Thursday, April 28, 2011

Sungenis Update

"When we consider the fact that, in the sixth century, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by two popes and three councils, and that his name was displayed as a heretic in the Liber Diurnus for the next one thousand years, for merely writing a private letter to bishop Sergius in which he stated that Christ had one will instead of two – an esoteric doctrine that was not easily understood then or now – how is it possible that John Paul II can do all the above in public and not only escape being censored but actually be put on the fast-track to sainthood? By his own admission, John Paul II read the Koran every day, a book denying not only that Jesus had two wills but also denying that he had two natures. And we are going to make him a saint yet condemn Honorius for a private letter? What does this tell us about the condition of the Church today? [source]

While digging around, I found a very interesting tidbit about the debate Dr. White had with Robert Sungenis on Honorius. Ever wonder what goes on behind the scenes?

David Palm:
The most famous of these is probably that of Pope Honorius. Gerry Matatics and Tim Staples in public debate argued that Honorius was not wrong and they were soundly defeated by a knowledgeable opponent. Robert Sungenis was all set to try the same approach, but Steve Ray and David Palm convinced him that the approach to the question taken by the famous patristic scholar Dom John Chapman was the correct one: “The Pope and the Council were in agreement as to the necessity of condemning Honorius, and they were certainly right in doing so under the circumstances” (Chapman, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 9). Chapman goes on to argue that, although this was indeed an official papal document and did address a doctrinal matter, Pope Honorius did not convene the Roman Synod, did not invoke the authority of St. Peter, did not do any of the things Popes of his day were wont to do when authoritatively addressing a doctrinal issue. He was wrong on a doctrinal matter, but he manifestly did not bind the Church to his error.

R. Sungenis:
Yes, Mr. Palm is correct. He, Steve Ray and I agreed in a phone conversation before my debate with James White that it is best to say that Honorius made an error but did not do so while invoking papal infallibility. But Mr. Palm’s mistake here is his attempt to tie that issue to the Galileo issue. The reason is, unlike geocentrism, no one before Honorius taught that Christ had one will, but all the Fathers taught geocentrism, without exception. No one after Honorius taught Christ had one will, but all the medievals, all the saints, all the theologians, all the popes, cardinals and catechisms taught geocentrism for the next thousand or more years. No pope or council condemned what the Tradition taught on geocentrism, nor condemned or rescinded any decree against geocentrism issued by Paul V, Urban VIII, Alexander VII or Benedict XIV, but all of them condemned the idea that Christ had one will. [source]


Viisaus said...

Sometimes I really can't help feeling pity for traditionalist RCs like Sungenis. Their own liberal leadership has betrayed them and put them to an impossible position.

Oh well, these people put their hope on the Vatican idol, and now their idols are failing them (Psalm 97:7), so one could say they are ultimately getting what they deserve.

"On the day of Pope John Paul II’s death, I received a phone call from a young lady in New Zealand, a friend of the family. She presently works in a situation where she interacts with Muslims and Hindus. When she tells these non-Catholics, with gentleness and charity, they must convert to the one true Catholic Church to save their souls, the Muslims and Hindus laugh at her. “Your Pope doesn’t believe that”, they cackle, referring to John Paul II, “Your Pope doesn’t teach that. Your Pope’s interfaith actions don’t convey that. Your Pope prays with the Dalai Lama and with Hindus. Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. You are out-of-step with your own Pope. Why should we listen to you?”

Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved. “What?”, said the Protestant, “You obviously don’t read the writings of your own Pope. He prays with Protestants. He praises Martin Luther as a man of ‘deep religiousness’. He calls Protestants ‘disciples of Christ’. He never says it is necessary to become Catholic for salvation.”"

James Swan said...

Sometimes I really can't help feeling pity for traditionalist RCs like Sungenis.

Mr. Sungenis is indeed an interesting study. This article is interesting:


John Paul II is essentially claiming to be the only pope to have fulfilled Our Lady's plea at Fatima. Logically, this means that John Paul II judges all attempts by previous popes to be failures, either in part or in whole, otherwise he would not have to step in and correct what they supposedly did wrong.

This also means that John Paul II has recognized that those occupying the papacy can, indeed, fail in their mission; not only in their ordinary duties, but also when they receive a direct message from heaven. In effect, John Paul II's claim to have finally fulfilled the consecration requested by Our Lady actually reveals just how obstinate the previous popes had been to the requests of heaven, since it wasn't until 55 years later (beginning from 1929) that the request was supposedly fufilled.

This also means that John Paul II is, albeit indirectly, putting blame on John XXIII and Paul VI for their neglect to even attempt a consecration.

This also means that if previous popes can err regarding the affairs of Fatima, then John Paul II, being the present occupant of the papacy, can also err. Not only can he err, but he can err in a very important matter regarding Church affairs, since, outside of Christ's birth, death and resurrection, and Pentecost, Fatima is next in line for being one of the most important events in Church history.

Essentially, then, if other popes have erred in their treatment of the Fatima issue, it also means that there is no guarantee that John Paul II himself, as of March 25, 1984, has indeed obeyed the request of heaven, since he has proved that popes, including himself, can err in this exercise.

In fact, if we examine the facts honestly, it seems highly unlikely that John Paul II did fulfill Our Lady's request.

First, identical to John Paul II, Pius XII also consecrated "the world" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He did so in 1942, and even more correctly than John Paul II did in 1984, since Pius XII had all the bishops of the world participate. Obviously, however, John Paul II has judged the 1942 consecration as insufficient, otherwise he wouldn't have initiated another consecration in 1984. So how could a consecration of the "world" in 1942 be considered insufficient, and yet replaced with another consecration of the "world" in 1984 and be considered sufficient? Perhaps Mr. Pacheco can answer that for us. If Mr. Pacheco appeals to "John Paul's authority as pope," this will not answer the question, since the mere act of initiating another consecration in 1984 means that John Paul II has admitted that popes can err in this matter.

Second, notice John Paul's exact words above: "Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima." You will see by the underlined words that John Paul claims that the plea of Our Lady of Fatima was to 'entrust all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary."