Thursday, April 21, 2011

Sungenis Alone


A few days ago I provided a brief Robert Sungenis update: The Continuing Saga of Robert Sungenis. Robert's had an interesting theological journey, that's for sure. Raised Roman Catholic, Protestant convert, elder, preacher, adult Sunday school director (in various Protestant churches), worked for Harold Camping's Family Radio, Westminster Seminary graduate. Dr White reviewed Surprised By Truth, the book that documents his journey back to Rome.

As I pointed out a few days ago, Robert says he's no longer a "modern" Roman Catholic apologist. He's now "a prophet of warning." Here are some recent comments from Robert. He's very unhappy about some of the recent popes. In response to John Dejak of The Wanderer, Robert may indeed actually be a prophet to his church, as he's saying things probably no other Roman Catholic apologist would dare utter:

But why attack me? I didn’t invite pagans to pray to their false gods. I condemned it for the last 10 years in numerous articles and lectures. I didn’t shuffle pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish. I wrote a plethora of papers against it. I didn’t give them safe haven at the Vatican. I wrote several papers exposing the Vatican sin‐sanctuary. I didn’t exonerate Luther and allow the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.” I wrote a book against it titled Not By Faith Alone that has a Catholic imprimatur. I didn’t go against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings. I wrote papers against it and sent them to the Vatican. I didn’t disobey the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. I wrote papers exposing the cowardliness of the last few popes who disobeyed heaven on this point. I didn’t protect Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican. I exposed it. I didn’t accept the tenets of evolution. I exposed it for the fraud it is. I didn’t make it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in my writings, and I never suggested that hell might not exist. I wrote papers saying that the Catholic Church has one task, which is to preach the Gospel of the Last Four things – the same Gospel our tradition preached. I didn’t kiss the Koran, or suggest that the Jews still have their Old Covenant, or write a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities. I didn’t change the canonization laws, or the marriage laws, or the capital punishment laws, or laws about women’s roles, or any law. I wrote papers showing that our tradition and our Scripture were against all of these novelties. I didn’t watch scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said. I didn’t marginalize and ignore the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre) but instead threw Assisi in his face. I didn’t fail to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies. I decried their heresies. These and many more aberrations happened by express order of John Paul II, yet Mr. Dejak condemns me for pointing them all out. I guess I must have burst the little bubble he lives in. I marred the fantastic and idolized image he has of the pope. So the only thing Mr. Dejak can do (since in his essay he decided NOT to defend any of the actions of John Paul II), is to attack the messenger. He hopes that if he can generate a low opinion of me to the audience, then the audience will decide not to listen to me.Clever. That’s what I would expect from the hit‐and‐run artist Mr. Dejak appears to be.

And also:

The only distinction Mr. Dejak and The Wanderer make is that they categorically decided to leave the pope uninvolved, uninterested and uninformed about what the bishops, that he appointed, decide to do. And if,perchance, the pope were the last man on earth to know of these sexually deviant clerics, even then,he consistently failed to remove them from the Church. The clerics rape our children; ordain faggots to say our Masses; and have a pope who looks the other way, but if we dare protest against him we are subjected to the same droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission” from people like Mr. Dejak. Unfortunately, Mr. Dejak doesn’t understand the two‐way street God created for the Church. The hierarchy does its job, but the parishioners do theirs also. They both keep each other in line, albeit in different ways. A groundswell of protest from the parishioners is the quickest way to get the attention of the hierarchy and remind them of their God‐given responsibilities.

43 comments:

zipper778 said...

And all this time I thought ALL Roman Catholics believed the same thing. Thanks Robert for showing that in so many cases there is disagreement over RC theology and practise. I'm sorta curious about what he believes is incorrect about the CCC.

It makes me glad that I stick to the written Word.

John Bugay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Swan said...

As I've pointed out in the past, for us, this type of stuff falls under the the "if the argument works as well on some Protestant churches don't use it." I'm sure people have been through all sorts of awful things in non-Romanist churches as well, maybe not to the same extent as that being done by such a large sect.

