Roman Catholic Apologist Misunderstands Martin Luther on Saving Faith and its Relation to Good Works

I came across this Q and A entry from Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis: How do we understand James 2:18 "I will show my faith by my works"? The entry isn't dated, but the hyperlink has August 2010:

Luther believed in the pure “faith alone” doctrine, that is, a faith that was not dependent on works in any way, shape or form. The reason he wanted to eliminate works is that if one tries to qualify his faith by the kind of works he does, then he will always wonder whether his works were good enough to qualify his faith, and thus he is back to the very problem Luther was trying to escape, that is, having to judge his works as good enough to meet God’s standards of righteousness. This is precisely why Luther, before he had is “faith alone” revelation, used to whip himself with chains – so that his works would be good enough (so he thought).

Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as “saving faith,” for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran. This is precisely why he wanted to jettison the book of James. He didn’t want to have James insisting that faith and works worked together in any way.

It was only the later Lutherans, under Philip Melanchthon, who rejected Luther’s pure “faith alone” doctrine and began to integrate James back into the picture. They thought they did so by claiming that James was merely speaking about qualifying faith by works, but once they did so they came right back to the Catholic position, yet they camouflaged it by using different phraseology than what was used in Catholic doctrine. But they were really only fooling themselves. As a Protestant, one cannot use works to qualify faith, since one can never know whether his works were sufficient to do the job of qualifying.

In effect, pure Lutheranism only survived in Luther’s generation. No Protestant since Luther has ever really believed in the original “faith alone” doctrine, but they keep using the phrase to make it appear as if they are distant from Catholic doctrine, and few have caught on to it.

Note carefully what the picture above states: "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Martin Luther adhered to this. Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. My paper here goes into this in great depth.  In that paper, I cited Roland Bainton quoting Luther: 

"Faith," wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith." [Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, a Life of Martin Luther (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 331; WA 8:361; LW 79:75-76].

Bainton cited WA 8:361. The comment from Luther is found translated into English in a 1521 sermon on Luke 17:11-19. In that context, Luther states the following:

See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24 (cf. LW 79:75-76).

German text: Sihe, das meynet S. Jacob. Jaco. ij. "Der glawbe, so er nit wirckt, ist er todt. Und wie der leyb on seel todt ist, so ist auch der glaub on werck todt". Nit das der glaube ym menschen sey und nit wircke, wilchs nitt muglich ist, denn der glawb ist ein lebendig unrugig ding, sondern das sich die menschen nitt selb betriegen und meynen, sie haben den glawbenn, so sie doch nichts davon haben, sondern sollen ansehen yhr werck, ob sie auch yhrn nehisten lieben und yhm woll thun. Thun sie das, so ists ein zeychen, das sie dissen rechten glauben haben. Thun sie aber nit, so haben sie nur das gehore vom glawben. Und geschicht yhn, wie dem, der sich ym spiegel besihet: wenn er davon geht, szo sihet er sich nymmer, und durch ansehen anderer ding vorgisset er des spiegels gesicht, alsz auch Jaco. i. geschrieben stet (WA 8:361-362).

 Luther continues: 

This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72; LW 79:76].

German text: Dissen spruch Jacobi haben die vorkurer und blinden meyster szo weyt gezogen, bysz das sie den glawben vortilget unnd nur die werck auff gericht haben, alsz stehe die gerechtickeyt und selickeyt nit ym glawben, szondern yn den wercken. Zu der grossen finsternisz haben sie darnach noch eyn gröszere thunn unnd nur die gutte werck geleret, die dem nehisten feyn nütz sind, alsz fasten, viel gepet sprechen, feyren, nit fleysch, putter, eyer, milch essen, kirchen, kloster, capeln, altar bawen, mesz, vigilien, horas stifften, graw, weisz, schwartz kleider tragen, geistlich werden, und der unzehlich gleichen, davon doch keyn mensch nütz noch geniesz hatt, wilch auch got alle vordampt, und billich. Aber S. Jacobus will das, sintemal eyn Christlich leben ist nichts denn glawbe unnd liebe. Liebe ist nichts denn eyttel woll thun und nuy seyn allen menschen, feynden und freunden. Unnd wo der glawb recht ist, szo liebt er auch gewiszlich und thut den andern ynn der liebe, wie yhm Christus than hatt ynn seynem glawben. Szo soll nu eyn iglicher sich fursehen, das er nit eynen trawm und geticht an stat des glaubens ym hertzen habe und sich selber betriege: das wirt er bey seynem ding alsz woll erkennen, alsz bey den wercken der liebe. Wie auch Christus dasselb zeychen gibt und spricht: "Da bey kan man wissen, das yhr meine iunger seyt, szo yhr euch untereinander liebt". Darumb will S. Jacob sagen: Sihe fur dich, steht dein leben nit also, das es andern diene, und du fur dich selbs lebist, nympst dich deynsz nehisten nit an, szo ist deyn glawbe gewiszlich nichts, denn er thut nit, wie yhm Christus than hatt.  Ja er glowbt nit, das yhm Christus woll than hat, sonst liesz er nitt, er thet seynem nehisten auch wol (WA 8:362).

Elsewhere in The Sermons of Martin Luther, Luther states:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright.  [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308; LW 78:324].

German text: Das meynet S. Jacobus yn seyner Epistel, da er spricht "Der glawb on werck ist todt". Das ist, weyll die werck nicht folgen, ists eyn gewiß heychen, das keyn glaub da sey, sondern eyn todter gedancke und trawm, den sie falschlich glawben nennen. Also verstehen wyr nu diß wortt Christi "Machet euch freundt von dem unrechten Mammon", das ist: beweyset offenbar mit eußerlichem geben ewren glawben, damit yhr freundt ubirkomet, das die armen ewrs offinbarn wercks zeugen seyn kunden, das yhr rechtschaffen glauben habt, denn das eußerlich geben von yhm selber mochte nymmer mehr freundt machen, wo es nicht auß dem glawben geschech. Sintemal Christus Matt. 6. Der Phariseer almoßen verwirfft, das sie keyn freundt damit machten, weyll das herz falsch war. Nu wirt yhe keyn herz recht on den glawben, das also auch die natur zwingt zu bekennen, das keyn werck frum macht, sondern das herz zuvor frum und gutt seyn muß (WA 10.3:288).

Conclusion 
In my old paper, I provided a number of quotes demonstrating Luther's understanding of saving faith and its relation to works. When Dr. Sungenis states, "Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as 'saving faith,' for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran," he appears to not have any understanding of a basic part of Luther's theology: the relationship of faith and works.

Luther understood good works to be those that flow out of faith, out of gratitude for the righteousness of Christ, and the forgiveness of Christ. Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation, rather, they are the result of a living faith.  Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 34; LW 75:41-42; WA 10.1.2:37-38]. 

German text: Nu komen wyr auff das ander, auff die guten werck, das wyr Christum nit alleyn zur gabe empfahendurch den glawben, sondern auch zum exempel durch die liebe gegen unserm nehisten, dem wyr sollen dienen und gutt thun, wie uns Christus thut. Der glawb bringt und gibt dir Christum zu eygen, mit all seynen gutern. Die liebe gibt dich deynem nehisten mit alle deynen guttern, und inn den zweyen steht ein Christlich leben, lautter und volkomlich; darnach folget denn leyden und verfolgung umb solchs glawbens unnd liebe willen, darauß wechst denn hoffnung inn der gedult (WA 10.1.2:37-38). 

Revised March 2026 

Debate: The Bodily Assumption Of Mary (White vs Sungenis)

North American Pope Declares Anathemas Against Renegade Apologists

http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/hyperbolic-traditionalists?page=1

    #119  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Pete Vere (post 105):

You bring up a name from the past: Gerry Matatics. Probably many people reading this thread would ask, “Who?” Gerry has been out of the limelight for quite a while, but a quarter century ago he and Scott Hahn, then still friends, were bright stars in the constellation of converts.

I always respected Gerry’s native talents. As highly as I regard Scott’s talents, I thought that Gerry could have excelled Scott, if he had applied himself. But he never had the self-discipline.

I remember listening to a tape of one of his debates—this was after he left Catholic Answers, where he had been employed for seven months beginning in June 1990. The debate was held in Brooklyn, and Gerry then was living in Front Royal, Virginia, down the road from Christendom College, where he once had taught. He spent much of his opening remarks saying that he hadn’t prepared for the debate but did jot down notes on a legal pad as he drove up. (Not smart. If you neglect to prepare for a public performance, at least don’t announce it to your audience.)

As you know, Gerry and I were at odds after he left Catholic Answers. I wrote about him a few times over the succeeding years and for the most part confined my remarks to his religious ideas or actions, but my deeper concerns were at the level of ethics and character.

