Best Catholic apologist?

[jmcrae]

1. I remember his post on Friday penances. While I admit I do not remember his specific arguments, I do remember that they were consistent, rational, and - as far as I could tell - quite objective. What are your reasons for believing otherwise? You didn’t give any in your assertion that James Akin was just plain wrong, and I am genuinely curious.

I wrote to my Bishop and asked him to clarify. My Bishop wrote me back and made it absolutely clear that the normal Friday penance is abstinence from meat, with other penances being optional, in its place. Penance itself, however, is not optional. This is where the confusion lies - people read “optional penances” as meaning that penance itself is optional, but this is incorrect.

What is optional is that one may substitute an optional penance in the place of abstinence from meat on the Fridays outside of Lent. One may not opt to not do penance on Fridays, however, unless one is under the age of 14, or mentally incapacitated in some way.

 

[Learner4truth]

My family and I benefitted greatly from John Martignoni’s apologetics cd’s.

I’ve listened to John Martignoni’s CD’s till I could almost memorize and give lecture on them and I believe he is an awesome Apologist.

 

[mroy_sw1]

I don’t think of him as an apologist but he is wonderful preacher and my very favorite priest , FATHER FRANK PAVONE!!!

 

[Rogerteder]

I always assumed an apologist was someone who defended, explained, and promoted the Catholic faith. Unless the intention was to limit the discussion to apologists associated with Catholic Answers, I find myself rolling my eyes at any selection that leaves out those great Catholic thinkers who have stood the test of time - Aquinas, Chesterton, Sheen, etc.

I was shocked to see Bob Sungenis on the list, as his vehement and embarrassing adherence to geocentrism was my first impression of him.

If he is still a geocentrist, then I don’t care how talented or persuasive he is: he lacks the credibility even to be on this list.

Pretty certain his “detractors” are those who find his vehement, loud adherence to geocentrism - indeed, his insistence that heliocentrism is incompatible with the Catholic faith - an embarrassing distraction from everything true Catholic apologetics should be about.

Jimmy Akin is actually my favorite of the ones included on the poll; he uses cold, hard logic in place of impressive rhetoric - the other apologists on the list are very logical as well; I don’t mean to imply that they’re not, just that Akin’s logic is so strong that it can stand completely alone. The succinctness of his expression of certain insights strikes me as downright Thomistic.

I have yet to see someone come up with counter-arguments to his positions that seem better or more rational than his positions. In regard to the two issues you mention:

1. Of course it’s not appropriate to chew gum at Mass, but James Akin was simply addressing whether it violates the one-hour fast. I don’t recall if he specifically wrote that it might be inappropriate for other reasons (i.e. it’s a little bit irreverent) in that post, but certainly the fact that one senses there’s something wrong with chewing gum during Mass doesn’t mean it violates the one-hour fast, because there could be other reasons besides the fast that make it inappropriate.
2. I remember his post on Friday penances. While I admit I do not remember his specific arguments, I do remember that they were consistent, rational, and - as far as I could tell - quite objective. What are your reasons for believing otherwise? You didn’t give any in your assertion that James Akin was just plain wrong, and I am genuinely curious.

C’mon just because you disagree with Sungenis on that issue(geocentrism) you shouldnt let that distract you from alot of his great works. I think that seems pretty immature. I hope that is not what your saying. it seems that you are saying you cant seem “to get around that first impression.” I think Sungenis is probably the best in terms of taking on Protestants. He really excels in this area. Read his books Not by… Alone" They are excellent.

 

[Keith123]

Since this thread seems to have at least been given new life, perhaps only briefly, I was wondering about apologists that might be effective for more mainstream Christians, or liberal Christians. My impression, and it may be a wrong one, is that most of these apologist (in particular the ones listed in the poll) seem to be more effective with fundamentalist and evangelicals. Who is an effective apologist for someone like Bishop Spong, or other more liberal branches of Christianity?

 

[Deconi]

I always assumed an apologist was someone who defended, explained, and promoted the Catholic faith. Unless the intention was to limit the discussion to apologists associated with Catholic Answers, I find myself rolling my eyes at any selection that leaves out those great Catholic thinkers who have stood the test of time - Aquinas, Chesterton, Sheen, etc.

