James White and "stalking"

[AugustineH354]

I guess it is now “official”; I am a “stalker” of James White! In an August 7, 2008 blog post (http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2174 ), James wrote:

“Over at the STR blog, the number of comments have doubled fairly quickly. And since I linked to the blog this morning, a number of other folks have showed up, and, as normal, led by some of my regular RC Internet stalkers like David Waltz, the “you are so mean!” ad-hominem has taken over, ending the usefulness of the thread. This is a common tactic: ignore the substance, go personal, and you will have the admiration of the majority of mushy-thinking modern readers.”

[Link to the STR blog referenced above: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html”]http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html .]

I am certainly not the first person mentioned by name in James’ in his AOMIN blog to be termed a “stalker”, Paul Owen and Dave Armstrong have also recently been labeled as such. But does the label ‘fit”; am I “obsessed” with James White? As the best human authority on the inner thoughts of David Waltz (i.e. me ), I can assure all that this simply is not the case; the AOMIN blog is but one of literally dozens of blogs I look in on.

With that said, I must admit to a couple of actual obsessions: books and “counter-cult ministries”. I love to read and collect books as my 15,000 plus volume library attests to; and a subset of this particular obsession is books/literature produced by the “counter-cult” cult. It was via this second obsession that I first became aware of James White and AOMIN. It just so happens that James White has written polemical diatribes attacking two of my most focused areas of studies since the late 1980’s: Catholicism and Mormonism (in the form of books, debates, online essays and literally hundreds of blog entries).

As one who is well read on many of the issues pertaining to Catholic and Mormon faiths, I have at times (not nearly as frequently as James intimates) posted comments on the content and methodology found in James’ literature—for this, I am labeled a “stalker” …

But, in all honestly, I think a much better case for “stalking” can be made for James White himself. His treatment of Francis Beckwith, Paul Owen, Dave Armstrong, Daniel Peterson, Richard Mouw, and so many others, sure seems show definite signs of actually obsession, as some simple searches on his AOMIN reveal.

Anyway, enough of my apologia; I would of preferred to have made such an entry on the site that charged me with stalking, but alas, the site does not allow comments.

Grace and peace,

David Waltz (The Stalker)

 

[Mickey]

I just peeked in on AOMIN. And he is truly obssessed with Beckwith at this point in time. :nope:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I guess it is now “official”; I am a “stalker” of James White! In an August 7, 2008 blog post

You’re not alone. st_felicity and I got accused of ‘following’ a poster simply because we disagreed with what he was saying.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< But, in all honestly, I think a much better case for “stalking” can be made for James White himself. His treatment of Francis Beckwith, Paul Owen, Dave Armstrong, Daniel Peterson, Richard Mouw, and so many others, sure seems to show definite signs of actually obsession, as some simple searches on his AOMIN reveal. >>

Yeah I don’t know how he does it. I think he has some blog reader which automatically brings him posts that have his name in them. I just put a blog URL in my Favorites in Internet Explorer, the old fashioned way but hard to keep track of things and sort through posts and comments.

Keep up the stalking. I’ve responded to one of his blog posts in the thread named after me at Envoy boards. I think I did well.

Phil P

 

[Bishopite]

<< But, in all honestly, I think a much better case for “stalking” can be made for James White himself. His treatment of Francis Beckwith, Paul Owen, Dave Armstrong, Daniel Peterson, Richard Mouw, and so many others, sure seems to show definite signs of actually obsession, as some simple searches on his AOMIN reveal. >>

Yeah I don’t know how he does it. I think he has some blog reader which automatically brings him posts that have his name in them. I just put a blog URL in my Favorites in Internet Explorer, the old fashioned way but hard to keep track of things and sort through posts and comments.

Keep up the stalking. I’ve responded to one of his blog posts in the thread named after me at Envoy boards. I think I did well.

Phil P

I read your posts on Patrick Madrids web log and White always has the same old accusations. I’ve debated with White’s minions on his website years ago, and I’ve read Tradition and Traditions by Cardinal Yves Congar and it IS a very good book on Tradtion.
When James White says that those in 490 A.D. didn’t know about Mary’s assumption, does that also mean that everyone prior the the council of Nicea 325 A.D. knew how Jesus equal to the Father, how the Father was equal to the Son, the Son equal to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit equal to the Son? And in what sense was Jesus equal? The same thing works for those in 490 A.D. and even though all revelation had been given up to the death of the last Apostle, the Catholic church in its infancy hadn’t yet delved into that once for all truth, no more than it had delved into the truth of what was the Trinity prior to 325 A.D.!

 

[PhilVaz]

Bishop << When James White says that those in 490 A.D. didn’t know about Mary’s assumption, does that also mean that everyone prior to the council of Nicea 325 A.D. knew how Jesus was equal to the Father, how the Father was equal to the Son, the Son equal to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit equal to the Son? >>

Good point, true. The only difference here would be whether we are talking about a historical fact in the case of the Assumption, vs. a theological concept like the Trinity. I think we are safe arguing for the Assumption on theological grounds based on the holiness/sinlessness of Mary (her body would not see corruption, therefore she must have been assumed body AND soul). Both the Trinity and the Assumption are matters for development of doctrine as Pius XII points out in his definition. Same Church, same development.

But it is also true that on historical grounds we don’t have explicit written witness for the Assumption before the 4th century or so. I’m getting into Shoemaker’s book and we’ll see what he has. It’s not a big deal to me since the Assumption is dogma and I believe it, but an interesting study anyway.

BTW, the section from Carol’s Mariology that repeatedly gets quoted (by William Webster, and others), here is the fuller context:

“The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito, which may stem from the middle of the sixth century. This account is significant, in the first instance, because it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven in soul and body. It is significant, in the second place, for the developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally with Mary’s Maternity and virginity, and stresses the parallelism which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory over death. The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste. But the account is priceless nonetheless – historically and theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity, even though we are unable to specify the full range of this awareness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically, because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.”

(“Mary in Western Patristic Thought” by Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. in Mariology edited by Juniper Carol, volume 1, pages 149-150)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Since this is a “James White” thread:

White to me: So, don’t you think it is rather odd that in all that verbiage, we can never find anyplace where Congar gives us the actual content of this wonderfully nebulous thing called “tradition”?

RESPONSE: From Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (1967) by Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P. The content of the traditions mentioned by the Fathers are given in Chapter 2: The Fathers and the Early Church, in Part (C) Examples of Unwritten Apostolic Traditions cited by Catholic Writers, pages 50ff.

St. Irenaeus – the paschal fast (Frag 3, Eusebius HE V:24;12-17, PG 7:1229ff), also in a footnote the custom of praying standing on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost (PG 6:1364).

Tertullian – rule against soldiers wearing the military wreath, by an ancient tradition (De Corona 3-4, PL 3:78); then he widens the question and gives further examples of unwritten traditions: the customs involved with baptism, eucharist, prayers/sacrifice for the dead, practices of fasting/kneeling, and the Sign: “Whatever we do, whether on a journey or just making a visit, coming in or going out, putting on our shoes, washing, sitting down to a meal, attending to the lights, lying down, sitting down, or anything we do: we mark our foreheads with the Sign of the Cross.” (ibid)

Origen – infant baptism (In Levit Hom VIII:3, PG 12:496 and In Epis ad Rom V:8-9, PG 14:1038,1047B); praying on the knees and facing towards the east, and eucharistic and baptismal rites (In Num Hom V:1, PG 12:603C)

St. Clement of Alexandria – he “assumes doctrines can constitute the object of a completely oral tradition,” etc.

St. Dionysius of Alexandria – the keeping of Sunday (Ad Basilidem).

Pope Stephen – the validity of baptism conferred by heretics (in St. Cyprian, Ep 75:6, 85:5).

St. Cyprian of Carthage – connects usage followed by our Lord of the offering of a chalice of wine mixed with water (Ep 63:9-13, PL 4:380-3), and backs it up with scriptural allusions; he considers a rule according to which a bishop must be elected in the presence of people in the assembly of the bishops of the province as “de traditione divina et apostolica observatione” (Ep 67:5, PL 3:1027).

St. Basil the Great – dealing with the theology of the Holy Spirit, says he is collecting the ideas of Scripture and of the unwritten tradition of the Fathers (De Spiritu Sancto 9:22; PG 32:105A); in the phrase “WITH the Holy Spirit” he appeals to an unwritten part of the apostolic witness and justifies this appeal as legitimate by invoking the existence of unwritten customs of unquestioned authority (ibid 27:66, PG 32:188).

St. Epiphanius of Salamis – prohibition of marriage after a vow of virginity; fasting on Wed and Fri (Panarion Haer 66:6, PG 41:1047; and ibid 75:7, PG 42:542-3).

St. John Chrysostom – prayer for the dead (In Epis ad Phil Hom 3:4, PG 62:203-4)

St. Jerome – invokes an apostolic origin not only for the imposition of hands, together with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, after baptism (one could appeal to Acts), but also for the triple baptismal immersion, the giving of milk and honey to the newly baptized, and the practice of kneeling or fasting during Paschaltide (Dial adv Luc 8, PL 23:172).

Pope Innocent I – in his letter to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio, invites Churches of the West, supposed to have been founded by the apostle Peter or his successors, to align themselves with the usages transmitted (tradition) to the Roman Church by the prince of the apostles (Ep 25, PL 20:551).

St. Augustine – at a very early date, infant baptism as an apostolic tradition, but also with a biblical argument using the examples of the Holy Innocents or circumcision (De Genesi ad Litt 10:23:39, PL 34:426; De Bapt c. Don 4:24:31, PL 43:174; ibid 5:23:31); an apostolic tradition of not rebaptizing heretics on their reconciliation with the Church (De Bapt c. Don 2:7:12, PL 43:133); and a number of liturgical customs which he believed to be universal: rites at baptism (aspersion, exorcisms, insufflation), etc. “His criterion for determining an apostolic tradition is, at least after the Donatist controversy, the evidence of the spread and universal acceptance of matters not found or expressed in Scripture or determined by plenary councils.” (Congar, see Augustine, De Bapt, and Ep 54)

THE END.

Phil P

 

[Teflon93]

White is a joke. Why waste time wondering what the man thinks or says about anything?

He operates at no deeper level than Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland. Same old cherrypicking-the-Bible, rely-on-others’ ignorance-of-history stuff you can get in any Bible Belt pulpit.

If people want to keep them checks rollin’ in for such things, it is certainly their right.

Save the ammunition for legitimate Protestant apologists. You can tell who they are because they do not feel compelled to lie about the Catholic Church or other Christian communities and behave in far more Christlike fashion than White does.

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Teflon,

You posted:

Save the ammunition for legitimate Protestant apologists. You can tell who they are because they do not feel compelled to lie about the Catholic Church or other Christian communities and behave in far more Christlike fashion than White does.>>

Me: I really would like to affirm my total agreement with you on this, but unfortunately I cannot for this reason: most Protestants are not reading the works of the “legitmate Protestant apologists”, but rather, the works of the ‘popular’ apologists. And let’s face it, James White does an excellent job of marketing his diatribes.

On a side note, I would like to point out that most (perhaps all?) of the ‘popular’ anti-Catholic apologists have ties to what is known as the ‘counter-cult ministry’ subset of Evangelicalism started by Walter Martin. For the most part, this group treats Catholicism the same way as it does the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, which in and of itself is interesting because Martin did not lump Catholics with the “cults” as so many of his offspring do. Maybe one of these days someone much brighter than myself can p(name removed by moderator)oint how the ‘counter-cult’ movement has evolved (devolved?).

Grace and peace,

David

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

 

[Teflon93]

Hi Teflon,

You posted:

Save the ammunition for legitimate Protestant apologists. You can tell who they are because they do not feel compelled to lie about the Catholic Church or other Christian communities and behave in far more Christlike fashion than White does.>>

You raise excellent points, of course—it’s difficult to tell when engagement adds legitimacy to the illegitimate as opposed to representing a necessary opportunity to defend the faith. The “counter-cult” point is fascinating. I’ve often wondered why Protestants in America view Catholics as so alien. I grew up alongside plenty of Catholics, so I tend to attribute this to lack of exposure, in much the same way as those of us who didn’t grow up in Utah might not have a lot of personal knowledge of Mormons.