Monday, December 06, 2010

Worse for wear

Here's a plug for some Catholic converts/reverts which no doubted sounded better then than it does with the passage of time. 



I'm sure folks such as Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Gerry Matatics, Dave Palm, Dave Currie, Kenneth Howell, Mark Shea, Kristine Franklin (Bob Sungenis, Jeff Cavins, and Curtin Martin are re-verts so I won't count them) and hundreds more in Marcus Grodi's The Coming Home Network who have appeared on EWTN "The Journey Home" program understood some of the problems you bring up (i.e. seeming lack of evidence for full-blown Catholic doctrines in the earliest centuries, which became explicit in the fourth, fifth and later centuries) but they don't see this as decisive against becoming a Catholic (and neither do I).
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num36.htm



Let's see: David Palm is a "Reluctant Traditionalist" who's quite critical of the current post-Vatican II regime:


http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html


And for their part, Sungenis is now in open conflict with his bishop while Matatics has become a sedevacantist.


What a difference a decade makes! Not only has Phil Porvaznik's argument failed to stand the test of time, but it's backfired. If he were arguing today, I seriously doubt he'd cite Palm, Matatics, and Sungenis as posterboys for his position. To say it hasn't worn well is an understatement. 


If fact, Jason is now in a position to agree with Porvaznik's illustration, but turn it against him. 

8 comments:

  1. Tertullian was a great theologian who became a heretic. So what? This is merely silly. Are you this desperate for material to write about?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Porvaznik cited these individuals to prove a point against Engwer. Well, the argument cuts both ways. It's only desperate if you admit his argument was desperate. Thanks for backing yourself into a dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My point still stands. Are you truly this dense in your prejudiced rush to find ridiculous things to write about?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't have a point. You have abusive adjectives in lieu of a point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To illustrate Steve's point, I've bolded some adjectives and adverbs in DA's comments:

    Tertullian was a great theologian who became a heretic. So what? This is merely silly. Are you this desperate for material to write about?

    My point still stands. Are you truly this dense in your prejudiced rush to find ridiculous things to write about?


    He packs in the adjectives and adverbs, but not the arguments!

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who said it was an argument? It was an editorial comment on things perfectly ridiculous and self-evidently so. But I wouldn't expect either of you to get that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Who said it was an argument?"

    Certainly not me!

    ReplyDelete
  8. DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:

    "Who said it was an argument? It was an editorial comment on things perfectly ridiculous and self-evidently so."

    Nothing like the intellectual shortcut of merely declaring something to be "perfectly ridiculous and self-evidently so."

    Speaking of which, dear old Dave is perfectly ridiculous and self-evidently so.

    ReplyDelete