Robert Sungenis

[goldenchild17]

I want to address Robert Sungenis' adherance to the Church. I see nothing to suggest he is radical in his beliefs(except maybe for his views in science but this has no bearing on his faith). I see plenty to suggest that he is in full communion with the teachings of the Church, despite some problems that he has with non-dogmatic things in the Church.

_____________________

[b]Question 71[/b]- [u]Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part II?[/u]
Hi Robert. Since I can't read what you say about SSPX, and the validity of the NO Mass, I have to follow up on my question. thank you so much for answering me. I know you are busy.
This is the consecration formula in the Roman Mass: "For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.
As often as you shall do these things in memory of Me shall you do them."
I have listened to several tapes of Fr. Malachi Martin, being interviewed and he states that the NO Mass is invalid -
1) He says they changed the "mystery of faith" and it now takes on a different meaning.
2) Also the change of "the many" into "all" in the NO at the consecration of the Chalice is a major change.
3) Additionally, they removed the signification of sacrifice and replaced it with "a meal".
4) Also I noticed (Fr. Martin doesn't mention this) the "do this in memory of me" actually slants towards the Protestant meaning of communion, but the Traditional Latin words "As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them" seems to convey the Catholic meaning that this is a sacrament, and the remembrance is secondary to that.
5) What about Quo Primum - by Pope St. Pius V in 1549 (during or right after the Council of Trent?). At one point Pius V says " Let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women -even of military orders..." I have enclosed the 2 page document as an attachment.
Fr. Martin recommends that one not go to a NO Mass unless they know the Priest well and can ask him what words he will be using for the consecration, and find out his intention, because without the intention to consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord it is not valid either. He said many Priests believe it is just a symbol, like Protestants do. He also says that going to SSPX is not wrong. I have read also that the schism and excommunication cannot stand up against canon law, because Archbishop LeFavre found it "necessary" to consecrate bishops. Fr. Martin says if it hadn't been for Archbishop LeFavre we wouldn't have the Traditional Latin Mass today. He was given the grace to stand up to the liberals, and we have benefited.
Would you be willing to comment on that?
Thank you!
Nancy

[b]R. Sungenis(RS)[/b] Nancy, one thing you need to get very clear in your head. No priest or bishop or cardinal is the head of the Church, including Fr. Martin. It really doesn't matter what anyone else says. The ultimate authority is the pope. His final decision is all that matters, and all that counts. That is what makes us the "Catholic Church." If Paul VI said that NO Mass was valid, then it is valid. No one on this earth has the authority to contravene him. Those that do put themselves in dire peril with God. If there is one thing with which God is very strict -- it is authority, whether that authority is good, bad or indifferent. There are countless examples in the OT showing this, as well as from Church history.

Now to your specific points:

“1) He says they changed the "mystery of faith" and it now takes on a different meaning.”

[b]RS[/b]: The "mystery of faith" is not a dogmatic necessity. It wasn't in the original Eucharistic prayer said by Jesus, so it is of no consequence in the confection of the Eucharist. END

“2) Also the change of "the many" into "all" in the NO at the consecration of the Chalice is a major change.”

[b]RS[/b]: "Many" and "all" are interchangeable terms. Scripture interchanges them quite frequently, as do many Church documents. (e.g., Mt 26:28; Lk 22:20; Mt 20:28; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 2:2; Lk 3:6; Jn 6:51; Heb 9:28) END

“3) Additionally, they removed the signification of sacrifice and replaced it with "a meal".”

[b]RS[/b]: There might be less emphasis on sacrifice, but it is not absent from the NO Mass. The word "sacrifice" in reference to the Eucharist appears about a half-dozen times in the NO Mass. END

“4) Also I noticed (Fr. Martin doesn't mention this) the "do this in memory of me" actually slants towards the Protestant meaning of communion, but the Traditional Latin words "As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them" seems to convey the Catholic meaning that this is a sacrament, and the remembrance is secondary to that.”

[b]RS[/b]: It makes little difference. Jesus said simply "Do this in memory of me." END

“5) What about Quo Primum - by Pope St. Pius V in 1549 (during or right after the Council of Trent?). At one point Pius V says " Let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women -even of military orders..." I have enclosed the 2 page document as an attachment.”

[b]RS[/b]: Yes, that applied in Pius V's reign, and in the reign of any pope who chose to follow it. However, Pius V's statement is not irreformable Catholic dogma. Any pope who wishes to change the rubrics of the Mass can do so, provided that the essential elements regarding the confection of the Eucharist remain. Paul VI was very careful to maintain them. In fact, he had to correct the Eucharistic formula against some liberals who had tried to change it. END

“Fr. Martin recommends that one not go to a NO Mass unless they know the Priest well and can ask him what words he will be using for the consecration, and find out his intention, because without the intention to consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord it is not valid either. He said many Priests believe it is just a symbol, like Protestants do.”


