Sungenis Apologetics

[Jedi_Master]

Sacramentalist:

Not able to name one modern authority, huh?

That’s what I thought.

not able to give us the official document rescinding the teaching-huh? i guess the citations of Canon law are not enough either? I guess St. Paul in Holy Scripture is not enough for you either? Great arguments on your part! Very convincing.

 

[Sacramentalist]

Jedi Master:

not able to give us the official document rescinding the teaching-huh? i guess the citations of Canon law are not enough either? I guess St. Paul in Holy Scripture is not enough for you either? Great arguments on your part! Very convincing.

Protestants are able to produce a number of Scripture passages which they think they support their doctrines.

“Traditionalist” sects throughout the centuries appealed to the Fathers in the same way.

And now we got some pot-head apologist claiming to now have the true interpretation of canon law, and can find no modern authority, not a single one, to verify it. Puhleeze.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Sacramentalist:

Protestants are able to produce a number of Scripture passages which they think they support their doctrines.

“Traditionalist” sects throughout the centuries appealed to the Fathers in the same way.

And now we got some pot-head apologist claiming to now have the true interpretation of canon law, and can find no modern authority, not a single one, to verify it. Puhleeze.

…
still waiting for an intelligent argument.
you have not refuted one argument or citation challenger or I have given.
Maybe you can give me a Bishop or Pope’s document that explains why and how this teaching was rescinded. Because you have failed, sir. You have not dealt with any of the arguments that were given to you.

 

[challenger]

Yo, if we’re only interested in “modern authorities,” then we need to dump Scripture, the Church Fathers, and medieval theologians like Aquinas.

Sounds like Protestantism on the last two…

 

[Sacramentalist]

Jedi Master:

…
still waiting for an intelligent argument.
you have not refuted one argument or citation challenger or I have given.
Maybe you can give me a Bishop or Pope’s document that explains why and how this teaching was rescinded. Because you have failed, sir. You have not dealt with any of the arguments that were given to you.

The Fathers of the Church advised Catholics not to bother debating Scripture with heretics, since they (the heretics) have no right to use what isn’t theirs.

The same principle applies to crack-pot rad-trads. I got better things to do with my life, thank you very much.

 

[MrS]

Sacramentalist:

The Fathers of the Church advised Catholics not to bother debating Scripture with heretics, since they (the heretics) have no right to use what isn’t theirs.

The same principle applies to crack-pot rad-trads. I got better things to do with my life, thank you very much.

I think if you made these kind of comments about an apologist at CA you might have been banned.

Are you trying to exibit an appalling lack of charity, of common sense, and of education with your comments, or has someone upset you so much that you need to vent? If the later, your vent is giving off hot air. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_1_9.gif

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

It seems we’ve begun to squabble the way Sungenis, Matatics, and Mr. Keating do. As Al Gore would say “There’s no need to get snippy…” The fact is Scripture is, along with Tradition, our Authority. Tradition, through the Magisterium, help us interpret Scripture. For Catholics, there is NO Private Interpretation. We have to trust in Christ when he gave Peter his commission: “Upon This Rock I Shall build my Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against her. Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and Whatever you Loosed on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Church has “loosed” the requirement of the veil, similarly to requirement of Abstaining from Meat of all Fridays. They are encouraged, but no longer required. This makes the acts more meritorious. I personally, would love to marry a girl who would wear the veil to Mass, but I could not force it upon her. It is an act of humility for the Love of God.

Fundamentalist Catholics want the Church to conform to their interpretation of Tradition rather than the Church’s. This quite, frankly, is Schismatic, if not out right Heresy. If one is a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; he/she must be willing to submit to her teachings. Otherwise it is Heterodoxy, not Orthodoxy.

 

[Windmill]

jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

Interesting read.

I have no problem with people wearing or not wearing a veil. I do have a certain admiration for those who choose to wear them because I know they probably get mean stares from others. All the power to them. Modesty and humility are lost arts that this world can’t appreciate.

I think that many women have sold out to the fashion “gurus” that peddle all of the skimpy, skin-tight, immodest garbs out there. What they really want is love, but they mistake men’s wandering eyes and lustful stares as innocent attention. Well, it isn’t.

