Sungenis Apologetics

[pnewton]

challenger:

“Women should wear veils” hardly requires interpretation.

No more than the other liturgical instructions of St. Paul in the same text, such as,

“If any one speaks in a tongue, let it be two or three at most”

or

“Two or three prophets shouls speak, and others discern.”

Are these also incorporated in the Tridentine Mass?

There are reasons why Catholics should avoid proof-text evidence. The above instructions (including veils) given for the liturgy may be changed as needed by Church authorities or they may not. It is dishonest intellectually to pick the one you like and say that is permanent, but not others or not. The church does not currently require veils, so that really trumps everyone’s argument.

 

[Jedi_Master]

pnewton:

No more than the other liturgical instructions of St. Paul in the same text, such as,

“If any one speaks in a tongue, let it be two or three at most”

or

“Two or three prophets shouls speak, and others discern.”

Are these also incorporated in the Tridentine Mass?

There are reasons why Catholics should avoid proof-text evidence. The above instructions (including veils) given for the liturgy may be changed as needed by Church authorities or they may not. It is dishonest intellectually to pick the one you like and say that is permanent, but not others or not. The church does not currently require veils, so that really trumps everyone’s argument.

oh brother…this is becoming a circular argument.
Are instructions of speaking in tongues addressed in Canon Law like the veils?
And NOWHERE has the veil teaching been rescinded in Canon Law or by any Pope. If so, SHOW US.

 

[pnewton]

Jedi Master:

Are instructions of speaking in tongues addressed in Canon Law like the veils?
And NOWHERE has the veil teaching been rescinded in Canon Law or by any Pope. If so, SHOW US.

Canon Law? I was referring to the scripture that was being used yo support veils. Is this a bait and switch?

As to Canon Law, I heard a canon lawyer state the a new code of canon law automatically overrides the old, in much the same way an old GIRM becomes moot when a new one is issued. Since the church has more canon lawyers than this thread, I will go with the current church interpretation of its own law.

For those who do not agree, there may be a real world (outside the internet) solution. Speak to a canon lawyer about filing a suit to bring back the mandate. I do not know if such a case is possible, but if the issue is just one of canon law, it should be resolvable. All sides would just have to be accepting of the solution.

 

[challenger]

pnewton:

Canon Law? I was referring to the scripture that was being used yo support veils. Is this a bait and switch?

As to Canon Law, I heard a canon lawyer state the a new code of canon law automatically overrides the old, in much the same way an old GIRM becomes moot when a new one is issued. Since the church has more canon lawyers than this thread, I will go with the current church interpretation of its own law.

By “women should wear veils” I was referring to Canon law. As for the 1917 code being rescinded, I put a quote up here earlier from the 1983 code saying that they’re not rescinding the 1917 code unless they say so. I can’t believe that “what you heard a canon lawyer state” is now an authority to follow. A random canon lawyer is not “the current church interpretation of its own law.”

 

[pnewton]

challenger:

A random canon lawyer is not “the current church interpretation of its own law.”

You are correct and I rethought and edited my post to include a more practicle idea. However, my bishop doesn’t require them and he is my link to church authority.

Are they mentioned in the Catechism? That would be another authoritative source.

 

[challenger]

pnewton:

You are correct and I rethought and edited my post to include a more practicle idea. However, my bishop doesn’t require them and he is my link to church authority.

Are they mentioned in the Catechism? That would be another authoritative source.

I don’t think the mandate needs to be “Brought back”… it never left. I don’t believe veils are mentioned in the Catechism.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Jedi Master:

maybe Mr. Keating can comment on him going to a Mr. Matatics function in San Diego and provoking him?
who is the charitable one?

I mentioned the incident some time ago in one of my E-Letters. You can read about it there.

I hardly “provoked” Gerry, unless my silent presence in the audience counted as a provocation. After his formal remarks he issued a “challenge” (his term) to me. I tried to make a response but ended up being shouted at by him. Finding it impossible to get civil hearing, I left the room, with Gerry continuing to shout after me as I walked down the hall.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Although Mr. Sungenis can be on the fringe of radical traditionalism, his website is full of good articles. He seems to be the only Traditional Catholic Apologist who is not Sedevacanist or associated with the SSPX and answers the objections of Dr. White on a regular basis. Although Dr. White will not publicly debate Mr. Sungenis, there have been multiple private e-mail debates between the two, that Mr. Sungenis has posted on his site. I read the “debate” between the two on the Assumption of Mary, it was very interesting.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

What is everone’s opinion of Bob Sungenis’ and Gerry Matatics Apologetics. They have an obvious love for the Catholic faith, but their Traditonalist perspectives about the Modern Liturgy and Creation Science are rather troubling. There is also apparantly a fair amount of animosity between Sungenis & Karl Keating. 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 www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/keatings-gospel.htm.