[b]RS[/b]: Again, Fr. Martin is not the pope. In fact, as good a man as he was, he was a laicized priest. Although it is true that the priest's intention must be present. But if the Church has taught that the NO Mass confects the Eucharist, and the priest has take a vow to uphold that teaching of the Church, then it can be assumed that the priest saying the Mass upholds the Catholic doctrine, and it would take an explicit denial from him, before the Mass started, for us to judge him as not having the right intention. END

“He also says that going to SSPX is not wrong. I have read also that the schism and excommunication cannot stand up against canon law, because Archbishop LeFavre found it "necessary" to consecrate bishops. Fr. Martin says if it hadn't been for Archbishop LeFavre we wouldn't have the Traditional Latin Mass today. He was given the grace to stand up to the liberals, and we have benefited.”

[b]RS[/b]: Fr. Martin is wrong. It is wrong to go to the SSPX because the present pope said so in a formal and official juridical decision. The only allowance we have is that we could, in certain circumstances, receive the sacraments from an SSPX priest. As for Archbishop Lefebvre, his excommunication stands until the pope rescinds it. The pope is the final interpreter of Canon Law, not you or I or anyone else. As for whether we would have had a TLM today, my belief is that if Archbishop Lefebvre had been more patient and not tried to take things into his own hands, the pope would eventually have given him the Latin Mass and his bishops. As it stands now, the SSPX is on the outside looking in. Their recent troubles with two priests they had to let go because of insubordination shows that they are going to have the same internal dissension that the pope had with Lefebvre. If they haven't learned that the buck stops with the pope, then they haven't learned anything about the Catholic Church, sorry to say.

Edited August 16, 2005 by goldenchild17

[Era Might]

Here's my post in the previous thread:

On his website, he posts an interview with an SSPX Bishop who says, among other things:

[quote]After that, to tell you the honest truth, I don’t expect a great deal from Rome as it stands. They are too far gone in the “New Religion,” and the “New Religion” is too radically different and distant from the True Religion.[/quote]

What does Robert Sungenis think about this comment? Well, he tells us:

[quote]Bishop Williamson's comments about the state of the Church and what he calls the "New Religion" are quite correct. [/quote]

Robert Sungenis believes that Rome is "too far gone in" some "new religion". In other words, Rome is alienated from the "True Religion".

Compare this with the traditional understanding of the Roman Church, expressed by Pope Damasus:

[quote]The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior.... The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.[/quote]

EDITED: It's unclear from the site whether the endorsement of Williamson's thoughts are those of Sungenis, or the Remnant writer who conducted the interview. Either way, even if they aren't Sungenis's words, there is no disclaimer about them, and the fact that he posted them indicates he concurs.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Era Might

[goldenchild17]

[b]Question 74[/b]- Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part III?
Hi Robert. Thank you so much for your quick response. If you don't mind, I have a couple follow up questions:
Are you saying then, that a person has no recourse to Canon Law if the Pope wants to excommunicate them? What good is law if one cannot appeal to it? Cannot the Pope be wrong?

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Sure, the pope could be wrong. But unless someone can prove him wrong, and that would have to be in a canonical court, then we can't assume the pope is wrong. According to Vatican I, the pope's disciplinary decisions are the final word. Even a council cannot reverse them. Only another pope could reopen the case and reverse the decision. END

“These are some of the arguments from people that I found:
There was a case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate some followers of SSPX on 5/1/91 for supporting SSPX and attending their Masses, and receiving a bishop of the SSPX to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. It was overturned by Card. Ratzinger, on 6/28/93 in which he said "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington DC)”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: The issue here is whether an SSPX priest can confer the sacraments. The answer to that has already been given -- yes. The above issue is not dealing with the canonical status of the SSPX, or whether Archbishop Lefebvre was, indeed, excommunicated. END

“Fr. Gerald Murray of the Archdiocese of NY, working for his Canon Law doctorate, received his license in Canon Law from Gregorian University, Rome in 6/95 in a lengthy thesis entitled "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics? In an interview with Latin Mass Magazine said "I have received a license in canon law and I've studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis…They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are…I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He's guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act."”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Again, it doesn't really matter what Fr. Gerald Murray says. He is merely giving his pious opinion, but it holds no canonical weight. Unless the pope himself says that Lefebvre was not excommunicated and that the SSPX is not in schism, all the opinions in the world don't amount to a hill of beans. As it stands, Ecclesia Dei makes it quite clear where the pope stands, and it is not with Lefebvre and the SSPX. END

“Fr. Patrick Valdini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." This is something Lefebvre never did.”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Ditto here, but in addition, I personally think this is a bogus and illogical assertion in itself. I don't know of any distinction canon law makes between consecration of a bishop and giving him an apostolic mission. Lefevbre disobeyed the pope, and then the pope wrote Ecclesia Dei in response, and has never reversed it. Hair-splitting arguments such as the above only show the desperation of the other side. END

“Card Castillo Lara, Pres. Of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that "the act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act"” 10/7/88 LaRepubblica.