What interests me is Sungenis is more going the route of Erasmus rather than Luther. I'm curious where he'll end up, and I'm also curious how his fellow apologists treat him.

Jeph said...

@James,

That sure is going to be exciting. :)

Brigitte said...

What interests me is Sungenis is more going the route of Erasmus rather than Luther.

Luther did not chose to work outside the Roman Catholic church. He was excommunicated and never allowed to defend the doctrine. He was ever supposed to "recant". It was his comfort that he taught no innovations and did not cause a split but was forced upon the path he ended up on, though it was dangerous to him.

Erasmus on the other hand managed to stay within the RC church and "safe" so to speak, by being unclear in his speech, and waffling as to doctrine; as Luther said about him: in the end result "he only played with religion."

From what I have read about Sungenis here, and his many changes, the question in my mind is, too, if he is really serious or just playing with religion.

John Bugay said...

Brigitte: Erasmus on the other hand managed to stay within the RC church and "safe" so to speak, by being unclear in his speech, and waffling as to doctrine; as Luther said about him: in the end result "he only played with religion."

From what I have read about Sungenis here, and his many changes, the question in my mind is, too, if he is really serious or just playing with religion.


As much as I am not interested in defending Sungenis, Vatican II muddied some waters in very significant ways; those guys like Sungenis and Matatics who maybe fell in love with Tridentine Rome, and a model of authority that seemingly clarified everything, ended up finding themselves in the midst of internal disputes they never expected.

Rhology said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhology said...

Wait, so Sungenis authored a book countering a declaration signed by a high-ranking Cardinal, and that book has an imprimatur?

We are hovering at the event horizon of a serious vortex of irony.


I didn’t disobey the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. I wrote papers exposing the cowardliness of the last few popes who disobeyed heaven on this point.

And I have to add that I laughed out loud on this one.


I didn’t fail to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.

How in the world did individual layman Sungenis know it was heresy? When did the Magisterium define it?

Wow, this blogpost is money.

Brigitte said...

I am not trying to say much about the exact content of his critiques because I am not familiar enough with them. Some of them sound very reasonable. As James would likely point out, many of Erasmus critiques were trail blazing and right and yet in the end Erasmus would not come down on the side of the Gospel.

For anyone who thinks himself apologist (and I think apologetics is a worthwhile task) he needs to ask himself what he is defending. Is it the Gospel itself, his very life in it, the hope that is in him, so help him God and shall he suffer death before he falls away from it, or is he defending something else or doing something else?

Someone who makes so many changes, seems to me not to have grasped the Gospel itself.

(And of course, I would recommend the Book of Concord to everyone, which deals with everything so succinctly, until I get thrown off this blog. :))

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I give big props to Sungenis for being a modern day inside prophet of warning to Catholicism.

He's to be commended.

Viisaus said...

"Erasmus on the other hand managed to stay within the RC church and "safe" so to speak, by being unclear in his speech, and waffling as to doctrine; as Luther said about him: in the end result "he only played with religion.""

Yes, Sungenis strikes me as more sincere (in his errors) than Erasmus, whom I understand all sides, RCs and Prods alike, ended up seeing as a non-committed weasel.

Erasmus was also always calling for more irenic, ecumenical approach - he dd not share Sungenis' fundamentally militant attitude (witness how enamored Sungenis is with WW II posters...)

Ken said...

In the link that James provided about Robert Sungenis, Dr. White points out that Sungenis was a "church hopper" -

From Family Radio (Harold Camping -now a cult - predicted the rapture before in 1994? (so he is a false prophet) and told all Christians to abandon all churches. New prediction is that Judgment Day in on May 21, 2011. )

to 5 Presb. churches
to the Boston Church of Christ movement! (another cult !)

to Roman Catholicism to now something similar to the "Radical Traditionalist" RC position. (rejection of modern Popes and Vatican 2)

"Mr. Sungenis graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary, a true "bastion" of Reformed thought. Yet, we are told that he not only joined, but was being "groomed for leadership," in the Boston Church of Christ, a movement identified by most as a cult! How one can jump from one end of the theological spectrum (Reformed) into the Boston Movement in one fell swoop is difficult to understand. Such actions, however, demonstrate that Mr. Sungenis, far from being a grounded, well-instructed Reformed believer, was, in fact, ripe for the call of an authoritarian system like Rome."