Is this kind of stuff at all good for Catholic Apologetics.

No​

I feel the Church has enough problems defending itself from Fundamentalist Protestantism, Militant Secularism, and Cafeteria Catholicism to have deal with squabbles among our best and brightest. What do you all think?

I admire Gerry Matatics, having had the privilege of being present at a talk given by him - it must be about 10 years ago. Since then, having lost track of him, all I have seen is that he is on good terms with the SSPX - and that’s all I know.​

What is worrying, is the question of just how qualified apologists are - if they are going to function as Catholic apologists, ISTM that they do need to have some kind of mandate, and some kind of mission: so that they don’t impose as Church teaching what is no more than their own opinion. Ghastly as the Reformed Mass can be in some guises, it is still the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Roman Church. And no apologist is in a position to say otherwise.

If apologists are subject only to their wills, there is the danger of self-appointed teachers usurping the function which by the Will of the Holy Spirit belongs to the bishops - ghastly as the bishops may be. This is no different from anything of which certain theologians have been accused, and does not become healthy merely because an apologist is orthodox - for if a theologian does not trump a bishop, neither does an apologist. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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…

FYI: Aquinas is not read by Catholics alone - and he belongs as much to the Protestant past as to the Catholic past.

Maybe the Calvinist David Daille (Dallaeus), or any one of a long line of Anglican divines, should be made required reading for Catholics: the Fathers are hardly unknown to Calvinism or Anglicanism. ##

 

[philipmarus]

WanderAimlessly:

I use to have the “Not by” series, but have gotten rid of them.

PF

I just got a tape set by Tim Staples HOW IS MAN SAVED which is Copyright 1998. In this tape Tim says that Robert Sungensis’s
NOT BY FAITH ALONE is “THE BOOK on Justifcation” and Mr. Staples recommends the book several times. Since Mr. Staples now a staff apologist with Catholic Answers and Sungensis book has not changed by Osmosis since 1998 why would anyone throw this work away ?

FYI: Aquinas is not read by Catholics alone - and he belongs as much to the Protestant past as to the Catholic past.

This may be true in academic circles. But one would never guess this by listening to the radio in my state. I’ve heard countless vicious attacks on Aquinas by so-called “Biblical experts” over the airwaves. A few months ago my local radio station (Which also BTW airs Catholic Answers) aired one program claiming the Sexual revolution of the 1960s was Aquina’s fault.

 

[challenger]

Gottle of Geer:

FYI: Aquinas is not read by Catholics alone - and he belongs as much to the Protestant past as to the Catholic past.

I realize that, Geer. But just because you read something doesn’t mean you accept everything it says.
Geer:

Maybe the Calvinist David Daille (Dallaeus), or any one of a long line of Anglican divines, should be made required reading for Catholics: the Fathers are hardly unknown to Calvinism or Anglicanism. ##

That is a really bad idea. What would be the point? What you said doesn’t concern my comment.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

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

How does one measure how each has done ? Isn’t each participant likely to claim victory, unless there is some sort of common standard by which both can be measured ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

philipmarus:

I just got a tape set by Tim Staples HOW IS MAN SAVED which is Copyright 1998. In this tape Tim says that Robert Sungensis’s
NOT BY FAITH ALONE is “THE BOOK on Justifcation” and Mr. Staples recommends the book several times. Since Mr. Staples now a staff apologist with Catholic Answers and Sungensis book has not changed by Osmosis since 1998 why would anyone throw this work away ?

This may be true in academic circles. But one would never guess this by listening to the radio in my state. I’ve heard countless vicious attacks on Aquinas by so-called “Biblical experts” over the airwaves. A few months ago my local radio station (Which also BTW airs Catholic Answers) aired one program claiming the Sexual revolution of the 1960s was Aquina’s fault.

Just a while ago I found a copy of a book on his influence on Evangelicalism in a Calvinist bookshop. Not a particularly academically-inclined one, BTW. That’s in the UK - perhaps the suspicion of Catholicism and all things even vaguely “Catholic” is greater in the US. Even if it is, that is no reason to treat all Protestants as ignorant troglodytes who read no author previous to 1900 or so - it may not suit some Catholics to admit it, but Catholics are very far from being the only readers of the Fathers. That’s just the way things are.​

I sometime think there is a “war psychosis” at work - surely the fact that there is no lack of attention to the Fathers among Protestants is reason for pleasure: but it seems not. Protestant interest in St. Thoimas appears to be a bad thing - Lord knows why. Or do Catholics want to be told that all Protestants hate all Catholic things, and loathe everything even tangentially connected with the CC ? It’s not true.