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Then I suggest Cardinal Castillo Lara explain that to the pope, and then ask him why he wrote Ecclesia Dei. END

“St. Bellarmine said "When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See."”
[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Again, to prove that a papal decision to excommunicate is "unjust" or "null," it must be proven in a canonical court. This is not a matter left up to the subjective judgment of every Tom, Johnsonville brat and Harry (or Robert) who has an opinion. END

“Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci regarding the Novus Ordo in its official Latin form wrote to Paul VI "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent." (9/25/69)”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Well, that depends on what one means by "striking departure." Evidently, Pope Paul VI did not take it to mean that the Novus Ordo was an invalid Mass, and thus he disagreed with Ottaviani and Bacci. That the Novus Ordo is quite different than the Tridentine mass is obvious, but whether it departs from the "theology of the Mass" from Session XXIII is another story altogether. I wrote a book on the Mass and the Eucharist. I had to investigate all of this. I can safely say that, although the Novus Ordo is a highly watered-down version of the Tridentine Mass, the theology of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist is still there, and the language that confects the Eucharist is still there, and that is all there really counts in this discussion. END

“Also I read that the excommunications are not incurred because:
1) A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 CCL, 1323) even if there is no state of necessity (the state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary good for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them).”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Well, if the "state of necessity" was based on the idea that the Novus Ordo mass was invalid and therefore Lefebvre needed to consecrate bishops who would celebrate the Tridentine, then his "necessity" is based on a subjective judgment that was already overruled by Paul VI. END

“2) (CCL, 1323, 7) says "if one inculpably thought there was (a necessity) he would not incur the penalty and (CCL, 1324, 3, 1, 8) if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties." "Necessity has no law" This can be a threat against his spiritual goods, his life, his freedom or other earthly goods.”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: True enough. Whether Lefebvre met those requirements has already been ruled on by Pope John Paul II. He said no, otherwise he would have retracted Ecclesia Dei by now, and the Vatican would have restored the SSPX to the Church. END

“Therefore, no penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321, 1; 1323, 7). Archbishop L made it clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Traditional Catholic priesthood, and even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Unfortunately, the pope didn't see it that way when he wrote Ecclesia Dei. Moreover, this is not something Lefebvre thought up on the spur of the moment. The idea of consecrating his own bishops had been brewing for many years, and it was his trump card against the pope. He had many years to think about what he was doing. And when he finally made his decision, unfortunately for him, the pope called his bluff. END

“Also, I read that no "authority" can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop L. (he had already waited a considerable time, and was quite ill) did what he felt he had to do to guarantee its preservation. It was his duty as a bishop. In his negotiations with the Holy See he was very aware that they were just waiting for him to die so they could stamp out SSPX, and along with it the Traditional Mass.”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Lefebvre was not gifted with the ability to read people's minds, so this argument will not stand. If he felt that going along with the pope was hurtful to his conscience, then Lefebvre could have easily resigned his office to save his conscience. END
“Please let me say here, I definitely respect the authority of the Pope, but I just don't get it…how the only people the Pope has declared excommunicated in his entire pontificate is Catholics who just want to adhere to the Traditions of the Church”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: No, it wasn't that simple. Lefebvre was holding his ground because he thought the whole Church had gone into absolute apostasy, and that he was going to save the Church from having to succumb to that demise. He was wrong. The Church, as weakened as it was after Vatican II, was not in absolute apostasy. The gates of hell have still not prevailed. END

“There are "Catholic" people all over openly living in mortal sin and attending communion, and resisting this and that dogma of the Church, and yet the only one "picked on" are these people. I could attending a moslem service, or Orthodox church, and it would be okay with the Vatican of today, but you are saying I would be excommunicated if I attend SSPX churches. I don't get it.”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: The Vatican, and the pope, will have to answer to God for the wrong decisions they have made. That is why the pope takes the papal oath. God will be especially severe upon him for his mistakes. But that doesn't give us an excuse to break the pope's mandates given to him by virtue of Jesus' issuance of the keys to Peter, and which was confirmed by Vatican I. When we stand before God, He is not going to ask us how well the pope did, but how well we did in obeying the pope when we were required to do so. That you can "get" very easily.
“Thanks for your time, Robert. Your considered study and opinions are valued.
Nancy
Ps. One last thing. How will we know when Pope JP2 dies and they chose another Pope if he is "validly" chosen. Are their things to look for?”

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: You assume the pope is a valid pope unless a legitimate magisterial and canonical authority proves the election was not valid.

Edited August 16, 2005 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[b]Question 76[/b]- Can We Receive Sacraments from the SSPX, Part IV?
I disagree with you. These people were being excommunicated by their bishop because they were involved in the SSPX parish. You said "it is wrong to go to the SSPX because the present pope said so in a formal and official juridical decision. The only allowance we have is that we could, in certain circumstances, receive the sacraments from an SSPX priest." These people weren't just receiving the sacraments, they were attending the church ("supporting", "attending their Masses", "receiving confirmation from SSPX"). And when they appealed to Rome they were found not guilty. And they didn't have any contact, it seems, with the Pope. They were in contact with Card. Ratzinger. So attending the SSPX chapels are not "formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism." How more clear could it be?

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: I didn't say they were "formal schismatics acts." Joining up with the SSPX is a schismatic act, however. Ratzinger didn't change that ruling.

[goldenchild17]

[b]Question 80[/b]- Why Did You Turn Traditional?
Hello Robert,

Wasn't there a time when you had an explanation of why you took a more Traditional approach to the faith? I'm investigating a number of items on my own and would be interested in reading what brought you to this decision is there's something that's already written up.

