Best Catholic Apologist?

[jasonmccarley]

The list so far…(in no particular order)

Recommended Books:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
Socrates Meets Jesus - Peter Kreeft
Catholicism and Fundamentalism - Karl Keating
Crossing the Tiber - Steven Ray
St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary for Individuals and Groups - Steven Ray
Rome Sweet Home - Dr. Scott Hahn
Born Fundamentalist…Born Again Catholic - David Currie
Catholicism for Dummies - John Trigilio
Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton
The Everlasting Man - G.K Chesterton
The Catholic Controversy - Saint Francis de Sales
Unabridged Christianity - Father Mario Romero
Faith of Our Fathers - James Cardinal Gibbons
A New Pentecost? - Joseph Cardinal Suenens
Catholic Christianity - Peter Kreeft
The Last Superstition - Edward Feser

Recommended Apologist:

Scott Hahn
Tim Staples
Patrick Madrid
Jimmy Akin
Steve Ray
John Marignoni
Father Mitch Pacwa
Jeff Cavins
Ken Hensley
Gerry Matatics
Robert Sungenis
Peter Kreeft
Karl Adam
G.K. Chesterton
Karl Keating
Pope Benedict XVI
Dave Armstrong
Edward Feser
John Salza

Recommended Sites:

www.scripturecatholic.com
Www.saintjoe.com
www.biblechristiansociety.com
www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/…1=journey+home
www.payingattentiontothesky.com/fr-richard-neuhaus-on-gk-chesterton/reading-selections-from-orthodoxy/

Things I have found on my own:

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics - William Lane Craig
Handbook of Christian Apologetics - Peter Kreeft
Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic - Patrick Madrid

www.catholic.com

---

***If I seemed to miss anything or made any mistakes just let me know. This is a pretty big list to start with. Keep the list growing! It is very interesting to find out who current catholics find to be the best modern apologist of the faith. You have all been very helpful. Thanks so much! ***

 

[Blooiys]

This is just my opinion, but Tim Staples is by far the best I’ve ever heard!

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Jasonmccarley: You mentioned seeking modern catholic apologists. As you may know, the modern Catholic Church is in turmoil right now. So I suggest a book which will give you an excellent overview of what’s going on in modern Catholicism: A PEOPLE ADRIFT the Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America, by Peter Steinfels. It was a National Bestseller in 2003-4. I found the provocative book to be honest and well written. It strengthened my love for the Catholic Church in America.

As a “Charismatic-Traditional-Catholic-Christian,” I must respectfully challenge the importance rap1962 (Post #19) placed on the need to understand the “Traditional” Latin Mass. Yes, read about the old days when Mass was said in Latin, and in Greek long before Latin. But know that the Fathers of Vatican Council II (1960s) made celebrating Mass in Latin obsolete. Universally, the Eucharist is celebrated by the faithful in their own language. Modern Catholicism was formed during Vatican II by the guidance of the Spirit of Christ Jesus, as Catholic Christians do believe and teach.

You want modern? GO modern!

“I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.” (Matt. 11:25-26, Lk. 10:21)

 

[tony408]

Karl Keating, his books and works started the modern apologetics movement thus converting protestant pastors to the catholic faith.

Karl Keating indeed! One of the best !!!
Also Dave Armstrong

 

[rap1962]

Jasonmccarley:
As a “Charismatic-Traditional-Catholic-Christian,” I must respectfully challenge the importance rap1962 (Post #19) placed on the need to understand the “Traditional” Latin Mass. Yes, read about the old days when Mass was said in Latin, and in Greek long before Latin. But know that the Fathers of Vatican Council II (1960s) made celebrating Mass in Latin obsolete. Universally, the Eucharist is celebrated by the faithful in their own language. Modern Catholicism was formed during Vatican II by the guidance of the Spirit of Christ Jesus, as Catholic Christians do believe and teach.

