Anti-Catholic Snobbery

by Jimmy Akin on August 21, 2006

in Non-Catholic Apologists

Rhetorical question: When an anti-Catholic Evangelical Christian apologist sees a story about Catholic bishops in southern Africa telling their priests to stop moonlighting as witch doctors for native peoples, does he sigh with relief that the Catholic bishops are defending Christianity or does he immediately start to wonder why the Catholic bishops are complaining?

"Rome is having [a problem] with its priests in Africa "moonlight[ing] as witch doctors" (to use CNN’s language), or, more specifically, engaging in prayers to ancestors and in general developing a syncretism between Roman Catholicism and native tribal and regional religions. While one’s first thought was, ‘Goodness, if a minister in our church were found to be engaging in such idolatry, they would not be "exhorted" to cease, they would be removed forthwith,’ another thought followed quickly. Given Rome’s violation of biblical teaching regarding prayers to saints and angels, and in particular, given Rome’s exaltation of the humble handmaid of the Lord to the Queen of Heaven, isn’t this rather understandable?

"I mean, put yourself in the sandals of the person attending the Roman Church in the bush of Africa somewhere. All you’ve known has been tribal religion, but you also hear about this religion called Catholicism. And so you go to the services and they are sacrificing their god upon an altar and praying to this exalted woman named Mary (could you differentiate between her and one of your tribal deities? Could you? You really think pleading the meaning of ‘hyperdulia’ is going to work here?) and to spirits like Michael and they are lighting candles and bowing and praying toward a box with something the priest consecrated and put in their and toward images and statues — just what should we expect folks are going to think? And put yourself in the position of the priest in that rural location. Is he going to really be in a position to attempt to engage in the kind of double-speak Rome’s apologists have to use to get around the Bible’s prohibition against the very kind of spiritism that is part and parcel of the surrounding culture?"

GET THE POST. (Slight formatting added.)

Stuff like this can really offer insight into the stumbling blocks to conversion facing some anti-Catholic Evangelical Christian apologists. Not only is there a distinct lack of charity toward the bishops who are addressing the problem, but there is a boatload of snobbery toward people of other cultures who this apologist presumes do not have the intelligence to know the difference between the Blessed Virgin Mary and "tribal deities" or between hyperdulia and idolatry, and snobbery even toward a "rural priest" presumed not to know how to teach the Christian faith in third-world cultures.

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Johnathan,
I listened to part of the show, up til the point that Mr. White hung up on you. Clearly, he simply didn't want to continue the exchange. I found it noteworthy that he himself laughed at you not 30 seconds before he hung up on you - for "laughing."
Give me a break.

Erick,
I cannot address any abuses that may be happening in south America, but I don't think the south American bishops are promoting anything having to do with idol worship, even if some confused people are abusing the veneration of Our Lady.
Even if they were, it wouldn't be official Church teaching which has to be believed by any faithful Catholic. If a person spreads falsehoods south of the border, it is no more legitimate than a person who does the same north of the border.

john...what i mean by "black jesus"- is just that!...a black skinned jesus in procession in many countries of central america. and as to my question in regards to catholic teaching-- i think it's quite obvious. was the virgin mary black?...was jesus black?- did the virgin go by many names such as you find in many countries?-ie. our lady of charity- cuba...our lady of the angels- costa rica..to only mention two of dozens in those southern regions...do we not see a contradiction in facts?...maybe i'm wrong.

Erick,
What do you mean by a "Black Jesus", etc.? These "black" terms can have different meanings to different people.
Next, what question do you have about it with regard to what the Catholic Church teaches?
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online in searchable formats if you're interested.)

Erick, again I don't know about many of your specific examples, and would not want to guess what the Holy See might say about them. I do know that I have heard of people in the Philippines who are voluntarily crucified on Good Friday (not to death, though since it's complete with nails one does wonder if some deaths don't occur). My understanding is that it is strongly discouraged by the Philippine bishops, but I don't know...does anyone else know?

James White vs. me on this topic:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1502
I am sorry that I laughed at him, because it deprived him of the quick barrage of Fathers that disagreed with him, but it was worthwhile nonetheless. I certainly didn't intend to laugh, but the idea that someone who claimed to support Nicaea would say that we don't become uncreated through participation in the hypostatic union was so funny that I laughed out loud entirely involuntarily. It probably wouldn't have happened if White were talking to an audience rather than to me directly, but the idea that I personally was getting lectured on Christology by someone just tickled my funny bone too much.

thank you karen...that was very interesting!...but i guess the thrust of my question is still missing an answer. what do you do with say for example the "black jesus" of guatemala...or the "black virgin mary" of cuba who by the way happens to be known as "oshun"- an ancient african godess now venerated as part of the lukumi religion throughout the caribbean. as part of the procession in el salvador a man actually gets crucified etc etc...again, i'm not demeaning these things but i hardly ever see anything in print or discussed about these practices- and how are they simply exprssions of faith from another region...

