches. On the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an article written about 100 years ago says this of Reformed Churches:
“The cold, hard, but upright disposition characteristic of the Reformed Churches, less genial than that derived from Luther, is due entirely to their founder himself. Its essence is a concentrated pride, a love of disputation, a scorn of opponents.”
Nothing better could be said of the way James White (and to a lesser degree, other Protestant apologists) conduct themselves.
Well, thank you so much for your kind, insightful words! Your dependence upon secondary sources for such…rhetoric says much for a “Scholastic.” I do hope you will give me a ring sometime on our webcast. I’d love to discuss these assertions with you. 🙂