M
Marie
Guest
Yes…and I stand by he is NOT an authority. Just a layman who has a big ego.Ever read the “critiques” on the back of Sungenis’ books? hmmmm?
How true! 
- Status
How true!
J
Jedi_Master
Guest
Sungenis is the best we have. The fact that James White is too chicken to debate him is proof enough. Sungenis has time and time again challenged him to debate him on Calvanism and White refuses. White would rather debate on his DL show a nobody that posts on Catholic forums. Go figure!
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Jedi << White would rather debate on his DL show a nobody that posts on Catholic forums. Go figure! >>
But note that both White and Sungenis are small fry in the large world of evangelicalism/fundamentalism and Catholicism. White might have more “authority” in his world (he is an “ordained baptist minister”) but Sungenis is just a layman. Like most of us, he is only right when he cites correctly the authoritative Catholic sources of dogma. But I’ll agree Sungenis has probably done the best against White in debate
(his best showings in my opinion were the Oct 2000 on papal infallibility and May 2000 on Justification).
Phil P
But note that both White and Sungenis are small fry in the large world of evangelicalism/fundamentalism and Catholicism. White might have more “authority” in his world (he is an “ordained baptist minister”) but Sungenis is just a layman. Like most of us, he is only right when he cites correctly the authoritative Catholic sources of dogma. But I’ll agree Sungenis has probably done the best against White in debate
(his best showings in my opinion were the Oct 2000 on papal infallibility and May 2000 on Justification).Phil P
M
Marie
Guest
So true…but as I recall…Dr Whites theology Doctorate status is a bit murky. White and Sugenis are both next to small fry’s in the order of Theology. It is mostly to the conspiracy theory fans and the like that they have any appeal.Jedi << White would rather debate on his DL show a nobody that posts on Catholic forums. Go figure! >>
But note that both White and Sungenis are small fry in the large world of evangelicalism/fundamentalism and Catholicism. White might have more “authority” in his world (he is an “ordained baptist minister”) but Sungenis is just a layman. Like most of us, he is only right when he cites correctly the authoritative Catholic sources of dogma. But I’ll agree Sungenis has probably done the best against White in debate
Phil P
I will try and find the info on James again about his schooling and degree. It’s not that laudable.
M
Marie
Guest
Yes! Here it is: He earned an M.A. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary and Th.M. and “Th.D.” degrees from the diploma mill: Columbia Evangelical Seminary.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Marie << I will try and find the info on James again about his schooling and degree. It’s not that laudable. >>
Yeah you’re right, James White’s Ph.D. is from a non-accredited tiny “school” – it doesn’t compare to a Ph.D. from Marquette (e.g. Scott Hahn). There was an “expose” on that by some Mormons, and I think John Pacheco has a page on that (somewhere on his site, couldn’t find it).
But I was talking about the fact that White is at least an “ordained minister” in his church, while Sungenis, like most of us here, is not even a priest. But Sungenis does (or used to do) good apologetics work nevertheless (his Not By books, and his debates). Stay clear of science and attacking fellow apologists, and he’s fine.
Phil P
Yeah you’re right, James White’s Ph.D. is from a non-accredited tiny “school” – it doesn’t compare to a Ph.D. from Marquette (e.g. Scott Hahn). There was an “expose” on that by some Mormons, and I think John Pacheco has a page on that (somewhere on his site, couldn’t find it).
But I was talking about the fact that White is at least an “ordained minister” in his church, while Sungenis, like most of us here, is not even a priest. But Sungenis does (or used to do) good apologetics work nevertheless (his Not By books, and his debates). Stay clear of science and attacking fellow apologists, and he’s fine.
Phil P
M
Marie
Guest
Exactly! Sugenis has lots of great info from his past. He has fallen by the wayside trying to be a scientist, which he is not, and attacking Holy Mother Church to prove his opinion.Marie << I will try and find the info on James again about his schooling and degree. It’s not that laudable. >>
Yeah you’re right, James White’s Ph.D. is from a non-accredited tiny “school” – it doesn’t compare to a Ph.D. from Marquette (e.g. Scott Hahn). There was an “expose” on that by some Mormons, and I think John Pacheco has a page on that (somewhere on his site, couldn’t find it).
But I was talking about the fact that White is at least an “ordained minister” in his church, while Sungenis, like most of us here, is not even a priest. But Sungenis does (or used to do) good apologetics work nevertheless (his Not By books, and his debates). Stay clear of science and attacking fellow apologists, and he’s fine.
Phil P
White is another kettle of fish, but no less extreme in building up theories with no authority to do so.
P
piety101
Guest
Maria
There have been great thinkers and writers in the church for centuries. Origin is one.Tertullian another, until he fell into Montanistism. And St Augustine the greatest. Some say Thomas Aquinas? So there has always been some weird ideas from a lot of saints. Sungenis is no different with his bent on geo centric ism. But he is very intelligent. My only gripe is, is that Keating, Atkins, S.Ray, Sungenis, Hahn and Mattics all would get up some morning and show up at Dunkin n Donuts, have some coffee and iron out their personal differences between each other. Love is the key and if these guys can't show it to each other, then their faith in God is in vane. Make peace guys.
C
challenger
Guest
Unless Sungenis goes against a definition of the Magisterium, his opinion is perfectly valid. Did Catholics of the age of Formosus and Stephen VII not have a right to give their opinion on the Cadaver Trial? If theories are not to be put forth by laymen, what have you to say about Scott Hahn?
JediMaster:
PhilVas:
If the Catholic Church has not authoritatively defined a dogma, then he can be right without citing anything.
PhilVas:
I live near Marquette, I know some people who go there; it can scarcely be called Catholic, although it is a real Ph.D.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Its a question of whether said theories are like to be scandalous and injurious to the faithful; especially when said theories are in open contradict and criticism of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
Sungenis is a crack-pot; he says that the obligation for women to wear head-coverings in church is still in foce. Every single solitary bishop in the Catholic world is wrong, including the Pope; but Sungenis alone has interpreted canon law correctly on this one.
Give me a break . . .
J
Jedi_Master
Guest
A crack pot? The guy can give you so many OFFICIAL Church documentation for his arguments it would make your head spin.Its a question of whether said theories are like to be scandalous and injurious to the faithful; especially when said theories are in open contradict and criticism of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
Sungenis is a crack-pot; he says that the obligation for women to wear head-coverings in church is still in foce. Every single solitary bishop in the Catholic world is wrong, including the Pope; but Sungenis alone has interpreted canon law correctly on this one.
Give me a break . . .
He has a VERY valid point. There has been NO Pope that has rescinded that very teaching. I think if St. Paul specifically taught this teaching then the Church has to specifically unteach it…and it has not.
*Because White is a minister means nothing. If Sungenis was a deacon would that make him acceptable?
Sungenis is NOT a convert…he is a REvert.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Jedi Master:
The current Code does not mention the obligation, and this is universally understood to indicate that this is no longer binding on the faithful. Universal to all except Sungenis and his private interpretation of canon law.
Give me a break. AN opinion’s an opinion; and some permissible opinions are just crack-pot. You either see this or you don’t.
I don’t give a damn fudge, not a rat’s butt, what Sungenis has to say about canon law or his private interpretation of Scripture. I’m not a Protestant or a “Traditionalist”; I’m a Catholic.
Something isn’t binding as law unless the Church herself understands it to be so, regardless of the lack of any explicit papal rescindance.A crack pot? The guy can give you so many OFFICIAL Church documentation for his arguments it would make your head spin.
He has a VERY valid point. There has been NO Pope that has rescinded that very teaching. I think if St. Paul specifically taught this teaching then the Church has to specifically unteach it…and it has not.
*Because White is a minister means nothing. If Sungenis was a deacon would that make him acceptable?
Sungenis is NOT a convert…he is a REvert.
The current Code does not mention the obligation, and this is universally understood to indicate that this is no longer binding on the faithful. Universal to all except Sungenis and his private interpretation of canon law.
Give me a break. AN opinion’s an opinion; and some permissible opinions are just crack-pot. You either see this or you don’t.
I don’t give a damn fudge, not a rat’s butt, what Sungenis has to say about canon law or his private interpretation of Scripture. I’m not a Protestant or a “Traditionalist”; I’m a Catholic.
J
Jedi_Master
Guest
r-e-l-a-x…
breathe…
okay…
The current code does NOT mention that it is rescinded. As I said before if St. Paul specifically teaches this, the the Church must officially address this issue.
Another great point Sungenis gives…
"Canon 26, which is:
“Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”
In other words, if a custom has been practiced for 100 years, then even a canon of the 1983 code which specifically mandates that head coverings are not to be worn, cannot usurp the previous custom! (Of course, there is no such law in the 1983 code, which makes Mr. Akin’s argument all that much weaker).
