Following instep with such silliness that Benedict XVI/Raztinger, "is functionally a pantheist" (LINK), the ever increasing anti-Catholic bias that is being exhibited at the Beggars All blog continues with Matthew D. Schultz's diatribe aimed at a gent named David Meyer ("someone in process of converting from the PCA to the Roman Catholic denomination"), utilizing some of the stock 'tools' of the Reformed apologists tradecraft: caricature, double-standards and ad hominems. Let's examine a few of Matthew's examples (LINK):
Ignorance is what we find among many converts, leading or otherwise, to Catholicism. They demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge about both the early church and the very Reformed doctrines which they claim they are rejecting. Concerning the former, I'm often able to determine from where a set of early church quotations has come by simply copying and pasting portions of it into a Google search. The results are predictable; the Catholic has simply lifted the entire set from some website, typos and all, without any evidence of critical interaction with those texts, let alone evidence of having at least read the context of those passages. They care more for the appearance of intellectualism than the hard work necessary to obtain the genuine product.The latter failure of doctrinal comprehension is particularly revealing--they consistently fail to properly represent Reformed doctrines or demonstrate that they really understand them. This casts doubt on their claims to have seriously wrestled with the doctrines of the Reformation. It would seem these converts were (and are) more interested in inflating their egos than pursuing "the truth."
Pretty much all the above criticisms leveled by Matthew at the "many converts" to Catholicism are just as true with converts to Protestantism. If Matthew is indeed correct, it would seem to imply that "ignorance" is THE common factor in most conversions.
Converts to Catholicism are notorious for dismissing the intellectual leaders of their denominations and acting as if such people are either irrelevant or downright heterodox. These converts behave as if they are the gate-keepers of true Catholic belief. The appeal to intellectualism is just a convenient abstraction.
No examples are given, just rhetoric. I know some Catholic converts who are well read in the writings of such Catholic intellectuals as Raymond Brown, Yves Congar, Avery Dulles, Joseph Fitzmyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Karl Rahner, George Tavard, Hans von Balthasar, et al. On the 'flip-side', I wonder how many Reformed converts are as well read in the more recent Reformed intellectuals like Karl Barth and G. C. Berkouwer.
But why would we want to engage in the cult of celebrity which defines the modern Roman Catholic apologetics industry? We should care about pointing people to Christ, not to conversion stories, even if these stories are overlaid with all the finery of sophistication and erudition.
And "the cult of celebrity" does not exist in the Protestant paradigm? There is no question that within the broader Evangelical paradigm each generation bears witness to a new crop of "cult" celebrities; the same holds true within the more narrow confines of the competing conservatives denominations and sects—though the conservative Reformed sects seem to keep their "cult" figures around much longer than the broader EV paradigm.
Before closing out this opening post, I would like to mention that at the beginning of Matthew's thread, he briefly touched on the early Church Fathers, and the development of doctrine. I would be very interested in knowing what textbook/s are being used in the English speaking Reformed seminaries to cover these subjects—hopefully, readers 'in the know' can supply the answer/s.
Grace and peace,
David
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
David,
Matthew can speak for himself, but in a comment I wrote on one thread there, I pointed out that insofar as Internet apologetics go, one rarely sees more well-educated Catholics appearing to defend their faith. It is no caricature at all to say that most of what passes for substance in online apologetics is popular level drivel, not careful, well-read, well-thought through material.
That said, I have long recognized the similar phenomenon among Protestants. I used to take a lot of flack from well-meaning, but frankly ignorant Protestants who expected me to simply support whatever they said as long as it was against Catholicism, and who in fact got very angry at me when I challenged them to put their money where their mouth was.
You should remember that the Beggars All crowd is somewhat diverse. They're not all cut from the same cloth either intellectually or attitudinally. And, of course, I am not part of their little group, so my appearance there does not necessarily mean I endorse just any old thing any of them posts there. I do have to take care what I post there, because the filtering rules, so to speak, are difficult to figure out, and usually when one has a post deleted no explanation of what standard one violated is given. About the only rule that is very clear is "Never criticize David King by name." I learned that one a while back, but apparently occasionally I still violate some of their taboos.