By 2006 Gerry had confirmed himself, publicly, as a sedevacantist (his term, even if in your eyes he qualified as a sedeprivationist), and then he largely disappeared from public view. As he had in previous years, he went on the road, speaking usually at Holiday Inns to tiny audiences—sometimes to as few as six people, from reports I had. And then even the speaking stopped.

How he gets by, what he now does for a living, I don’t know. I hope he has a “regular” job. I remember Scott Hahn commenting that Gerry should get out of religious work entirely, for his good and that of his family, and become a teacher of French at a private or public school. (Gerry’s French is said to be good.)

Maybe he’s doing something like now; maybe Chris Ferrara knows. But it’s clear from Gerry’s website that he no longer has many (or any?) speaking engagements, and, of course, he never has produced a written product. But he still produces recordings and every few months will throw onto the website a pitch for them. The only other outreach he has, so far as I know, is a series of online interviews with Judith Sharp. I suppose those interviews can’t have many listeners.

You bring up Gerry’s move toward sedevacantism. This was something I wrote about more than once in “This Rock” magazine, most extensively in the August 1995 issue.

Gerry had accepted an appointment as an instructor at the sedevacantist seminary run by Bishop Daniel Dolan in Cincinnati. (I’ve never settled to my own satisfaction whether Dolan was validly consecrated, but we’ll give him the courtesy of the title.) The seminary even had distributed an advertising flyer with Gerry’s name and photo on it.

Dolan and his associates were then, and are now, strict-observance sedevacantists. I think it’s scarcely imaginable that they would have hired someone not in line with their thinking. (Gerry ended up not accepting employment by the seminary.)

Back in those days Gerry was getting much, maybe most, of his income by speaking in so-called “Novus Ordo” parishes. He had one set of talks—his conversion story, for example—for those venues, another set—lots of anti-Vatican II red meat—for “Traditionalist” conferences.

That dichotomy couldn’t last, of course. Word started to get around to regular parishes that Gerry was telling two stories; his gigs started to dry up. (And, no, neither I nor anyone I know had anything to do with that; it was a process of auto-destruction on Gerry’s part. Two or three times someone called to ask whether I thought Gerry would be an appropriate speaker for a parish. Not wanting to be blamed for his loss of gigs, I just replied that I wasn’t in a position to recommend him.)

You have heard about Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Charles Darwin wasn’t a particularly effective promoter of his own theories, but Huxley sure was. He was out in public far more than Darwin. It was as though Darwin was hidden away, with only Huxley giving the defense.

So it was, in a way, with Chris Ferrara and Gerry. Chris was Gerry’s bulldog. I don’t remember Gerry ever writing to counter anything I reported about him, but Chris often wrote against me.

It isn’t pertinent at this point to dig up the arguments or the sometimes harsh language—all this was a long time ago—but I found it curious that Chris, however much he thought I had it in for Gerry, didn’t seem to examine the information I gathered and say to himself, “Well, Keating’s being arch about this, but there is something increasingly odd about Gerry and his ideas.”

As I said, I was writing about Gerry’s slide into sedevacantism as long ago as 1995. Chris gave up his public defense of Gerry only about the time that Gerry finally styled himself a sedevacantist, which was in 2006. (Gerry still has on the top page of his website a short piece he wrote in 2006: “Is Gerry Matatics a ‘sedevacantist’?” In it he objects to the word “sedevacantist” but shows that he accepts the principles most people associate with the word.)

As Gerry was making what amounted to a public affirmation of his position, Chris wrote a multi-part series against sedevacantism in “The Remnant,” the first time that he had addressed the topic, so far as I know. He didn’t mention Gerry. At the time I took the series to be a last-ditch effort to pull his friend back from the brink, but the bulldog wasn’t strong enough to stop a leap over the edge.

I appreciate that Chris wrote, in post 108 above, that I “was probably right all along about Gerry's sedevacantism. I didn't see it at the time.” I accept that he didn’t see it in 1995 and maybe not even a decade later, but I’m at a loss to explain how it couldn’t be seen. So many others saw it.

Maybe this is an example of the loyalty of friendship clouding one’s eyes—or maybe, those many years ago, Chris, because of his animus toward me, thought that the allegations couldn’t be true precisely because it was I who leveled them.