Pax,
Ernie Luther

[b]R. Sungenis[/b]: Ernie, actually, I and CAI have a traditional bent, but I would not say that we are full-fledged traditionalists. For example, we believe that Vatican II was a legitimate and productive council, but that its liberal faction highly distorted it teachings. We believe that the pope is the final authority on all faith, morals and disciplinary actions, and thus we are opposed to the SSPX. We believe that the Novus Ordo Mass, although a watered-down version of the Tridentine, is a valid mass and actually has some good points to it (use of the vernacular; responses from the people).

We are traditionalists in the sense that we hold to the traditional dogmas of the Church and will not compromise them with any modernist/liberal or neo-conservative view of things. Since much of the modern Church has more or less disdained these historic dogmas, we find ourselves at odds with them. And what makes us different than say, Catholic Answers, Scott Hahn, Envoy, or any number of other apologetic outfits is that we are not afraid to tell the truth about our own Church. We refuse to sweep things under the rug and pretend we are in a "springtime."

Accordingly, we also find ourselves at odds with many of the non-official opinions of the present pope, and actually consider him one of the worst popes in Catholic history, not only for his flirting with heresy (Assisi, Universal salvation, etc), but for his total lack of discipline in the Church. Because of his laxity, we have a Church that is rife with heretics and homosexuals, with no end in sight. The pope is supposed to "rule the nations with a rod of iron" (Apoc 12:5; John 21:16), but if anything John Paul II has let the nations rule him. We look forward to the time when God gives us a pope who takes his responsibilities much more seriously than John Paul II.

I hope that helps to understand me and CAI a little better.
_________

This post makes very clear his position. He seems to have a problem with JPII and what he did, but nowhere does he state that JPII was not a legitimate Pope. And he believes that the Church cannot err if faith or morals. He takes issue with certain things but never a doctrine of the Church. This is the comment that really needs to be dealt with as it clearly states his position.

Edited August 16, 2005 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:01 PM']EDITED: It's unclear from the site whether the endorsement of Williamson's thoughts are those of Sungenis, or the Remnant writer who conducted the interview. Either way, even if they aren't Sungenis's words, there is no disclaimer about them, and the fact that he posted them indicates he concurs.
[right][snapback]686761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's clear that he has a problem with things that have happened in the Church. Many people do. This has no bearing on his adherance to the Pope and the Church.

[Era Might]

Claiming that the Church of Rome is alienated from the true religion is a far cry from having "a problem with things that have happened in the Church".

Whether he is a schismatic or not, that he would post such drivel, whether it is his own or someone else's, warrants a boycott and a rebuke from the Catholic community.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Era Might

[goldenchild17]

You yourself stated that the statement was unclear as to authorship. I posted things that made his position very clear.

Many people think that the Catholic Church has strayed from much common accepted teachings. Just because these teachings are rampant in the Catholic Church does NOT mean that the Pope is not infallible. Such heresies have been rampant throughout all of time. Take Arianism for example. This heresy took over a great majority of Catholicism.

From the statements I posted we can know exactly what his position is. And that position is not conservative extremism.

[Era Might]

[quote]You yourself stated that the statement was unclear as to authorship. I posted things that made his position very clear. [/quote]

Like I said above, the fact that he would post it at all is disturbing, and indicates something seriously wrong with CAI.

As an aside, I've emailed him to ask him who exactly wrote it. I will let you know what his reply is.

[quote]Many people think that the Catholic Church has strayed from much common accepted teachings.[/quote]

Yes. They're called heretics and schismatics.

[quote]From the statements I posted we can know exactly what his position is. And that position is not conservative extremism.[/quote]

Extremism is not confined to unorthodox persons. Compare Robert Sungenis and his usual tripe with the rule of Gregory the Great and Leo XIII:

[quote]Among the prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone whom He placed in charge of His lambs and of His sheep. Let every one bear in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: "Subjects should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, lest, justly reproving what is wrong, they be led by pride into greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the superiors really have committed grievous sins, their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, ought not to refuse them respectful submission. The actions of superiors should not be smitten by the sword of the word, even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure.

--Encyclical Letter "Sapientiae Christianae"[/quote]

Says Robert Sungenis:

[quote]we also find ourselves at odds with many of the non-official opinions of the present pope, and actually consider him one of the worst popes in Catholic history, not only for his flirting with heresy (Assisi, Universal salvation, etc), but for his total lack of discipline in the Church.[/quote]

Without addressing the contents of his objections, he displays an amazing lack of prudence and humility. This isn't one isolated comment. He's constantly attacking the Holy Father and the Bishops.

Like I said above, he needs (and has gotten) a firm rebuke from the Catholic community.

His objections are typical Radical Traditionalist nonsense. Seriously, am I to take Robert Sungenis seriously over the Bishop of Rome? Sungenis wants to lecture a man who has studied theology for decades?

This is not to say everything the Pope does is impeccable or even infallible. But there is a degree of deference and humility that is expected of Catholics toward there Bishops, even if they are acting pastorally or not exercising the full authority of their magisterium.