It’s a great error to treat Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestantism in the USA as the only kinds - they may be the most audible and the most vocal; but that does not mean that they are the only ones, either in the USA or anywhere else. In fact, they are not. I don’t think a lot of Catholics realise this.

Are the attitudes of all Protestants in the USA to St. Thomas to be judged by one programme months ago ? As for these “Bible experts” - since they presumably are not experts on St. Thomas, why does it matter what they say ?

I’m not denying what you’ve said - just pointing out that there is a brighter side to the picture, which all too often seems to be ignored. ##

 

[Catilieth]

As an aside to this “veiled” commentary, if I were to go to Rome and attent a private Mass said by the Pope (as opposed to large usually outdoor Mass), I would be required to wear a veil. Just thought I should mention it.

 

[challenger]

## How does one measure how each has done ? Isn’t each participant likely to claim victory, unless there is some sort of common standard by which both can be measured ? ##

The common standard is common sense.

 

[YADA]

I have read the posts on this thread and want to offer a few observations (I am sure devoid of real theological depth!).

Karl Keating (and all of the apologists mentioned) have contributed mightily to the Church’s evangelistic mission. We are all called to be witnesses to the Good News, not just priests and bishops.

Hahn may take the ‘feminine’ (sp) nature of God too far but scripture describes the Holy Spirit using feminine descriptors in the book of Wisdom. Sungenis may take geocentrism too far and Mr Keating, Esq. is a lawyer We should not hold grudges!

The discussion of the veil begs the question “Who determines what constitutes a ‘veil’?” One of the reasons that I believe (IMHO) that the wearing of the veil fell out of practice is that stop being the outward sign of our humility before our Lord. Does a tiny but sporty hat (ala Jackie Kennedy) count as wearing a veil? What about the four inch square of lace? Two inches anyone? How about the burka of our muslim brethren? It would seem to me that in St. Paul’s time (to which some have attested this became ‘dogma’ or Capital T tradition) this would have constituted the ‘veil.’

Once the wearing of the veil became more a fashion statement then a pious practice, it lost meaning.

My liturgy professor (a priest for those of you who give his testimony more weight for his vow in discussing what was then the not yet released GIRM) said the church reviews the liturgy for many reasons. One reason was to look for practices that were not essential to Mass and that had lost meaning. Ringing bells at the consecration might be an example. A nice tradition but not necessary to call attention to mystery unfoldinging the Gospels out at the end of Mass. In this example a common practice was deemed inappropriate. The Gospel Book is not to be prosessd out because “We” the church have received the ‘Word’ and it is “We” who are sent out to spread the Good News. We are not supposed to recapture the ‘Word’ into the book, nor are we to focus our attention upon the book. We are temples of Christ having received Him in 'Word" and Truth (Eucharist). Cremation once an absolute ‘no-no’ because it was used by those who opposed the Church is now acceptable because it is not used to deny a truth (the bodily resurrection) and is common practice in some cultures (my native american ancestors for one and many asian countries). Cremation in and of itself was not the issue but the ‘purpose.’

Wearing a pretty hat or peice of lace, trying to have the latest in head coverings pales by comparison. When polls show that church attending Catholics do not believe in the True Presence of the Eucahrist, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, we have more important work to do besides arguing about women covering thier heads (IMHO, just a thought)

Enoyed the discussion and the charity with which it flowed!

 

[challenger]

The Mass is silent, as Calvary, leading up to the consecration. The ringing of the bell pierces the silence, as mystically He renews His death for our salvation.

 

[misterX]

PhilVaz:

The earth is approx 4.5 billion years old, evolution is probably true,

Phil P

So you think the bible is either wrong or gensis was/is a lie?

 

[rossum]

misterX:

So you think the bible is either wrong or gensis was/is a lie?

If PhilVaz will forgive me for stepping into the discussion, I think his answer would be that he thinks that the Bible and Genesis are both correct and both true. However the Young Earth interpretation of Genesis is incorrect and not in accordance with the facts.

I cannot resist inserting the usual quote from St Augustine “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” here:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

As an aside from an outsider I must say that the discussion on the wearing of veils is very amusing. It reminds me of the debate between different traditions of Theravada Buddhist monks over whether their robes should be worn over one or both shoulders.

rossum