James White

[Hoonbaba]

Hi guys,

I was wondering if there's any Catholic websites that effectively deal with James White's roman catholicism page:

http://aomin.org/Roman.html

He looks to have some interesting arguments, so if anyone can help me out that'd be great.

God bless!

-Jason

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

He seems more that a little non-objective at first glance.

 

[KC Catholic]

Actually, James White pretty much hates Catholics. His sister converted to Catholicism over a year ago and he vowed never to speak to her again.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Can you link to some specific claims? Its hard to get through all that rambling and anti-catholicism rhetoric...

 

[nyj]

Hoonbaba,

Several Catholic apologists have debated James White. Their arguments can be found throughout the internet. Two that immediately come to mind are 1. Father Mitch Pacwa and 2. Phil Porvaznik.

However, it has been my experience that James White doesn't debate. He argues.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Father Mitch Pacwa rocks!

 

[Hoonbaba]

Today at 04:48 PM nyj said this in Post #5

Hoonbaba,

Several Catholic apologists have debated James White. Their arguments can be found throughout the internet. Two that immediately come to mind are 1. Father Mitch Pacwa and 2. Phil Porvaznik.

However, it has been my experience that James White doesn't debate. He argues.

Yes, as I'm reading his stuff, it doesn't sound like he's debating at all.  His zealous passion for 'truth' looks discouraging

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Today at 04:37 PM KC Catholic said this in Post #3

Actually, James White pretty much hates Catholics. His sister converted to Catholicism over a year ago and he vowed never to speak to her again.

Where did he say that?  And more importantly what kind of Christian would refuse to talk to his own sister?  I find that bizarre.  Anyway, I'd like to see some documentation on this. 

-Jason

 

[nyj]

Also Tim Staples, Gerry Matatics and Father Peter Stravinskas have debated James White. Robert Sungenis has as well, though the current stuff coming from Robert Sungenis' apologetics "apostolate" leaves a lot to be desired (specifically claims that to reject the heliocentric model of the universe is to reject the Catholic Church, etc).

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Today at 04:59 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #8 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=706267#post706267)




Where did he say that?  And more importantly what kind of Christian would refuse to talk to his own sister?  I find that bizarre.  Anyway, I'd like to see some documentation on this. 

-Jason

Here is some mention of his sister, whom he refers to as Mrs Bonds:

http://aomin.org/Romangrams.html
http://aomin.org/Luke1251.html

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

His sister posted this, here:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cinapol/200201/0001.html

In Reply to: James White's sister to be on CHN (EWTN)
in Feb. posted by Tracy in Montana (Tracy i on January
12, 2002 at :


Dear Friends,


Word got back to me that there was some discussion
concerning my conversation with Jim Anderson. I
thought I would clarify a few things.


First of all, thank you for your kind words and your
encouragement. I need your prayers for my appearance
on JH on Feb. 11th. I long for people to see Jesus in
my testimony. I long to heal wounds and safeguard the
faith of Catholics.


As far as my mother's reaction, I was preparing to
tell my parents back in October of 2000 when my mother
discovered my concealed crucifix. I had just promiced
the Lord that I wouldn not hide it under my sweater
again and that I would write them a letter that week.
Well, it was definitely the last time I had to hide
it, but not because of my letter. She pulled it out
herself and then became hysterical with grief. You
have to understand that to my parents my conversion is
more along the lines of consigning my soul and those
of my children to hell. From her point of view it is a
tragedy. I have to remind myself of that sometimes. It
helps me to respond in love and mercy rather than
wrath and self defense. If my parents had converted
before me, I would have been tempted to have them
committed! So I understand how upset they are about my
conversion. It may take years before we can discuss it
calmly. I long for the day.


As far as making a big deal about my relationship to
James, I think he is planning on doing that. I have
two reasons for telling the world that I am his
sister. One is that I am. No one can truly know how
difficult it is to hear God's call to Rome and know
they are going to have to deal with him the rest of
your life. Its a bit like crossing the Tiber at flood
stage. The other reason is that I have watched James
deal one blow after another against Christ's Church
and it grieves me greatly. I absolutely must do what I
can to heal some of those wounds. If I can steady the
faith of a few Catholics who's worlds have been rocked
by his work, I will give thanks. If I can bring home
some departed brethern who might not otherwise have
considered the Catholic Church, I will give thanks.
Other than that, my conversion truly had little or
nothing to do with being James White's sister. I spent
very little time during the months of my study
considering that connection. I was far more concerned
about being where God wanted me to be and
understanding His call on my life. I was too busy
coming to terms with the likes of Sts. Augustine,
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.


By the way, please pray for my family. God is moving
in mighty ways in my immediate family. Pray, pray,
pray.


God bless you!


Patty Patrick Bonds MI

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Notice that her mother (and presumably other family members) think she and her kids are now doomed to Hell, which is a horrible thing to tell someone.



James White claimed that his sister had separated from the family long before her conversion, but if that is true, how did her mom find the crucifix under her sweater and go into "hysteria"?

 

[nyj]

Today at 03:59 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #8 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=706267#post706267)

Where did he say that?  And more importantly what kind of Christian would refuse to talk to his own sister?  I find that bizarre.  Anyway, I'd like to see some documentation on this. 

Here is James Whites viewpoint ( http://www.aomin.org/Luke1251.html ). He refers to his sister as "Mrs Patty Bonds".