Jasonmccarley, thanks for your response. I would challenge you to do a little more research. First, the Latin mass goes back to the First century so it is false to say it was Celebrated in Greek prior to Latin. Concurrently with Latin yes, piror to, no. Secondly, you say you “read” about the Latin mass, but you should really study and attend the Latin Mass before you comment on it. Third, Vatican II never abrogated the Latin Mass, you should read Pope Benedict the XVI’s Motu proprio regarding this mass before you make such false claims. Fourth, since the Latin Mass is a Holy Sacrifice, it is not possible for it to ever be "obsolete. Fifth, Vatican II is the only eccumenical council in the history of the church to be completely non-doctrinal and therefore, less authoritative than all previous councils. It is a mistake to use this council as primary guidance of your understanding of the faith as it has no claim to infallability. Sixth, any objective look at the post Vatican II Church will reveal the devastating effects it has had on the faith. Seventh, going modern is the problem, not the solution. God doesn’t use a modem, you won’t find him on the internet, you encounter him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and most especially, in the mass of “All Time”, the Latin Mass. I would suggest you read “Sacred Then, Sacred Now” by Thomas Woods to gain a better understanding. Once you see how the Novus Ordo mass is a complete Protestantization of the Sacred Liturgy, you will begin to see why the Latin Mass is so much more Catholic. It is not simply the language, it is the entire order of the mass from the first “In Nomine Patris, et filii, et Spiritus Sancti” to the “Ite Missa est”. May God Bless you with His everlasting kindness.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Jasonmccarley, thanks for your response. I would challenge you to do a little more research. First, the Latin mass goes back to the First century so it is false to say it was Celebrated in Greek prior to Latin. Concurrently with Latin yes, piror to, no. Secondly, you say you “read” about the Latin mass, but you should really study and attend the Latin Mass before you comment on it. Third, Vatican II never abrogated the Latin Mass, you should read Pope Benedict the XVI’s Motu proprio regarding this mass before you make such false claims. Fourth, since the Latin Mass is a Holy Sacrifice, it is not possible for it to ever be "obsolete…May God Bless you with His everlasting kindness.

Peace be with you. It was not Jasonmccarley who mentioned Mass in Latin as now obsolete. I, Richard Hughes, made the comment. Apparently you misunderstood; sorry, I’m new at posting. I accepted your challenge and did a little more research. I know something about Masses in Latin, because I attended them for over 30 years; probably before you were a twinkle in your daddy’s eye.

One definition of “obsolete” is: “Superseded by something newer, though possibly still in use.” That’s what I meant by “obsolete.” In the 1960s, Mass in Latin was “superseded by something newer.” Newer, in that Mass is now celebrated in the native language of the people. This awesome change (instituted by the Holy Spirit!) makes sense to me, and I thank God for it!

As you know, only one of the 20 official Roman Catholic rites was celebrated in Latin before Vatican Council II. Who knows, Jasonmccarley may chose to join any one of the 20 rites.

Latin was one more barrier to overcome, for many separated Christians who were thinking about joining the Catholic Church. That was my experience. Possibly, Latin was “sacrificed” by the Fathers of Vatican II, to help make the Church more catholic, universal, and less Roman.

What is so important about Latin? It was the common language of the Roman soldiers who tortured and executed Christ Jesus who spoke Aramaic. The more I grow in my Catholic faith (a 76 year journey), the less I appreciate Latin. Please explain why relatively few Christians of the Roman rite still cling to the position that the Eucharist should be celebrated in the common language of the Romans. We don’t have to do as the Romans did, to be truly Christian.

Jasonmccarley is probably aware that Latin is called a “dead language” because no one ordinarily speaks it as his/her native language. Do you know of any other books by Catholic theologians who support the need to rejuvenate Latin in the church? The Latin Mass seems to be a touchy subject for a few “pre-Vatican II Catholics” of the old school. I sense that the subject is more about religiosity than about the spirituality of the Eucharist.

Thank you for challenging my comment about Latin. It should give Jasonmccarley an opportunity to understand the differences of opinions and worship preferences in the modern Catholic Church. There is refreshing diversity in the Church, and if he is serious about joining us, it’s good that he experience this diversity. It may explain for him why his list of modern Catholic theologians is so long and controversial!

