Sungenis Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter RikasAngel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well you all heard it from the man.

Its too bad Mr. Sungenis has not been on the best of terms with Catholic Answers as of late, though I suppose such matters are best settled via private correspondence and not in public internet forums like this one.

I for one will respect Karl Keating’s position in his relationship with Bob Sungenis, Gerry Matatics or any others he has had issues with in the past. Though falling-outs are quite unfortunate, they are a fact of life in the world which we live with our fallen natures and such.

With that in mind I will pray for the eventual reconciliation of all parties involved.:gopray:
 
40.png
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. 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. We have the right to disagree with individual bishops. Now, it might not be prudent to disagree with an expert in Canon law, but it would not make one schismatic.

The Apologetics of Sungenis involves veils 🙂
 
Think of the Churches teaching on veils like the No salvation outside the Church line.

Yes we know that people CAN be saved outside the Church. What the Church does today is more speak along the lines of what is similar etc so its views which HAVE NOT CHANGED are not such a public affront to Protestants and the like.

In centuires gone by the Church had more of a I don’t give a damn what problems our teachings cause, we will just say it like it is and too bad. They weren’t as concerned about a touchy feel good relationship with those who appeared to be outside the Church on face value.

How many Church praqctices teachings etc just arn’t dealt with anymore, hell look at contraception. I don’t ever in the last 10 years at least ever recall hearing a priest in Mass teling us what a great sin Artificial contraception is, yet the status of artifical birth ocntrol has not changed in relation to its sinfullness.

The Church unfortunatley has a habit thesedays of “hiding” those things which are required “rules” for the sake of not offending “modern” people.

Sungenis is more of a I don’t give a damn how you feel about it type teacher, and their should be a lot more like him.
 
Karl Keating:
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.
Click to expand...
and that begs the question… what could the reason have been?

as for his “attacks” on Catholic Answers et al… that is a whiny, IMHO, response. He has raised good questions with good documentation on the issues… THE ISSUES … that concerned him. He has not demeaned you or James Akin, but rather some particular issues.

In fairness, I think you have done the same. You have questioned the issues.

That being said… go for the invite… what could possibly be to your disadvantage by inviting him on to Catholic Answers?? Just because James White won’t “debate” him should not prevent you or James or whoever from discussing the issue. Your move in that direction could be the beginning of a formidable alliance on the Catholic Truth… letting the other issues take their own place on the priority list.

finally… your comment on “fringe traditionalism” is puzzleing when some other posters use the same attitude to the slightest inclination by a Catholic to restore the litergy, or stop wreck-o-vations of the churches, or desire to injoy the customs etc of pre-VATII. What do you feel today?
 
40.png
MrS:
and that begs the question… what could the reason have been?

as for his “attacks” on Catholic Answers et al… that is a whiny, IMHO, response.
Click to expand...
What do you think is whiny??? Karl answered the question with his side of the story and you call it whiny. Seem’s anyone who has a position that does not suit you, get’s called names. :rolleyes:

As the budding apologist that you claim to be, you really should table the attack language.

You probably have valid points, but you ruin them with your attack language. Just a thought. 🙂

**Grace ** comes to those who learn patience and tolerance. It is a very important part of apologetics.
 
I say discord among the brethren is not pleasing to God. For he that does show love for his brother does not know God. Like I posted earlier, all these guys need to get up some morning, and meet at dunkin donuts and resolve their petty differences, so the church will be better blessed.
 
40.png
Marie:
What do you think is whiny??? Karl answered the question with his side of the story and you call it whiny. Seem’s anyone who has a position that does not suit you, get’s called names. :rolleyes:

As the budding apologist that you claim to be, you really should table the attack language.

You probably have valid points, but you ruin them with your attack language. Just a thought. 🙂

**Grace ** comes to those who learn patience and tolerance. It is a very important part of apologetics.
Click to expand...
maybe Mr. Keating can comment on him going to a Mr. Matatics function in San Diego and provoking him?
who is the charitable one?
 
Hello All,

I would like to thank Mr. Keating for taking the time to post a message on this thread.
 
40.png
MrS:
That being said… go for the invite… what could possibly be to your disadvantage by inviting him on to Catholic Answers?? Just because James White won’t “debate” him should not prevent you or James or whoever from discussing the issue. Your move in that direction could be the beginning of a formidable alliance on the Catholic Truth… letting the other issues take their own place on the priority list.
Click to expand...
If the skills of Sungenis were added to the influence and relative affluence of Catholic Answers… that would be rather formidable, wouldn’t it? :hmmm:
 
I have only read a couple of Mr. Sungenis’ article on-line and I was very under-impressed. Both came across as more divisive than substantial and I do not have the time to waste on an author I do not respect.

