11 February 2016

I Guess It's a Call to Reflection...

...if only I knew who Dave Armstrong is. 

I checked it out to save you time.  He apparently writes for Patheos, and has recently written a typical article on how trads are mean, especially to Catholics who would never act meanly to trads, part 3,297. I tried to engage in "dialogue" with him, but I've been blocked.  No problem, it's his site-- but pardon my rueful chuckle at the juxtaposition of the ban with the subject matter of his article.

And the thing that makes me wonder is that I've never before commented on an article by him, so why am I blocked?  Funny. I hope that Patheos hasn't banned commenters across all their contributors' blogs, merely for the crime of trying to question Mark Shea about, well, anything-- or perhaps for failing to swoon before the collected wisdom of Simcha and Scalia.

No problem, I guess, though I'll miss the opportunity to accompany Patheos on our common journey. And I won't be seeing earliest advertisements for their books I'm supposed to buy.  Oh, well.
A blessed Lent to them.


6 comments:

Jane Chantal said...

I'm sorry to hear this. Back in the late '90s, Dave Armstrong's apologetics website, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (it was magnificent, and much more comprehensive than its name would suggest), was tremendously helpful to me. Eventually, the website became less accessible, and I gave up trying to use it. I've never forgotten it, though. Sounds like Mr. Armstrong has gone through some changes. Time does such a number on us...

ToM said...

Dave also has a record of being mean and nasty to others but his sit has a lot of good material.

Also, some “trads” are indeed angry and mean, but one must understand that when the faith is in ruins all around you, your family and friends fallen away, churches emptying, and other atrocities, it’s GOING to make you MAD. Some people can’t handle it.

And people like Armstrong can’t realize this. Just let the real “mad trads” be mad, they can’t handle it and who can blame them? All of these Popes in the past 50+ years have enabled it. It rips one hearts to pieces, OF COURSE people are going to be mad.

XXXXXXX said...

Mr. Armstrong complains about the term "Neo-Catholic," and yet he describes traditionalists as "radical Catholic reactionaries." Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

What if traditionalists were always extremely charitable in how they present their criticisms of the post-conciliar popes? Would Mr. Armstrong then support what they say? I doubt it. One can easily hide their anti-tradition views behind the complaint of the lack of charity of trads, when in fact, they don't want to hear what trads say
even if trads were always very charitable in how they present their concerns. Sometimes a person isn't even aware that they are doing this. We can deceive even ourselves at times.

Sure, trads can and should be more charitable in how they present their concerns, but that's not really the basic problem. The basic problem is that trads know that there is a severe Crisis in the Church today, and they know the causes of it, even if they cannot always present it in a charitable manner.

thetimman said...

Sorry, Dave, I can't dialogue when I'm blocked. Best wishes.

thetimman said...

Now Dave's fixated on Hilary White. Good company. He's a funny guy!

XXXXXXX said...

It would seem that Mr. Armstrong has taken offense to your article here, and written a new one. Sadly, it's rather immature, in that he describes anyone that "bashes" the Pope, the New Mass, or Vatican ll as a "radical Catholic reactionary." Evidently these three things cannot not ever be criticized, or else it's automatically a case of "Bashing."

However, we are, as Catholics, allowed to criticize those things that have been a great source of harm to the Catholic Faith, and therefore Catholics themselves. That's something that converts might not always understand.