Best Catholic apologist?

[Teflon93]

Of course truth matters. On that, I think, we agree. However, at this point I think you and I are at an impasse, so I’ll let my comments stand. It will take me a while to get through St Augustine’s Confessions, so I will not be able to comment on that anytime soon. He may have some relevant words on this issue.

My best to you Teflon.

Keith

Likewise, Keith—may God bless you and keep you close.

I’m working from memory, but I think Augustine’s discourse on rhetoric and its limits comes right in the middle of “The Confessions”—very close to his conversion.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Likewise, Keith—may God bless you and keep you close.

I’m working from memory, but I think Augustine’s discourse on rhetoric and its limits comes right in the middle of “The Confessions”—very close to his conversion.

Yes…Augustines confessions; i was real excited when i aquiried a copy, but unfortunatly could not help but feel disapointed. Some joker thought that it would be sweet and cudly if they translated his whole book in “old english” (shakespere slang) rather then in contemporary slang. When are people going to stop living in the past?!! A perfectly good book ruined!

Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes…Augustines confessions; i was real excited when i aquiried a copy, but unfortunatly could not help but feel disapointed. Some joker thought that it would be sweet and cudly if they translated his whole book in “old english” (shakespere slang) rather then in contemporary slang. When are people going to stop living in the past?!! A perfectly good book ruined!

Peace.

Get the Penguin edition - it is very readable.

I love Penguin Classics.

 

[bly]

Fr. Vincent Serpa

 

[Rogerteder]

I agree that they are all very good. However, Sungenis seems to have the most courage in my opinion. He will tackle any issue and is not afraid to say the truth. He has been especially strong in the area of biblical scholarship. Taking on Ray Brown and others who seem to say there are errors in scripture.

He also stood up when some were saying the(the CCC had to be changed) old covenant was still valid. (which may be true to a certain degree) This statement seemed dangerous because it could lead some to believe that Jews did not need to convert to Catholicism to be saved.
If one checks his web site he has been a staunch supporter and defender of our Holy Father Benedict XVI. He has a new article up on his site defending the Pope. Check it out.!!!

 

[Contarini]

Of the people listed (insofar as I know anything about them) I probably prefer Hahn, though Akin also has good stuff.

However, if I could put in any name I’d be inclined to name Alasdair MacIntyre, whose work I’ve been reading recently. I think he provides the basis for sound Catholic apologetics, and if the self-appointed defenders of the Faith who populate the Internet would read his work, they might have a deeper and less brittle apologetic.

Edwin

 

[Rogerteder]

Of the people listed (insofar as I know anything about them) I probably prefer Hahn, though Akin also has good stuff.

However, if I could put in any name I’d be inclined to name Alasdair MacIntyre, whose work I’ve been reading recently. I think he provides the basis for sound Catholic apologetics, and if the self-appointed defenders of the Faith who populate the Internet would read his work, they might have a deeper and less brittle apologetic.

Edwin

Edwin any chance of you converting to the Catholic church soon?

 

[Rick09]

I think Hahn, Akin, Keating, Madrid and Staples are all excellent for different reasons. I’d throw David Currie in there too because I love his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic. It’s just a great book all around.

I don’t know one way or the other on Salza. And Sungenis’ old work is good but he’s gone off the deep end over the past few years so I couldn’t recommend him anymore. He hasn’t been able to get an imprimatur in some time and has had serious run-ins with his bishop and Archbishop Raymond Burke.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Now he’s attacking the Holy Father and saying that he made an “exegetical blunder”. Probably not a surprise that it has to do with Jews.

 

[Rick09]

I think Hahn, Akin, Keating, Madrid and Staples are all excellent for different reasons. I’d throw David Currie in there too because I love his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic. It’s just a great book all around.

I don’t know one way or the other on Salza. I took a quick look and it seems okay.

Sungenis’ old work is very good but he’s gone off the rails over the past few years so I couldn’t recommend him without reservation anymore. He hasn’t been able to get an imprimatur for quite a while and has had serious run-ins with his bishop and Archbishop Raymond Burke. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Now he’s attacking the Holy Father and saying that he made an “exegetical blunder”. Not really a surprise that it centers around Jews. He didn’t even read the Holy Father’s total statement but just some of the quotes from an article about the complete statement instead.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081001_en.html

I feel comfortable with Hahn, Akin, Staples, Currie and Madrid though. They may get something wrong here or there because they’re human. But they’re solid, obedient Catholics.

 

[Rogerteder]

I think Hahn, Akin, Keating, Madrid and Staples are all excellent for different reasons. I’d throw David Currie in there too because I love his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic. It’s just a great book all around.

I don’t know one way or the other on Salza. I took a quick look and it seems okay.

Sungenis’ old work is very good but he’s gone off the rails over the past few years so I couldn’t recommend him without reservation anymore. He hasn’t been able to get an imprimatur for quite a while and has had serious run-ins with his bishop and Archbishop Raymond Burke. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Now he’s attacking the Holy Father and saying that he made an “exegetical blunder”. Not really a surprise that it centers around Jews. He didn’t even read the Holy Father’s total statement but just some of the quotes from an article about the complete statement instead.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081001_en.html

I feel comfortable with Hahn, Akin, Staples, Currie and Madrid though. They may get something wrong here or there because they’re human. But they’re solid, obedient Catholics.

He isnt attacking the Holy Father. STOP!!! He has been very strong on defending the Holy Father . Look at his web site prior to the article you cite. He has three or four articles in defense of the Holy Father. The article you cite isnt an attack. It is a disagreement on an exegesis of a particular biblical passage. Catholics can (and often do) have different opinions on different interpretations of a particular verse(or passage). As long as the verse hasnt been defined by the magisterium it is fine to disagree.

 

[RCWarrior821]

I voted Scott Hahn and it’s funny how he has a huge majority of the votes even though in his book Reasons to Believe he praises the other apologists and better than him.

 

[Rick09]

He isnt attacking the Holy Father. STOP!!! He has been very strong on defending the Holy Father . Look at his web site prior to the article you cite. He has three or four articles in defense of the Holy Father. The article you cite isnt an attack. It is a disagreement on an exegesis of a particular biblical passage. Catholics can (and often do) have different opinions on different interpretations of a particular verse(or passage). As long as the verse hasnt been defined by the magisterium it is fine to disagree.

Sure. I saw the other articles and that’s good. But I stand by what I said. I trust the other apologists I listed and I don’t trust Sungenis any longer. I’d stick with Hahn, Keating, Madrid, Akin, Currie et al. I’m entitled to my opinion. You’re entitled to yours.

He’s a loose cannon and especially with his history he shouldn’t be taking shots at the Pope by saying he made a “blunder”, especially without so much as reading the Pope’s whole statement. Saying he disagrees with with the pope is one thing but a blunder is a stupid mistake. That’s disrespectful and pretty darned cheeky given all the blunders he’s made, imo. It’s even harder to swallow coming from him because it’s about Jews. When you’re in dutch with your own bishop and Archbishop Burke, there’s a serious problem there, imo.

I voted Scott Hahn and it’s funny how he has a huge majority of the votes even though in his book Reasons to Believe he praises the other apologists and better than him.

That’s one of things I like most about Hahn. With all the attention he gets, he’s pretty darned humble, imo. And that will keep him from going completely off the rails.

 

[narrowpath]

I also like C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, William Lane Craig, St, Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jesus Christ.

Especially that last one. Who here has bought his book?