This quote caught my eye.
As one who follows their respective careers, I would point out that Matatics and Hahn were best friends at (protestant) Seminary, of course. Just for my personal benefit, has anyone yet figured out whether or not Gerry Matatics is a Communicant Conservative Roman Catholic, or a Schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist Catholic?
Which almost begs the (rhetorical) question: Are you a Sedevacantist schismatic when you say that you are, or when the rest of "Conservative Catholicism" says that you are??
I ask partly out of academic interest. I have read both Hahn and Matatics, and as a debater, Matatics is by far the superior Apologist (mind you, I speak only my own personal opinion, as a former scholastic and collegiate Debater of some minor accomplishment).
I have read plenty of the writings of both Matatics and Hahn, and transcripts of each; and I know the sort of preparation which goes into a formal Debate. If I were, for some unfathomable reason, compelled to debate Dr. Scott Hahn on a specific and pre-defined doctrinal proposition (anyone wanna offer me an extended paid vacation and clear it with my employer?), I think that I could adequately prepare myself given the space of about two weeks. I would certainly need to call upon the input of such professional Presbyterian apologists as Steve Wilkins, Brian Abshire, Steve Schlissel, and of course the indefatigable Tristan Emmanuel (sigh -- some Presbyterians are predestinated to get the COOLEST names); I'd be doing myself a dis-service if I did not call on Baptist Apologists James White and Richard Bennett.
And I am not so arrogant as to deny the real possibility that Hahn would wipe the floor with my amateur hide!!
But on the other hand, I've read Hahn's stuff. His arguments are too rote. His thinking is too hidebound. I'm reminded of some advice my collegiate Debate Coach once gave me in before a round with a (seeming) Debate Juggernaut team from another school -- "They don't know anything they're not prepped for. They can't think on their feet. Get them off their blocs (that's "debate lingo" for taking someone outside the box of their pre-formatted Arguments) and they will FOLD like a weak bluff."
That's the way that Scott Hahn's arguments read -- to me, anyway. Too rote. Too hidebound. Give me two weeks prep-time with the best minds in Protestant Apologia, and I am not the most incompetent Debater around. I think I could at least "go the distance".
But Matatics?? What, are you freakin' kidding me? I've read Matatics. The guy is not only knowledgeably erudite, he is intellectually sharp -- keen as a bloody straight-razor. He's both as thoughtful in his preparation, as he is innovative in his composition and presentation -- a ruthless combination. Two weeks? Gee, thanks but no thanks. Two weeks and I'm a lamb to the slaughter. Two months would be scarcely enough.
But of course, this (entirely-hypothetical) scenario is entirely MOOT if the best Mind in Roman Catholic apologetics alive today (Gerry Matatics, in only-my-own-personal-opinion) is NOT EVEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC but rather a schismatic Traditionalist Sedevacantist.
So, I know that the Roman Catholic Church has a LOT on its plate these days, but once you guys figure out whether or not so-called Roman Catholics like FReeper "Theresa" (who basically affirm that modern Jewish Pharisees can go to their graves blaspheming Jesus Christ and yet be saved) represent the "Truth of Rome", can somebody get back to me and tell me whether or not Gerry Matatics is still a communicant and faithful Roman Catholic?
I personally think that he's one of the best "Roman Catholic" apologists in the world (if not the best), but then Karl Keating tells me that Matatics is not even a Roman Catholic at all -- but rather an SSPX Sedevacantist Schismatic.
It's all very confusing.
All that said, I've another observation to make -- rather a funny one. Well, "funny" in the sense of black humor, at least.
When one reads the Roman Catholic Apologia-by-Testimonial book "Surprised by Truth", it's like reading a Codex of the Roman Front Line of public Apologetics in the World today.
And what does one find, when one studies the roster of modern Roman Apologists? Let us see...
What does one find when one studies the modern codex of Roman apologia? What "distinguishing characteristic" unites the vast bulk of Public Roman Apologists in the world today?
Every single one of 'em.
Granted, "Surprised" does throw in one well-known Apologist Roman ex-Baptist (Tim Staples), as well as one Ex-Jew (in Calvinist circles, we'd call him a completed Jew -- if he were Calvinist, that is) and one ex-Evangelical "Jesus Freak", but eight out of eleven testimonial cases are former Calvinist Continental Reformed and/or Calvinist Presbyterians. (You might add "cradle-Catholic" Karl Keating as a prominent modern public Catholic Apologist, but of course Keating has said he is not a good public debater and refuses public debates).
Some of these lapsed Presbyterians repudiate their Calvinism; others (such as James Akin, "Tiptoe through the TULIPS") seek to find a place for their Calvinism within the Roman Thomist-Augustinian tradition ("a double-minded man"??).
But nonetheless, essentially the Entire Front Line of Roman Apologetics in the Public Forum of the world today are basically a gaggle also-ran Presbyterians.
I'm pretty sure that one of us should be embarassed by this, Polycarp....
...but I'm honestly not sure which -- you or me!! (lol)
But, methinks it's an interesting tidbit.
Just grist for the mill.... best, OP.
Then Jesus was an also-ran Jewish carpenter from Nazareth...I'm not loosing sleep over it, OP.
Ochhhhhhhhh
I had a Presbyterian pastor in my old neighborhood who was listening to Karl Keating tapes. When I asked him how he would counter Keatings arguments, he was lost for words. Is it possible that in seminary they spend too much time studying the writings of Calvin and Luther, both of whom were never able to shake off a lot of RCC theology but incorporated i into their own.