As Jesus would say, “shalom.”

 

[rap1962]

One definition of “obsolete” is: “Superseded by something newer, though possibly still in use.” That’s what I meant by “obsolete.” In the 1960s, Mass in Latin was “superseded by something newer.” Newer, in that Mass is now celebrated in the native language of the people. This awesome change (instituted by the Holy Spirit!) makes sense to me, and I thank God for it!

As you know, only one of the 20 official Roman Catholic rites was celebrated in Latin before Vatican Council II. Who knows, Jasonmccarley may chose to join any one of the 20 rites.

Latin was one more barrier to overcome, for many separated Christians who were thinking about joining the Catholic Church. That was my experience. Possibly, Latin was “sacrificed” by the Fathers of Vatican II, to help make the Church more catholic, universal, and less Roman.

What is so important about Latin? It was the common language of the Roman soldiers who tortured and executed Christ Jesus who spoke Aramaic. The more I grow in my Catholic faith (a 76 year journey), the less I appreciate Latin. Please explain why relatively few Christians of the Roman rite still cling to the position that the Eucharist should be celebrated in the common language of the Romans. We don’t have to do as the Romans did, to be truly Christian.

Jasonmccarley is probably aware that Latin is called a “dead language” because no one ordinarily speaks it as his/her native language. Do you know of any other books by Catholic theologians who support the need to rejuvenate Latin in the church? The Latin Mass seems to be a touchy subject for a few “pre-Vatican II Catholics” of the old school. I sense that the subject is more about religiosity than about the spirituality of the Eucharist.

Thank you for challenging my comment about Latin. It should give Jasonmccarley an opportunity to understand the differences of opinions and worship preferences in the modern Catholic Church. There is refreshing diversity in the Church, and if he is serious about joining us, it’s good that he experience this diversity. It may explain for him why his list of modern Catholic theologians is so long and controversial!

As Jesus would say, “shalom.”

Sorry to bog down this thread with this discussion, my original contribution was merely to point out that it is wrong to slap derogatory labels on Catholics who love and revere the Traditional Church, Liturgy and teachings. That one should learn these traditions as they are an important part of our heritage and faith. However, your comments are so far off base that I must respond.

First, Jesus would not say “Sholom” which is Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic.

Second, Catholic means universal. We are ONE Church. Diversity in secular culture is good, diversity in our faith, leads to moral relativism, which divides us and is BAD. What proof, just look at the Protestant church which has subdivided over 40,000 times in the name of diversity. The Catholic Church and Truth is anything but diverse. It is constant and unchanging just as its creator, God.

Third. probably the only correct point you make is that Latin is indeed a dead language. Dead in that it is no longer used by any culture for daily communication. Which is why it is the perfect language to celebrate the eternal, unchanging Truth of the Catholic Mass. Common language is subject to evolution and changes in meaning which ultimately leads to confusion over time as there is no consistent understanding to hold firm to. This makes Latin, the prefect language for the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. By its use in celebrating the mass we are all celebrating as ONE BODY, throughout the world. No other language can offer this protection from change and universality.

Fourth. The fact that the Romans Soldiers spoke Latin does not make it bad. They wore clothes too, should we then go naked to show we don’t follow them? It was the official language of the Church and still is to this day. All Vatican II was written in Latin. I explain above, all too briefly for brevity, just a few reason why it continues to be and always will be superior for the Celebration of the Mass.

Fifth. You are really off the deep end of irrational thinking when you argue that Latin was one more barrier to overcome to bring fallen away Christians into the Church. By that logic, lets suspend our Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Let’s suspend our Doctrine of purgatory. These teachings are a far bigger barrier for many Christians today and down through the ages that Latin could ever be.