Only God can judge the heart of Robert Sungenis. But until then, his antics must be exposed and opposed, because they do a grave disservice to the Church.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Era Might

[popestpiusx]

Golden,

Very nice summation! I'm with you on this (and I don't even care for much of what he says).

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Like I said above, the fact that he would post it at all is disturbing, and indicates something seriously wrong with CAI.

As an aside, I've emailed him to ask him who exactly wrote it. I will let you know what his reply is.[/quote]

Lemme know what he says. Although it doesn't seem to matter in regards to his position on the Church. He seems to be in full communion, not schismatic in any way.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Yes. They're called heretics and schismatics. [/quote]
Is a person perfect? Is everything that comes out of a Pope's mouth the word of God?

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Extremism is not confined to unorthodox persons. Compare Robert Sungenis and his usual tripe with the rule of Gregory the Great and Leo XIII:
Says Robert Sungenis:
Without addressing the contents of his objections, he displays an amazing lack of prudence and humility. This isn't one isolated comment. He's constantly attacking the Holy Father and the Bishops. [/quote]
He does seem to be pretty strict on a lot of the popes, which I think is a little harsh on his part. But I see nothing from him that makes him deserve the ultra-trad or rad-trad schismatic label.


[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Like I said above, he needs (and has gotten) a firm rebuke from the Catholic community. [/quote]
He has been unfairly completely stripped of all credentials he has as a Catholic apologist. This is not the same as having him tone down his criticisms of the various popes.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']His objections are typical Radical Traditionalist nonsense. [/quote]
Name one. I just went through his work and all his posts AGAINST schismatic sects such as SSPX. Show me one "rad trad" thing of his that is completely outside the realm of Catholicism.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Seriously, am I to take Robert Sungenis seriously over the Bishop of Rome?  Sungenis wants to lecture a man who has studied theology for decades? [/quote]
St. Catherine of Siena wants to lecture a man who has studied theology for decades? She did. She realized that popes are not perfect beings and they don't always do things the way they should. Now I am in no way comparing Sungenis to St. Catherine, but I use her as an example here.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']This is not to say everything the Pope does is impeccable or even infallible. But there is a degree of deference and humility that is expected of Catholics toward there Bishops, even if they are acting pastorally or not exercising the full authority of their magisterium. [/quote]
Yes we are to respect and defer to our Bishops as much as we can. This respect is due to them. I don't know if Sungenis lacks in this area or not, I am not to judge. But calling a pope out on wrong acts is not the same as rebuking his authority. Again I reference St. Catherine of Siena.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 16 2005, 02:33 PM']Only God can judge the heart of Robert Sungenis. But until then, his antics must be exposed and opposed, because they do a grave disservice to the Church.
[right][snapback]686793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Which antics? His tone in correcting what he believes are wrong actions, or his criticism of the wrong actions regardless of tone? If it's the latter then you need to substantiate this by showing which things he believes that are not in accord with Catholicism.

[Guest Eremite]

[QUOTE]He seems to be in full communion, not schismatic in any way[/QUOTE]

Just because someone is in "full communion" with the Church doesn't mean they're fine and dandy. Just because you're not a schismatic doesn't mean you're not an extremist.

[QUOTE]Is a person perfect? Is everything that comes out of a Pope's mouth the word of God?[/QUOTE]

No. Nevertheless, as Pope Leo XIII indicates as cited above, episcopal error should not be smitten with the sword of the word by laymen. We are the inferiors of Bishops.

[QUOTE]But I see nothing from him that makes him deserve the ultra-trad or rad-trad schismatic label.[/QUOTE]

One does not necessarily have to be a schismatic to be a Radical Traditionalist, although the two often go hand in hand.

[QUOTE]He has been unfairly completely stripped of all credentials he has as a Catholic apologist. This is not the same as having him tone down his criticisms of the various popes.[/QUOTE]

He has been justly cast out of the apologetics community. There were people who tried to reach out to him when he started going out on an edge. He went anyway.

[QUOTE]Show me one "rad trad" thing of his that is completely outside the realm of Catholicism.[/QUOTE]

As I said above, a rad trad doesn't necessarily (and usually doesn't) deny an article of faith, although there are exceptions. Rather, they are zealots. For example, here's the headline for a March 25th, 2004 piece posted by Sungenis on his website:

[QUOTE]John Paul II Continues the Cover Up of Fatima[/QUOTE]

What is the time tested proof of a zealot? They start seeing conspiracy theories. Anti-Semites think the Jews are taking over the world. Anti-Catholics think Catholics are taking over the world.

Robert Sungenis thinks John Paul II was involved in some dastardly "cover up" of Fatima. Back in 1909, St. Pius X addressed these kinds of Catholics:

[QUOTE]Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.

--Allocution of May 10[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]St. Catherine of Siena wants to lecture a man who has studied theology for decades? She did.[/QUOTE]

St. Catherine of Siena wrote to the Pope personally. She didn't pontificate to other Catholics. And her objections were to his personal actions, not to his teachings.

