Posted on 02/12/2007 1:54:15 PM PST by Titanites
There is a weak new movement among a few misinformed Protestant apologists which attempts to quickly master the Church Fathers and twist them anachronistically (I love this word, especially since it is one of our critic’s favorite words) to fit their Protestant traditions and wishes. Many Protestant apologists, and often the anti-Catholics in complicity with them, simply parrot the likes of William “Bill” Webster, but Webster proves to be much better at it than the parrots. Funny thing how history repeats itself. The Papal antagonists of today are nothing new. This “patristic argumentation” against the papacy was done with much more force, finesse, intelligence, and conviction a century ago with the Anglican divines. If someone wants to read the real thing, step over Webster and his parrots and go to the Anglicans of the late 1800s and early 1900s. But, just as many have arisen today to put the lie to the anti-papal claims, so champions of the past century arose and marvelously defended the papacy. Read for example Chapman, Rivington, Livius, Allies, Scott, Hall, Allnatt, and a host of others including those more recent like Dolan, Shotwell and Lewis, Butler, Giles, Jaki, D’Ormesson, Cullmann, Miller, Lattey, and more (see the hundreds of titles and authors in the bibliography of myUpon this Rock).
Too bad these great men are so little known today—ignorance of such men and their compatriots allow the likes of our critic to be taken seriously by folks unhappily divorced from Church history, both ancient and modern. Are there a bunch of Catholic “ecumenical scholars” willing to give away the ship? You bet, and those who oppose the papacy place great stock in these “scholars” concessions. They love to refer to them as “Catholic historians” as though they are the final word.
(Excerpt) Read more at 72.14.253.104 ...
ping to read later
I remember several years ago the JWs came out with a booklet quoting Church Fathers. It was terrible; quotes taken out of context etc.!
Does the author actually have a counter-argument to make, or just a series of ad homs against James White and Protestants in general?
Read the article, not just excerpt.
Read the article....
Given the volume of invective dished out by the author up-front, IMO there's no reason to expect anything different, should I read further.
You wrote: "Given the volume of invective dished out by the author up-front, IMO there's no reason to expect anything different, should I read further."
Wow, what bravery! What intellectual integrity!
Luckily not all Protestants are so devoid of an honest desire to know the truth. A few days ago, while visiting Loome Theological Booksellers in Stillwater, I heard my friend, a former Lutheran pastor who is now Catholic, evangelizing a Protestant woman. The woman was interested in the truth. She wanted to know the truth. All she knew about Catholicism was stereotypes. After about a half an hour talk, she gave him her business card and asked him to contact her with more information.
She wanted to know the truth. She was sincere in her desire to know the truth. Can you say the same if you will not even bother to read a short article?
Wow, what invective!
Is it "invective" when James White does it?
Did James White "do" any? Can you provide an example?
The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources.
On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics.
Looks like invective to me.
With the possible exception of the first two you underlined, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree - "Catholics who simply do not know better" and "those who implicitly trust their sources" doesn't compare IMO to your own Steve Ray's comments re "White's petty article", "our angry critic", "anti-Catholics", "parrots", "Papal antagonists", amongst others liberally sprinkled through Ray's text.
Hey, maybe it's just me.
Alex Murphy said that a lot of invective was dished out early. As an ordained Methodist pastor, I'd have to agree with him. I've posted above all the attacks in just the 2 opening paragraphs above.
As Murphy says, why should I expect the link to provide anything different?
Post a serious link that treats Protestants like human beings with a bit of worth, and I might read it.
Like he does here:
Although they whine about Ray’s invectiveness, could they even be bothered to point out White’s? I smell hypocrisy. No agenda there, LOL.
Although they whine about Ray’s invectiveness, could they even be bothered to point out White’s? I smell hypocrisy. No agenda there, LOL.
And the invective moves from author-on-author to poster-on-poster, making it personal. Nice.
