BOb Sungenis, Jimmy Akin, and two articles

  • Thread starter Thread starter marineboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marineboy

Guest
Has anyone read Bon Sungenis’ rebuttals of Jimmy Akin’s two articles-one on “head coverings” and the other on the creation story --jimmy claims that head coverings are no longer necessary for women in Church and Sungenis rebuts it (or attempts too) and Akin alledgedly claims that the Catholic church has adopted or will adopt an official position that the creation account is symbolic and not literal—does anyone know if Akin has responded back in public on these articles–Sungenis really seems to take him to task.–also I would be interested in your comments on these articles—they can be found on Catholicapologeticsinternational.com
 
About the head coverings, I’d rather hear a canon lawyer on the issue before I decide what I think, if anything, of the merits of the two arguments. However, when Mr. Sungenis makes this argument
As we will see, “revised liturgical documents” do not have to contain the matter of head coverings in order for it to be upheld or practiced. Unless there is a specific provision doing away with the practice, arguments cannot be drawn from silence. If that were not the case, then every time an official statement came from the Vatican, if it did not cover every single article of the faith and of practice, we would not be required to abide by them.
Click to expand...
it does not seem to directly address what Mr. Akin said in the previous paragraph. If the reason it was a law to wear headcoverings is the old canon law, and it has been abrogated, then it is no longer a law to wear them. Mr. Akin’s argument is no argument from silence, the old canon law was abrogated. However, if there are other places the law is stated with separate force from canon law, then it is not abrogated.

Then there are arguments about custom. No one is stopping anyone from wearing a mantilla. It is not clear to me if Mr. Sungenis means that the custom is a law because the people planned for it to be a law or if it is so because St. Paul make it a law and no one abrogated it.

I would rather see Mr. Sungenis’ argument in linear fashion, and not spliced into Mr. Akin’s. I might better understand his ultimate basis of why it is a law, and not just a custom.

I hope someone has something enlightening to say about this.
 
well i think you may have missed sungenis’s argument–he claims that the new ode could not have abergated this law becaue the custom was well over 100 years. and the new law didnt specifically outlaw this law but made a general statment about the old code.
 
40.png
marineboy:
well i think you may have missed sungenis’s argument
Click to expand...
I feared that was so, which is why I wished it were more linear.

It seems that the mantilla is an old custom. It does not seem that a new CIC makes it so that we suddenly must stop doing old customs. But does the custom have the force of law or is it just a custom? Not all customs seem to be such that they must be observed by law or rule. Was it a custom that, as a custom, had the force of law?

I guess I mean, before 1917, was it a custom that one had to follow by law or that one followed by convention?
 
I think Sungenis would definitley say it had the force of law. Certainly by the old code of canon law and by saint paul’s writing in holy scripture. I just wish JImmy Akin would come out in public and adress some of these claims. It would help–or call Sungenis up and discuss the matter and tape the conversation and make it available to all to hear.
 
I poked around a bit, and this site has a short post on the topic of headcoverings here. It seems to be on Mr. Akin’s side of the discussion. It references a document which seems to talk about the 1cor reference, but it doesn’t say much about it.
 
that is a good point I would like to see Sungenis’s response to that.
 
One poster said the Vatican is considering saying the creation account is symbolic? huh? What exactly does this imply? That God didn’t personally create Adam and place a soul within him and that were not really created in the image of God? If creation is not a literal fact, then that would simply widen the doors for the false teaching of evolution to spread more than it already has.
 
There is an under current of personal resentment between Sungenis, Keating and Atkins. At one time Bob Sungenis was on the EWTN television program for Catholics. EWTN fired Sungenis because of certain things he believed that didn’t agree with them. So there is a riff between the three and it is personal. The resentment is more on Sungenis’ part. I think.James Atkins is a newcomer, a article writer for the magazine “The Rock”, which is a great magazine. If you will notice Bob Sungenis has never been asked to put and article in the magazine and Sungenis is a very able writer. His books, By Faith Alone, By Scripture alone and By Bread alone clearly prove that. I think it is truly unchristian and unfair Sungenis has been blackballed as he has.
 
hey glabtobe no one said what you said about the creation account—read the postmore clearly–what was said was that SUngenis allegedes, on his website, that Akin(its akin not atkins–atkins is the late diet doctor) that akin states that the Church has moved away from the literal account of Genesis and has or probably will clarify this position clearly in the future–you ca look at Sungenis’s site for the exact wording–Sungenis claims that the Church has not done this and he holds to a literal 24 hour day account of genesis–
 
Whatever. Sungesis and Akins disagree. Has the church held to a 24 hr 6 day creation or not? That is the question. Is Sungenis right? I think to say the that the creation days were great lengths of time would cause problems. Adam would have never lived past the sixth day and plant life would have died out before the sun was put in place the next day. So I go with Sungenis on this one. But just what is the church’s present stand on this?
 