[QUOTE]But calling a pope out on wrong acts is not the same as rebuking his authority. Again I reference St. Catherine of Siena.[/QUOTE]

If Sungenis wants to write to the Pope, he is free to do so. So long as he excites belligerence toward the Bishops and the Holy Father in public, he will continue to be opposed. Furthermore, his criticisms against John Paul II go beyond his personal moral actions. He accuses him of tip toeing with heresy. Is it possible for a Pope to tip toe with heresy? Sure. But who is Robert Sungenis to lecture others on heresy? Sungenis has shown no evidence of a nuanced or balanced grasp of Catholic theology. He has proven himself to be a zealot. He has no credibility. Credibility must be earned.

[QUOTE]His tone in correcting what he believes are wrong actions, or his criticism of the wrong actions regardless of tone?[/QUOTE]

Again, who gave him this authority to "correct" wrong actions? Pope Leo XIII specifically says the Bishops should not be smitten by the sword of the word by lay people. There is room for constructive dialogue among Catholics. But it can only go so far, or it ceases to be constructive, as John Paul II notes in "Redemptor Hominis".

[QUOTE]you need to substantiate this by showing which things he believes that are not in accord with Catholicism.[/QUOTE]

I have not accused him of denying any point of the Catholic faith, or being a formal schismatic. I have accused him of being a polemical extremist who Catholics should avoid like the plague.

EDIT: oops. I signed into the wrong account. Also, I don't know why the quote tags aren't working. I double checked them. Sorry about that.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']
Just because someone is in "full communion" with the Church doesn't mean they're fine and dandy. Just because you're not a schismatic doesn't mean you're not an extremist. [/quote]
Again. Prove he was extreme in his beliefs. His tone was maybe extreme. That doesn't mean his beliefs are.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']No. Nevertheless, as Pope Leo XIII indicates as cited above, episcopal error should not be smitten with the sword of the word by laymen. We are the inferiors of Bishops. [/quote]
Just because he goes about it the wrong way, doesn't mean his concerns aren't valid and it certainly doesn't mean that he has rejected the Pope in any way.


[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']One does not necessarily have to be a schismatic to be a Radical Traditionalist, although the two often go hand in hand. [/quote]
Okay. Prove he's either.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']He has been justly cast out of the apologetics community. There were people who tried to reach out to him when he started going out on an edge. He went anyway. [/quote]
What edge? You are not proving anything except going with what the mass tells you it seems.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']As I said above, a rad trad doesn't necessarily (and usually doesn't) deny an article of faith, although there are exceptions. Rather, they are zealots. For example, here's the headline for a March 25th, 2004 piece posted by Sungenis on his website:
What is the time tested proof of a zealot? They start seeing conspiracy theories. Anti-Semites think the Jews are taking over the world. Anti-Catholics think Catholics are taking over the world. [/quote]
And good and faithful Catholics realize that Satan is trying to take over the Church by any means possible. This thing about Fatima is something that many Catholics believe. What makes them unfaithful to the pope in any matter here? Is this an infallible matter of faith and morals?

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']Robert Sungenis thinks John Paul II was involved in some dastardly "cover up" of Fatima. Back in 1909, St. Pius X addressed these kinds of Catholics: [/quote]
I don't see how this addresses his actions in any way. Many good and faithful Catholics have had questions about many papal actions. St. Francis himself predicted the the corruption of the Church. He certainly believed in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']St. Catherine of Siena wrote to the Pope personally. She didn't pontificate to other Catholics. And her objections were to his personal actions, not to his teachings.
If Sungenis wants to write to the Pope, he is free to do so. [/quote]
So? Again, I think I concur that he is going about it in the wrong direction. But it doesn't make his concerns a case for extremism.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']So long as he excites belligerence toward the Bishops and the Holy Father in public, he will continue to be opposed. Furthermore, his criticisms against John Paul II go beyond his personal moral actions. He accuses him of tip toeing with heresy. Is it possible for a Pope to tip toe with heresy? [/quote]
Why not? Has he publicly declared heresy?

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']Sure. But who is Robert Sungenis to lecture others on heresy? Sungenis has shown no evidence of a nuanced or balanced grasp of Catholic theology. [/quote]
Why not? It seems of all Catholic apologists he has one of the best grasps of how to defend Catholicism of any I've seen.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']He has proven himself to be a zealot. He has no credibility. Credibility must be earned. [/quote]
And he earned it. It was taken away without any reason. You still haven't provided adaquate reason.


[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']Again, who gave him this authority to "correct" wrong actions? Pope Leo XIII specifically says the Bishops should not be smitten by the sword of the word by lay people. There is room for constructive dialogue among Catholics. But it can only go so far, or it ceases to be constructive, as John Paul II notes in "Redemptor Hominis". [/quote]
And again I probably concur that he may go too far. He probably is not helping Catholicism by pushing things as far as he does. But that doesn't make him an extremist. His personal bold personality doesn't make him over the edge in any area other than being maybe a bit too outspoken. Being outspoken on what a person should do is maybe wrong, but it's certainly not a case for being labeled extremist in beliefs.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']I have not accused him of denying any point of the Catholic faith, or being a formal schismatic. I have accused him of being a polemical extremist who Catholics should avoid like the plague. [/quote]
So you call him an extremist in argumentation? That is certainly not the same thing as an extremist in Catholicism or her teachings.