It doesn’t matter really. What does matter is that a man with exceptional talents and exceptional promise misused those talents and never fulfilled that promise—not because outside forces were against him but because of his own inner failings. This is the definition of tragedy, as Shakespeare knew it and showed it.

Sometimes I think back to the heady days when I first knew Gerry and imagined the good he could do for the Church. It’s hard to conjure up those memories now because they were followed by a sad realization that that good was stillborn.

September 4, 2013 at 4:06 pm PST

#123  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Pete Vere (post 121):

Thanks for the further insights. I chuckled that during your phone call with Gerry he insisted on settling things with you through a public debate. That's been his m.o.

Years ago I attended a convention of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars that was held in Washington, D.C. By that time Gerry was living again in Front Royal. Before I left home I contacted him, saying I'd like the two of us to meet privately and see whether we could begin to forge a new relationship. He agreed to meet me at the convention's hotel.

I waited for him in the lobby. He brought with him a large plastic bin filled with file folders. It was like the bins I saw lawyers bring into courtrooms when I used to practice law. Gerry said the folders contained his "documentation" for our debate.

"What debate?" I asked. He said he wanted to round up FCS members to sit as a panel to adjudicate the issues between us.

I said something to this effect: "Are you nuts? These people aren't here to oversee a trial between you and me. They're here for the convention. I invited you here for a private talk, and you've shown up looking for a public fight. Besides, you didn't let me in on your plan, so of course all of my documentation is at home."

As you might imagine, my attempt to effect a rapprochement got nowhere. It was a small comfort to me to learn that something similar happened to Scott Hahn when, on a separate occasion, he was in the D.C. area and made a similar offer to Gerry. Gerry responded with a debate challenge: "The only meeting I'll have with you is a public debate." Sheesh!

As for Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara: I know they don't give any truck to sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism). When Chris wrote the series against sedevacantism in "The Remnant," I had the impression that he had to work up his thesis in short order--as I said in my previous post, probably to encourage Gerry to move away from the edge--yet he gave a good account of the anti-sedevacantist argument.

#125  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff

Dan Aller (post 115):

You say of Bob Sungenis, "I would add that he played a role in getting the US bishops to disavow that heresy in the adult catechism," your reference being to the bishops changing a text that said Jews don't need to be saved by the Christian covenant because they have salvation through their own.

Bob repeatedly has claimed that his writings about the issue caused the bishops to alter the text. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and it's unlikely on its face.

Bob is perceived by many to have an obsession with Jews, by others to be outright anti-Semitic. How credible is it to think that the bishops would make any sort of change at his behest? Shouldn't those suspicious of the bishops' motives in other things imagine that they would rather have dug in their heels than be perceived as acquiescing to anything pushed by Bob?

I haven't seen the least evidence that the bishops were motivated by Bob's writings. After all, the complaint about the text wasn't exclusive to him. Others had been saying the same kind of thing for quite a while.

How do we view Popes who Authorized Burning at the Stake?

Here's an old Q and A tidbit I found from Robert Sungenis, answering questions:

Question: I am particularly disturbed that at least from Innocent IV ( I am relying on memory here) onwards, and his bull "Ad Extirpande" in I believe 1234 A.D., torture was indicated to be permissible to use against heretics by the papal inquisition. In addition, many popes over the next three centuries then *mandated* that magistrates had to kill twice-convicted heretics by burning them at the stake, on pain of themselves being excommunicated and burnt themselves. This strikes me as particularly demonic and not particularly an example of the way of Christ who came to save sinners not destroy them, and I find it especially alarming coming as a series of commands in papal bulls. Leo X in his bull "Exsurge, Domine" against Luther (1520) in point 33 condemns Luther for teaching that "burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit". Since Leo X is officially condemning Luther's *teaching* in this bull, it means Leo is *teaching* that burning of heretics is okay.

R. Sungenis: How about stoning of criminals and heretics in the Old Testament, under command of God? How about slaying women and children with the sword when conquering non-Jewish cities, under command of God?

Question: It is not until Pius XII, and later Vatican II, that we find the use of torture and such things as burning of heretics condemned. I believe Pope Nicholas may have condemned the use of torture against heretics c. 866 A.D., but the Medieval popes ignored this and ordered the opposite. I guess my main problem, Dr. Sungenis, is this: if the main purpose of the Pope is to be the rock-foundation of the Church, and to protect us against errors in faith and morals, then how could we have the agonizingly wrong-headed phenomenon of popes *commanding* that heretics be burned alive? That is not mere papal sin, it is rather commanding others to sin on pain of excommunication, and actually *teaching* that burning heretics is okay--and that must surely be a major error in teaching. (I can't think of anything more soul destroying than lighting on fire the flesh of another person and making them burn alive. I'd love your thoughts on these things.

And believe me, I write as a Lutheran who is, nevertheless, very well disposed towards the Catholic Church. I say the rosary, am most interested in Marian apparitions, and firmly believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Frankly, if the Bishop of Rome truly is the successor of Peter, I would want to honor him as such.

R. Sungenis: And look at the state of the Church when popes go to the opposite extreme of allowing evil to exist without punishing it. I personally would have no problem with reinstituting stoning for formal heretics and those convicted of capital crimes. If you don't like burning at the stake because it seems cruel, I'm sure there are other capital punishments that could be implemented to do the same thing that would be more acceptable to you and I in our culture.

Robert Sungenis vs. Catholic Answers

Will the real Roman apologist please stand up?

http://catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/53-scripture/1178-catholic-answers-still-bowing-to-gideons-idol

Recently from Robert Sungenis...

Over on The Bellarmine Report (the website of Roman apologist Robert Sungenis), he has an article entitled, "Blessed Virgin Mary Survives Sandy the Whoricanne."  Can someone explain to me why he used the word "whoricanne"? He also is posting stuff that the Sandy Hook massacre may be a hoax, or something.

Also, in an older entry the website reports Mr. Sungenis has done a new book on Mary. Here's what I found interesting:

#4 Robert Sungenis 2012-05-21 13:46The book will be available for sale from this website toward the end of May. It will also be available form John Salza, and from Fr. Gruner's Fatima apostolate, since he is the publisher. Fr. Gruner will actually be printing 50,000 copies of the book so he can send them to all the bishops and priests of the world. Hopefully, this will move them all to put pressure on the Vatican to finally do the consecration of Russia and stop making excuse for past failures. It is the only thing that is going to change this present world that is headed for hell in a hand-basket.  

Now, I don't keep up with who's who in Romanism, but I do recall that Fr. Gruner is considered "fringe" (for lack of a better term) by mainstream Roman Catholics. This 2002 article on EWTN states:

Finally, in recent years there has been a certain lack of clarity regarding the priestly status of Fr. Gruner. According to the the Congregation for the Clergy, his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known.

Then searching around a bit I found this:

Thursday, September 13, 2001: CONGREGATION ISSUES DECLARATION ON SUSPENDED PRIEST VATICAN CITY, SEP 13, 2001 (VIS) – The following declaration was released yesterday afternoon by the Congregation for the Clergy. It was signed by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, congregation prefect, and by Archbishop Csaba Ternyak, secretary. “The Holy See has received several news reports concerning the so-called Conference for Peace in the World, which is being planned for Rome for October 7 to 13 and which has been organized by Fr. Nicholas Gruner of Canada. “The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate from a higher authority, wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an ‘a divinis’ suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature. “The activities of Fr. Gruner, therefore, including the above-mentioned conference, do not have the approval of legitimate ecclesiastical authorities.”

So, Mr. Sungenis seems to by allying himself with a suspended priest these days.

Roman Catholics Throwing a Roman Catholic Apologist Under the Bus

Here's one to watch from Catholic Answers about the work of Roman apologist, Robert Sungenis. Let's see what these folks will come up with as the hours go by. I predict they'll throw him under the bus, so to speak.

So far:

"I do not agree with his views on evolution or the geocentric model, and I do not see why they are part of Catholic apologetics. I do agree with his criticism of the State of Israel, Rabbinic Judaism, and Zionism, but, again, I do not to see what this has to do with Catholic apologetics. I do not deny his talents as an apologist and as a debater, but for the above mentioned reasons, I do not recommend his work to others."

 "His first few works -- "Not By Faith Alone" and "Not By Scripture Alone" -- were (and still are) great Catholic apologetics books. That's why they have forewords from heavy hitters like Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn. As the years went on, though, he sort of went off the rails from mainstream Catholic apologetics with his views on geocentrism and Judaism. That's why you are hearing mixed things about him."

Recently from the Best Blog Refuting Roman Catholic Apologetics...

...From the Roman Catholic blog that knows it's better to give than receive: More Mark Shea Nonsense: False Compassion:

"As I have pointed out before, I would not recommend learning your faith from Shea. Here is another reason why."