I was shocked to see Bob Sungenis on the list, as his vehement and embarrassing adherence to geocentrism was my first impression of him.

If he is still a geocentrist, then I don’t care how talented or persuasive he is: he lacks the credibility even to be on this list.

Pretty certain his “detractors” are those who find his vehement, loud adherence to geocentrism - indeed, his insistence that heliocentrism is incompatible with the Catholic faith - an embarrassing distraction from everything true Catholic apologetics should be about.

The thing I like about Sungenis is, inspite of where the evidence takes him and making him seem ridiculous, he sticks on point! I’m sure it is extremely difficult to try and present a front against anti-Catholicism as well as the science-fare at the same time…but he does it. None of the others in the poll descent into the arena of battle with the ‘sciences’ the way he does.

Studies and research took me out of evolution about 5-6years ago, but I’d not heard of the geocentric argument since I was 8yrs old!!

'Sfunny how people distance themselves from “weirdos” for the the weird things they say, instead of examining what they say! I’m certain the ECFs were ‘weirdos’ of their contemporaries.

 

[Rogerteder]

The thing I like about Sungenis is, inspite of where the evidence takes him and making him seem ridiculous, he sticks on point! I’m sure it is extremely difficult to try and present a front against anti-Catholicism as well as the science-fare at the same time…but he does it. None of the others in the poll descent into the arena of battle with the ‘sciences’ the way he does.

Studies and research took me out of evolution about 5-6years ago, but I’d not heard of the geocentric argument since I was 8yrs old!!

'Sfunny how people distance themselves from “weirdos” for the the weird things they say, instead of examining what they say! I’m certain the ECFs were ‘weirdos’ of their contemporaries.

Are you saying that Sungenis ignores the evidence?

 

[savedsinner]

When it comes to understanding the scriptures in their original languages, I really like Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

When it comes to understanding the scriptures in their original languages, I really like Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

I love Father Pacwa too. He has an amazing intellect coupled with great humility. He also comes across as a very approachable and content person also.

 

[chrisb]

Pope Benedict Xvi :d

 

[Deconi]

Are you saying that Sungenis ignores the evidence?

I’m saying he sticks to the evidence in spite of how ridiculous it makes him look!..similar to the ECFs.

 

[PoliSciProf]

One not mentioned so far is Piers Paul Read, a British apologist. Take a look at his Hell and Other Destinations, a collection of his essays.

 

[Transformer]

The thing I like about Sungenis is, inspite of where the evidence takes him and making him seem ridiculous, he sticks on point!

That’s a horrible characteristic to have. I can’t believe that someone attempting to defend Sungenis would say such a thing about him.

Seriously, if you stick to your position “in spite [your words!] of where the evidence takes you”, that’s awful. That’s the opposite of seeking truth.

I’m sure it is extremely difficult to try and present a front against anti-Catholicism as well as the science-fare at the same time…but he does it. None of the others in the poll descent into the arena of battle with the ‘sciences’ the way he does.

Studies and research took me out of evolution about 5-6years ago, but I’d not heard of the geocentric argument since I was 8yrs old!!

'Sfunny how people distance themselves from “weirdos” for the the weird things they say, instead of examining what they say! I’m certain the ECFs were ‘weirdos’ of their contemporaries.

Straw man argument; nothing more. What I said had nothing to do with Sungenis being a “weirdo” - I have no idea if he is weird or not; I do not know him personally. Even if he is weird, that would make no difference whatsoever to me. What is appalling is not his supposed “weirdness” (whatever that means) but his stubborn and ludicrous insistence that a demonstrably false belief is the Catholic Church’s true, authoritative position.

People on this thread have said that it is wrong or immature to reject him as an apologist simply because of that; it is, however, not. To assert what he does about geocentrism is to lose all credibility. Even if the rest of his arguments are solid - and I actually believe that they probably are - they are no longer useful in a practical sense.