Erick, this video is in New York. I would love to see more of this happening in the West and all over the world.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PgSyW9qS-Qw

Interesting questions, Erick. I can't speak to public flagellations or pilgrimages on bloody knees, but there if you go to www.closedcafeteria.blogspot.com and scroll down to August 17, there's a post on Our Lady of Guadalupe being crowned Queen of the Diocese of Tulsa. I believe that Assumption Grotto here in Detroit also does a neighborhood Rosary procession (and it's a very un-Catholic neighborhood).
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there will be variations of expression of faith, provided it's within the purview of what the Holy See deems appropriate.

with all due respect david--that does not answer my question!. is there or is there not a fundamental difference in the practices from those regions and the US ?...i am not de-meaning them just curious as to what your thoughts are on this very obvious comparison.

"where are the processions?"
We had one in our Diocese just last year.
"they are all absent from the worship practices of the US roman catholics"
Practices is what they are. NOT Dogma or Doctrine. Catholics aren't eternally bound to Practices. We ARE bound, however, to Eternal Truth.

having been a roman catholic in the past as well as having being raised in a central american country--does it not make sense that the type of roman catholicism practiced in the US is not the same as say these southern countries?--where are the processions?- the public flagellations- the pilgrimages on bloody knees to aparition cathedrals? --they are all absent from the worship practices of the US roman catholics, are they not?

Well-put, Kevin. I'll back your post 100%.

Kevin, since when is there any such thing as a "former Marine"? Don't you mean "inactive Marine"?

I'm a little bit sorry I opened this can of worms, but this is my final take on the matter.
I like the distinction made by one responder between the different types of respect, "Christian love" and "honour."
As a former Marine, I have no respect (meaning I don't honor them or hold them in high esteem) for the terrorists who have killed many of my fellow Marines, including a very good friend of mine. As a Catholic and as a Christian, however, it is my job to treat them with respect (meaning with Christian love).
Of course, I wouldn't lump Dr. White in with criminals and terrorists as one other responder seemed to, but that's just me. My mother raised me to treat others as I would like to be treated myself.

And so you go to the services and they are sacrificing their god upon an altar and praying to this exalted woman named Mary (could you differentiate between her and one of your tribal deities? Could you? You really think pleading the meaning of 'hyperdulia' is going to work here?)
Well, Dr. White isn't smart enough to make the distinction, so how could we expect these poor souls to be?

I'll agree that everyone deserves love; that we wish the best for them(which, in many cases, means we wish their conversion from evil).
"Surely we owe Him the courtesy of giving the benefit of the doubt to our fellow man?" If that means everybody, then no. We are to judge their actions(but not the state of their souls), and not be afraid to call evil "evil". "By their fruits, you will know them."

Atreyu, that's a good point. I'll happily stand corrected: everyone (Dr. White included) deserves Christian love, or charity. Bill912, with Atreyu's distinction in mind, I will certainly agree with you that not everyone deserves respect. However, even terrorists and criminals deserve Christian love.
Our Lord came to save the fallen, the sinners, the criminals and "lowlifes". Surely we owe Him the courtesy of giving the benefit of the doubt to our fellow man? I know I'm not good enough to throw the first stone.

Sorry, I meant to quote Kasia's last post in my post above. No edit function... :)

I think we would call the one "Christian love" - which we are required to give everyone (love thy neighbour as thyself) - and the other, simply "respect", or possibly "honour". I don't know of anywhere in the Bible where it says we must respect or honour everyone.

Is it too late to get in on this one. I agree that the bishops should shut down the inappropriate practices of their priests but...
the cultures in Africa are VERY different from our own:
Imagine a priest in the US coming to a small village to say Mass. After Mass the mayor of the town approaches the priest and tells him (in very threatening terms) that if he wants to give Homilies in his town he must preach what the mayor tells him to and in the way the mayor says he should.
Substitue "chief" for "mayor" and put the village in Africa and you have a real life example of what priests face there. An African priest took some classes with me in the local seminary and gave this as an example of his experience.