I posted this last night, but it was put in blogger spam:
the filtering rules, so to speak, are difficult to figure out, and usually when one has a post deleted no explanation of what standard one violated is given
I don't really recall deleting all that many of your comments, Tim. I recall deleting some comments about or directed toward DA recently, simply because I promised DA in private correspondence that I would try to make my blog DA free. Anything that has to do with him or mentioning him gets dumped, including any comments he makes. There were a number of your comments that blogger filtered into spam, all these were restored. Recall, I was one of the first bloggers to figure out why blog comments kept disappearing. I restored almost everything when I figured it out.
I don't have a lot of rules. Of course, there are the obvious ones: profanity, trolls, over-abundant and repeated stupidity, etc. My co-bloggers are free to delete whatever they want. I'm too busy to monitor each and every comment. Ever notice I don't comment much on my own blog? The reason is I'm not near a computer, and when I am, I've either got school work to do, private matters, or if possible a little time to look up some Luther quotes. I probably spend 1 hour or 2 hours per day on a computer, if that. It's often a lot less, or not at all.
If I deleted any comments you made about Pastor King, I don't apologize for this (I don't recall doing so, but I'm sure it's possible). I have had the following rules in place for a number of years, which says directly I will indeed delete such comments. This post has been on my sidebar for quite a while.
I'm sorry to have to have mention all this over here- I rarely venture off my own blog. I followed the link over here from site meter, and frankly, I was disheartened by the comments. Go ahead and critique Matthew, but taking the opportunity to complain about the blog, when really very little of what you've posted actually gets deleted, was not called for.
James,
In order that this not become an unnecessary fight, I have responded to you privately. Please check your e-mail when you get a chance.
David -- if you want to be critical of us at Beggars All, I say, more power to you. The amount of attention you've focused on us just proves to me that we're getting under your skin, and IMO, you have skin that needs getting under.
I for one could not be more proud or honored to be a part of this team. James of course (as Tim has noted) ought to have his work on the mischaracterizations of Luther published far and widely. Alan and Ken both have been and are missionaries who have risked their lives for the Gospel in very real ways. Matthew is soon to be a PhD candidate at a highly prestigious seminary.
All the work that we all have done has been fair and honest and extensively documented. If you think it's "silly" or "inconsistent," it's because you don't have more detailed or intelligent criticisms than that.
And if you think we're "anti-Catholic," we are so in the same way that the Reformers were "anti-Catholic," and that's entirely needed and justified.
Hi Tim,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond; you wrote:
>>Matthew can speak for himself, but in a comment I wrote on one thread there, I pointed out that insofar as Internet apologetics go, one rarely sees more well-educated Catholics appearing to defend their faith. It is no caricature at all to say that most of what passes for substance in online apologetics is popular level drivel, not careful, well-read, well-thought through material.>>
Me: As you later point out, the prevalence of sub-standard (scholarly speaking) "material" in online apologetics is not limited to Catholics. However, IMO, each 'side' has their 'brighter' lights. Dr. Michael Liccione and Fr. Alvin Kimel have produced some exceptional threads from the Catholic 'side of the Tiber', while R. Scott Clark and Jason J. Stellman are good examples of Reformed folk who place more value on substance over rhetoric.
But ultimately, if one is interested in top-notch scholarship, one needs to look to the 'rarified air' of the top scholars who are being published in each respective discipline, and not the online apologists.
>>That said, I have long recognized the similar phenomenon among Protestants. I used to take a lot of flack from well-meaning, but frankly ignorant Protestants who expected me to simply support whatever they said as long as it was against Catholicism, and who in fact got very angry at me when I challenged them to put their money where their mouth was.>>
Me: Tim, an accurate and concise portrayal of the 'landscape'—well said.
Maintain the 'good-fight'; one can always expect a considerable amount of 'heat' from those whose primary focus is to protect their 'sacred-cows' (i.e. their traditions).
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Looking forward to your upcoming thread on the Church and politics; don't forget to email me.
Hello John,
Thanks for responding; you posted:
>>David -- if you want to be critical of us at Beggars All, I say, more power to you.>>
Me: I think the 'us' suggests that my criticisms are personal in nature; I for my part can attest that such is certainly not the case.
>>The amount of attention you've focused on us just proves to me that we're getting under your skin, and IMO, you have skin that needs getting under.>>
Me: With all due respect John, Beggars All is quite low on my list of 'interests'; the general direction that the blog has taken over the last few months rarely touches on the subjects I am currently studying. When I do comment on certain content that has been posted at BA, it almost always concerns issues that I have researched in great depth, and sense a need to offer the 'other-side' for those who may be interested in a more balanced view.