The "reason" has to do with Mr. Shea's endorsement of "a gay guy who lived here in Seattle." Robert Sungenis has also commented on this: Mark Shea: Coming Out of the Theological Closet.

Once again, a very well-deserved hat-tip to the Catholic Champion for his efforts.

Addendum

From Robert Sungenis:

"Mr. Shea is not only wrong about this, he is causing a scandal. It’s one thing not to know the facts, but when one begins his evaluation by purposely avoiding the facts, we have a serious problem. Mr. Shea chose his title “A Gay Man I Consider a Saint” and he broadcast the title and his article to the whole world. Not coincidentally, Mr. Shea positions himself as a teacher of Catholic faith and morals. One only need look at his long list of self-authored books dotting the margins of his blog; or watch him on EWTN to know that disseminating the Catholic religion is not merely his hobby. As such Mr. Shea does not have the privilege to play ignorant, especially when it concerns one of the most heinous sins known to mankind. Before Mr. Shea starts canonizing people on his blog, he better make darn sure he knows the pertinent facts concerning the person, especially if someone else has evidence that the person in question lived with another male and most likely committed the act in question."

Robert Sungenis on YouCat

Source: The Vatican’s “YouCat” Catechism: Weak on Homosexuality, Contraception, Euthanasia, Evolution, and Scripture

"A youth catechism, known popularly as “YouCat,” which is claimed to be modeled from the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, contains dubious, suggestive and sometimes scandalous teachings on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, euthanasia, evolution, philosophy, and last but not least, biblical inerrancy."

"YouCat was released by the Vatican on April 4, 2011 and was translated in more than a dozen languages. Under direction from Pope Benedict, YouCat will make its big splash on World Youth Day in Madrid on August 16-21, 2011."

-snip-

"As dubious as YouCat’s teaching is in certain places, it makes Scripture’s teaching in certain places even more dubious. For example, Question 15 states: “How can Sacred Scripture be ‘truth’ if not everything in it is right?” Directly against the numerous official and infallible Catholic teachings on the total inerrancy of Scripture, YouCat implies that Scripture simply cannot be trusted. A whole generation of young people will now view the Bible as an assortment of historical mistakes and ignorant concepts, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit was supposed to have inspired it all."

"It is particularly egregious for YouCat to say that the biblical authors were “dominated by the errors” of the culture around them. If that were the case, why weren’t they dominated by the same “errors of the culture” when they were writing about the “way of salvation”? For example, maybe Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. Maybe it was just the “error of the culture” to believe that he did. Maybe Jesus really wasn’t God. It was just the “error of the culture” which was steeped in wishing for a divine Messiah that made the people think that way. If the biblical writers can make errors in science and history why can’t they make errors in salvation? Where does the Bible or the Church say that the biblical writers are only protected from error when they speak about salvation? For that matter, where does either the Bible or the Church say that only certain parts of the Bible are for the purpose of salvation? The answer to both questions is: nowhere. It has all been made up out of thin air by modern biblical scholarship which is bent on promoting its unproven scientific theories as fact."

Sungenis via Steve Ray

Steve Ray:

My last correspondence with Sungenis was some years ago when he wrote to me to complain about something -- don't recall the issue.

I told him he was talented and bright but was going off the deep end and becoming irrelevant at best. I told him he should be cautious and humble, there was a biblical principle that a prophet should be subject to the prophets; in other words, a teacher should be willing to listen to other teachers ( I referred to Akin, you, XXXXXXXX, Brumley, Madrid, the bishops, etc.).

He said, "Your prophets are not mine!" I told him he was "nut."

He said, "Stop calling me a nut! Don't call me a nut just because you disagree with me."

I replied, "I don't call you a nut because I disagree with you. I called you a nut because you are a nut."

It was our last correspondence.

The Voice of Bob Crying in the Wilderness of Romanism

It appears there is a new Reformer in the midst...