[quote name='Eremite' date='Aug 17 2005, 09:18 AM']EDIT: oops. I signed into the wrong account. Also, I don't know why the quote tags aren't working. I double checked them. Sorry about that.
[right][snapback]687610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's fine.

[Era Might]

[quote]That doesn't mean his beliefs are.[/quote]

Believing that the Pope is involved in a cover-up of Fatima is extreme. Pushing geocentrism as a part of your apologetics apostolate is extreme. Saying things like "among the major forces in the assent of the New World Order are the Jews, Judaism and the land of Israel", as he does on his website, is just plain weird.

Sungenis is constantly attacking other Catholic figures who have proven their credibility. I say this not to suggest that Catholic figures cannot disagree or discuss differences. But when a man with no credibility is constantly attacking people with credibility, it tends to confirm that his lack of credibility is justified.

[quote]Okay. Prove he's either.[/quote]

Sungenis is a self-professed "Traditionalist". So the only thing which would need to be proven is whether or not he is "Radical". I have already presented more than one instance of his nonsense. His thoughts are typical traditionalist tripe regurgitated. Rants against Assisi. Rants against Bishops. Rants against the reformed rite of Mass. Rants against other Catholics. Rants against this and that Encyclical or this and that allocution. Charges of ambiguity. Et cetera, et cetera.

What's even more disturbing is his "interest" in Jews and Israel, something that affects not a few "Traditionalists".

[quote]You are not proving anything except going with what the mass tells you it seems.[/quote]

I have already provided more than one example.

I. Shawn McIlhenny, a frequent critic of Sungenis and CAI, sums up one of the problems with Sungenis and his fundamentalist approach to Catholic theology:

[quote]"The main problem with Bob is that he has been involved with apologetics, viz-a-viz Protestants and liberal "catholics" and thinks that it is the same thing as theology. In apologetics, you prove someone is doctrinally in error (his denial of Eucharist, Papacy, etc). Theology is different. It is much more than simply calling one a heretic. Though there are many theologians out there who object and question the teachings of the Church, a theologian can also speculate on the doctrines of the Church. Sungenis has the mentality that he has to show magisterial documents in order to prove someone to be doctrinally wrong since he does this with liberals. But when it comes to people whom we know is orthodox (Hahn), we have to look carefully in his writings. To simply call his writings heretical or questionable orthodoxy is ignorant of how theology works. When someone proves Hahn's theories are wrong, he doesn't prove that he is doctrinally in error, but only theologically in error; his explanation or speculation of a certain doctrine is wrong."[/quote]

[quote]I don't see how this addresses his actions in any way. [/quote]

You don't see something wrong with accusing the Roman Pontiff of participating in a cover up of a private revelation which he has proved more than once he firmly believes in? He can make all the accusations he wants. It all goes back to credibility. John Paul II has it. He doesn't.

Why does Sungenis foam at the mouth about Fatima? Is it just a coincidence that Radical Traditionalist mouthpieces the world over do the same thing? Show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are...

[quote]Again, I think I concur that he is going about it in the wrong direction. But it doesn't make his concerns a case for extremism.[/quote]

He has already entered extremism. Hopefully, he does not find his way to schism or sedevacantism, as many self-proclaimed "Traditionalists" inevitably do.

[quote]Why not? Has he publicly declared heresy?[/quote]

Sungenis or the Pope?

[quote]And he earned it. It was taken away without any reason. You still haven't provided adaquate reason.[/quote]

His constant attacks against the Pope and the Bishops alone merit a boycott. As I have already shown, his problems are not limited there.

[quote]Being outspoken on what a person should do is maybe wrong, but it's certainly not a case for being labeled extremist in beliefs.[/quote]

There's a difference between a bit of imprudent zeal, and being a zealot. Concocting conspiracy theories against the Pope, fulminating against orthodox Catholic thinkers, consorting with Radical Traditionalists and posting tripe against Judaism indicate a zealot.

The problem with Sungenis is not with what he denies (although he does have some dubious thoughts on the immutability of God). His problem is what he promotes. He's just another self-proclaimed "Traditionalist" with a keyboard. He has consistently shot himself in the foot, and has alienated himself from the Catholic community.

If he has problems with things in the Church, perhaps he needs to stop teaching others, and retire so he can teach himself. Nobody said he has to be an apologist. Everyone has troubles with the faith sometimes. Not everyone is a public persona.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Believing that the Pope is involved in a cover-up of Fatima is extreme. [/quote][/QUOTE]
Why? Popes over the years have done very secretive things.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Pushing geocentrism as a part of your apologetics apostolate is extreme. [/quote]
Doesn't matter. It's a part of science and one is free to believe it if one wishes. This cannot be held against him.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Saying things like "among the major forces in the assent of the New World Order are the Jews, Judaism and the land of Israel", as he does on his website, is just plain weird. [/quote]
First of all, wierd does not equal wrong or extremism. Second of all, substantiate this with an actual quote and a link.


[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Sungenis is constantly attacking other Catholic figures who have proven their credibility. [/quote]
Such as? With quotes and link please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']I say this not to suggest that Catholic figures cannot disagree or discuss differences. But when a man with no credibility is constantly attacking people with credibility, it tends to confirm that his lack of credibility is justified. [/quote]

You assume he doesn't deserve credibility. Logic doesn't follow until you prove he doesn't deserve credibility. This is circular reasoning.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Sungenis is a self-professed "Traditionalist". [/quote]
As are many well-meaning Catholics. What's that supposed to mean?

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']So the only thing which would need to be proven is whether or not he is "Radical". [/quote]
So do this please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']I have already presented more than one instance of his nonsense. [/quote]
Yet not one instance of radicalism. Nonsense, maybe, radical no.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']His thoughts are typical traditionalist tripe regurgitated. [/quote]
Actually he does very well in answering the radical claims, never claiming them as his own.

And yeah he definitely is traditional. Prove there is anything wrong with that.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Rants against Assisi. [/quote]
quote and link please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Rants against Bishops. [/quote]
Maybe yeah. Quote and link please. Besides his attitude which could be considered over the top. Explain why he is extreme rad-trad in his beliefs.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Rants against the reformed rite of Mass. [/quote]
Quote and link showing he was ranting. Many people have a problem with the Novus Ordo. Doesn't mean they are against the Church.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Rants against other Catholics. [/quote]
sigh... quote and link again please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Rants against this and that Encyclical or this and that allocution. [/quote]
quotes and links again please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Charges of ambiguity. Et cetera, et cetera. [/quote]
I think I know what you are referring to. Quote and link, and show how this is wrong.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']What's even more disturbing is his "interest" in Jews and Israel, something that affects not a few "Traditionalists". [/quote]
Prove that "Traditionalists" are bad. Traditional is not a bad thing. Extreme Radical Traditionalism maybe yeah.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']I have already provided more than one example. [/quote]
More than one claim maybe. No sources and no proof that these things are bad.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']I. Shawn McIlhenny, a frequent critic of Sungenis and CAI, sums up one of the problems with Sungenis and his fundamentalist approach to Catholic theology: [/quote]
So? Explain it please.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']You don't see something wrong with accusing the Roman Pontiff of participating in a cover up of a private revelation which he has proved more than once he firmly believes in? [/quote]
It's not a matter of faith and morals. No Pope has declared it infallibly. So he is free to speculate and many people would claim that there is good reason to in this case. Again, popes have engaged in secret, ambigous actions.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']He can make all the accusations he wants. It all goes back to credibility. John Paul II has it. He doesn't. [/quote]
Again you claim it, but provide nothing substantial to prove he doesn't deserve it.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Why does Sungenis foam at the mouth about Fatima? [/quote]
Maybe because he thinks there is some wrong being done there. Prove he is wrong.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] Is it just a coincidence that Radical Traditionalist mouthpieces the world over do the same thing? [/quote]
Traditionalist or Radical Traditionalist. You need to provide this. Second of all, if Trads see something wrong then what's the big deal? Every pope is a saint so they can't do anything wrong?

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] Show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are... [/quote]

wha??

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] He has already entered extremism. [/quote]
Again you claim it. Now prove it.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Hopefully, he does not find his way to schism or sedevacantism, as many self-proclaimed "Traditionalists" inevitably do. [/quote]
Hopefully not. Seeing as how he has debunked many schismatic claims on his site, we know he isn't there yet.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Sungenis or the Pope? [/quote]
The Pope in all matters of infallible faith and morals and in anything that he is doing right.


[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']His constant attacks against the Pope and the Bishops alone merit a boycott. [/quote]
He loses credibility for his attitude? Not a good enough reason.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']As I have already shown, his problems are not limited there. [/quote]
You have said. You have not shown anything that makes him extremist. And even less you have not provided any documentation of his that proves this.


[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']There's a difference between a bit of imprudent zeal, and being a zealot. [/quote]
Yes there is.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Concocting conspiracy theories against the Pope, [/quote]
It isn't wrong to think there is such things going on.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']fulminating against orthodox Catholic thinkers, [/quote]
Yet again, quote and link.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']consorting with Radical Traditionalists [/quote]
quote and link.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']and posting tripe against Judaism indicate a zealot. [/quote]
Quote and link.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']The problem with Sungenis is not with what he denies (although he does have some dubious thoughts on the immutability of God). [/quote]
quote and link.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] His problem is what he promotes. [/quote]
What's wrong in what he promotes? Maybe in the way he promotes it. But nothing he promotes is against Catholicism.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] He's just another self-proclaimed "Traditionalist" with a keyboard. [/quote]
What's wrong with a Traditionalist?

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM'] He has consistently shot himself in the foot, and has alienated himself from the Catholic community. [/quote]
From those who are biased against Traditionalism maybe...

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']If he has problems with things in the Church, perhaps he needs to stop teaching others, and retire so he can teach himself. [/quote]
Why? If he thinks he knows things that others should know then he has the right to enlighten others. Nothing he teaches even attempts to prove or question any Catholic doctrine wrong.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 12:44 PM']Nobody said he has to be an apologist. Everyone has troubles with the faith sometimes. Not everyone is a public persona.
[right][snapback]687801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Who says he's having problems with faith? Who's to judge him? Maybe he sees things that others don't see. What proof do you have that his faith is weak?

Edited August 17, 2005 by goldenchild17