>>I for one could not be more proud or honored to be a part of this team. James of course (as Tim has noted) ought to have his work on the mischaracterizations of Luther published far and widely.>>
Me: I have NEVER criticized James' exhaustive work on Luther.
>>Alan and Ken both have been and are missionaries who have risked their lives for the Gospel in very real ways.>>
Me: When have I taken Alan to task? Ken and I have had considerable dialogue on a broad range of topics and share great respect for each other.
>>Matthew is soon to be a PhD candidate at a highly prestigious seminary.>>
Me: Could you tell us what Matthew's advanced area of study is? Is it patristics? Is it historical theology?
>>All the work that we all have done has been fair and honest and extensively documented.>>
Me: "Fair and honest" is a relative term; for me, it includes a heavy dose of objectivity and balance devoid of polemics and rhetoric (as much as humanly possible, of course).
>>If you think it's "silly" or "inconsistent," it's because you don't have more detailed or intelligent criticisms than that.>>
Me: John, you are being unfair, and not entirely honest. My later threads on Lampe, for instance, have been virtually ignored by you. As for your Ratzinger, "is functionally a pantheist" statement, it ignores his considerable amount of published work on theology proper, wherein he clearly, without equivocation, defends the Creator/creature distinction—Ratzinger's foundational theology clearly puts to rest your assessment.
>>And if you think we're "anti-Catholic," we are so in the same way that the Reformers were "anti-Catholic," and that's entirely needed and justified.>>
Me: I respectfully disagree, we are no longer in the 16th century. I take much more seriously the work that has been carried on by the scholars involved in such projects as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and "Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue", than the polemics (both sides) which focus on the 'sacred-cows' of the 16th century theological battlefield. But, that's just me—sorry to disappoint...
Grace and peace,
David
And by the way, I was not criticizing Matthew. I was criticizing David's criticism of Matthew. Matthew's post was dead-on accurate given the scope of its subject. David W. is right that there are more sophisticated Catholic converts out there, but anyone who's spent any amount of time at Beggars All knows well that the more sophisticated ones are NOT the ones who come around there. Anyone who's been around the block a few times with the Catholic apologetics community also knows that 90% of it is of a superficial nature because the people who propagate it are theologically and historically superficial. This is not at all an unkind caricature, but a demonstrated FACT.
David, I don't care for Liccione or Clark, actually. Liccione is a question-begger extraordinaire who has no earthly idea what the Reformation was about, and who appears to be simply incapable of recognizing, let alone receiving, any intelligent criticism of Catholicism. I say that from personal experience with him, not just from watching his behavior with others.
On the Reformed side, Clark is a sectarian polemicist who, even though he does have some substance, unjustly narrows the Reformed tradition to an extremely small slice of what it actually is. Neither one of these men is a good example of the best of their respective traditions.
Hello again Tim,
I have certainly not read all of Dr. Liccione's posts, but the threads that I have read and interacted with have demonstrated to me that he quite knowledgeable, and a very bright individual. If it is not too much trouble, I would be interested in reading some of the threads you have in mind—links?
As for Dr. Clark, once again, we have (IMO) a knowledgeable, and a very bright individual, who exhaustively knows his particular paradigm. If you want a modern apologia of confessional, Reformed theology, I can think no better representative.
Obviously, neither Liccione nor Clark will anytime soon (if ever) be persuaded that their respective tradition is flawed—I point to them as gents who are certainly not ignorant of their respective positions. If either man were to convert to another tradition, polemicists will not be able to advance the theory that they did not "really understand" what they currently defend.
Grace and peace,
David
Oh gracious, David, who knows where all that stuff is now in terms of links? Liccione and I sparred a bit on several different blogs over a long period of months, and I have no way of telling you where those things were. Perhaps you could contact Dave Armstrong. He seems to archive every word I ever say anywhere on the Internet, and he has the amazing ability to reproduce almost any part of it on demand. Now that I think about it, some of what I referred to was on Facebook between two friends of mine and Liccione. I don't know how you could get access to those conversations.
I'm not impressed by notations that a guy is "bright" or "quite knowledgeable." As always with intellectual matters, the issue is quality, not quantity. I grant that both Liccione and Clark know a great deal, and they are bright. But that has nothing to do with their basic attitudinal orientations (which stink to high heaven) nor with whether or not their particular arguments are of good quality. "Smartness" does not equal "rational coherence" or "correspondence to reality." Other criteria are involved than just I.Q. and possession of degrees.
