Robert Sungenis

[Era Might]

(Reposted below, to make up for the defunct quote tags. I bolded quotes instead.)

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[b]Why? Popes over the years have done very secretive things.[/b]

Sure. Maybe John Paul II was a secret mason. Maybe he tortured furry animals while vacationing in Castel Gandalfo. Anything's possible.

But we know better. Accusing the Roman Pontiff of a conspiracy theory, when such a theory is so ludicrously at odds with the character of the man, is stupid. Period.

[b]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.[/b]

It sure can be held against him.

Now, if he had a separate organization that had nothing to do with Catholicism, and he advanced kooky ideas about the earth being flat or the world being geocentric, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

But he pushes his "scientific" ideas side by side with his apologetical work. And he makes himself a laughing stock in the meantime. And, by extension, he makes the Church a laughing stock.

[b]First of all, wierd does not equal wrong or extremism. Second of all, substantiate this with an actual quote and a link.[/b]

It's weird and it's extreme.

[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholiciss...esis-jewish.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholiciss...esis-jewish.htm[/url]

How many level headed people have you seen spouting stuff about the "new world order" and the "major force" of the "Jews" in that order?

[b]Such as? With quotes and link please.[/b]

Here's a sampling:

"[Karl] Keating has indeed fashioned his own gospel, putting the cart of ecumenism before the horse of evangelism. The only one who is 'ignorant' here is Keating, and I can assure you it is not 'invincible.'" (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/keatings-gospel.htm)

"Mr. Donovan's [of EWTN] opinion is, for all intents and purposes, quite opposed to the magisterium's official teaching, as we will see below. Unfortunately, the way Mr. Donovan does Catholic apologetics these days is to wet his finger and stick it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing." (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/donovan-veils.htm)

"John Paul II has an uncanny way of making it appear he is not violating the faith (e.g., positing that a wall of separation between himself and the pagans during prayer is sufficient to offset accusations of syncretism), and he has an uncanny way of coming so close to making what appears to be heretical statements without actually declaring a formal heresy (e.g., his views on universal salvation and that hell could be empty) that I often wonder with whom, precisely, are we dealing." (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/discussion-sede1.htm)

"This is the duplicitous world that apologists such as Mr. Staples find themselves in today. But like the ostrich, they stick their heads in the sand and just pretend these anomalies aren't happening. Fortunately, there are a few of us who, in our conversions to the Catholic faith, haven't become pope idolizers like Mr. Staples, but have the guts to call a spade a spade when we see it." (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/staples1.htm)

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

I have already explained, at length, why he has no credibility.

[b]Yet not one instance of radicalism. Nonsense, maybe, radical no.[/b]

Well, we have a disagreement in what it means to be a radical. I believe that advancing loony scientific theories along with the Catholic faith, accusing the Pope and Bishops of a conspiracy theory, accusing as great a Pope as John Paul II of constantly flirting with heresy, constantly attacking Catholics with credibility, making stupid statements about Jews and Judaism, and generally casting your lot with other proven radicals, makes one a radical. The Catholic apologetics community agrees, thankfully, and has acted appropriately.

[b]Explain why he is extreme rad-trad in his beliefs.[/b]

You'll have to define what you men by "rad-trad", because you seem to be equating it with schism and heresy. I don't.

[b]quote and link please.[/b]

"Assisi is an unprecedented and completely novel act in the history of the Catholic Church, and it is an abomination in the sight of God." (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/pacheco-assisi-dialog-11.htm)

[b]Quote and link showing he was ranting.[/b]

"The Novus Ordo is a watered down, Protestantized, sacrifice-minimizing, and ecumaniac service that seems to have forgotten the real purpose of the Mass." (http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/june04QA.htm)

Compare this with the balanced thoughts of then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

"If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain Liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and that there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy" ("The Ratzinger Report", pgs 124-125)

Sungenis's bile cited above make no distinction between abuses in the Reformed rite and the Reformed rite itself, which Ratzinger is clear to note must be affirmed in itself.

[b]quotes and links again please.[/b]

"Yet it seems amply clear that John Paul [in his Encyclical "Redemptor Hominis"] goes way beyond Vatican II, saying that we should also pray in common with the non-Christian religions, and it is assumed that the "due differences" in how we approach "separated brethren" and "non-Christians" does not refer to "prayer in common." (http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/april04QA.htm)

"It appears from his writings and teachings, however, that John Paul II has gone sufficiently beyond both Scripture and conciliar teaching to warrant our sincere concern about his basic understanding of how salvation is procured and to whom it is given. ...The pope's liberal views of salvation are the very reason, for example, that without any specific mandate from Vatican II, he believes he can call a voodoo witch doctor to Assisi to ask him to pray for world peace; and has no qualms about sending the witch doctor home without saying a word concerning his need to convert to Christ, as well as not feeling any compulsion to speak of this need for the entire 16 years beginning from the 1986 Assisi when he first encountered the witch doctor." (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/when-pope-errs2.htm)

[b]I think I know what you are referring to. Quote and link, and show how this is wrong.[/b]

Just one example:

"Unfortunately, some of this thinking is due to the ambiguous and misleading statements in Mulieris Dignitatem." (http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering008.htm)

The charge of ambiguity is common among traditionalists not because the teaching of the Church is actually ambiguous (you can read ambiguity into any document of the Church, past or present), but because they don't like what it says. They have itching ears. Rather than trying to understand why exactly the Church may just have a fuller understanding of things than they do, they resort to fundamentalism and accuse the Church of not grasping things fully.

[b]Traditionalist or Radical Traditionalist. You need to provide this. [/b]

I don't care what you call him. He's an extremist. The only reason I call him a "Traditionalist" is because that's how he defines himself. I don't like the label myself, because there is nothing "traditional" about the nonsense he promotes.

[b]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?[/b]

What proof do I see? The man is constantly lecturing THE BISHOP OF ROME on theological matters. Maybe Bob Sungenis, the geocentrist conspiracy theory zionist obsessed zealot is in a position to lecture the Pope. Maybe, too, the moon really is made of coagulated milk.

Look, believe whatever you want about Robert Sungenis. He has brought outcast on himself, and until he stops spouting nonsense, he will be opposed as persona non grata, as St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to do for wayward brothers.

You keep reducing sanity to believing all the dogmas of the Church. Extremism goes beyond heresy or schism. This'll be my last post, as I've said all I can say on this topic. I'll leave you once more with the allocution of St. Pius X about Catholics who claim to love the Church and are constantly attacking her, ala Robert Sungenis:

[b]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.[/b]

PS: Sungenis has not yet replied to my email. I will post his answer when he does.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[goldenchild17]

hehe, I must've forgotten about this. If you're still up to it I've got more to say about this.