EDIT: I just noticed PoliSciProf’s signature above and think it is relevant to the whold geocentrism/Sungenis matter:

“That which is Catholic cannot be stupid, and that which is stupid cannot be Catholic.” Re Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (cited in George Weigel: God’s Choice (2005, page 166)

What’s more stupid than believing that the sun revolves around the earth? Believing in a Church that supposedly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The thing I like about Sungenis is, inspite of where the evidence takes him and making him seem ridiculous, he sticks on point!

That’s a horrible characteristic to have. I can’t believe that someone attempting to defend Sungenis would say such a thing about him.

Seriously, if you stick to your position “in spite [your words!] of where the evidence takes you”, that’s awful. That’s the opposite of seeking truth.

I’m sure it is extremely difficult to try and present a front against anti-Catholicism as well as the science-fare at the same time…but he does it. None of the others in the poll descent into the arena of battle with the ‘sciences’ the way he does.

Studies and research took me out of evolution about 5-6years ago, but I’d not heard of the geocentric argument since I was 8yrs old!!

'Sfunny how people distance themselves from “weirdos” for the the weird things they say, instead of examining what they say! I’m certain the ECFs were ‘weirdos’ of their contemporaries.

Straw man argument; nothing more. What I said had nothing to do with Sungenis being a “weirdo” - I have no idea if he is weird or not; I do not know him personally. Even if he is weird, that would make no difference whatsoever to me. What is appalling is not his supposed “weirdness” (whatever that means) but his stubborn and ludicrous insistence that a demonstrably false belief is the Catholic Church’s true, authoritative position.

People on this thread have said that it is wrong or immature to reject him as an apologist simply because of that; it is, however, not. To assert what he does about geocentrism is to lose all credibility. Even if the rest of his arguments are solid - and I actually believe that they probably are - they are no longer useful in a practical sense.

EDIT: I just noticed PoliSciProf’s signature above and think it is relevant to the whole geocentrism/Sungenis matter:

“That which is Catholic cannot be stupid, and that which is stupid cannot be Catholic.” Re Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (cited in George Weigel: God’s Choice (2005, page 166)

What’s more stupid than believing that the sun revolves around the earth? Believing in a Church that supposedly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Rogerteder]

That’s a horrible characteristic to have. I can’t believe that someone attempting to defend Sungenis would say such a thing about him.

Seriously, if you stick to your position “in spite [your words!] of where the evidence takes you”, that’s awful. That’s the opposite of seeking truth.

Straw man argument; nothing more. What I said had nothing to do with Sungenis being a “weirdo” - I have no idea if he is weird or not; I do not know him personally. Even if he is weird, that would make no difference whatsoever to me. What is appalling is not his supposed “weirdness” (whatever that means) but his stubborn and ludicrous insistence that a demonstrably false belief is the Catholic Church’s true, authoritative position.

People on this thread have said that it is wrong or immature to reject him as an apologist simply because of that; it is, however, not. To assert what he does about geocentrism is to lose all credibility. Even if the rest of his arguments are solid - and I actually believe that they probably are - they are no longer useful in a practical sense.

EDIT: I just noticed PoliSciProf’s signature above and think it is relevant to the whole geocentrism/Sungenis matter:

“That which is Catholic cannot be stupid, and that which is stupid cannot be Catholic.” Re Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (cited in George Weigel: God’s Choice (2005, page 166)

What’s more stupid than believing that the sun revolves around the earth? Believing in a Church that supposedly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth.

Well I am not prepared to go into an argument about Geocentrism, however I have read some of Sungenis’ writing on the matter. It sems pretty basic that from a relative point of view (mathematically) the sun or the earth can be the center of the universe. Sungenis would also repsond(I believe) that all the Fathers of the Church believed the earth was the center and the Church (Pope Urban VIII) has taught that scripture teaches that the earth is the center of the universe. I really dont think this is that wierd of a posiiton. I chalk it up to “so what?” If he wants to believe that he can, an in fact it is “true” in a certain sense. That being said, I dont think this in anyway negates his other great works as an apologist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What about Copelston? The one who did the “History Of Philosophy” series for Catholics?

Wasn’t he a defender of the faith?

 

[Deconi]

That’s a horrible characteristic to have. I can’t believe that someone attempting to defend Sungenis would say such a thing about him.

Seriously, if you stick to your position “in spite [your words!] of where the evidence takes you”, that’s awful. That’s the opposite of seeking truth.