What I do not understand is how anyone can have such cynicism and negativity toward our host here at Catholic Answers. The lack of appreciation and gratitude speaks more to the manners of the poster than Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin or any of the staff here.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I have only read a couple of Mr. Sungenis’ article on-line and I was very under-impressed. Both came across as more divisive than substantial and I do not have the time to waste on an author I do not respect.

What I do not understand is how anyone can have such cynicism and negativity toward our host here at Catholic Answers. The lack of appreciation and gratitude speaks more to the manners of the poster than Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin or any of the staff here.
Click to expand...
I agree with you
 
40.png
challenger:
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 🙂
Click to expand...
Could you please site your biblical reference to women and headwear where Paul says it is a “command” for all time? I’ve read it but don’t remember which epistle. It’s really such a rediculous issue - the kind of stuff that mostly repels people from Catholic church in my opinion…
Surely everyone must have something more significant to improve regarding their faith than the issue of head wear…

Phil
 
I think Sungenis’ books on Justification, Scripture and the Eucharist are absolutely the best I’ve ever read. I don’t like his move into the traditionalist camp. I sympathize with some of their views but many of them have gone off the deep end.
 
Philthy said:
Could you please site your biblical reference to women and headwear where Paul says it is a “command” for all time? I’ve read it but don’t remember which epistle. It’s really such a rediculous issue - the kind of stuff that mostly repels people from Catholic church in my opinion…
Surely everyone must have something more significant to improve regarding their faith than the issue of head wear…

Phil
Click to expand...

I think I found it - 1Corinthians 11. Is that it?
 
Philthy said:
Could you please site your biblical reference to women and headwear where Paul says it is a “command” for all time? I’ve read it but don’t remember which epistle. It’s really such a rediculous issue - the kind of stuff that mostly repels people from Catholic church in my opinion…
Surely everyone must have something more significant to improve regarding their faith than the issue of head wear…

Phil
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that repel people from the Catholic Church, yet which are nonetheless true. If we did away with all of them; well, we’d be Protestant. Perhaps there are things “more significant” than veils; that doesn’t mean veils aren’t significant.

Yes, it is 1 Corinthians 11. We can say “Paul didn’t mean it for all time,” but there needs to be a basis for that; we can’t just go around saying, “This biblical command expired” without a reason.
 
40.png
challenger:
There are a lot of things that repel people from the Catholic Church, yet which are nonetheless true. If we did away with all of them; well, we’d be Protestant…

Yes, it is 1 Corinthians 11. We can say “Paul didn’t mean it for all time,” but there needs to be a basis for that;.
Click to expand...
The basis can just be magesterial teaching. If we went to everyone interpreting each verse as the see fit, that, too, would make us protestant.

I notice throughout this thread the issue of authority keeps popping up. You asked earlier which had more authority, the Bishops or the Bible. Without the bishops we have zero authority. We musn’t follow the error of Luther and his ilk of self-interpretation, be it of scripture, tradition or canon law.
 
40.png
challenger:
There are a lot of things that repel people from the Catholic Church, yet which are nonetheless true. If we did away with all of them; well, we’d be Protestant. Perhaps there are things “more significant” than veils; that doesn’t mean veils aren’t significant.

Yes, it is 1 Corinthians 11. We can say “Paul didn’t mean it for all time,” but there needs to be a basis for that; we can’t just go around saying, “This biblical command expired” without a reason.
Click to expand...
That is an important point, chanllenger. One of the things which repeled a lot of disciples away from Christ, and repel a lot of people away from the Church is the idea of eating the body and blood of Christ. Is anyone suggesting we redefine the Eucharist?

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
. Is anyone suggesting we redefine the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
No. I have never seen anyone suggest this. Therefore a change in veils does not equate to a change in dogma, in the case you mentioned.
 
40.png
pnewton:
The basis can just be magesterial teaching. If we went to everyone interpreting each verse as the see fit, that, too, would make us protestant.

I notice throughout this thread the issue of authority keeps popping up. You asked earlier which had more authority, the Bishops or the Bible. Without the bishops we have zero authority. We musn’t follow the error of Luther and his ilk of self-interpretation, be it of scripture, tradition or canon law.
Click to expand...
Magisterial teaching calls for veils. As such, how are we to interpret 1 Corinthians 11? My answer: As requiring veils, no matter what individual bishops say.

“Women should wear veils” hardly requires interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top