*Whoops - Didn't see that CP beat me to the link already.*

 

[chelcb]

If she was on the JH you probably can find the link and listen to the show from the EWTN library

 

[Hoonbaba]

By the way, how would Catholics respond to this statement:

"The self-refuting nature of the Roman claims to authority is further illustrated by the following statement of my opponent: "Where in the New Testament can we find all the words spoken by Our Lord during the forty days after his Resurrection?" This is offered as a rebuttal to the sufficiency of Scripture. Many Roman apologists use this kind of argument, yet, we have to ask in response, "Where does Roman Catholic tradition provide us with all the words spoken by our Lord during the forty days after His resurrection?" Of course, Rome doesn't claim to know, so why offer the argument? The argument also errs in assuming we have to know. We don't. The Word does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient."

?

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Hoonbaba,

Since you have an interest in Protestant vs. Catholic apologetics, you should listen to some of James' debates with Catholic apologists. You hear both sides of the coin and get diversified in the arguments used by both sides. Although be wary of the debate with Tim Staples about if the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, some of the folks in the audience make some pretty rude comments towards Dr. White, and I don't think most Catholics would even agree with the immaturity in the Catholic audience. (http://www.straitgate.com/aom/) (Scroll down towards the bottom) Check out the debates with Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, those are some good quality debates. You can also get MP3's of some of the debates off of the main page (aomin.org)

 

[Hoonbaba]

Today at 05:42 PM SoldierofChrist said this in Post #16

Hoonbaba,

Since you have an interest in Protestant vs. Catholic apologetics, you should listen to some of James' debates with Catholic apologists. You hear both sides of the coin and get diversified in the arguments used by both sides. Although be wary of the debate with Tim Staples about if the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, some of the folks in the audience make some pretty rude comments towards Dr. White, and I don't think most Catholics would even agree with the immaturity in the Catholic audience. (http://www.straitgate.com/aom/) (Scroll down towards the bottom) Check out the debates with Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, those are some good quality debates. You can also get MP3's of some of the debates off of the main page (aomin.org)

The big problem I have with James White's debates (or debates in general) is that you only see one side of the coin, or a mere glimpse of the other side with generally a misrepresentation of the other side.

I'm fully away of his debates including the one with Mitch Pacwa.  Even though you're right about the bad comments, I don't know how I can read some of his material on his website with all the catholic bashing. 

God bless!

-Jason

 

[nyj]

Today at 04:32 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=706349#post706349)

By the way, how would Catholics respond to this statement:


?

I'd respond by saying Scripture never says it is "sufficient" in and of itself. Mr. White here is adding to Scripture, making it claim something it never does. Paul, in his second letter to Timothy says that Scripture is profitable, but he never says it is sufficient. In addition, Paul quite often refers to the traditions handed on from him, to others, to serve as a guide. Lastly, when the 3000 converted on Pentecost, they did not have even a single iota of the New Testament to guide them. Were they then, incomplete Christians since, according to James White, the New Testament is what serves as a sufficient guide?

 

[chelcb]

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=2&SeriesID=-6892289

I found the link of Patty Bond on the JH. The link is on the second page # 48.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Hi guys,

I was wondering if someone can address these comments James White make on Matt 23:2:

Where does it speak of Peter or the other Apostles receiving this "seat"? It doesn't. Where does the New Testament speak of such a thing? It doesn't anywhere else, including in those passages that one would expect to see speaking of such issues of authority (such as the Pastoral epistles). Indeed, I would like to challenge our authors: where did anyone in the first five hundred years of the Church make the connection they make here? The earliest example they can give is from a Pope arguing in his own cause (hardly a representative view of the entire church), and that in the middle of the ninth century! A scan of the 38 volumes of the Eerdman's set of Church Fathers reveals only five citations of the passage, and not <I>one</I> of them is in any way related to the bishop of Rome. Quite simply, the conclusions presented in question&nbsp;of this book are wishful thinking, both from an exegetical standpoint, as well as an historical one

'authors' is a reference to Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess (Jesus, Peter &amp; the Keys).&nbsp; Also, can someone address the following statements too?

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Examples of the Peter Syndrome are to be found on almost every page of the work. Citations are often given that only speak to an exalted view of Peter in a particular Father, and no attempt is made at all to connect the citation to the bishop of Rome. The fact that the cathedra Petri (chair of Peter) in Cyprian and other North African Fathers specifically referred to the entire bishopric of the Church, so that Cyprian viewed all bishops as fulfilling Matthew 16:18 (not just the bishop of Rome), is seemingly not understood by our writers. Passages from Fathers are listed under such grand titles as "Primacy of the Pope and the Roman Church" that have nothing whatsoever to do with either the Papacy or the Roman Church. Citations are given without any thought of accurately representing the entire thought of that writer on a particular topic. For example, the first citation provided under the chapter title just mentioned is from Origen. Here is how it reads:[/font]


<BLOCKQUOTE>
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"Peter, the Prince of the Apostles." (Origen, In Lucarn, Horn. xvii. torn. iii. p.953), and "More honour than the rest." (Origen, Tom. xxxii in Joann. n. 5 tom. iii. p.413), both in Charles E B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri--The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns &amp; Oates, 1879), 48.[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Here we have a single phrase, "Peter, the Prince of the Apostles," isolated from any meaningful context, placed under the rubric of the primacy of the Pope. This is not meaningful historical research or writing, it is pure rhetoric driven by faith in a system that demands the writers see these historical sources in a particular fashion. The other phrase, "more honor than the rest," is likewise not provided to us with any meaningful context. Do our authors really think that Origen believed as they believe about the bishop of Rome? In the <I>600</I> books written by him in his lifetime, they can only come up with a few phrases about the subject, and even then, they can't provide any meaningful bridge between a high view of Peter and the bishop of Rome as the Pope?[/font]

While I haven't done reading to verify his statements, I think White may be right.&nbsp; But then again I simply lack the knowledge to know if what he says is right or not.

-Jason