Thursday, July 2, 2009

Podcast Episode 2: Early Christian Images

Above, San Vitale Ravenna, Italy.

In this podcast I want to cover the subject of Christian images. This subject is often the target of Reformed apologists like James White and his side-kick Turretin Fan. They tend to equate all Christian images as being idolatrous. Did the Church go off the rails using Sacred Images in the 500s until the "Reformers" came along to correct Christendom?

Since Turretin says I did not address the main issue of images, I decided to do so in this second podcast. I cover some archaeological evidence such as those of Bigatti at the site of the Annunciation as well as some others. Just the mere fact that Christians have been worshiping at the Annunciation site since the mid 200s tells us that Christians have venerated Our Lady since at least those times, otherwise why pick this particular location to worship and bury their dead? I hope you enjoy this second episode of the Catholic Champion podcast.

Visit Catholic Champion main site for a directory of all podcasts available. Soon they will be available on I Tunes!

Catholic Champion podcast is now available via Itunes!.


Turretinfan said...

Dr. White is inviting you to come back on the DL if you want to dispute an actual argument he has made against Roman Catholicism.

Anonymous said...

James White is inviting you to call back in right now.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Well, I guess I missed it. Let me get this straight. James White hangs up on me, then mocks me after he does it, then later on in the show invites me back on? How kind of him. Well, I can call back next week and address the topic if he would like. I would appreciate some courtesy in the future instead of being hung up on so rudely as I was giving my answer. If that would be OK then either he or one of his compadres can come over here and let me know.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Is Dr. White going to pick the topic or does he want me to pick another that he has addressed recently?

Alex said...

"...actual argument he has made against Roman Catholicism."

As opposed to the non-argumentative, non-substantiated, comments that White makes against Catholics and the Church. These are not to be addressed.

Anonymous said...

"Then I spent the last few moments inviting Matthew Bellisario to call back and actually address any of my published, publicly stated arguments against Roman Catholicism. I listed quite a few."

I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to why you picked out this one random comment by Dr. White that was made in a Sunday School class to post about and call in on when he has so many other things to say against Catholicism.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

I have a question for White:

White do you admit that you were wrong in your statement? Can you prove that a large portion of the guards were practicing Catholics? No, you can’t. Instead you do the next best thing, and that is deflect, ignore, and ridicule.

Then he had the nerve to complain that Catholic apologists (as if he has read and spoke with every Catholic apologist out there, but that is just a minor detail, and we can all observe how White treats details), he complains that, “They can say anything they want. They will not respond to refutation.” Oh, where have I seen that attitude recently?

Was White just making a passing comment? Yes. Should even passing comments be held up to scrutiny? Yes, unless you are James White. Suppose I were giving a speech about homosexuals in the media, and lets say that I were to make an unsubstantiated passing comment that a large number of protestants favor gay sex, would that comment be above scrutiny? Couldn’t someone reasonably question me about my statistic, and ask me to either prove that my comment was accurate or retract my error? I’m not certain what would pass in unaccredited schools like the ones White attended, but in the university I attended I couldn’t respond to a professor who had noticed an error, or inquired into an unsubstantiated claim that it was just a passing comment and he is petty and ridiculous for bringing it up. Nor do I suspect that it would bide well for the lawyer during oral argument to criticize the justice for questioning a factual error made by the lawyer.

White claims that overall this was not an argument against Roman Catholicism, that he was not criticizing Roman Catholicism, and maybe due to his arrogant attitude it is hard for him to see that he is indeed making an implicit argument against Roman Catholicism in the comment itself. By not providing any further clarification or retracting his comment altogether, White has done one of two things; he has cowardly abandoned his comment by simply ignoring it, or he embraces his error and adds further insult by mocking and attempting to disparage his opponents. Regardless, he did attack Roman Catholicism by intimating that a practicing Catholic (and he did not clarify what he meant by practicing) could ignore the precepts of the Church and remain in good standing. Besides, who gave White the authority to determine what we as Catholics should be allowed to find insulting?