Uh, actually, no. I have no respect for criminals, terrorists, and various other low-lifes. I never will.

Bill912,
Uh, actually yes. Everyone deserves a measure of common courtesy and basic respect, even if they do not respond in kind. What everyone does *not* deserve is "respect" like, for example, I respect my friend for her sharp intellect and love of Christ. That kind of respect is earned; basic respect is deserved.
Maybe this is another translational issue. ;-) Does anyone know a language where the two are distinguished?

Amen, Kevin. Let's have some charity and turn the other cheek.
The one point I have to make goes back to Dr. White's original argument. He said "You really think pleading the meaning of 'hyperdulia' is going to work here?" While I don't appreciate his apparent characterization of Africans as ignorant pagan bushmen, it's true that translational issues complicate things. (The same thing is true for English speakers, I might add.)
Example: one of my dearest friends is from Kenya, and grew up speaking Swahili. According to her, there is no distinction in Swahili among different sorts of mental health issues. Either you're normal or you're crazy, with even more negative connotation on the "crazy" than there is in English (maybe more like "nuts"). So if you want to express that someone is mildly depressed, if you want to say they are bipolar, if you want to say they are a little unbalanced, if you want to say they have post-traumatic stress disorder, or if you want to say they're paranoid schizophrenic with homicidal tendencies, they're still "nuts". Clinical terms may have evolved in Swahili - I don't know - but in layman's terms, there's only one word, and it has an extremely negative connotation. Therefore, there is an understandable stigma on mental illness or mental health issues in Kenya. Now, my friend is extremely intelligent. She's fluent in several languages. Having had several years in the U.S. to understand the nuances of American English, as well as our cultural understanding of mental health issues, she does appreciate that there's more to the story than "normal" and "nuts".
I could see how trying to explain "hyperdulia" or "latria" could give rise to similar translational problems - it does for English speakers too. However, it's just plain wrong to assume that an African (or anyone else) can't understand distinctions, once you and s/he share a common understanding of the language you're using.

"...everybody is worthy of our respect..."
Uh, no.

Incidentally, ladies and gentlemen, it is also disrespectful to those who have a title that you do not regard as genuine to mock it with, as I said earlier, sarcastic punctuation.
It would be disrespectful if it simply a problem with those "who do not regard as genuine", but it is not a subjective issue. It is an objective fact, and refusing to acknowledge otherwise is no more disrespectful than refusing to acknowledge a crazy person as Napoleon Bonaparte.

If Mr. White wishes to engage catholics, then where are the com boxes on his site where we can respond to his pomp?

"It is disrepectful to those who have real doctorates to call someone with a phony doctorate doctor."
Incidentally, ladies and gentlemen, it is also disrespectful to those who have a title that you do not regard as genuine to mock it with, as I said earlier, sarcastic punctuation. Since we profess a faith in Christ, I think we ought to remember that everybody is worthy of our respect and manners. Love your neighbor as yourself, right?

Holy crud. I leave the comment box, and all this happens!
Re: Dozie
Actually, now that you mention it, I don't know whether Cardinal Arinze's dad is alive or dead now. But several years back (1998?), his dad was interviewed after meeting Pope John Paul II. He was still alive, unconverted, and in practice back then.
We had some interesting discussions in the early blogosphere about Arinze's dad, and about the old Vatican statement on "earth religions", or whatever they called them.
And I _think_ that people talked about his dad again during all the papabile discussions, and nobody seemed to be saying his dad was dead, then. (Hey, it's not like he would have been the first pope with unconverted pagan relatives. It's just that it's been a while....)

Good gravy, folks, the "doctor" thing was brought up by someone nitpicking (a favorite hobby of mine) on if the guy was protestant or evangelical. Give it a rest....
Doc, grow up. There were several posts responding to the meat of your comment, and you chose to focus on the-- to me, rather amusing-- byroad on the question of the validity of your degree.
I know there are several "schools" that would hand me a degree right now (I have some 80 credits from the Navy, but they can't be honestly applied to any one degree) so the question isn't exactly out the window, even if it is off the post topic.
Touch a nerve or something?