Liccione's main problem, as brought out by my friend in the Facebook discussion, is that he starts with modern subjectivism / skepticism, and confuses his advocacy of what he thinks of as proper metaphysics with believing in Jesus Christ as his savior. That's not to say he doesn't really believe in Christ - neither my friend nor I would say that, as it's not something we are capable of knowing. All it is to say is that he doesn't seem capable, for all his vast learning, of properly distinguishing intellectual constructs from the objects which they are formulated to express, and he has immense difficulty believing that it is possible for anything BUT Catholicism to actually be intellectually fulfilling.
Clark's problem appears to be that his vast learning is deployed in the service of an extremely narrow vision of what "Reformed" means - basically, the term to him means "people who agree with me and my little clique of friends at the Seminary." Everyone else is automatically suspected by him of being some kind of nefarious heretic, and, like a lot of uncharitable Presbyterians these days, he seems to imagine that he is morally equivalent to the Apostle Paul and his opponents morally equivalent to the Judaizers, so he can just let it all hang out," so to speak, in the name of "Truth" and "the Gospel."
I have no use for men such as this, sorry.
Tim wrote:
>>I'm not impressed by notations that a guy is "bright" or "quite knowledgeable." As always with intellectual matters, the issue is quality, not quantity. I grant that both Liccione and Clark know a great deal, and they are bright. But that has nothing to do with their basic attitudinal orientations (which stink to high heaven) nor with whether or not their particular arguments are of good quality. "Smartness" does not equal "rational coherence" or "correspondence to reality." Other criteria are involved than just I.Q. and possession of degrees.>>
Me: I agree with most of what you wrote above, but would like to make a few of points: first, I suspect that everyone's basic attitudinal orientations" will find those who believe that it "stinks[s] to high heaven"—more often than not, I see a need to separate attitude from content; second, once again, though I have considerable disagreements with the respective traditions of Liccione and Clark, I still am able to acknowledge them as solid representatives of their positions (once again, separating attitude from content); and third, when it comes to religion and philosophy, I think anyone who has not adopted some form of pure skepticism ends up 'drawing a line in the sand' that in non-negotiable—I am sure that the 'where' each of us draws that line(s) is open to criticism.
Here are some of my 'lines in the sand" (i.e. " basic attitudinal orientations" that are non-negotiable):
1.) Theist - I believe in a Creator God who is the source of everything else that exists.
2.) Divine revelation - I believe that his Creator God has revealed Himself via what theologians term 'supernatural revelation'.
3.) The Bible - I believe the autographa of the Bible to be a source of "Divine revelation" (though I remain 'open' on the issues of canon and the degree of reliability concerning the extant transmitted copies, while maintaining what I would term to be a "high view of Scripture").
In addition to the above 'lines', I am probably more 'open' than you on a number of issues, which include the following assessments on my part:
a.) I am not entirely convinced that the "Bible' is the only authentic source of "Divine revelation".
b.) I am not entirely convinced that the Nicene Creed (original, or Western, or Eastern forms) is doctrinally infallible concerning doctrine of the Trinity.
c.) I currently have reservations about pretty much ALL of the "theological systems" that have been devised by man, with 'red-flags' going up as soon as I hear the words: "the Bible really says..."
And lastly, at least for now, I am highly critical of 'double-standards', and/or 'double-edged sword' arguments—I am sure that I probably have not completely eradicated the two from my postings, but I can honestly say that it is, and has been, a high priority for me.
Grace and peace,
David
Well, I think a conceptual distinction can be made between attitude and content such that we can recognize that a "stinky" attitude does not necessarily mean the content is false.
However, as a student of classical rhetoric, I have to say that attitude does matter in terms of a person's persuasive ability with someone else. "You catch more honey with flies" wasn't said by Aristotle or Plato in their books on rhetoric, but the idea would be recognized by both. The human condition is interesting precisely in that we are far more likely to listen to someone who is impassioned than to someone who drones on with purported "objectivity," yet at the same time, impassioned speech will either win over or repulse particular people. In the cases of the people you mentioned, to me both their content and their attitude stink, and repel me rather than persuade me.
Now, of course everyone draws lines in the sand in terms of first principles, and these cannot be questioned lest the whole edifice of thought come crashing down. Nevertheless, we are not left with simple aporia because there are differing first principles. Person A may not be able to see how he can question his first principle, but Person B might be able to see that A's first principle leads not to the establishment of thought, but to complete stultification of thought.