Since the 1983 code is showing us its own limitations in regard to 100 year old customs, we now know why the 1983 Code makes no mention of head coverings! That is, it wouldn’t make any difference whether it did or did not, since it could not abrogate a custom older than 100 years."
This does not look like an opinion. Sorry…but you have failed to show any documentation other than arguing out of silence.
The Church has NOT rescinded that teaching.
I am not a traditionalist. I am just objective and I for one will admit that the Church has NOT rescinded the specific teaching that St. Paul taught in Scripture.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
When has the Church ever been free of controversies involving doctrine? The theological disputes that are mentioned in this thread are really penny-ante stuff compared to the christological heresies that wracked the early church.
I think that Sugenis’ geocentricism is too weird to even give it serious consideration, Matatics is a Feeneyite, I don’t agree with Hahn’s understanding of Genesis chapter 3, and I can’t stand Keating’s Republican rah-rah politics. But this is really pretty trivial stuff, (well maybe not the Feeneyism). I have learned a lot from Sugenis, I agree with Matitics far more than I disagree with him, and I can only think of very few things that has come out of Keating’s empire that I thought was flat out wrong, and those few things were opinions of the people that he published, and not things written by Keating himself. As for Hahn, we are teaching in our church the CSS scripture studies that he helped write, and it is great.
Even Aquinas, the universal doctor of the church, didn’t bat 1.000.
C
challenger
Guest
I think not criticizing actions which take away from the historic Catholic belief are injurious to the faithful.
Who has more authority: Bishops, or Scripture? Where has the pope dogmatically said that women don’t have to wear veils? Jedi Master took you up.
It was considered binding, and never rescinded.
As I recall, Vatican II didn’t mention iconoclasm. Does that mean that Nicaea II is no longer in effect, and Catholics may be iconoclastic? It has to be rescinded, if it can be. You can’t say, “It’s not mentioned here, so they’re rescinding it.”
Guess what… the bishops throughout the world “privately interpret” canon law. Sungenis’ “private interpretation” merely draws from Scripture and the Church Fathers.
You sound so credible.
So you don’t interpret anything unless the Church has officially ruled on it? Aside from that, the Church has ruled on veils, and never rescinded it.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
All the burden of proof is on Sungenis. Period. If he can show just one, just one bishop and/or theologian and/or canon lawyer who adovcates his own position on women’s headwear, then I’ll give it some credence.
I mean, if his private interpretation is wrong, he should be able to name at least one authority other than himself.
Otherwise, he needs to stop pretending that he knows everything about religion, apologetics, theology, science, can law, et al.
Sungenis’s opinions are not just opinions; in this particular issue, at least, he claims that that overwhelming vast majority of Catholic women are commiting material sin and a material violation of the Church’s canon law. This is a very serious charge.
And according to traditional Catholicism, openly criticizing the Pope in injurious to the faithful, as it puts their very authority in question and so is a source of scandal. It may be necessary to correct an erring Pope, but publicly on the internet is not the place for it.
I mean, if his private interpretation is wrong, he should be able to name at least one authority other than himself.
Otherwise, he needs to stop pretending that he knows everything about religion, apologetics, theology, science, can law, et al.
Sungenis’s opinions are not just opinions; in this particular issue, at least, he claims that that overwhelming vast majority of Catholic women are commiting material sin and a material violation of the Church’s canon law. This is a very serious charge.
And according to traditional Catholicism, openly criticizing the Pope in injurious to the faithful, as it puts their very authority in question and so is a source of scandal. It may be necessary to correct an erring Pope, but publicly on the internet is not the place for it.
C
challenger
Guest
Is Chrysostom a theologian? “A woman does not acquire a man’s dignity by having her head uncovered but rather loses her own. Her shame and reproach thus derive from her desire to be like a man as well as from her actions” (Homilies on First Corinthians, 25, 4). Many other Patristics are cited in Sungenis’ article series.
Is Canon Law an authority?
"The 1917 code says:
“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
The modernist further argues that, Canon 6 of the new 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, and therefore, any commands given in the 1917 code are not applicable after 1983. Canon 6 states:
“When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.”
…
canon 20 states:
“A later law [laws in the 1983 code] abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.”
Here we see that the 1983 code puts limits around itself in relation to previous canon law. Apparently, the 1983 code will not allow itself to automatically “abrogate” an earlier law unless the 1983 code: (1) “states so expressly,” (2) makes a statement about that law which “is directly contrary to it,” or (3) “reorders the entire matter.” With regard to the issue of women wearing veils, none of these three things were done in the 1983 code.
Just so we know we are on the right track, canon 21 reinforces the meaning and extent of canon 20. It states:
“In case of doubt [e.g., about the application of veil wearing], the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”
Very interesting, no? Far from totally disavowing itself from the 1917 code, if the 1983 code is silent on an issue, it requires that we not presume that a previous law was revoked, and, in fact, the 1983 code says it “must be related to” and “must be harmonized with” the 1917 code.
Granted, as we have seen earlier, on a legal basis the 1983 code “abrogates” the 1917 code, but it is clear that, the 1983 imposes a legal stipulation on itself, a stipulation which requires it to consult with the 1917 code so that the final decision on a given issue will be in harmony with, not opposed to, the 1917 code. This would be especially applicable in regards to an ancient and scriptural practice such as veil-wearing - a practice that continued uninterrupted for over 1900 years in the Church."
By not giving his proposal any credence whatsoever, you are acting like you know everything about theology and canon law.
Yes, that is his opinion.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly. I don’t even think criticizing the pope here is applicable, since I don’t know that the pope has done anything to abrogate the requirement of veils. And if he has, then his authority is not questioned, since I don’t believe it would have been an ex cathedra statement.
R
RikasAngel
Guest
Hello All,
A couple of things: Firstly, we must make the distinction between
(T)radition and (t)radition. One can change, the other can’t. Theological Tradition, taught by the Church cannot be changed. Customary Tradition varies from time and place. Women wearing veils to Mass is good, but not required. The fact that the requirement for the veil is no longer in the Code should be the first clue. One can argue that the ban on Freemasonry is not in the 1983 Code, but that is different because the ban on Freemasonry is matter of faith defined in the Encyclical Humanum Generis. The veil is a custom, not a a doctrine.
Secondly, I do not doubt Sungenis and Matatics love for the Catholic Faith, what worries me is their franly Fundamentalist theology and uncharitable comments. They constantly question the Current Liturgy, even though the Vatican has affirmed its validity. I trust Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not revail against the Church. So I am hard prest to believe that Vatican II was an evil council or that the Current Liturgy is invalid. Also, I do not know Karl Keating personally, but i get the impression that Sungenis accusations against him were over blown. We Should all pray that God’s will be done. :ehh:
A couple of things: Firstly, we must make the distinction between
(T)radition and (t)radition. One can change, the other can’t. Theological Tradition, taught by the Church cannot be changed. Customary Tradition varies from time and place. Women wearing veils to Mass is good, but not required. The fact that the requirement for the veil is no longer in the Code should be the first clue. One can argue that the ban on Freemasonry is not in the 1983 Code, but that is different because the ban on Freemasonry is matter of faith defined in the Encyclical Humanum Generis. The veil is a custom, not a a doctrine.
Secondly, I do not doubt Sungenis and Matatics love for the Catholic Faith, what worries me is their franly Fundamentalist theology and uncharitable comments. They constantly question the Current Liturgy, even though the Vatican has affirmed its validity. I trust Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not revail against the Church. So I am hard prest to believe that Vatican II was an evil council or that the Current Liturgy is invalid. Also, I do not know Karl Keating personally, but i get the impression that Sungenis accusations against him were over blown. We Should all pray that God’s will be done. :ehh:
C
challenger
Guest
Things in Scripture are doctrine. If Paul taught the necessity of veils, then it is not a lower case “t”-tradition. I’ve started reading the Great Facade, and Ferrara and Woods point out that traditions are the visible manifestations of Traditions, and really ought to be left alone. The ban of Freemasonry isn’t in the 1983 code, but it’s still banned because of Humani Generis. Ok. The requirement of veils isn’t in the 1983 code, but is still required because of the Bible and Tradition
I will grant that they sometimes make uncharitable comments, but we should remember that everyone does the same. Bad, yes. Unusually evil, no
Sungenis does not question the validity of the Novus Ordo, using as one argument the Church’s infallibility. Matatics is a different story, though. I don’t know if I’d say Vatican II is an “evil” council, but I’d definitely say it brought about some bad things, so I guess it’s “evil” to some extent in that sense.
Sungenis’ accusations of Keating were in response to Keating’s accusations of Matatics (lovely situation, eh?) They might have been over blown, but Sungenis does know Keating personally to some extent, and knows people who know Keating personally. I agree, though, that it’s an unhappy situation. :nope:
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Not able to name one modern authority, huh?
That’s what I thought.
- Status