These clothing designers know exactly what they are doing. They are exploiting the inner wiring of men and creating garments that reveal things in a woman’s physique that are created, by God, to get a man’s engine revving. However, that “man” is supposed to be the husband. Why? Because where else is it completely natural to have that eros? Where else is it completely fine to follow through with what you’ve initiated by wearing such clothes? In marriage. To incite these things with revealing clothing is selfish, egotistical, and un-Christian because it dangles a carrot infront of a guy when he knows it isn’t right to grab for it. We are our brothers’ keepers, and I can’t understand why women insist on wearing revealing clothing?

Why?

 

[Jedi_Master]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

It seems we’ve begun to squabble the way Sungenis, Matatics, and Mr. Keating do. As Al Gore would say “There’s no need to get snippy…” The fact is Scripture is, along with Tradition, our Authority. Tradition, through the Magisterium, help us interpret Scripture. For Catholics, there is NO Private Interpretation. We have to trust in Christ when he gave Peter his commission: “Upon This Rock I Shall build my Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against her. Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and Whatever you Loosed on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Church has “loosed” the requirement of the veil, similarly to requirement of Abstaining from Meat of all Fridays. They are encouraged, but no longer required. This makes the acts more meritorious. I personally, would love to marry a girl who would wear the veil to Mass, but I could not force it upon her. It is an act of humility for the Love of God.

Fundamentalist Catholics want the Church to conform to their interpretation of Tradition rather than the Church’s. This quite, frankly, is Schismatic, if not out right Heresy. If one is a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; he/she must be willing to submit to her teachings. Otherwise it is Heterodoxy, not Orthodoxy.

For one, if I am not wrong eating meat on Fridays is a tradition (small “t”), and wearing a veil is a Tradition(captital “T”). One comes from Scripture and Canon Law. The other?

Instead of watering something down or making claims that the Church did this and that…just show us with citations, documents, something other than irrelevant arguments why it is no longer in effect.
I feel like I am dealing with JW’s when asked questions they cannot answer.
It’s not that difficult folks. Put up arguements that deal with the ones alvready posted.

 

[Jedi_Master]

jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

Interesting read.

I have no problem with people wearing or not wearing a veil. I do have a certain admiration for those who choose to wear them because I know they probably get mean stares from others. All the power to them. Modesty and humility are lost arts that this world can’t appreciate.

I think that many women have sold out to the fashion “gurus” that peddle all of the skimpy, skin-tight, immodest garbs out there. What they really want is love, but they mistake men’s wandering eyes and lustful stares as innocent attention. Well, it isn’t.

These clothing designers know exactly what they are doing. They are exploiting the inner wiring of men and creating garments that reveal things in a woman’s physique that are created, by God, to get a man’s engine revving. However, that “man” is supposed to be the husband. Why? Because where else is it completely natural to have that eros? Where else is it completely fine to follow through with what you’ve initiated by wearing such clothes? In marriage. To incite these things with revealing clothing is selfish, egotistical, and un-Christian because it dangles a carrot infront of a guy when he knows it isn’t right to grab for it. We are our brothers’ keepers, and I can’t understand why women insist on wearing revealing clothing?

Why?

it is interesting… until you read this:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

 

[Windmill]

I read the link that you gave me, Jedi, and it is interesting.

What I find interesting is Sungenis’s tone not only against Akin, but against the Church. A few selected quotes for those who don’t want to read the whole thing…

• "Do we see Mr. Akin trying to do any “harmonization”? No, not at all. He is happy to try and dismiss each and every argument put before him, so that he doesn’t appear to be going against the progressive church of the second millennium which despises head coverings. "
• “It is a flat out rejection of both the principles of the 1917 and 1983 code, and the Scriptural mandates behind them, and Mr. Akin and the post-conciliar Church are in flagrant violation of all three.”
• "In other words, disobedience is the “custom” to which Mr. Akin appeals in order to have it become the “binding” practice of the Latin church. Yes, this is the impeccable logic of the post-conciliar Church. "

Sungenis is obviously God’s gift to the Catholic Church. By his tone, he places himself above the Pope and Vatican since he obviously believes his personal interpretations to trump the Church’s interpretations. I dislike his tone and think that he comes across as very arrogant in this article, which lends no credence to his argument.

