A few weeks back he put forth Revolutionizing Catholic Apologetics: Cutting Out The Middle Man and also wrote this.
So, shouldn't I simply skip the middle man? Exactly why should I read Matthew's response according to Matthew's own logic? He should just simply point me to which books would be the best response. But wait... that's the middle man pointing me to the best books.
I guess I'm stuck with the middle man is some regard until the magisterium does something, anything.... but their hands are full with lawsuits and allegations this week, so perhaps next week they can work on a good list of resources in response to my comments on sola scriptura.
Since Matthew recommends skipping the middle man, the argumentation I'd use in response to him would be found here. I suggest Matthew purchase this book and get right to the source of my argumentation.
By the way, I'm still hopeful Matthew will provide a list of which "middle men" to avoid. How do we know according to Matthew who qualifies as a "middle man"? Matthew states:
"The best place to start your research is by using faithful, well educated scholars and clergy to compile your material from, as well as the original sources of the Church, Church Fathers and the Saints."
Matthew suggests cutting out the middle men will revolutionize Romanist apologetics. Every revolution requires sacrifice, so let's get started with a list:
I'm willing to sacrifice the insights of these guys. Whom else could we do without?