From Dr. White's review of Robert Sungenis' and Julie Swenson's testimony in Surprised by Truth.

James Swan said...

Hi Brigitte!

Luther did not chose to work outside the Roman Catholic church. He was excommunicated and never allowed to defend the doctrine. He was ever supposed to "recant".

Yeah- I was using the popular Luther / Erasmus distinction which typically posits Luther went after Rome's doctrine while Erasmus simply went after abuses. Of course, you and I both know, Luther went after both!

From what I have read about Sungenis here, and his many changes, the question in my mind is, too, if he is really serious or just playing with religion.

I think Robert is very serious. Rather than become a Mega-convert superstar (which I think he could've been), he appears to be a person more interested in what he perceives to be the truth, rather than climbing to the top of the Roman Catholic apologetics food chain. Keep in mind, I used to see him on EWTN, now no more. I used to frequently have Roman Catholics quote him to me, now no more.

I've never met him, but I have been to a few of his debates. For whatever it's worth, Sungenis really does appear to be alone. I'm curious to continue watching his progress.

James Swan said...

(And of course, I would recommend the Book of Concord to everyone, which deals with everything so succinctly, until I get thrown off this blog. :))

The chances of you getting thrown off this blog are about 0.0%. which reminds me, I need to send you an e-mail...

Brigitte said...

Yes, he seems very serious. But Luther is anathema, so he is still not getting the Gospel, so whatever he is doing is still off base. It should be a warning to us all.

Someone who says justification by faith is wrong, is not a "prophet" though he says some right things. By now he should know what's right.

James Swan said...

Someone who says justification by faith is wrong, is not a "prophet" though he says some right things. By now he should know what's right.

Indeed. I have some of his books, and let's just say a guy who writes books entitled "Not By Faith Alone" and "Not By Scripture Alone" is not someone I'm interested in deeming a prophet.

Scott Windsor said...

If I may chime in (I haven't done that much here since my daughter's illness and passing) I have some empathy for Bob. I am not worried about quoting him and/or recommending his "Not By..." series of books, one of which he mentions in what you've quoted (though not by name). I don't agree with him on every take, but I'm more in agreement with him than disagreement when it comes to Catholic doctrine, and I believe most Catholic apologists are as well. When it comes to OTHER issues of non-doctrinal matters and especially non-dogmatic matters, there can be and is disagreement.

Scott<<<

Scott Windsor said...

Brigitte said: Yes, he seems very serious. But Luther is anathema, so he is still not getting the Gospel, so whatever he is doing is still off base. It should be a warning to us all.

Luther was excommunicated. Excommunication does not mean one is no longer a Catholic, they just cannot "commune" or partake in the Sacraments, save Confession, until they have reconciled to the Church. Luther didn't want reconciliation - be honest about that - he wanted to hold his ground at all costs - and he did, though that "ground" shifted quite a bit from his earlier Protestant days to his later ones.

Brigitte continues: Someone who says justification by faith is wrong, is not a "prophet" though he says some right things.

Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone. We have St. James' backing on this.

Scott<<<

Steve Polson said...

If Luther became less and less desirous to be "reconciled" as time went by, he can hardly be blamed, considering how badly he was treated by Rome.

Rhology said...

Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone. We have St. James' backing on this.

Just not the aforementioned high-ranking Cardinal's backing on it.

CathApol said...

Alan,
I'm pleased to see that you accept that justification is NOT by faith alone!

Scott<<<

The 27th Comrade said...

@Brigitte, CathApol:
Justification is by faith alone. Understand your James well. Even the Abraham example that James gives is of Abraham's works, which come chapters after "Abraham believed, and it was merited to him as righteousness."

Rhology said...

Don't just yell "James 2!!!!"

zipper778 said...

