MercyMia,
After our earlier conversation about Sungenis, i.e.
The link you provided is a pretty dubious page run by Robert Sungenis - who is not representative of the Catholic Church. He is actually quite anti-semetic and has been publicly criticized by other reputable Catholic apologists.
I admit I don’t know a lot about Robert Sungenis, but EWTN presumably puts some stock in him – they did give him his own show, after all.
BTW, would you say that the opening paragraph (which I’ll quote below) is from Sungenis? That’s how I read it, but it isn’t completely clear.
… I spent a little time looking at his catholicintl website. I was struck first of all that he is not just a Traditional Catholic, but what I would consider a hard-core Traditional Catholic. It seems a little surprizing (to me anyways) that EWTN gave him a TV show.
I also found an
article there about EWTN (it’s a review of Christopher A. Ferrara’s “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong”). I haven’t read the whole thing, but I found this section particularly interesting:
**Contrasting Policies: Greg Popcak and Fr. Groeschel **
Although Ferrara himself admits that “EWTN still retains certain elements of
good Catholic programming” (p. 8), it is his position that the good programs are engulfed
by a prevalent set of bad programs that have virtually changed the face of EWTN.
Interestingly enough, we know that EWTN is listening to Mr. Ferrara, at least partially.
For example, immediately after Ferrara’s book was published, it could not be
coincidental that EWTN eliminated the program hosted by Greg Popcak: Marriage: For
Better, Forever . I had written an article about Popcak (pronounced: Popchak) a few years
ago, outlining his outlandish statements on sex and his dubious theological views, and
forwarded the information to Ferrara as he was writing his book. Popcak advocates such
things as God having “the cosmological orgasm we call the ‘Big Bang’ through which the
entire universe was created” (p. 201); that sexual relations are a prayer (p. 179); that sex
is a preparation for the beatific vision (p. 181); that boys should chart their mother’s and
sister’s fertility cycle in order to learn how to use NFP; and many other such off-the-wall
ideas, including chapter titles to his books such as “Holy Sex, Batman!” and “Der
Intimacy is Good, Jah?” EWTN had enough sense to admit that Popcak had crossed the
line once it was pointed out to them. But if Mother Angelica were still at the helm, and
Popcak were given her scrutiny before airing, his program would never have seen the
light of day.
But at the present time, determining who “crosses-the-line” is a somewhat
arbitrary exercise in EWTN’s assessment of its television personalities. While a man like
Greg Popcak is expendable without much backlash, EWTN would not be so quick to
judge a figure as prominent as Fr. Benedict Groeschel. Terminating the program Sunday
Night Live with Fr. Groeschel would send shockwaves throughout the world, but the
truth is, Groeschel has uttered some of the more outlandish theological miscues ever
uttered on Catholic television, and all without one word of criticism from the EWTN
staff. Popcak’s antics appear like boyish pranks compared to some of Fr. Groeschel’s
puzzling statements.
Ferrara makes quite a case against Groeschel. In one instance Ferrara points out
that when Groeschel was posed with a question on a call-in program of how we are to
understand Jesus’ statement in John 6:53: “ if you do not eat of the Son of Man and drink
his blood you have no life in you,” the ecumenically-predisposed Groeschel answered by
saying that the verse has a defect in the original Greek and should read: “ If you eat my
flesh…you will have life within you.” In his attempt to accommodate non-Catholics who
don’t believe in the Eucharist, Groeschel implicitly denied that the Greek of the New
Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as well as denying our traditional sacramental
theology. Indeed, as Ferrara points out, Groeschel retorted “indeed you don’t” in answer
to a question by the caller of whether the sacraments were necessary for salvation (p. 87).
Groeschel opted to turn Jesus’ words into a mere “call” rather than a command, and a call
that one could take or leave at his own discretion.
As for the Greek that Groeschel cited, Catholic dogma maintains that, even if
Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic (which is not proven), the Greek of the New
Testament is a divinely inspired and totally accurate rendering of his words. In fact, we
have no other words to consult. As such, Groeschel’s treatment of John 6:53 is erroneous,
since the Greek literally says, “If you do not eat of the flesh…you have no life in you.”
The phrase “if…not” is from the Greek “ean mee,” which literally means “if not,” not
“if.” Unbeknownst to anyone at EWTN, Groeschel simply eliminated the word “not”
from the Bible and created his own ecumenical theology of the Eucharist. In
ecclesiastical terms, Groeschel’s error is much more serious than Popcak’s, for it hits
right at the heart of salvation theology. My guess is that no one on EWTN’s staff even
had an inkling to question Fr. Groeschel’s answer, much less scrutinize it for possible
heresy. It would have been much better if Groeschel had simply said, in certain instances
of invincible ignorance the sacrament of the Eucharist is not required for salvation, which
would have at least been a starting point for discussion. But to impugn the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit and twist the words of Scripture in order to give non-Catholics carte-
blanche relief of having to submit to Jesus’ command is simply beyond the pale. It also
shows the lengths that modern thinking will go in order to lessen the authority of tradition
and accommodate the clamor for the acceptance of all religions. There are many other
such instances Ferrara points out that demonstrate Fr. Groeschel’s penchant to reinterpret
Catholic doctrine in light of his own personal understanding of theology, but we do not
have room to cover them in this essay.
I don’t think we know for certain that “EWTN is listening to Mr. Ferrara, at least partially”, but it is a very interesting possibility.
P.S. I admit I haven’t read Sungenis’ writing concerning Judaism.
