Hello Mark,
Is that a "deperate defense" like the Alamo, or like Bastogne?
P.S. And is it just me, or do his website caricatures look more like an angry biker with each new version?
And I see White got it done in a tidy 3200+ words of his time-tested home-brew of chest-thumping, table pounding roars of bad faith, indictment of communal deceit, indictments of alleged intellectual dishonesty and declarations of his opponent's inherent inferiority to his own bad Reformed self.
Oh, and the stock denial of being an "anti-". Did I miss anything?
Must have a template set up on Word.
Athelstane:
Actually, it's the word "desperate" that I find the most mysterious. The principle effect the book had on me was to open my eyes to just how deeply Mary is woven into the life of the Church and how inextricable she is from it. The connections which the Catholic (and Orthodox) traditions make between Mary and the Church are real, not rhorshach blots. I can't *not* see those connections anymore. I did not have the sensation of being an Alamo defender. More like a blind man given his sight. Writing the book was arduous and invigorating, not desperate. But James has to say stuff like that because the fan base demands it. It's sort of like sports promoter hype.
After reading White I get the urge to shower off with a brillo pad.
I feel like I slipped in a pool of scum and went under for a second, so obvious is the hate that fuels his heart toward the Church.
This guy makes his living this way?
What a migraine I get just skimming his tirades. I couldn't ever imagine listening to him actually speak.
Mother Mary, obtain grace upon grace for James White. Don't leave him to his own devices. Amen.
To cheer you up, Mark, apparently even James White is not *really* saved by some measures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=y...player_embedded
Neither are Luther, Calvin, nor St. Augustine 
Hello Mark,
Don't mind my snark.
It's tough being James White. If anyone is analogous to Davey Crockett beating off the heretic hordes, it's him. Or so he seems to fancy himself. Naturally, of course, the Alamo never falls.
I have not had the pleasure of reading your books yet (I know, I know). But I will add that I found Newman very helpful as I came to grips with the place of our Lady in the understanding of the faith - as I know many others have.
Striking, of course, since he was another famous swimmer of the Tiber.
Just ordered mine. Thanks, DDOMM! Maybe you can put something desperate-sounding in my inscription.
I thought Doctor White was rather terse in his post, too. I was hoping for something, you know, a little more fleshed out.
Mark, have you collected your reviews anywhere?
That was really something from Mr. White. It was a bit hard to wade through, but it looks like he is so insistent on a literal interpretation of scripture and only scripture, that he wouldn't believe Marian doctrine unless it was spelled right out in the text. We can see it because we can look at the Bible in context and complemented/complementing Tradition, but he just cannot go there.
Sola scriptura is an awful handicap.
"Sola scriptura is an awful handicap". Yes, specially if you profess to find in the Bible a word by word affirmation of trinitarian doctrines, the full divinity and humanity of Christ and so on...
It must be hard being Mr. White.
Regards,
Ignacio
I think the second sentence of White's post is a dead giveaway:
"[I] noticed no personal references in the indexes."
Seems like he's fueled a lot less by, well, anything, than by personal offense that he, JAMES WHITE, did not make it into the series' index. You've hurt this man's feelings, Mark.
A few weeks back I was used in a soundbite on William Lane Craig's podcast and now I am a counterweight to James White. My fifteen minutes of fame are fading fast.
I read James White's article and I am sort of puzzled why he didn't think of trying to take the "Ark of the Covenant" title is a more Protestant direction. I really do not think this need be a divisive issue - but then I'm an Anglican and we're confused ProtoCatholics anyway. Below is a link to my suggestion to White of a better counterpoint. Of course, that might also mean lessening the hostilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=gU7fuw6T0ek
Are you looking for a better counter-argument, or the truth?
Merely pointing out that while there are plenty of points of real disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, this is a very poor choice to choose as one. It is like the obejction to the Theotokos title given by many Evangelicals - they just oppose it because they think they should oppose it because it has something to do with Mary.
Albert:
I don't think we disagree at all. FWIW, I don't argue that the Mary/Ark typology somehow proves the Immaculate Conception. I merely point out the obvious parallelism Luke and John are alluding to, as you do, and note that linking her to The Holiest Object in All of Ancient Israel is strongly redolent of the developed faith and practice of the early Church as it grows into the Catholic (and Orthodox, and all other apostolic communions) faith and practice. In short, we are looking at a mighty big mustard seed and it's not a big mystery how that seed grew in the developing understanding of the Church.
Your point about White seeing exactly this process at work in his arguments with Muslims is bang on.
Commenting by HaloScan