R. Sungenis: Now really, am I so wrong? Or am I one of the only ones brave enough to step off the gravy train and point out that the emperor really has no clothes on? Was I being “shabby, dishonest and unscrupulous” about John Paul II kissing the Koran; praying with animists; refusing to allow a statue of Our Lady at Assisi but allowing a Buddah statue; discouraging Catholic proselytism toward other religions; praising Martin Luther as a great theologian but apologizing for past popes of the Inquisition; allowing a cardinal to sign the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration that said “man is justified by faith alone”; giving communion to non‐Catholic politicians; harboring bishops involved in the pedophile scandal or ignoring accusations of pedophilia and homosexuality among his clerics; removing the excommunication of Masons from Canon Law; saying the Old Covenant was never revoked; condoning the idea that Scripture contains historical errors; having “holy” cow dung placed on his forehead in honor of the god Shiva; allowing Voodoo witch doctors and snake charmers to pray to their false gods; honoring the Dalai Lama; wearing the religious garb of pagan religions; downplaying traditional Marian doctrines and interpretations of Scripture applying to her; failing to consecrate Russia; seeking to redefine and lessen the primacy of the papacy for the sake of ecumenism; or having scantily clad women perform dances at his masses, etc., etc.? No, no. The one who is being “shabby, dishonest and unscrupulous” is he who ignores these doctrinal and moral aberrations and tries to make John Paul II a saint instead.

Sungenis Strikes Again

Robert Sungenis recently posted his review of Pope Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth (JON):

All in all I have been rather critical of JON, but I make no apologies since the material covered by JON deals with some of the most important issues in both theology and society today. There are a few other theological points I could delve into that I believe JON has mishandled. All I can say is, if JON wishes to perpetuate the idea that the Gospels contain mistakes and he promotes Protestant and Jewish theological ideas in place of Catholic tradition, then it forces us to show that he himself has erred. The only way JON can match the infallibility of the Scriptures is when JON speaks infallibly from his papal chair. Everything else, as JON said himself, is open to criticism. We can only pray that whether its Joseph Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI, neither will fall prey to the errors and heresies that are so prevalent today, especially regarding the place of the Jewish people in the plan of God.

If Robert keeps this sort of thing up, he's going to end up as a co-contributor either here or on Triablogue.

1.5 Million Roman Catholics Ignore Robert Sungenis

1.5 million pilgrims celebrate Pope John Paul II.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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]

Addendum:
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]

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.

Luther is in Hell? So Says Robert Sungenis

If the word "condemned" actually means what I think it does, Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has determined Luther's eternal fate. Commenting on John Paul II, Sungenis states-

Although the pope wasn’t in Regensburg to sign the final draft of the Joint Declaration (and neither was Cardinal Ratzinger), Cardinal Cassidy, who was representing the Catholic Church, eagerly put his signature on it. This was the end of a process begun by John Paul II in November of 1980, when he had already given implicit sanction to Luther’s faith alone doctrine by stating at a Lutheran church in Germany that the Lutherans had a “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage” and that Martin Luther was driven by a “burning passion of the question of eternal salvation,” which ended in him telling the Lutheran bishops that “Rome’s excommunication of Luther had expired when he died,” which fact he then encouraged them to use in order to pave the way for the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What the pope didn’t tell them is that if an excommunication is not rescinded before the person dies, the Church considers his soul condemned; and the false doctrine that caused the excommunication is still heresy. Instead, John Paul II told them: “There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching.” Apparently the Council of Trent wasn’t good enough for John Paul II. [source]

Sungenis: Most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly

Robert Sungenis: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings. [Source, pdf alert]

Pope's Exegetical Blunder on Peter/Paul Conflict in Galatians 2

Here's one from CAI, the web page of Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis.

Pope's Exegetical Blunder on Peter/Paul Conflict in Galatians 2 (pdf)

Choice excerpts:

"Although I admire Pope Benedict XVI, to be very honest, I believe he is quite incorrect in his analysis of the conflict between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2:11-16. I don’t know anyone in the history of the church who has taken his side on this passage. Previous exegesis has taken the thesis-antithesis approach wherein Paul presents a thesis, and Peter’s antithesis is not only wrong but it is akin to perverting the Gospel."

"I’m afraid to say that the pope’s understanding of this passage falls right in line with the liberal hermeneutic that we have seen so often in the last forty years. It is the theological version of the Hegelian synthesis. Not surprisingly, the pope’s interpretation of Galatians 2 is the precise way Protestant liberals,following Hegel, had interpreted the passage."

"Why is it, also, that Pope Benedict seems to have no qualms about scandalizing faithful Catholics by having an unconverted Jewish rabbi speak to the hundreds of bishops at the current Synod on Scripture, yet he allows for Peter to claim that the Jews would be scandalized by seeing Peter eat with Gentiles? I submit there is a double standard working here. It seems that the pope’s criterion in both cases is how the scene affects the Jews, not how it affects Gentiles."

