DeoOmnisGloria.com

Small warning about Mr Sungenis --- those three books you recommend are good, but since he published them, he has wandered into dissent and Integrist ("RadTrad") errors, along with some flaky stuff, such as geocentrism as doctrine and anti-semitism. So take any more recent writings of Mr. Sungenis with an entire shaker of salt.

karen marie

Thanks for pointing that out, Karen. I hadn't heard that before - it's very disappointing.

Jay

Also Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" is a good overview and source for answering specific objections.

Mark Shea's "An Evangelical discovers tradition" is also excellent since it gets to the bottom line of what the Bible is and a good text for protestants to see how all Protestants rely on Apostolic Tradition.

"Jesus, Peter & the Keys" written by a couple of people is the best source I have seen on showing the Papacy first through the Bible and then the Church Fathers.

Thomas Howard's "Evangelical is Not Enough"

Also Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua is a classic.

Katie's remarks on Sungenis are inaccurate. He has become more of a "traditionalist" in his outlook, but he is by now means a "dissenter," or an "Integrist" (whatever that means). Differing opinions on the present state of the church, and the prudential decisions of its leaders, is perfectly legitimate for Orthodox Catholics. So are taking less popular views, like young-earth creationism or geocentricism. So while you may disagree with some of Sungenis' more novel positions, it is wrong to imply he's strayed outside the bounds of being a perfectly good Catholic.

Breier, I'd have to say we ought to heed Katie's warnings about Sungenis. Though perhaps "dissent" is too strong a word. Then again if Mr. Sungenis is willing to publicly declare some of John Paul II's statements as heretical, I think Katie's use of the word dissent at least understandable if not appropriate.

I see him as "between" SSPX (which rejects the authority and wisdom of Vatican II) and Mother Angelica (who accepts the authority and wisdom Vatican II). Based on what is on his webiste, I would not recommend him.

Oops, I should have said Karen, not Katie. As a further note, based on what I have seen on Sungenis's site, he accepts that Vatican II is fully authoritative but, unlike Mother Angelica, he publicly criticizes the conduct of the Papacy as sinful.

Those "more traditional than Mother Angelica" have determined that Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have violated the first commandment (thus sinning personally) by praying in mosques.

While we have no guarantee preventing a Pope from sinning personally, the assessment of the traditionals isn't protected by the seal of infallibility. Sungenis can still be considered "still Catholic" but I wouldn't recommend his writings.

I just happened to have a brief look at Sungenis' latest edition of his web site. I really get the impression that this guy has gone off the deep-end. Have a look for yourselves:

http://www.catholicintl.com/

I actually think this is very sad as so many people - yes, protestants too! - define Roman Catholicism based on their experience of his "scholarship." Oi gevald!!!

Peace!

Jack, I too have numerous reservations and criticisms about Sungenis' position. Perhaps "off the deep-end" is going a bit too far. Teetering on the edge seems like a better description. He, unlike Traditionalists, has stopped short of denying Church Teaching.

His criticisms of papal conduct and support of the death penalty, though justifiable in some contexts, just do not seem to apply to the current papacy or fit with modern methods of incarceration.

I've had personal correspondence with Sungenis in the past, after the Coming Home network published an article by him in their newsletter about Not by Faith Alone "stuff." He outright refused to recognize that prophetic criticisms about the Temple cult ("I desire mercy not sacrifice", and the rest of it) were criticism level within the context of Israelite religion - by Israelites, at Israelites - and so reflect a healthy self-critical tendency within ancient Judaism. Rather, Sungenis over-and-again cites such prophetic texts (and other texts too) in order to argue that Judaism is an "apostate religion," "bereft of the promises of God" and closed to the salvific work of God - unless of course, they convert and become Catholics like him.

That is bad enough! For me, I realized he was way beyond the pail - and over the edge as far as I'm concerned - when he published on his website a poem celebrating the death of Fr. Raymond E. Brown, because (you can guess) he disagrees with well nigh everything Fr. Brown ever asserted in his exegesis work. Disagreement is one thing, celebrating the passing of a member of the priesthood, well...

Sungenis, is, and has been way over the edge for a long time. And a lot of people are "discovering" Catholicism on his toxic web site. Catholics everywhere should be concerned, or at least embarrassed.

Peace.

Jack,

Perhaps I mean something different than you do by the phrase "over the edge". I took that to mean "crossed over the line into heresy". I still maintain that he has not taught heresy even (though he might maintain that Popes have taught heresy). If you mean something else by the phrase, "over the edge", then I suspect we have no essential disagreement on this issue - just as I have no objection to your refusal to vote republican.

Post a comment