40.png
gladtobe:
James Atkins is a newcomer, a article writer for the magazine “The Rock”, which is a great magazine. If you will notice Bob Sungenis has never been asked to put and article in the magazine and Sungenis is a very able writer. . . I think it is truly unchristian and unfair Sungenis has been blackballed as he has.
Click to expand...
While it is true that Bob Sungenis has not been invited to write for “This Rock,” it also is true that the large majority of Catholics who have written elsewhere have not been invited to write for it–which means his not being invited doesn’t indicate much. (We have not invited Cardinal Ratzinger or Andrew Greeley either.)

Sungenis has not been blackballed, but over the last few years he has marginalized himself by pushing quixotic positions (such as geocentrism) and by sloppy argumentation (such as using as supports for one of his stances some quotations from Nazi propagandists).
 
Even I haven’t been invited to write for This Rock, so Bob, the good Cardinal, and Mr. Greeley are in good company. 😉
Karl Keating:
While it is true that Bob Sungenis has not been invited to write for “This Rock,” it also is true that the large majority of Catholics who have written elsewhere have not been invited to write for it–which means his not being invited doesn’t indicate much. (We have not invited Cardinal Ratzinger or Andrew Greeley either.)

Sungenis has not been blackballed, but over the last few years he has marginalized himself by pushing quixotic positions (such as geocentrism) and by sloppy argumentation (such as using as supports for one of his stances some quotations from Nazi propagandists).
Click to expand...
 
Karl Keating said:
“such as using as supports for one of his stances some quotations from Nazi propagandists”
Click to expand...

What!!! That is low. If you are going to associate him with the Nazi’s, would you please support your claim.
 
hey karl can u please give a clarification on the headcovering position please–it would also be great if u or jmmy akin could respond directly to sungenis’s arguments–(his rebutal of akin’s article on head coverings)
 
What!!! That is low. If you are going to associate him with the Nazi’s, would you please support your claim.

Response:
Steve, if you actually read what Keating said, he simply said that Sungenis used nazi propagandists as a source. No one doubts this, not even Sungenis himself.

And as for the latest theological incorrect thing Sungenis did, go to:

lidless-eye.blogspot.com

where I refuted his interpretation of Aquinas. I submitted that to him and he never responded back. And trust me, Sungenis tries to answers everything he gets. For some reason, he doesn’t answer that one.
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
What!!! That is low. If you are going to associate him with the Nazi’s, would you please support your claim.
Click to expand...
Here ya go:

catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1900

If you don’t have an account, sign-up is free. Sungenis’s website has a red (DANGER) rating regarding fidelity. Long ago I wrote many websites and got his links dropped when people found out that he’d gone rad-trad and beyond. He no longer has credibility as far as I am concerned and would have a long way to go to rebuild any.:nope:
 
40.png
DeFide:
He no longer has credibility as far as I am concerned and would have a long way to go to rebuild any.
Click to expand...
Who does have credibility, in your opinion? All of the lay-“apologists” seem to have dirt on each other and they generously proclaim it; bickering and muck-raking is their only relationship with each other. Does that sound like apologetics to you? I’m to the point where I can only feel safe trusting those popular apologists who have nothing to gain (monetarily) from their work, such as, Fs. Pacwa, Groeschel, and Corapi.
 
40.png
Stevereeno:
Who does have credibility, in your opinion? All of the lay-“apologists” seem to have dirt on each other and they generously proclaim it; bickering and muck-raking is their only relationship with each other. Does that sound like apologetics to you? I’m to the point where I can only feel safe trusting those popular apologists who have nothing to gain (monetarily) from their work, such as, Fs. Pacwa, Groeschel, and Corapi.
Click to expand...
That has not been my experience. I’m sorry to hear that it’s been yours. Can you be specific on who has been unfairly “muck-raking”? Give names and statements.
 
I would really like it if AKin Keating would respond to Sungenis’s arguments about the literal account of Genesis and the head coverings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top