"Unfortunately, here the pope makes another exegetical blunder, for he is mixing very different contexts, Romans 14 and Galatians 2."

Here's an interesting related comment from Thomas Aquinas. Note his description of Jerome's fourth argument, that Paul only pretended to rebuke Peter. This certainly is not an example of the "previous exegesis" that has "taken the thesis-antithesis approach"-

Thomas Aquinas commenting on the Disagreement between Augustine and Jerome with respect to Paul’s rebuke of Peter:

Thirdly, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustine, on the other hand, says, that he did sin—venially, however—on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine’s arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle.

Fourthly, they disagree on Paul’s rebuke. For Jerome says that Paul did not really rebuke Peter but pretended to do so, just as Peter pretended to observe the legal justifications, i.e. just as Peter in his unwillingness to scandalize the Jews pretended to observe the justifications, so Paul, in order not to scandalize the Gentiles, feigned displeasure at Peter’s action and pretended to rebuke him. This was done, as it were, by mutual consent, so that each might exercise his care over the believers subject to them. Augustine, however, just as he says that Peter really did observe the justifications, says that Paul truly rebuked him without pretense. Furthermore, Peter really sinned by observing them, because his action was a source of scandal to the Gentiles from whom he separated himself. But Paul did not sin in rebuking him, because no scandal followed from his rebuke. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, trans. F. R. Larcher, O.P. (Albany: Magi Books, Inc.1966), Chapter 2, Lecture 3, pp. 51-52.

Sungenis on the State of Roman Catholic Apologetics

....An interesting read from Mr. Sungenis.


Sungenis: "I think it is good, at least compared to what it was about 25 years ago when Catholic apologetics was practically non-existent. But I think it could be much better today if we all banded together and used each other gifts and talents instead of competing with one another. As the saying goes, all ships rise with the tide."

"Overall, I would say that EWTN, Catholic Answers and Hahn-CUF are, for lack of a better term, somewhat milquetoast when it comes to dealing with the more controversial and significant problems occurring in the Church and in the world. My assessment is that they either don’t know where the real battles are or they know and choose to ignore them, and have more or less settled into a politically-correct apologetic."

"I would expect the EWTN-like apostolates to have the lion’s share of the Catholic “apologetics” community, whereas I would expect apostolates like ours to attract the deep thinkers and politically-incorrect crowd. That’s just the nature of the respective animals. But that’s ok. We each have our gifts, strengths and focus. I think God is using us all, but I think He would like to see us all get along much better than we have, and that is what all three groups need to pray for."

Sungenis Vs Shea Revisited

A long time ago in a Roman Catholic galaxy far away, Mark Shea actually contributed material to a book put together by Robert Sungenis. Now....

Mark Shea: Some Evangelicals think they have found Noah's Ark. This is the sort of story that gets nine-day-wonder play in the MSM, is trumpeted as "proof" of the Bible by Fundamentalists whether Evangelical or Conservative Catholic (you watch, it will show up on Bob Sungenis' site along with "Dinosaurs lived alongside man" and "Pyramids prove the flood" articles.


R. Sungenis: John, what can you expect from someone like Mark Shea? I mean, here’s a guy that actually advertises his ignorance and indiscretion right on the top of his own blog with the inane banner: “Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” Do I need to say more? He thinks he’s being funny but behind every joke there is a pertinent truth. Mark Shea is actually telling us how his mind works. Most of his comments are just knee-jerk reactions that first pass through the “I must be as endearing and accommodating to the world as possible” grid in his brain, which are then spiced up for sale with his usual dose of sarcasm and off-color wit. So I’ll just follow Mr. Shea’s suggestion that what he says about me this time is just another one of his “stupid” comments.

As for the issue itself, Mark Shea, if you don’t already know, is of the school of thought that tries to divest Genesis of as much historically accurate material as possible. You’ll see this in his book Making Senses of Scripture in which Shea tries to tell us that we can minimize biblical history by turning it into little more than spiritual platitudes. Basically, Mark Shea is ashamed of much of what the Bible regareds as historical. Thus, he dismisses most of what occurred in the narratives of Genesis as fanciful accretions. Mark Shea wants his history to be palatable to what the world believes occurred in the past. Additionally, Mark Shea has made no in depth study of “Dinosaurs.

Source