I’m sure Sungernis can survive without my support, considering I’m obviously not as sharp as he with words, but I’m pretty sure I’m accurate in what I have stated above. “In spite” of the evidence leading him to positions that are against the “current conform” he still sticks to it, because he has the support of the ECFS and the weight of millenias of Church teaching …which he cites!

For that, I have seen many think him ridiculous or wacko. (I’ve spent some time on his site since finding him through here.)

If I wasn’t clear, I accept fault. Somehow though, I think you needed to ‘twist’ what I said to fit your preconception of Sungenis.

Straw man argument; nothing more. What I said had nothing to do with Sungenis being a “weirdo” - I have no idea if he is weird or not; I do not know him personally. Even if he is weird, that would make no difference whatsoever to me. What is appalling is not his supposed “weirdness” (whatever that means) but his stubborn and ludicrous insistence that a demonstrably false belief is the Catholic Church’s true, authoritative position.

See what I mean?
“…Demonstably false belief”…which one (belief) would that be?

The Catholic Church has no definitive enlargements on the views of Copernicus, Gallileo etc. in regards “how the heavens go.” They were good Catholics, by the way.

But She has plenty in regards the geocentric view!..well, at the very least, some of Her most prominent figures have stated the course they accepted.

Am I a geocentric? There is a mountain of ‘evidential theories’ for heliocentricism, accepted and applied to our progressive knowledge. But I am a skeptic. Until a man can stand on the sun and other heavenly bodies and show me the evidence that everything in this solar system go around the sun, I’m prepared to wait. All I know is, my own senses tell me, when I lie under a starry night, with the telescope on, it ‘looks’ like the universe is revolving around my little planet!

What does The Church of my faith say? Well, actually, She hasn’t said that my senses are lying to me!

Strawman? Demonstrate this false belief that She held, for me and you’d have something! Until then, in regards ‘strawmen,’ be careful around smokers!

People on this thread have said that it is wrong or immature to reject him as an apologist simply because of that; it is, however, not. To assert what he does about geocentrism is to lose all credibility. Even if the rest of his arguments are solid - and I actually believe that they probably are - they are no longer useful in a practical sense.

Credibility is a non-sensical view to me, being a skeptic. Credibility sometimes is reliant on who accepts it or a ‘numbers game.’ I prefer to stick to evidence! The current theories are based on accepted views and work being conducted in regards those views. By its very nature, the conclusion must be pre-supposed before the research is completed so we would know what to expect, thereby, tainting the work. Don’t get me wrong, I am a follower of current scientific knowledge and I accept what works! But I know that if research were conducted toward other views, geocentricism included, we might have similar / same or different conclusions to work with, and they may still work! But that’s me though.

EDIT: I just noticed PoliSciProf’s signature above and think it is relevant to the whole geocentrism/Sungenis matter:

“That which is Catholic cannot be stupid, and that which is stupid cannot be Catholic.” Re Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (cited in George Weigel: God’s Choice (2005, page 166)

What’s more stupid than believing that the sun revolves around the earth? Believing in a Church that supposedly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth.

I’ve seen these often enough to annoy me!..taking quotes from Chruch prelates and applying to them some implicit meaning to a subject at hand, in efforts to validate a position against The Church’s views.

The good Cardinal is wise beyond your imagination. Nothing stupid can be Catholic. Some say a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son and God of all creation is stupid! Some say, a belief that An Omnicient Being is stupid! Some say a belief that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE is stupid! You’re in a Catholic Forum, where we believe and understand things that defies scientific knowledge, human reason and accepted views of many; in other words, “stupid things” according to many!

Nothing stupid can be Catholic, because nothing God can do is stupid!..and I am not saying you meant that. Only that your measuring stick for “stupidity” is extremely, miniscule! I follow evidence, as you do. But where evidence stops and waits for the next stepping stone to eventuate, I study those who have progressed BEYOND the point to see what they hold and WHY.

Does the earth revolve around the sun? All the contemporary studies and research of our human intellect tell me that that is the case! But my eyes and brain tell me the exact opposite! So, against my senses, I accept the ‘contrary.’ How stupid do you think that looks?