Sixth, you are wrong about the ROMAN Rite. This is only ONE ROMAN Rite. When one refers to the Catholic Church it includes the Eastern Rite Churches, some of which used Their traditional language. The ROMAN Rite, however, always used Latin since the fifth century. I am assuming that this forum is used almost entirely by ROMAN Catholic faithful.

Seventh. The most common usage of obsolete implies replacement by something better or improved. It does not generally mean simply replaced. However, if your meaning was something different your prove the point I make in point Three above. In addition, if you read Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, you will see where the Latin Mass was never abrogated, therefore it was never replaced. So even you supposed meaning of “obsolete” when referring to the Latin mass, is still a false statement.

Eight. You are extremely ignorant of Vatican II. Your comment " this awesome change instituted by the Holy Spirit" betrays your ignorance. In the first place, none of the Changes in the mass were ever mandated by Vatican II. Secondly, Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. Therefore none of its statements, pronouncements or decrees are considered infallible doctrine and therefore can not be assumed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Want some proof, all the recent changes in the mass this last advent reinstate pre-Vatican II language that comes directly from the Latin Missal. If the Holy Spirit were guiding those changes in 1968, He must have made a mistake because He changed them back to the original translation this past November. Since the Holy Spirit can not be in error, the original changes must not have been inspired by Him after all.

Finally, While Latin is superior for the reasons I stated above, to focus on the Language is to miss the point all together. It is not simply the language of Latin that makes the Tridentine mass Superior, it is the entire Order of the mass. It is a much deeper, more reverent and complete celebration of our Catholic Faith than the Novus Ordo mass ever will be. Language is the smallest part of it.

Anyone who does not appreciate its beauty should at least refrain from demeaning those of us who love it and adore it for its Glory and Majesty. That is my overriding point. I don’t expect everyone to GET IT, but I do hope everyone at least attempts learn about it.

I will not make any more public comments about this, I am very sorry to have had to post this long response but I felt it important to set the record straight for those who may be interested. I would be happy to respond privately to anyone who would like some reading suggestions or has some questions. I also welcome private posts for anyone who wishes to have a further discussion. But I will not bog down this post with this off topic conversation any longer. Thanks, and God Bless.

 

[WesleyF]

1. Joseph Ratzinger! (aka Pope Benedict XVI)
2. Scott Hahn (he isn’t really as much an apologist as he is a speaker and author).
3. Robert Sungenis (If you need someone to knock your teeth out, this is the guy. Hard hitter.)
4. Jimmy Akin (RoboCatholic! Like RoboCop!)
5. Patrick Madrid
6. Tim Staples

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Sorry to bog down this thread with this discussion, my original contribution was merely to point out that it is wrong to slap derogatory labels on Catholics who love and revere the Traditional Church, Liturgy and teachings. That one should learn these traditions as they are an important part of our heritage and faith. However, your comments are so far off base that I must respond.

First, Jesus would not say “Sholom” which is Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic.

Second, Catholic means universal. We are ONE Church. Diversity in secular culture is good, diversity in our faith, leads to moral relativism, which divides us and is BAD. What proof, just look at the Protestant church which has subdivided over 40,000 times in the name of diversity. The Catholic Church and Truth is anything but diverse. It is constant and unchanging just as its creator, God.

Third. probably the only correct point you make is that Latin is indeed a dead language. Dead in that it is no longer used by any culture for daily communication. Which is why it is the perfect language to celebrate the eternal, unchanging Truth of the Catholic Mass. Common language is subject to evolution and changes in meaning which ultimately leads to confusion over time as there is no consistent understanding to hold firm to. This makes Latin, the prefect language for the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. By its use in celebrating the mass we are all celebrating as ONE BODY, throughout the world. No other language can offer this protection from change and universality.

Fourth. The fact that the Romans Soldiers spoke Latin does not make it bad. They wore clothes too, should we then go naked to show we don’t follow them? It was the official language of the Church and still is to this day. All Vatican II was written in Latin. I explain above, all too briefly for brevity, just a few reason why it continues to be and always will be superior for the Celebration of the Mass.

Fifth. You are really off the deep end of irrational thinking when you argue that Latin was one more barrier to overcome to bring fallen away Christians into the Church. By that logic, lets suspend our Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Let’s suspend our Doctrine of purgatory. These teachings are a far bigger barrier for many Christians today and down through the ages that Latin could ever be.

Sixth, you are wrong about the ROMAN Rite. This is only ONE ROMAN Rite. When one refers to the Catholic Church it includes the Eastern Rite Churches, some of which used Their traditional language. The ROMAN Rite, however, always used Latin since the fifth century. I am assuming that this forum is used almost entirely by ROMAN Catholic faithful.

Seventh. The most common usage of obsolete implies replacement by something better or improved. It does not generally mean simply replaced. However, if your meaning was something different your prove the point I make in point Three above. In addition, if you read Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, you will see where the Latin Mass was never abrogated, therefore it was never replaced. So even you supposed meaning of “obsolete” when referring to the Latin mass, is still a false statement.

Eight. You are extremely ignorant of Vatican II. Your comment " this awesome change instituted by the Holy Spirit" betrays your ignorance.

Firstly, a word for Jasonmccarley. Rap 1960 is correct. You were interested in a list of 5-10 of the top Catholic apologists, and we have gotten off on a tangent about the significance of Latin as the language of the Eucharist (i.e., “Mass.”) However, if you are serious about joining the Catholic Church, there is value in discussing languages in which the Eucharist is celebrated. In the modern Church, the Eucharist is officially celebrated in the vernacular, and that is what I value.

Maybe someone will come up wih the name of a Catholic theologian who is a proponent of replacing the vernacular with Latin, but don’t hold your breath. God will have the last word.

There are references to the many rites of the Roman Catholic Church, in The Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. You listed the official Catechism in Post #38. Paragraph #1200 of the Catechism states: “The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.” Article 2, of the Catechism, about liturgical diversity, is a good read.

Secondly, Rap 1960, I sense that the Mass in Latin is very important to you, and you feel it must be defended. If God wants us to worship in Latin, a language the majority of Christians of the world obviously do not understand, then the “Latin Mass” does not need defending. I do believe that we don’t have to speak as the ancient Romans did 2,000 years ago to worship in a manner pleasing to God.

Please carefully and specifically reread my Posts again. Note that you have misquoted and misunderstood essential points I was trying to make, one of which was that Jasonmccarley will discover that Catholic apologists may be classified in their theology as “progressive,” “conservative,” “orthodox,” “liberal,” “traditionalist,” “Charismatic,” etc. There is obvious diversity in the thinking of Catholic theologians. Nevertheless, they are all equally Catholic Christians.

We don’t agree on many points, and that’s fine with me. I hope that it has been an eye opener for Jasonmccarley. Every person ever born has her/his own sense of reality, because of all the external factors influencing their life. My experience is that the reality of some is closer to God’s truth than others, closer to what really matters, namely, our personal relationship with Christ Jesus and His people.

Lastly, you are right that Jesus would probably have not said “Shalom, Rap 1960. The word can mean “peace,” “hello,” or “goodbye,” and there are many ways of spelling it. As a Jew of His time, Jesus would probably have said, “Shlama,” which is “peace” in Aramaic, and probably not “Shalom, or Sholom. It is still used as a greeting today by those Christians who still worship in Aramaic, according to Wikipedia. Thank you! You are a perfectionist, and I mean that as a compliment.

Shlama (Peace),
Richard

 

[EA_Man]

I like Mitch Pacwa

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Jasonmccarley: Add Fr. George T. Montague, SM, to your list of modern Catholic apologists. He’s a long time proponent and supporter of the critical Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement. He is an apologist who has experienced the conversion, empowerment, and spiritual gifts received during what Catholic Christians call “Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” He writes about the significance and history of the experience which is available to ALL Christians. For a peek at his Catholic apologetics, see FANNING THE FLAME: What Does Baptism in the Holy Spirit have to do with Christian Initiation?, edited by Fr. George Montague and Kilian McDonnell.

The booklet is a 30 page overview of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement in the Catholic Church that began in 1967 when “a group of college retreatants from Duquesne University, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, experienced the fulfillment of a promise of God in a mighty way. God in His great love poured out His Spirit in a new grace movement. He brought them into both the awareness and the power of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” – Most Reverend Sam G. Jacobs, Bishop of Alexandria.

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” (as it is called by the the Church today) is similar to the spiritual conversion and empowerment, that the disciples first experienced on the Day of Pentecost. (ACTS 2) I suspect that the Church refers to it as a “baptism,” because it is a spiritual immersion, whereby in faith the Christian is reborn, “born from above,” (“born again”). This rebirth is not listed as one of the seven sacraments; however, I have often wondered if Confirmation was an effort by members of the institutional Church centuries ago, to ritually formalize “Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” To be honest about it, we really won’t know if this is the case, until after we make our “final voyage,” will we?

What’s most interesting is that, In some instances, Baptism in the Holy Spirit was experienced, BEFORE and SEPARATELY from baptism with water and Spirit. Before? Separately? How could that be? Yet this experience happened to St. Paul (Acts 8:14-17), to Cornelius and members of his household (Acts 11:1-i8) BEFORE baptism with water and the Spirit, and separately to “about 12 men” (Acts 19:1-12).

I recommend the apologetics of Fr. George Montague, because few Christians seem to be aware of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and its critical place in the church since the Day of Pentecost. This lack of awareness may be one of the greatest sins of our time, in the Catholic Church. It’s hardly in our Catholic teaching!

I can’t help but wonder if the diminishing number of priests, parishes, and Catholic schools isn’t a symptom of lack of emphasis on the experience of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. So much attention is placed today on the Institution of the Church and its very serious problems, and not enough attention is placed on the spiritual aspects of the charismatic dimension of the Church, which the Institution is to serve.

 

[patrick457]

First, Jesus would not say “Sholom” which is Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic.

Well, it is highly likely that Jesus did speak Aramaic, but that doesn’t automatically mean that He could not have known Hebrew. Besides, Hebrew and Aramaic (and Arabic and Maltese and Ge’ez, to name a few) are all related with one another, being Semitic languages. In the case of Jewish Aramaic, the relationship between the two languages would have even been more close.

Second, Catholic means universal. We are ONE Church. Diversity in secular culture is good, diversity in our faith, leads to moral relativism, which divides us and is BAD. What proof, just look at the Protestant church which has subdivided over 40,000 times in the name of diversity. The Catholic Church and Truth is anything but diverse. It is constant and unchanging just as its creator, God.

You are correct that there is unity in our faith, but there IS a diversity in the ways we express said faith. That is why different liturgical rites exist in the first place.

Sixth, you are wrong about the ROMAN Rite. This is only ONE ROMAN Rite. When one refers to the Catholic Church it includes the Eastern Rite Churches, some of which used Their traditional language. The ROMAN Rite, however, always used Latin since the fifth century. I am assuming that this forum is used almost entirely by ROMAN Catholic faithful.

Actually, there is the Latin (Western) Church, which includes the Roman Rite. (I know; the terminology is confusing, since the word ‘rite’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘church’.) Other non-Roman rites used within the Latin Church include the Mozarabic Rite (Toledo, Spain) and the Ambrosian Rite (Milan and surrounding areas), both of which are still alive even today. Historically there were many different liturgical rites in the West, many of which (like the Gallican and the Celtic Rites) became extinct as the Roman Rite increasingly spread outside of its original domain. Some, like the liturgies of different religious orders (the Dominican, Carmelite, or Carthusian Rites), were still being used at least up until after Vatican II, when many of these orders switched to the Roman Rite, albeit preserving some peculiar customs of their own.

And yes, the standard language for these Western liturgies was Latin. However, there was a long-standing practice of celebrating the Roman Rite in Church Slavonic at Dalmatia (part of modern Croatia), a privilege extended to some other Slavic regions between 1886 and 1935.