Who am I to trust, the Vatican or Bob Sungenis? If I had to stake my eternal soul on things, it’s the church.

Rich

P.S. How come you don’t see any examinations of conscience with a listing on “Did you wear your veil to Mass?” I mean, on what order are we talking about SIN here? Is a woman going to Hell because she didn’t wear a veil? In the hierarchy of truths of the faith, where does this issue stand? If a couple doesn’t use birth control and tries to get to confession at least twice a month and raises their kids as best they can, does it really matter that they don’t practice head covering? I think people that obsess over this are majoring on the minors.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Windmill:

I read the link that you gave me, Jedi, and it is interesting.

What I find interesting is Sungenis’s tone not only against Akin, but against the Church. A few selected quotes for those who don’t want to read the whole thing…

• "Do we see Mr. Akin trying to do any “harmonization”? No, not at all. He is happy to try and dismiss each and every argument put before him, so that he doesn’t appear to be going against the progressive church of the second millennium which despises head coverings. "
• “It is a flat out rejection of both the principles of the 1917 and 1983 code, and the Scriptural mandates behind them, and Mr. Akin and the post-conciliar Church are in flagrant violation of all three.”
• "In other words, disobedience is the “custom” to which Mr. Akin appeals in order to have it become the “binding” practice of the Latin church. Yes, this is the impeccable logic of the post-conciliar Church. "

Sungenis is obviously God’s gift to the Catholic Church. By his tone, he places himself above the Pope and Vatican since he obviously believes his personal interpretations to trump the Church’s interpretations. I dislike his tone and think that he comes across as very arrogant in this article, which lends no credence to his argument.

Who am I to trust, the Vatican or Bob Sungenis? If I had to stake my eternal soul on things, it’s the church.

Rich

P.S. How come you don’t see any examinations of conscience with a listing on “Did you wear your veil to Mass?” I mean, on what order are we talking about SIN here? Is a woman going to Hell because she didn’t wear a veil? In the hierarchy of truths of the faith, where does this issue stand? If a couple doesn’t use birth control and tries to get to confession at least twice a month and raises their kids as best they can, does it really matter that they don’t practice head covering? I think people that obsess over this are majoring on the minors.

I don’t see him putting himself above the Pope and the Vatican. The fact is Rich that nor the Vatican nor the Pope have rescinded this teaching. So for you to say that Sungenis is putting himself above the Pope or the Vatican is false. Unless you can show me in his writings where he specifically rebukes the Pope or the Vatican on this, then you are wrong. What I understand when he says “Church” is just a simple generalization. Like when you say that the Church is in bad shape. That is all.
So, as I said before…I don’t see your point for the very fact that the Vatican nor the Pope have spoken on this topic.
It is not up to me to decide if it is a sin. If St. Paul divinely commanded it and the Church teaches it in Canon Law, then who am I to argue on that.
What I think or feel or believe is not the issue here.
If the Holy Spirit thought it was important to command it then who am I to question it?

 

[SeanMc]

Whilst I may not agree with Sugenis, I like him because his point of view (not his agruments, though) encourages people to actually think and not blindly accept the status quo of the Vatican.

The non-dogmatic norm for the Vatican changes frequently. Just go back to the Medieval Ages, with many people’s reasoning of doing what the Vatican does, we should all get concubines just like some Pope’s had. Now we can all see the error in doing things this way.

How come you don’t see any examinations of conscience with a listing on "Did you wear your veil to Mass?

That’s quite a spurious argument. Could it be a sin? Yes. Would it be a mortal sin? Not that I can see. Would, it then, be on an examination of conscience, a work that helps one determine his or her mortal sin for confession? No.

It is clearly a commandment from Sacred Scripture that this should be done. The Pope cannot go against this as the Pope cannot go against Scripture or tradition.

Why, then, would this commandment of Holy Scripture not be in the Code of Canon Law? Simply because it doesn’t need to be. Does the Code of Canon Law tell us not to pray in an attention-grabbing fashion in public? No, but Christ tells us not to in the Gospel.

 

[challenger]

Sacramentalist:

The Fathers of the Church advised Catholics not to bother debating Scripture with heretics, since they (the heretics) have no right to use what isn’t theirs.

The same principle applies to crack-pot rad-trads. I got better things to do with my life, thank you very much.