This line is a serious misrepresentation on your part. I was NOT pinged to the first article (I've checked.) I was pinged to a comment by a 3rd party about how he wished there were a reader's digest version of the article. I did not comment. It is hardly my fault that someone pings me to an article.
Nor did I comment on either of those original articles. For all you know, it was because it was a bit caustic.
My comment on this thread had to do with the invective. BTW, just because you say, "Jimmy did it too." that does not make the invective in this article go away. In fact, it makes you in agreement that the article is full of invective.
Intellectually dishonest men like James White, a modern heir of the Pharisess, deserve the same sort of invective that Our Lord gave the Pharisees.
Yes, very serious, even maybe extremely serious. Here's a correction for you: Xzins was pinged to the thread discussing the article. LOL.
Thou hast said it. ;-)
See #18.
Of course I know you are a human being.
I disagree with some important points of Catholic doctrine, but it's nearly impossible for me to forget that I'm dealing with human beings who have feelings, hopes, families, lives, etc.
I was pinged to an extraneous comment that the article is TOO LONG. I was pinged by someone who was not responsible for posting the article. I did not respond.
Your previous post suggested otherwise.
Your levity does not set the record straight. But...for me...it is revealing.
This line is a serious misrepresentation on your part (it may even be a very serious misrepresentation). I did not say "Jimmy did it too", or use "too" in any way to imply that Steve Ray did it also. So the conclusion that it makes me in agreement that the article is full of invective is just cobbled together out of thin air.
You are the one complaining about the invectiveness - but only against one side. So should we conclude that you don't find White's article is invective?
Here's a revised correction for you: Xzins was pinged to the thread discussing the article. LOL.
I aim to please.
The use of "nice" in this context is invective.
Or: Invective to one is truth to another.
Actually, it's the code of silence.
Anytime words like "lie, ignorant, unintelligent, etc." get used, we are probably dealing with invective, wouldn't you think?
The only way to call someone a liar, and be in the right, is to have irrefutable evidence that the person has just intentionally misrepresented the truth.
It did.
But to be more specific. In the paragraphs you cited: "....questionable...integrity...spurious...forged..." all speak to the issue of lying.
Someone's being called a liar.
Now reference my previous post.
regards.
Reading posts subsequent to this one of yours, I'm now convinced you are correct.
I think my answer was, "If someone calls you a liar and can't prove it, then that qualifies as invective."
I don't consider those other things you wrote to be invective. It is common knowledge that protestant theology disagrees with things like tradition, magisteriums, apocrypha, icons, mariology, papacy, etc.
Therefore referring to lore, legend, and propping up is not invective.
Nope. It calls White a liar.
How is that not invective?
OK for anyone looking for a true example of "invective", there it is.
FWIW if James White said something similar, then it was improper. That being said, I don't see anything on either of these two threads that refutes any specific point on scholarship that James White made in his article. Instead of the posters addressing the issues raised by White on the other thread, the poster of this thread thought it sufficient to simply post this article in rebuttal. Ok, that's fine. White says Ray is misinformed and Ray says White is misinformed.
Debate over.
Nothing to be seen here.
I saw it running around on some other thread last week.
Wagging along happily like someone cared if it tagged along.
White claims St. Augustine does not believe in Transubstantiation: "This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53 that is directly contradictory to modern Roman teaching on the doctrine of transubstantiation."
In my < href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1783542/posts?page=28#28">#28 on the other thread, I show that St. Augustine most definitely believed nothing of the sort, aside from the fact that Sermon 131 which he quotes says absolutely nothing of what James White think it does.
St. Augustine says rather that of the real presence: "It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous." Like James White.
Apparently Mr. White believes that statements like: "Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed" are a refutation of transubstantiation, when in fact, Catholics profess that Christ is received but not consumed (i.e. destroyed or divided), because while Christ is multiplied in physical location, He is whole and entirely present in each particle. And while the accidents of bread and wine are digested, upon digestion they no longer contain the physical substance of Christ, but only His grace remains.
There is no refutation of Mr. White's scholarship, because what he wrote is simply wrong, not scholarly.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.