The problem with the people you mentioned is thus precisely that their choice of first principles is bad. Liccione begins with modern skepticism and winds up "solving" it with its exact opposite, ungrounded fideism. This may not stultify thought itself, but it sure stultifies communication with others (his ultimate answer to all objections is that, well, darnit, Catholicism "makes sense" to him, so the rest of you can go sit and spin), and effectively puts him in a universe all his own. This is a bad first principle.
Clark's first principles appear to be that only his own narrow views about what "Reformed" mean are admissible, and although he doesn't seem able to see how this stultifies constructive thought about what "Reformed" means, others do. And at any rate, he can be soundly rebutted - and has been - just by bringing into the picture other construals of "Reformed." That he doesn't recognize that he's been rebutted has more to do with his stinky attitude than with the cogency of the content of his beliefs.
I stop by here occasionally because, even though David and I disagree on matters he's already described in this thread, I admire his objectivity, learning, and even-handedness. That said, I notice that Tim has characterized my position in a way that mystifies me. I want to set the record straight.
Thus:
Liccione begins with modern skepticism and winds up "solving" it with its exact opposite, ungrounded fideism. This may not stultify thought itself, but it sure stultifies communication with others (his ultimate answer to all objections is that, well, darnit, Catholicism "makes sense" to him, so the rest of you can go sit and spin), and effectively puts him in a universe all his own. This is a bad first principle.
To the extent my epistemology can be labeled, the best label would be 'Thomist'. I've also learned much from Newman's Grammar of Assent. Both Aquinas and Newman were Catholics who believed that people can and do have real philosophical knowledge. So do I, and anybody who reads my posts and comments on natural theology can see that. It puts me out of company with post-16th-century philosophers who are classed as 'skeptics'.
Nor am I a fideist, "ungrounded" or otherwise, by any definition I'm familiar with. I believe that faith and reason are not only mutually compatible but also mutually enriching. In fact, some Orthodox accuse me of rationalism, just as some Protestants accuse me of fideism. But my position as a Catholic is that of the First Vatican Council, which steers between those two extremes.
I suspect that what elicits the charge of "fideism" is my belief that the assent of faith can never be compelled by reasoning, but rather is a divine gift. That also happens to be Catholic doctrine (cf. CCC §153-162). The assent of faith can and should be supported by good reasons, but the content thereof can never be established by reasons; if it could be, it would be knowledge not faith. Thus there is reason enough for the assent of faith, but not necessitating reason. In particular, I do not believe Scripture to be perpicuous to the degree that anybody who just studies hard enough can derive, by a rational methodology, the entire content of divine revelation, so that their interpretation of Scripture is shown to be the only rationally plausible one. That puts me at odds with a certain sort of Protestant, who can be found often but not exclusively among those calling themselves "Reformed." But it should be well-known in the blogosphere by now why I reject Protestantism in principle.
To restate it briefly, I see Protestantism not as a set of doctrines, but rather as a principle that works itself out in multiple ways. The principle is this: the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting “the sources” independently of the claims of any particular church to be “the Church,” so that one must pick or found a church on the basis of such an interpretation. The differences among Protestants arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. The argument I constantly make is that the Protestant principle leaves us with no principled way to distinguish the doctrinal content of divine revelation from human opinions about how to interpret the sources. The only such way is to locate and submit to a visible Body called "the Church" which can speak with the authority of her Founder, Bridegroom, and Head, and thus speak infallibly. That was the position of Aquinas and Newman as well.
Best,
Mike
Hello Dr. Liccione,
I am quite pleased that you saw Tim’s somewhat harsh comments; like you, I was mystified by his characterizations, and am able to testify to a substantially different experience concerning my interactions with you, and your blog.
Thank you so much for taking the time “to set the record straight”. I am looking forward to Tim’s reaction…
Grace and peace,
David
Yes, Dr. Liccione, I'm sure you are mystified, just as you were mystified - and quite unable to answer intelligibly - Peter Escalante's critique of your claim to be a "Thomist." I'm glad that David and others have such good interactions with you. Would you were capable of having the same with intelligent Protestants, not the silly little Fundamentalist caricatures that you seem to believe Protestantism necessarily reduces to.