Strange, since the CHurch Fathers themselves debated heretics… in any event, this “crack-pot rad-trad” will stay one until he is shown where the requirement for veils has officially been done away with. Thanks.

 

[Windmill]

oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/messages/41/1589.html?969588368

The above link has parts that help further the discussion.

It says that, regarding the comparisons of the Code of Canon Law, a willful omission of a certain topic without a special provision for continuing that custom, renders that portion of canon law non-binding since the earlier canon states that the Code of 1917 is abrogated.

Sungenis’s argument almost sounds like the Anglicans’ argument for valid orders. As we all know, when they changed their form of ordination by removing the “duties of a priest to offer sacrifice and forgive sins”, the Pope declared their orders null and void. The Anglicans countered and said that these specific functions of priests are not enumerated in various Catholic rites of priestly ordination, so why single them out in this condemnation. It came down to the fact that they removed something that was formerly there, and in doing so, they implied that they no longer consider this a part of what they believe or practice. And we find that this is indeed the case. Anglican clergy do NOT believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice that they offer up, and they do not hear confessions.

when the new Code of Canon Law made a willful omission of something that was formerly specified, and ALSO made the provision that the former Code is abrogated, are we not to assume that this means a change in practice? Especially since there were no special provisions to continue the practice?

Interesting conversation.

 

[MrS]

challenger:

Strange, since the CHurch Fathers themselves debated heretics… in any event, this “crack-pot rad-trad” will stay one until he is shown where the requirement for veils has officially been done away with. Thanks.

…ditto…

 

[challenger]

oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/messages/41/1589.html?969588368

The above link has parts that help further the discussion.

It says that, regarding the comparisons of the Code of Canon Law, a willful omission of a certain topic without a special provision for continuing that custom, renders that portion of canon law non-binding since the earlier canon states that the Code of 1917 is abrogated.

Sungenis’s argument almost sounds like the Anglicans’ argument for valid orders. As we all know, when they changed their form of ordination by removing the “duties of a priest to offer sacrifice and forgive sins”, the Pope declared their orders null and void. The Anglicans countered and said that these specific functions of priests are not enumerated in various Catholic rites of priestly ordination, so why single them out in this condemnation. It came down to the fact that they removed something that was formerly there, and in doing so, they implied that they no longer consider this a part of what they believe or practice. And we find that this is indeed the case. Anglican clergy do NOT believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice that they offer up, and they do not hear confessions.

when the new Code of Canon Law made a willful omission of something that was formerly specified, and ALSO made the provision that the former Code is abrogated, are we not to assume that this means a change in practice? Especially since there were no special provisions to continue the practice?

Interesting conversation.

Well, Sungenis quoted the Canon Law where it says, “We aren’t doing away with the 1917 code unless we explicitly say so.” So the veil thing is still up, by indirect order of the 1983 code. Like some other guy said on this thread (I forget who), the '83 code doesn’t explicitly ban Freemasonry or whatnot.

 

[bigdawg]

Psalm45:9:

I don’t like how they say the current liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

I may be misreading your post, but Sungenis does not claim that the current liturgy does not fulfill our Sunday obligation.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

We started talking about the Apologetics of Sungenis and Matatics, now are arguing Veils. Go figure. :banghead:

I guess quoting Scripture which affirms Papal/Church authority over things is not authoritative enough. Inorder to get this issue settled, the next time Canon Lawyer Bishop Salvatore Cordelione is on “Catholic Answers Live”, I will ask him. Seeing as though he is a Bishop and expert in Canon law, this can all be put to rest. If there are still people in disagreement, then the word Schismatic can be brought up.

 

[Karl_Keating]

RikasAngel:

Mr. Sungenis has been a guest a few times on Catholic Answers Live, but now he has made several harsh comments regarding Karl Keating’s managment, finances, and relationships with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid.

The above quotation is from the first message in this thread.

I’d like to point out that Bob Sungenis appeared only twice on “Catholic Answers Live”–each time in June 1998–and has not appeared on the program in the last seven years.

His preoccupation with geocentrism, his association with people and publications involved with fringe Traditionalism, and his attacks on Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, and me all arose long after 1998 and were not the reasons we decided not to invite him back to the program.