As one who owns every major Wagner opera (Flying Dutchman on) and a large classical musical collection, I thought this was a brilliant analysis.
I only regret that you don't seem to use one-hundredth as many of your brain cells and interpretive, analytical prowess when it comes to Catholicism.
A clear (but unfortunately, quite common) case where emotional hostility completely overwhelms sense and rationality . . .
That someone can be out to sea on one topic and profound regarding another is a phenomenon I have long noted and marveled at.
I have many links to papers by James White on the Muslims, Mormons, Da Vinci Code, etc. I also link to a series by Jason Engwer on "Christmas apologetics."
Ironically, White was recently lamenting the fact that he can't get together with a rival "anti-Calvinist") in matters of outreach to Muslims, where they have a common interest beyond their disputes over soteriology.
Sad indeed, yet when it comes to me, White has not (in ten years) ever acknowledged that I write anything of value where we could agree. And there is plenty: I have debated Mormons and Muslims as well, and liberals, and homosexuals, and pro-abortion advocates.
But the man's personal hostility towards me will not allow him to see or acknowledge that I do anything besides oppose anti-Catholics like himself. Even that isn't true anymore: for a year-and-a-half now I have resolved to cease trying to dialogue with anti-Catholics, for the sheer futility of it.
On a final humorous note, White confidently predicted at that time that my blog would falter and collapse without the fodder of dealing with irrational anti-Catholics to keep it prospering. I was receiving about 300 hits a day at that time. Last time I checked, I was at 677.
I've never been primarily about opposing Protestant anti-Catholics. I've done relatively little of that, considered against my entire output of apologetic materials. It just seemed like a lot because my volume is high altogether, and I have debated most of the major anti-Catholics out there today.
6/30/2006 12:42 PM
I do commend you, by the way, for allowing comments.
I was just banned from Tim Enloe's website (he removed three of my comments in rapid succession: the last consisting of one word: "test"). I've also been effectively banned from "Reformed Catholicism.com."
For all your manifest shortcomings of argument and reason and with regard to charity, at least you do appear to believe in free speech, and possess confidence enough to suffer opposing viewpoints. I always appreciate that.
Good for you.
Your brother in Christ & His Church,
6/30/2006 12:49 PM
ME: "White has not (in ten years) ever acknowledged that I write anything of value where we could agree."
Oops, I forgot. White did mention once that I was a good historian of the Beatles. But he didn't say whether he liked them or not. :-)
This is quite a mixed bag:
1. My theological sympathies obviously lie with James White rather than Dave Armstrong.
2.I’m on record as affirming that conservative Catholics can be allies in the culture wars. And I’ve taken a lot of fire for that position. See some of my postings under Church & State. Cf.
3.That said, there are also inherent limitations to such a coalition.
i) It makes it harder to oppose abortion if you also oppose artificial birth control.
ii) The Catholic hierarchy is now committed to a seamless fabric of life ethic in which it not only opposes abortion and euthanasia (good), but is also opposed to capital punishment (bad).
And while it still supports just-war theory on paper, in practice it subscribes to functional pacifism.
iii) The CCC also stakes out a compromise position on sodomy, condemning it on paper, but supporting civil rights for homosexuals:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
As you can see, it has also carved out a category for Christian homosexuals. This is unscriptural.
And that, in turn, is why the Vatican is equivocal on homosexuals in the priesthood.
4.As to Muslims, I like the policy of Urban II and Pius V.
Unfortunately, Vatican II says that Muslims share the faith of Abraham and worship the one true God (Lumen Gentium 16).
It so doing, it gives Islam the keys to the backdoor of the church.
5.As to Enloe, he suffers from a father-fixation.
6.As to Reformed Catholicism and Communio Sanctorum, this is a homegrown denomination in miniature, like little storefront churches which claim to be the one true church on earth.
Pace reformedcatholicism.com, I can’t foresee any eventuality in which Armstrong would ever be banned from the combox of Triablogue.