Hi Michelle,
I've been reading C.S.Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet" and the things you mention reminded me a very great deal of the bigotted idea of "the white man's burden" as Lewis deals with it.
One would think that after all the World...and especially the U.S. has been through in dealing with all the racial justice issues that Christians have been confronted with over the years, that that sort of attitude would not have been embraced by any Christians, much less the teaching non-Catholic clergy.
Knocking the African bishops of the Catholic Church for dealing with something like this is hypocritical at best when the only way that the n-Cs in question can avoid dealing with all the doctrinal weirdness (example: Shepherd's Chapel) cascading down from Sola Scriptura is to not speak of it at all.
I will never understand why these preachers can't simply preach the Gospel instead of playing a compare & contrast game from their pulpits and in their literature.
Oh...wait a minute...perhaps they learned that from the secular press and media. Think about it...
Bad news and controversy sells best, doesn't it?
CM

Update: the same Shane I referred to below posted a strong rebuke, alleging that I have somehow "demonized" my opponents here. Once again, something tells me that if the roles were reversed, all of a sudden the blinders would come off and Shane would not be confused.
Dr. White, I am neither confused nor do I have blinders when something is coming from the other side. The reason that I am involved in this discussion is because I posted several times exlusively for the purpose of defending you against those whom I feel made unfair statements.
Katyusha rockets are against the rules of war since they cannot be aimed at a particular target. They are meant to do general damage. So too are the inane, empty, vacuous ad-hominems that make up the substance of the Roman Catholic commentary to which I have been replying. They are random attacks that are not aimed at specific targets such as the biblical evidence or reasoning behind denying the propriety of Rome's dogmatic affirmation of prayers to saints, angels, and Mary. Further, those firing them are cowards. They hide amongst civilian populations so that if they are attacked it will always be possible to cry foul.
Dr. White, I do not deny the parallels being made. My rebuke was concerned with your comparison between Hezbollah and the Catholics here, for two reasons. One is that it is an inappropriate and over the top comparison between Catholic blog commentators and Hebollah a terrorist organization that knowingly kills innocent people. Your parallel conflates personal attacks with acts of the murder of women and children; it is grossly exagerated to the an irresponsible point. Even if you wish to that Catholics kill souls by their teachings, you cannot claim that they do so knowingly. The parallel can not even begin to compare to the point you are trying to make.
Worse than this is that the statement trivializes the sufferings and deaths of all the victims of the warring in the Middle East. Real people are really dying. Real mothers are losing real children, and real children are becoming homeless orphans when their real mothers and real homes are destroyed. People are dying before they have had the chance to repent, and they are going to hell. It is all of this that your parallel raises up in the mind, and all of this that it asserts to be a fair and accurate metaphor for the personal attacks that are being levied at you. The attacks are unjust; the parallel is inexcusable, Dr. White.
Aside from Shane himself, and Mr. Prejean, both of whom called once, the rest of the rabble-rousing crowd that is so quick with the slander and so slow with the study does the same thing.
I cannot speak for Mr. Prejean. As for myself, the reason I have called only once is that your webcasts are held during a very inoppurtune time for my schedule. The reason that I was able to call in the day that I did was, if I recally, because it was a Tuesday program being aired at the later Thursday time. I have a job to attend to which does not permit me the liberty of listening or calling in to your webcast whenever I wish to.
Need I post examples? It would be quite easy to do so, as Shane well knows. I've watched it over and over again. They will bravely proclaim my error---until I face them directly. And then all of a sudden the bravado is gone, and often times, so are they, scurrying off only to come back again when they feel the "coast is clear."
Dr. White, I could just as easily point to this behavior amongst Protestants. In Many Protestant apologetics forums, Catholics are banned Catholics at the first instance of presenting any arguements. In many Protestant radio programs (yours, honorably, not being one of them), the hosts hang up the moment a Catholic begins to address a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching or cite a Bible passage. These examples are far worse than anything that happens in the forums you speak of. There are those that do this on both sides of the issue, Dr. White. By your own criteria, this arguement can be used against your side as well as the Catholic side and is invalid.
Furthermore, as I have said, the offer has been made for me to interact with you directly. You have declined to accept; that is understandable and I will not question your decision. However, I will also point out that you cannot claim that we will not make such efforts when you have a standing offer on the table to do just that, whether it is palatable to you or not.

OK, he's Doctor White...
Doctor, Doctor, how come a little Methodist girl, only one generation removed from a one-room schoolhouse in the coal country of Appalachia can understand the difference between latria, dulia, & hyperdulia, & you can't, Doctor??
Sincerely yours,
:-)Little Methodist Girl,Grand Duchess of Belalugosi, Servant of Feline Forces Everywhere, & Protector of Heavily Armed Rodentia.

I think it is time you all came to Eastern Orthodoxy. Just like Protestant Franky Schaeffer.