You might help your case, by the way, by not writing massive tomes full of unintelligible jargon like "retorsive." That sort of stuff works in doctoral seminars, I'm sure, where only 5 other people are equipped to grasp what you are saying, but it really isn't to the point in everyday conversations.
Also, Dr. Liccione, it would help if you would cease assuming, as you habitually do, that if people disagree with some brilliant piece of prose you have written, it is because they don't really understand it. On several occasions your only response to me was "Go read my long thingy about development again, because you didn't understand it."
Actually I did understand it, and found it to be most unpersuasive. Had you not assumed I merely didn't understand your brilliant writing, perhaps a fruitful conversation might have been had. I've seen you treat others this way, too, which is why I say it is a predilection that you have.
Tim,
I choose to focus on the theological substance of your comments--which, alas, does not make up their bulk.
1. I don't quite recall why Escalante claimed I'm not a Thomist. On the faith/reason relationship and a number of other key epistemological questions, my position is virtually indistinguishable from Aquinas'. That said, I do recall having a public exchange with Dr. William Witt about Aquinas' position on the "sufficiency" of Scripture for identifying and understanding the deposit of faith. According to WW, Aquinas maintained what he, WW, defines as the "formal sufficiency" of Scripture. I replied, in effect, that WW was using a stipulative re-definition of the concept to read Aquinas anachronistically. It seemed to me that WW confuses intelligibility with perspicuity, holding that intelligibility=perspicuity=formal sufficiency. But whether or not that's what WW really holds, it was not Aquinas' view. Aquinas did maintain the material sufficiency of Scripture, but also held that that does not suffice for eliciting the assent of faith as distinct from that of opinion. For the assent of faith, he held, one must "adhere to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule." That's my position too. So perhaps Escalante and I, like WW and I, simply disagree about how to interpret Aquinas on the sufficiency of Scripture. But that doesn't mean I'm not a "Thomist."
2. As to development of doctrine, I take it to be a historical fact within all three Christian traditions. The only questions are these: by what criteria are legitimate developments to be distinguished from corruptions, and by what authority are those criteria to be propounded and applied? Anybody adhering to what I call 'the Protestant principle' is going to answer those questions very differently from how Newman, Ratzinger, and I do. So of course it makes sense that you find my answer "most unpersuastive." But that doesn't mean that I find your own position on DD to be "unintelligent." I just didn't see evidence, in my interactions with you and your Reformed friends, that you understood my argument. I doubt this is the best forum for seeking such evidence, and I also doubt you're interested in supplying it. But if you're interested in discussing the matter, I'll do my best here.
Best,
Mike
David,
I'm having trouble posting comments here. I get error messages rejecting my posts, only to discover that they've been posted anyhow. So I often end up having to delete duplicate posts. I doubt that's because I use Google Chrome, since Blogger is a Google platform. I don't know what it is. Perhaps you could help.
Best,
Mike
Hi Mike,
The combox in Blogger has some 'problems'. If you get an error message right after submitting a post, hit the refresh button on the thread to see if it actaully posted (most of the time it does). If a submitted post does not appear at all, you can either try again, or send me an email and I will make sure it gets posted out of the filter box that Blogger placed it.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. I am curious to know if Tim has read some of those great threads on DD that you and I were involved in a couple of years ago (here at AF, Frank's, and your blog)...I am left wondering now if he thinks I am one of those "silly little Fundamentalist[s]".
David:
I suspected as much about the Blogger comment system. That's why I haven't used it at my own blog for a long time. I suggest you consider an alternative too.
Best,
Mike
The amount of attention you've focused on us just proves to me that we're getting under your skin, and IMO, you have skin that needs getting under
Oh gee John. Thanks for this. I will file it away in my, "Why do Bugay, DT King, TFan et al spend so much time focusing on Called to Communion and it's members?" box.
Tim Enloe (Mr. Polemics) wrote:
Also, Dr. Liccione, it would help if you would cease assuming, as you habitually do, that if people disagree with some brilliant piece of prose you have written, it is because they don't really understand it.
Man, does that sound uncannily familiar! I have been through that about 30 times with Tim, too, so I know exactly what Michael is talking about there.
Tim (like everyone at Boors All) has only the dimmest understanding of how Catholicism works, and what we believe, and is particularly weak in ecclesiology, epistemology, and development of doctrine.
There is no educating him on anything. He always thinks he knows our system better than we do, yet invariably he is woefully ignorant. It is a curious mixture of profound ignorance and deluded self-confidence.
Post a Comment