Scott Windsor said: I haven't done that much here since my daughter's illness and passing

I just wanted to say Scott that I'm sorry for your loss. I can't imagine how hard this hit you. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family.

God Bless

The 27th Comrade said...

Great one, Rho; a well-written and concise gem.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with all of it. I maintain (and I may be alone on this, but here I stand ...) that good works do not necessarily follow from justifying faith, even though I agree we cannot help acting on what we believe.
If we believe that we are justified before God through Christ, this being the faith that justifies, we cannot help act a certain way (as Hebrews 4 says, "let us boldly approach the throne of Grace with a clear conscience" this being done due to what we believe). But will having this justifying faith imply that I will necessarily do the upright things more than I did before? No. (In fact, emphasising this, mostly due to bullying from the works-based people, has led people to teach their flock not to live by faith, but by sight: you will know that you are justified, because you will have to be doing more of the upright things. But we live by faith, not by sight.)

Viisaus said...

In his book of "Councils and Church" (1539), Martin Luther employed the metaphors of the 5th century Christological controversies (Nestorianism and Eutychianism) to illustrate his view of the relationship between faith and good works.

If I understood Luther correctly, these two belong together "WITHOUT SEPARATION AND WITHOUT CONFUSION", just like the two natures of Christ.

And like the divine nature of Christ was before the Incarnation His only one, and thus inherently "superior" to Christ's human nature, so the faith is inherently superior to good works and necessarily precedes them - even though faith and good works must exist in "hypostatic union" in the lives of every true believer.

Viisaus said...

Here is an online link to Martin Luther's "On the Councils and the Churches" where he gives his opinions of the 5th century controversies and the relationship of faith and good works:

http://www.archive.org/stream/worksofmartinlut009285mbp#page/n221/mode/2up

Brigitte said...

The distinction between "by faith" or "by faith alone" is a Erasmian-style waffling, afraid to say what it really is.

LPC said...

Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone.

The reason why RC Apols are quick to shout this is because their idea of faith is not the same as the idea of faith as defined by Protestants. For them, when faith is mentioned, they think it means assent like I believe that an island exists somewhere though I have never seen it. It is not trust.

It seems clear that the one shouting Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone. has a different understanding of faith and has not the same object of faith as the one who says Justification IS by faith alone

LPC

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Bugay: You proffered for your audience the following quote from a work of Pope Benedict XVI:

“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the grounds that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”

Are we to assume that you actually translated this quote from page 26 of the Sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, an early work of the former Fr. Ratzinger that has never been published in English? Or will you admit that you merely borrowed it from an sedevacantist website without verifying the accuracy of the quote or what Pope Benedict XVI actually has taught over the years?

Just in case it is the latter, I offer a corrective on my website.

God bless!

John Bugay said...

Or will you admit that you merely borrowed it from an sedevacantist website without verifying the accuracy of the quote or what Pope Benedict XVI actually has taught over the years?

Paul Hoffer, I did "borrow" this, but not without some verification, namely, that Robert Sungenis made the same naked citation, here.

Apparently, it is not safe to cite the things that this famous Catholic Apologist par excellence-turned-"prophet of warning" is citing; the Protestant is held to a higher standard.

(I only note this because I note that you have not similarly called Robert Sungenis to account. Might we assume then that you are allowing this little double standard for yourself?)

Nevertheless, I have removed the offending quotation, and I give you my personal assurance that I will not make such a mistake in the future.

And, if you are interested in my other, somewhat-more-detailed analyses of Ratzinger's work, it is freely searchable on this site.

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Bugay, since you did not give attribution, I was not able to call Mr. Sugenis to account. However, I did note that you were merely repeating the defamation, not that you were its originator. Thus, your accusation of double-standards is premature. I will add Mr. Sungenis' link to my article as the source of your misapprehension.

Speaking of double standards, it is sort of a double standard that you would trust the accuracy of a Catholic source merely because it supports your opinion of the Catholics Church over another that opposes your view. Also, it would have been far more impressive of you to correct the misapprehension you created in repeating the quote claiming that Pope Benedict XVI denied the Real Presence and Eucharistic Adoration rather than just removing it.