Average Joe is in need of prayers.
Joe, you seem to have a decent grasp on who in the Church is faithful (like EWTN, generally) or not (the priests you mentioned). Yes there are cases where it is hard to tell how to interpret the teachings of the Church, especially when it comes to the issue of infalliblity. Still, that does not automatically mean the teachings themselves are not authoritative.
It is fine to be put off by apologetics. Not everyone is called to get involved in what can indeed turn into "mud-slinging." Especially when you are not entrenched into any one position, the "I'm right and you're wrong" stuff can be quite disenchanting.
If I were you I would put that stuff aside and focus on your own spirituality and faith. You seem to be on the edge of a huge decision; whether or not to leave the Church in which you were raised. You need to spend as much time as you can in prayer and discernment.
Specifically, it seem to me though that the real issues you have to deal with are whether or not the Magestarium indeed has the authority it claims, whether the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, whether its sacraments are valid and what they are claimed to be, and whether in light of these things God wants you to remain in the Catholic Church despite the faults of many Catholics.
My prayers are with you.

I'm going to stick to my Bible (that my own church, not long ago, wouldn't have allowed me to read in English) and just pray that God Himself will settle all this for me.
Sounds like you're already protestant. :( Average Joe, you're in my prayers. Don't give up on the Faith because of snarky Internet debates. Trust the Lord, who gave us his Church and gives us himself. Not some Gnostic castles in our imaginations, but his flesh and blood.

Dr. White, I urge you to reconsider your most recent post. I urge you to retract your final statement and apologize for it. You only destroy your own reputation by challenging others to be respectful when you cannot do so yourself. Calling those out who may challenge you without standing up to their claims is one thing, but making a statement which both demonizes your opponents and shows incredible disrespect to those who are dying in cold blood is far over the line. Dr. White, I have been defending you, and aside from our theological differences, I am very much on your side, but this is inexcusable. I hope that you will take this as the rebuke of one who cares for you and has been standing up for you and realize your grave error.

You can call me Dr. Eric any time, I earned it by spending a year up to my elbows in a cadaver, and other things... ;-)

"No doubt I'll be called upon to give concrete examples of what I've claimed." An excellent idea.

"I'm going to stick to my Bible(that my own church, not long ago, wouldn't have allowed me to read in English)..."
You are wrong about that, Average Joe. There were English translations of the Bible centuries before the Reformation. The Church never condemned the reading of the Bible, and never condemned accurate translations of the Bible.

Yeah, and he used a learned rabbi name of Saul, too.

I've been a Catholic all my life, and for now, I still am...
Frankly, the comments of some on this board, attacking the accredidation of Dr. White's degree (yes, I call him DOCTOR, as he's done as much research as anyone with a million-dollar degree) is purely childish. If you don't like White's "rants," stop responding in this way, as you're only giving him more ammunition to call you childish. I find White's tone less than charitable, but his grievances about being misrepresented by those who've not read his works are well-founded.
White and his fellow "prot cults" (to quote some supposedly charitable Catholic apoligists) are beaten up for a lack of unity over how to interpret Scripture. OK, so we have catechisms and councils and a "living tradition" to interpret it authoritatively...leaving us to fight over how to interpret the interpretations. Who should I listen to? The conservatives on EWTN who back the church 100%? Those who still hold that anyone not in communion with the Pope IS outside of salvation? Perhaps the liberal priests at my university (accredited, thank you very much) who taught that the Bible is filled with errors and who simply laughed at the idea of Papal infallibility? Maybe the cradle-Catholics at Sunday Mass who can tell me the life story of every saint in the church, but stare blankly back at me when I use confusing words like "justification?" Or the legions of "converted Protestants" who read This Rock and soak up every word like a sponge, but who never actually understood Protestant doctrine to begin with? Perhaps Marcus Grodi, who claims to be a "former Calvinist" but whose understanding of Reformed teaching sounds nothing at all like what the Reformed actually teach? His misunderstandings (that I've heard on his show, anyway) could be cleared up with a few hours of tapes from a Sproul, Piper, or (God help us all) White. No, I'm not convinced that these men are right in their beliefs, but at least our own apologists could fairly represent their beliefs, misguided or otherwise. Lastly, I could ask my parish priest (again), and have him brush aside my questions and refer me back to "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." A vicious cycle!
The evangelical world (and no, it is NOT incompatible with "Reformed..." originally it WAS "Reformed") is in tatters. Frankly, my view from within the "Mother Church" is that we aren't far behind. It kind of leaves me feeling like there's nothing to do but sit in some ashes and repent for spending so much of my life getting tangled up in all this back-and-forth mud slinging. No doubt I'll be called upon to give concrete examples of what I've claimed. Maybe I'll be called upon to call into a radio show, or who knows what. I won't. I'll just get dragged into the mud wrestling from all sides.
White could use some lessons in sounding less sarcastic, brash, and arrogant...so could some of our own. But his arguments are more logical and intelligible than what I read from our own side. And his portrayal of our doctrine is more accurate than our portrayal of his (though Protestantism is, absolutely, a moving target).
I'm Catholic by the skin of my teeth, and it's wearing very thin. I'm going to go into my kitchen and stare at grilled cheese and some Hershey kisses, and wait for a sign from above. If that doesn't work, I'll take them down to the nearest underpass.
I've had it with apologetics on all sides. I'm going to stick to my Bible (that my own church, not long ago, wouldn't have allowed me to read in English) and just pray that God Himself will settle all this for me. I'll do good works whether they earn merit or not. And I'll keep going to Mass for now, because frankly, we have far better music.

I always found it kind of sad that some people ignore most of commenters (like the ones who quoted and rebutted James White), and attack the few who commented on his credentials.

I wasn't attacking those who commented about his credentials, merely pointint out the inconsistency. Say what you want about what White said; of that, I am not bothered. He has a radio show anyone can call in and talk to him personally. He'll defend himself, so I see no reason why I should.
But, the subject of "credentials" and "accreditation" and whatever else has always fascinated me. That any Christian cares about such things regarding spiritual matters is mind boggling. The Bible tells us that more than one of the apostles were simple, unlearned men. If having an accredited degree is what it takes to know what you're talking about, woe to the early church who believed those unlearned apostles. Personal study and meditation of the Scriptures can do far more than an institutionally-sanctioned education ever could.

I'm sorry, where did White appeal to his doctorate in the message in question (this one)?
Seriously, the article was signed simply "James R. White" without mention of any title.
So, because you dislike what he says, a bunch of people are attacking something that has no relevance to the subject at hand. Great method of debate. I'm sure it'll accomplish much. :)

I always found it kind of sad that some people ignore most of commenters (like the ones who quoted and rebutted James White), and attack the few who commented on his credentials.

More irrelevant responses:
If I am so dull and such a fake, why don't you folks back up your brave brilliance by actually engaging my work?
I pointed out to White specific instances of people having pointed out to him why his position didn't touch the Catholic position that he ignored.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC...
I note that I HAVE been responding to his work, and he's the one who didn't have time to respond to me, not vice versa, although he now seems to have conjured the time to respond to everyone but me.
See, for these folks, it doesn't matter how long you have taught, how many books you have written, how wide your scholarship has been proven in books, published articles, or in the breadth of your debating experience. Those things are irrelevant for the prejudiced.
No, they are irrelevant for anyone, period. James White continually grouses about the ad hominem fallacy, but he can't claim immunity to ad hominem if he is going to make an argument from authority. One can have done all of these things and still be wrong; one can have done none of them and still be right. If we want to judge people by their arguments, then White's arguments on this subject are unsound. If we want to judge him by his authority, then his scholarly qualifications on the subject of patristic theology and his peer-reviewed work among scholars of patristic history and in journals of Catholic theology are non-existent. So rather than hiding behind his non-existent qualifications, he should probably concern himself with his *actual* inability to grasp the basic distinction between iconodulia and idolatry mandated by the condemnation of Nestorianism.
Convenient excuse for ignoring the facts of the argument, too.
The facts of the argument happen to be that White completely failed to interact with the origin of the teaching in question and that White made several misleading statements about "Rome's teaching" and "Latin distinctions" that could easily be interpreted to suggest that the entire Christian world, including all five patriarchates, did not teach the same thing. That is the case unless White is now conceding that the only Christian Church at the time was the Roman Catholic Church, an admission I will receive with good cheer.

Darn, you beat me to it. :)

Commenting on an article condemning the apparent arrogance and snobbery of a Protestant apologist, it seems quite hypocritical that so many of the comments seem so condescending toward Dr. White's degree. So what if it isn't from an accredited institution? Is the world the judge of a Christian's education?
Maybe if we repeat it enough times it will sink in: When one makes appeals to authority (as White does with his doctorate) It is not only 150% legitimate to question it, it is seemly to do so.

Previous post:

Next post: