John Martignoni

[David_Castlen]

Amen! I read him or listen to him just before taking the leap back to THE faith.

 

[atassina]

1. I receive John’s newsletter
2. I listen to his presentations on Catholic Answers Live
3. I have donated to biblechristiansociety.com
4. I have purchased or downloaded some of John’s talks
5. I have made a particular playlist in iTunes for his talks

John is one of the apologists of the new springtime that Pope John Paul 2 speaks about. I believe he is a blessing on the Church.

 

[JohnAbele]

I just wanted to add my support for John Martignoni. He is one of those rare catholic apologists who can articulate his answer very clearly, and, at the same time, engage your own mind to practice thinking logically at a higher level.

Although I think the particular comment has been removed from yesterday, I wanted to challenge the person who criticized John Martignoni. My challenge is that you be very specific as to the source you heard this and maybe even the exact quote (what a fresh idea!). I will go out on a limb and predict that what John actually said was misheard and possibly twisted from what the context of his discussion was.

PAX,

John Abele

Romans 2:7

 

[Five_Angels]

You talking to me?

 

[Supercatholic]

I just wanted to add my support for John Martignoni. He is one of those rare catholic apologists who can articulate his answer very clearly, and, at the same time, engage your own mind to practice thinking logically at a higher level.

Although I think the particular comment has been removed from yesterday, I wanted to challenge the person who criticized John Martignoni. My challenge is that you be very specific as to the source you heard this and maybe even the exact quote (what a fresh idea!). I will go out on a limb and predict that what John actually said was misheard and possibly twisted from what the context of his discussion was.

PAX,

John Abele

Romans 2:7

John Abele, I don’t know how much you were able to see before all the good posts were removed. So here’s the rundown. The criticizer mrsteveclark said he didn’t like “Mr” Martignoni because of the disparaging things he said about homosexuals. I replied they are only disparaging if you are one, because if you aren’t one then you would know it’s only truth. To tell you the truth I’m getting real fed up with CAF. It seems they have lost their spine and will only post watered down tripe. You can’t defend the faith with vigor anymore. You can’t say a protestant denomination is biblically incorrect. You can’t describe (using non vulgar language) how the act of homosexuality is physically disgusting. I’ll admit I don’t financially support this site at this time, but if CAF doesn’t stop acting like a bunch of little paranoid sissies I see no reason for this site to exist. Sorry to go on such a tangent John, but I get so steamed at spineless cowardice. A while back I posted a certain denomination, who I have to leave nameless, doesn’t follow the bible like it thinks it does, but instead takes votes to decide, if abortion is okay, if same gender marriage is okay, if openly gay clergy should get married, if women should serve as priests. And they sent me a warning email stating I disrespected another religion. I think I’m going to go straight to John Martignoni’s site and get all his CDs and put CAF in the trash bin, because right now that’s where CAF belongs. Oh… how… the mighty… have fallen…

 

[stefman57]

john is great. You can also catch him on “open line” on EWTN radio. I believe he does the show on Thursday.

John, in my opinion, is a excellent apologist and his talks are great at using the Bible only to refute many protestant beliefs. I just wanted to make a slight correction…John is on the EWTN Open Line radio show on Monday, Barbara McGuigan is on Tuesday, Father Mitch Pacwa is on Wednesday, Patrick Madrid is on Thursday, and Colin Donovan is on Friday. They are all exceptional hosts!

 

[Five_Angels]

Nice to know that this apologetics site cannot stand to post my comments criticizing an apologist for faulty apologetics; sorry, Bush and Company do not get a free pass from me because of nominal anti-abortion stance; not even for a genuine anti-abortion stance.

But I tried to make clear, I carry no brief for Barack Obama and the Demos either.

To quote the late Randolph Bourne: War is the Health of the State.

 

[linebyline]

I don’t want to be too much of a party-pooper here, but I’m not a big fan of Martignoni.

His facts and arguments are good but his approach is uncharitable. “Questions Protestants can’t answer”? Right. If I were Protestant, I’d be so busy being upset over the insult to my intelligence, or so busy looking out for gotchas and trick questions, that I doubt I’d ever learn a darned thing about the Church.

Protestants can answer those questions. Their answers might be logically inconsistent with some other beliefs they hold (which, of course, is what Martignoni is really getting at), but that’s a far cry from what what Protestants surely must imagine when they hear or read such a thing. To me (even as a Catholic), it comes off like an implication that the question will leave any Protestant stumped, and stupefied.

I remember listening to a Catholic Answers Live show in which Martignoni used that phrase. The host (I think it was Patrick Coffin but I’m not sure) had to insist that it was meant all in good fun, a little gentle ribbing. I’m not disputing their motives; for all I know, it’s meant in the most loving way. Even so, apologetics is no place for teasing.

There’s also the danger that would-be Catholic apologists will walk into a debate unprepared, thinking that they’ll surely win armed with these supposedly unanswerable questions, and in turn be met with questions they can’t answer.

Another example of Martignoni’s less-than-charitable behavior appears in his E-Mail debates. I’m thinking of the one with Thomas Thrasher earlier this year. It didn’t take long before the debate devolved into variations on the “no you’re ignoring my arguments” theme. In fairness, both Thrasher and Martignoni succumbed to this temptation.

Worse was the way Martignoni ended the debate: After already having declared himself victorious on a couple of points in earlier rounds and demanding that Thrasher concede them, Martignoni finally decided to let Thrasher’s “getting stupid in a hurry” (yes, he used those words) speak for itself and didn’t bother to respond to Thrasher’s last round of arguments at all.

This sort of behavior is bad enough coming from amateurs in forums and blog comment threads. I expect better from respected professional apologists.

All that having been said, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I won’t try to dispute what y’all have said about the logic of his arguments. It’s actually pretty good stuff.

But I recommend you use his materials to learn your facts, and not imitate the way he talks to people of other faiths. If you are a person of another faith interested in learning about what we believe, unless you’re particularly thick-skinned, I recommend you stay away from Martignoni. There are plenty of other equally skilled and articulate Catholic apologists who can give you the information you seek without the fightin’ words.

 

[bksumm]

I like John’s work, but I haven’t heard anything new from him in a while. Anyone know if somethings up with his ministry?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I like John’s work, but I haven’t heard anything new from him in a while. Anyone know if somethings up with his ministry?

I receive his email from time to time. He always says he is going to make it more regular but it rather good when it does finally come. It is usually packed with a current email debate that he is engaged in or just takes time to answer some question he has received from readers. the last few was on a debate with a preacher at a CoC church regarding Peter and was pretty good.

It’s called Apologetics for the Masses" and you can sign up for it free here:

biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

God bless

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t want to be too much of a party-pooper here, but I’m not a big fan of Martignoni.

His facts and arguments are good but his approach is uncharitable. “Questions Protestants can’t answer”? Right. If I were Protestant, I’d be so busy being upset over the insult to my intelligence, or so busy looking out for gotchas and trick questions, that I doubt I’d ever learn a darned thing about the Church.

Protestants can answer those questions. Their answers might be logically inconsistent with some other beliefs they hold (which, of course, is what Martignoni is really getting at), but that’s a far cry from what what Protestants surely must imagine when they hear or read such a thing. To me (even as a Catholic), it comes off like an implication that the question will leave any Protestant stumped, and stupefied.

I remember listening to a Catholic Answers Live show in which Martignoni used that phrase. The host (I think it was Patrick Coffin but I’m not sure) had to insist that it was meant all in good fun, a little gentle ribbing. I’m not disputing their motives; for all I know, it’s meant in the most loving way. Even so, apologetics is no place for teasing.

I disagree with you 100%. If one doesn’t keep a strong sense of humor going in apologetics then it’s useless. I have been reading John Martignoni’s stuff and used it extensively since he first started.

I suspect that you have not sought to dialog with some of the more aggressive a-Cs because what Martignoni shells out is a warm fuzzy hug compared to the stuff that I’ve answered here on CAF since it opened in 2004

His YouTube videos are excellent and infinitely better than hos a-C counterparts there. The fact is that the title is correct because Protestants cannot effectively answer those questions without compromising their stated beliefs and that is precisely what they are meant to do…challenge them to test all things and hold onto what is good. The fact that they are Biblically based approaches them on their own turf and challenges them to see if their position on certain scriptures is as air tight as they present them to be.

There’s also the danger that would-be Catholic apologists will walk into a debate unprepared, thinking that they’ll surely win armed with these supposedly unanswerable questions, and in turn be met with questions they can’t answer.

Apparently you aren’t that familiar with John’s website so I suggest that you give a listen to his MP3 Apologetics for the Scripturally-Challenged in which he addresses that exact situation.

Another example of Martignoni’s less-than-charitable behavior appears in his E-Mail debates. I’m thinking of the one with Thomas Thrasher earlier this year. It didn’t take long before the debate devolved into variations on the “no you’re ignoring my arguments” theme. In fairness, both Thrasher and Martignoni succumbed to this temptation.

Worse was the way Martignoni ended the debate: After already having declared himself victorious on a couple of points in earlier rounds and demanding that Thrasher concede them, Martignoni finally decided to let Thrasher’s “getting stupid in a hurry” (yes, he used those words) speak for itself and didn’t bother to respond to Thrasher’s last round of arguments at all.

Well what did you expect in a debate where one party was, in fact, ignoring the other’s arguments? Have you ever been in that situation, because I sure have…many times, right here on CAF. Thrasher challenged John in a public debate and then refused to address the actual debate, which is, in fact, a stupid waste of time, and John rightly calls it on that basis.

This sort of behavior is bad enough coming from amateurs in forums and blog comment threads. I expect better from respected professional apologists.

I suggest that you show us that you can do better. I’ll happily watch to see how that goes.

All that having been said, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I won’t try to dispute what y’all have said about the logic of his arguments. It’s actually pretty good stuff.

Indeed!

But I recommend you use his materials to learn your facts, and not imitate the way he talks to people of other faiths. If you are a person of another faith interested in learning about what we believe, unless you’re particularly thick-skinned, I recommend you stay away from Martignoni. There are plenty of other equally skilled and articulate Catholic apologists who can give you the information you seek without the fightin’ words.

This is just your opinion and evaluation of John’s style, and like I said I’m curious to see how you fare in apologetics by comparison.

John’s notes and MP3s are excellent teaching and evangelistic tools, and there are few as good or better.

I like John’s work, but I haven’t heard anything new from him in a while. Anyone know if somethings up with his ministry?

He’s extremely busy and has been hired by the diocese to help evangelism, not to mention helping with Catholic radio in the Birmingham area. The best thing to do is sign up for his e-newsletters which have never failed to be very very good.

 

[uther]

I like John’s work because he doesn’t take the standard approach to apologetics which in most cases seems to be a defensive posture. Instead he knows how to turn questions around to put anti-Catholics on the defensive, forcing them (if they will) to defend their positions.

However, I can sympathize with linebyline in the sense that John’s style is not one I would tend to use.

His use of Scripture as the groundwork of his apologetics is somewhat novel because it goes after the average Sola Scriptura Protestant on their own turf, so to speak. His arguments are good and he brings out points that I had never thought of, and uses them in ways I had never considered.

It depends somewhat on the situation, and normally I am outnumbered in these discussions because all of my family are Protestant but one nephew who is Orthodox, but I try to use a Tai-Chi approach, in which I see if I can use my opponent’s own momentum to knock them off course and hopefully make them think. Knowing how engrained my own prejudices were wrt to the RC Church before my conversion I realize that making them think is often the best that can be hoped for at any given time.

But I will say this. John’s idea of focusing on Scripture, while courageous and meets the Protestant on their own ground, is one that I would not follow. Not because our Catholic faith is not Scriptural as many Prots claim, but because to me at least, it feels like I am ceding the Sola Scriptura argument. To me that is the foundation of their theological edifice. Undermine that, and the rest will follow. That was my own realization when I was searching for authenticity and realized what I was looking for was actually authority.

Nevertheless, there are many occasions when a knowledge of Scripture, a Catholic knowledge, is very beneficial and useful in discussions. For help in that area, John Martignoni is excellent.

 

[Church_Militant]

I like John’s work because he doesn’t take the standard approach to apologetics which in most cases seems to be a defensive posture. Instead he knows how to turn questions around to put anti-Catholics on the defensive, forcing them (if they will) to defend their positions.

Which is the nature of most debate.

However, I can sympathize with linebyline in the sense that John’s style is not one I would tend to use.

Certainly to each his own. If I may, where do you and LineByline live because I am wondering if the difference in styles might relate to what part of the country we all live in. John and I both come from North Alabama and live in the Bible Belt. Here in the South there is a certain quid pro quo to religious dialog/debate and I know that John’s style is very much a Southern apologetics and one that I personally am comfortable with because I’ve been confronted with that same style from n-Cs/a-Cs.

Where are you guys?

His use of Scripture as the groundwork of his apologetics is somewhat novel because it goes after the average Sola Scriptura Protestant on their own turf, so to speak. His arguments are good and he brings out points that I had never thought of, and uses them in ways I had never considered.

I think it’s worthwhile to show the errant thinking of those n-Cs/a-Cs with regard to the allegation that Catholicism is not Bible based as a starting point before getting into the ECF and other factors that support Catholic belief and teaching.

Responding/approaching them with scripture is useful especially since they often expect to encounter scripturally ignorant Catholics (and, in fact, many Catholics wrongly think themselves so) and the reality can disarm them and open them to real dialog.

It depends somewhat on the situation, and normally I am outnumbered in these discussions because all of my family are Protestant but one nephew who is Orthodox, but I try to use a Tai-Chi approach, in which I see if I can use my opponent’s own momentum to knock them off course and hopefully make them think. Knowing how engrained my own prejudices were wrt to the RC Church before my conversion I realize that making them think is often the best that can be hoped for at any given time.

With family that is often the best way.

But I will say this. John’s idea of focusing on Scripture, while courageous and meets the Protestant on their own ground, is one that I would not follow. Not because our Catholic faith is not Scriptural as many Protestants claim, but because to me at least, it feels like I am ceding the Sola Scriptura argument. To me that is the foundation of their theological edifice. Undermine that, and the rest will follow. That was my own realization when I was searching for authenticity and realized what I was looking for was actually authority.