John Bugay said...

Thus, your accusation of double-standards is premature.

Then your "Just in case" blog article is also premature.

Ratzinger has taught many things over the years, and it should not be in question that in his early years, he was a liberal. This is not in question.

What should alarm you is the ease with which he slipped into a more "conservative" posture.

Why are you concerned with alleged inconsistencies in what I write? I am a mere blogger. Ratzinger is your pope now. Do you accept everything unreservedly that he has said?

it would have been far more impressive of you to correct the misapprehension you created in repeating the quote claiming that Pope Benedict XVI denied the Real Presence and Eucharistic Adoration rather than just removing it.

I did not "create" a misapprehension. I may have sought to perpetuate an "apprehension" that many have, including Sungenis, who is on your side.

And I prefaced my comment by saying that such a thing would have offended me back in the days when I was Roman Catholic.

That it has not been translated into English [in any official way -- there are more extensive translations] -- does not remove the potentially caustic nature of what he said.

One might well ask, why do they not translate this work into English, as readily as they have translated some other works? Are they trying to hide something?

I'll ask further, why is it so hard to find an index in a Ratzinger book? Is someone trying to cover his paper trail?

Mind you, I'm not making accusations, just asking questions. Your sophist/Thomist understanding of things should be able to understand the difference.

At any rate, I'm preparing a much more thorough treatment of all of this.

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Bugay:

You wrote: "Then your "Just in case" blog article is also premature."

I respond: I am not the one who posted something without giving it attribution. The fact that Mr. Sungenis posted something without attribution is reprehensible as well. I will state that Mr. Sungenis also stated that this sort of statement was never "reiterated", something you left out of your positing.

You wrote: "Ratzinger has taught many things over the years, and it should not be in question that in his early years, he was a liberal. This is not in question."

I respond: Well the problem is that you cited to the work as if it were a present authoritative expession claiming that it was a "betrayal" of Church doctrine. Your sophistry is no less an attempt to obfuscate that.

You srote: "What should alarm you is the ease with which he slipped into a more "conservative" posture."

I respond: Again, more obfuscation. Whether he is a liberal or conservative is of no import to me. The issue is whether he taught anything that is contrary to the teachings of the Church itself-a question you have not yet answered. You claim that Pope Benedict XVI "betrayed" the teachings of the Church. I have challenged your assertion.

You write: "Why are you concerned with alleged inconsistencies in what I write? I am a mere blogger. Ratzinger is your pope now. Do you accept everything unreservedly that he has said?"

I answer: I am not alleging "inconsistency", I am contending that you posted a comment that was defamatory. Further, you are not posting as a mere blogger. You are posting as a Christian blogger and as an apologist. That suggests that you should be adhering to some sort of standard of truhfullness. Furthermore, you are posting on this website which holds itself out as persuasive resource on behalf of Reformed theology and as an opponent to the "Roman" Catholic Church. So you are anyhting but "mere".

As for whether I accept what Pope Benedict XVI teaches unreservedly, my assent to Catholic teaching is not a blind or implicit faith but a question of willing obedience. There are mechanisms for examining and questioning one's teachings of an authoritative figure, whether he be a priest or a pontiff. My allegience to the Church requires me to do so within the parameters of the Rule of Faith. If I was so unreservedly accepting of what the Pope teaches as a part of the ordinary magisterium, I would not have taken the time to investigation and write the article questioning your mis-quoting somehting he wrote as a young man decades ago. The question is why are you so willing to accept without investigation a quote that he supposedly made in 1966? What does that say about the notion of "private judgment"? And given the fact that you were wrong here about what Pope Benedict XVI has held and taught since before he was elected as pope, why should anyone accept as truthful anything you write unreservedly?

Paul Hoffer said...

You wrote: "I did not "create" a misapprehension. I may have sought to perpetuate an "apprehension" that many have, including Sungenis, who is on your side."

I respond: Perpetrating a misapprehension here is creating one here since you posted here. Repeating a lie doesn't make the statement any less of a lie, does it?

You wrote: "And I prefaced my comment by saying that such a thing would have offended me back in the days when I was Roman Catholic."

I respond: So what? Reconcile your statement above with Romans 1:32.

You wrote: "That it has not been translated into English [in any official way -- there are more extensive translations] -- does not remove the potentially caustic nature of what he said."

I respond: Do please link us to one a more extensive translation. I would like to see how such differs from what he has taught since 2001.

You wrote: "One might well ask, why do they not translate this work into English, as readily as they have translated some other works? Are they trying to hide something?"

I respond: Why have not Protestants translated everything Fr. Luther or John Calvin wrote into English? What do you folks have to hide?


You wrote: "I'll ask further, why is it so hard to find an index in a Ratzinger book? Is someone trying to cover his paper trail?"

I respond: My goodness! Why not look to your own house first and work on providing attribution for your quotes rather than speculate about why some works of a particular author provides an index for your personal ease? The fact that Fr. Ratzinger took the time to publish the text of a speech he had given is suggestive that he has nothing to hide at all. Why didn't Marin Luther or John Calvin publish everyhing he wrote with an index in English? For that matter, how come you don't publish an index with everything you post here?

You wrote: "At any rate, I'm preparing a much more thorough treatment of all of this."

I respond: I look forward to seeing the lenghts you will go avoid apologizing to your readers for posting something that was not true.

God bless!

Carrie said...

I haven't done that much here since my daughter's illness and passing

I haven't commented much in months and am reading this post late, but I was saddened to read this and wanted to give Scott my deep condolences.

I am so sorry about the loss of your daughter, Scott.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"but I was saddened to read this and wanted to give Scott my deep condolences.

I am so sorry about the loss of your daughter, Scott."


Triple ditto.

I'm sorry for your loss too, Scott Windsor.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr. Bugay, I updated my article to incorporate the source of your "Pope Benedict quotation." I do look forward to your response.

God bless!

James Swan said...

Paul Hoffer says:

God bless!

Over on his blog, Paul Hoffer says:

Will we soon see articles written by Mr. Swan, James White, Steve Hays, David King, and Turretinfan chiding Mr. Bugay for his lack of scholarship or will they close ranks and attack me for pointing out the obvious double standard? Well, they are Calvinists and if they stick to their usual modus operandi, I am sure to see derogatory articles about yours truly if they even bother dealing with this matter at all.

Paul,

You are a week behind.

I'm trying to think, where are my "derogatory articles" about you? Please refresh my memory.

James Swan said...

Paul it took a while, but I found this mean nasty post I wrote about you:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/response-to-paul-hoffer-on-luther.html

Sorry, I'm a calvinist, so of course I wrote such awful things about you. Notice the meanness that dripped from my every word, slander after slander about you.

PeaceByJesus said...

And what might be the reaction if you, James, charged that

John Paul II
1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission”
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
6. Suggested that hell might not exist.
7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant
8. Kissed the Koran
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles.
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)
17. Exonerated Luther
18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia.

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Swan, Please note that I used the word "Will" before my inflammatory coment. I erred in including However, to the point you are making, I do admit that my remarks are over the top and for that I do apologize. As one of your compatriots pointed out, my wordings tends towards the bombastic. I know that I make mistakes and since I do take ownership of my words, I will tone down the offending language in my post. I certainly do not believe that all Calvinists are that way. Thank you for that correction! I deserved it.

God bless!

Paul Hoffer said...

Mr. Swan:

here is the addition I made to my article:

[April 26, 2011. Please note: I have revised this article to remove some language that was uncharitable to James Swan, James White, Steven Hays, Turretinfan and David King. It was unfair of me to paint them with a broad brush-particularly when such is an exercise in fallacious argumentation-which the reader knows I abhor and have commented on several times here. Over at his blog, Mr. Swan was correct for calling me to account for saying what I said about him and about "Calvinist" apologists in general when my focus should have been kept on the remarks of Mr. Bugay. As I said there, and as I will here-I apologize to all of the aforementioned gentlemen for the over-generalization.]

I also redacted what I believe was not appropriate as well.

Again, thank you for correcting me.