 

[Rogerteder]

I’m sure Sungernis can survive without my support, considering I’m obviously not as sharp as he with words, but I’m pretty sure I’m accurate in what I have stated above. “In spite” of the evidence leading him to positions that are against the “current conform” he still sticks to it, because he has the support of the ECFS and the weight of millenias of Church teaching …which he cites!

For that, I have seen many think him ridiculous or wacko. (I’ve spent some time on his site since finding him through here.)

If I wasn’t clear, I accept fault. Somehow though, I think you needed to ‘twist’ what I said to fit your preconception of Sungenis.

See what I mean?
“…Demonstably false belief”…which one (belief) would that be?

The Catholic Church has no definitive enlargements on the views of Copernicus, Gallileo etc. in regards “how the heavens go.” They were good Catholics, by the way.

But She has plenty in regards the geocentric view!..well, at the very least, some of Her most prominent figures have stated the course they accepted.

Am I a geocentric? There is a mountain of ‘evidential theories’ for heliocentricism, accepted and applied to our progressive knowledge. But I am a skeptic. Until a man can stand on the sun and other heavenly bodies and show me the evidence that everything in this solar system go around the sun, I’m prepared to wait. All I know is, my own senses tell me, when I lie under a starry night, with the telescope on, it ‘looks’ like the universe is revolving around my little planet!

What does The Church of my faith say? Well, actually, She hasn’t said that my senses are lying to me!

Strawman? Demonstrate this false belief that She held, for me and you’d have something! Until then, in regards ‘strawmen,’ be careful around smokers!

Credibility is a non-sensical view to me, being a skeptic. Credibility sometimes is reliant on who accepts it or a ‘numbers game.’ I prefer to stick to evidence! The current theories are based on accepted views and work being conducted in regards those views. By its very nature, the conclusion must be pre-supposed before the research is completed so we would know what to expect, thereby, tainting the work. Don’t get me wrong, I am a follower of current scientific knowledge and I accept what works! But I know that if research were conducted toward other views, geocentricism included, we might have similar / same or different conclusions to work with, and they may still work! But that’s me though.

I’ve seen these often enough to annoy me!..taking quotes from Chruch prelates and applying to them some implicit meaning to a subject at hand, in efforts to validate a position against The Church’s views.

The good Cardinal is wise beyond your imagination. Nothing stupid can be Catholic. Some say a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son and God of all creation is stupid! Some say, a belief that An Omnicient Being is stupid! Some say a belief that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE is stupid! You’re in a Catholic Forum, where we believe and understand things that defies scientific knowledge, human reason and accepted views of many; in other words, “stupid things” according to many!

Nothing stupid can be Catholic, because nothing God can do is stupid!..and I am not saying you meant that. Only that your measuring stick for “stupidity” is extremely, miniscule! I follow evidence, as you do. But where evidence stops and waits for the next stepping stone to eventuate, I study those who have progressed BEYOND the point to see what they hold and WHY.

Does the earth revolve around the sun? All the contemporary studies and research of our human intellect tell me that that is the case! But my eyes and brain tell me the exact opposite! So, against my senses, I accept the ‘contrary.’ How stupid do you think that looks?

Well the scriptures do say that the wisdom of this world is foolishness compared to the wisdom of God— Could it be that these great scientists (ones who advocate an old earth, Heliocentrism, evolution etc) are wrong, and people like little old Bob Sungenis (agreeing with the Early Church fathers) be correct??? IT WOULD BE GREAT ON JUDGMENT DAY IF WE FOUND THAT THAT WAS JUST THE CASE!!!

 

[Deconi]

Unfortunately, Roger, in my wretched state, I fear I’d be looking for a dark cave to hide in on that day!

Mind you, I may have eternity to sing all 64,000 verses of “I told you so!” to the right company, if they end up where I will be!

 

[mommyof4]

Vote for who you thik the best Catholic apologist is?

Jimmy Akin

Bob Sungenis

Karl Keating

Patrick Madrid

Scott Hahn

Tim Staples

John Salza

Can’t vote, 'cause I haven’t read all of them. I do like Akin, Madrid, and Hahn, though. Those are the only 3 I have read.