I certainly see your point, but this is why we need to follow St. Paul’s mandate to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15) and know our faith foundations well.

Nevertheless, there are many occasions when a knowledge of Scripture, a Catholic knowledge, is very beneficial and useful in discussions. For help in that area, John Martignoni is excellent.

 

[linebyline]

Sorry about being late getting back here. The problem with using the same program for E-Mail and feeds is that if you leave your feed reader open, you forget to check your E-Mail. A lame excuse, I know, but there it is.

First of all, Church Militant, you’re right that we need to hold onto our senses of humor. Sometimes that’s all that keeps us sane. The problem is, I don’t see anything funny about the way Martignoni talks to people. Besides, there are other types of humor besides teasing, and a lot of them are much harder to mistake for arrogance or malice.

You’re also correct that I don’t “dialog” with anti-Catholics. There is no way I could keep my cool in such a situation, so I don’t seek out those kinds of discussions. When I do participate in moral/religious discussions, I try (and often fail spectacularly) to be calm, stick to what I know I can explain convincingly and rationally, and above all to avoid even the appearance of rudeness.

Additionally, your comments about my being able to do better than Martignoni make little sense to me, precisely because I don’t do much apologetics. And even if I did, I’m an amateur. I never claimed to be anything more. Martignoni portrays himself as an expert. As I said before, we expect better from people who have supposedly devoted their careers to spreading the Gospel.

Besides, my inability to do better doesn’t mean my criticisms are invalid. A poor marksman is still a poor marksman even when there are also people like me who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn from the inside with a gatling gun.

That’s not to say Martignoni’s a poor apologist, though. Like I said, the actual apologetics content of Martignongi’s talks and newsletter were pretty good. It’s the presentation that ruins it all for me.

“Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” might be a somewhat accurate title (I still think they can answer them but the answers are fatally flawed, which is not the same thing), but “Logical contradictions in Protestant arguments” is more accurate and not quite so in-your-face. Why not use that?

As far as the Martignoni-Thrasher kerfuffle, as I said, both of them succumbed to the same temptation to ignore each other. Worse, each tried to remove that particular speck from the other’s eye first.

With a shovel.

If I may, where do you and LineByline live because I am wondering if the difference in styles might relate to what part of the country we all live in

Well, maybe, in a roundabout way. I’m a ways north of you, surrounded by hot-headed rednecks (and I use the term affectionately) who are often more than happy to give you their opinion but less than happy to hear yours. I guess my style is something of a reaction to that, as I find that the best way to approach such people is not to get into an argument, but mainly to listen, and to chime in only when you have something important to add that will really make them think.

And that’s really my whole philosophy: Challenge people to think critically, rather than challenging them to a fight. If you come at them guns-blazing, they will shut you out no matter how right you are. It happened to me the last time I tried to discuss abortion. No one cared about the logic of my arguments; they only cared that I was being a jerk. And they responded in kind. When I swallowed my pride, apologized, and started discussing things calmly and without pushing too hard, we started getting somewhere. Humility is the strongest weapon we have.

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t want to be too much of a party-pooper here, but I’m not a big fan of Martignoni.

His facts and arguments are good but his approach is uncharitable. .

Dear linebyline, The most uncharitable thing that one can do is allow someone else to continue in error where eternal salvation is concerned. John is showing the utmost charity by helping them to see the errors that they are following and exposing them to The Truth of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I’m certainly glad someone took the trouble to show me the error of my ways.

God bless

 

[TimothyH]

I like John’s work, but I haven’t heard anything new from him in a while. Anyone know if somethings up with his ministry?

I emailed him right after the tornadoes hit his town of Pleasant Grove, Alabama last April 27th. He replied that although no damage was done to his office or home and no injuries to anyone in his family, one tenth of a mile down the block from his office was utter devestation.

vosizneias.com/82407

In addition to his apologetic works, he holds several positions at his local diocese. I wouldn’t blame him for turning inward and focusing on local needs if that was the case.

-Tim-

 

[linebyline]

Dear linebyline, The most uncharitable thing that one can do is allow someone else to continue in error where eternal salvation is concerned. John is showing the utmost charity by helping them to see the errors that they are following and exposing them to The Truth of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I’m certainly glad someone took the trouble to show me the error of my ways.

God bless

That’s not the point. I never took issue with the fact that Martignoni is showing errors. After all, what is apologetics without showing errors in arguments against the faith? Like I said, his arguments are good. What I’m saying is that there are more charitable and less charitable ways of showing people their errors, Martignoni’s usual tone is the latter, and it doesn’t need to be. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[mcrow]

I think John Martignoni and Dr. Scott Hahn are two of the best modern theologians/apologists we have as Catholics.

Martignoni debates hard. Debate is often not done with pillows, so if the language gets rough it’s sign of good debate.