Incomplete Positions
©Prax Maskaren. 29th March 2003. Auto-URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/aholistic.html
Following the excellent - but regretably deficient - article written by Jacob Michael of the 'Catholic Apologetics International' and posted by John Hixson, I searched for the original and found the website (http://www.catholicintl.com). The site is run by Robert Sungenis and his friends, and they have many good and instructive texts and teachings there.
One of the most interesting pages I found, is Mary, Mary, Not Quite Contrary (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/marymary.asp). Although I had some of the same information, other teachings and even the overall perspective is something I had not thought of. Therefore, I am grateful to Sungenis and his CAI site for this page, and I would like to recommend it to everyone as a very good teaching and instruction page.
However, there are many defects with the ideological positions that Sungenis & Co. take. The most important error is the one that both Chip Prescott and I have already pointed out on the TCC list: The failure to acknowledge that Charlie Wojtyla, the Great Clownarch, is no more Pope than I, Chip or Sungenis, for that matter, is! And that on the contrary, he is a ravening apostate and vicious antichrist!
Take for example, the page, Rome is Burning while the Pope is Fiddling (A Reply to Carl Olson and the Envoy Magazine) (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/rome_is_burning.asp), by Mario Derksen. The article continues the same old vain and self-defeating Lefebvrist-style misrepresentation that on one hand demonstrates beyond any doubt that Wojtyla and Co. are nothing but outright heretics, while on the other hand sedulously refusing to consider and apply the implications of that fact - that Wojtyla is no pope. Thus, Derksen persists in calling this madman who goes about with a sledgehammer demolishing all that is holy and sacred to Catholicism as Pope. That gets my goat.
But even worse is that Derksen willingly admits that Wojtyla's sect's 'bishops' in the US are a bunch of heretics, but at the same time pulls his punches when it comes to Ratzinger and Wojtyla.
Derksen himself says that 'Cardinal Ratzinger, in typical Vatican II speak, said that while the Jews do need Jesus, the Old Covenant is still in force (which is a complete contradiction).' How then can Derksen avoid condemning Ratzinger when he condemns the US 'bishops' Ratzinger is backing up?
More to the point, does Derksen believe that the US 'bishops' are a bunch of mavericks, who are acting on their own? It is an obvious fact that the line being adopted by the various bodies of 'bishops', whether in the US or in India, are all directed, co-ordinated and approved of by the Anti-Rome!
Lastly, it is not at all true that 'while Rome is burning, Wojtyla is fiddling.' On the contrary, Wojie is the one who is running around organizing the arson, directing, correcting, admonishing, punishing, rewarding his minions for their work under his supervision of demolishing what is left of Catholicism in his sect.
He is far from sitting back and merely fiddling off indifferently while this carefully nurtured project commenced by Roncalli and Montini is left to itself and to the accidents of history to be accomplished. Such a conception is far from the truth.
Therefore, in the end, the position taken by CAI is, like that of the Lefebvrists, self-defeating. Unless they come out, acknowledge and proclaim the uncomfortable truth without reserve, all their good works are in vain.
The Holy Œcumenical & General Council of Florence, after St. Fulgentius of Ruspa. (http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/florence.html)
This is a grave burden that Sungenis & Co. take upon themselves.
Let us examine this burden.
It is obvious to one and all among those who style themselves "traditionalists", the most common name we use to designate ourselves (I prefer the straightforward and exclusive Catholic, and without any prefix, such as 'Traditionalist,' etc.), that Wojtyla, and before him, Roncalli, Montini and the Latrocinium of 'Vatican II' are guilty of rank heresy and apostacy. In the face of this, those who seek to remain Catholic choose one of the following responses:
1. The Roman Modernist Response: A pope is above question; papal infallibility means that a man, merely because he is understood, rightly or wrongly by some people to be pope, is utterly incapable of error and of teaching heresy in any manner whatsoever.
A pretended 'papolatry,' being more loyal that the 'pope.' This is actually only feigned, by persons who, whether 'pope' or any of the other Modernists of whatever ranking, are strict and intolerant 'liberals' - that is, ferociously opposed to any notion of authority and of discipline, except it be to facilitate the propagation of error and to stymy and to punish the efforts of those who would defend Catholic truths!
2. The Catholic Response: From Catholic theology and canon law, it being proved that Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla are / were understood today to be public and manifest heretics prior to their 'elections,' as discovered by an examination of their public teachings and actions prior to these 'elections,' we, applying Cum ex Apostolatus officio, the constant and near unanimous teachings of theologians, doctors of the faith, canonists, etc., acknowledge that these persons never did achieve the papacy, and that they commenced and perpetrated an apostacy and a schism, establishing a foreign sect in the possession of Catholic churches and of the Catholic Headquarters, the Vatican.
3. The Semi-Modernist Response: We see but we will pretend that we do not see. We accuse and find convicted, but we will not admit the result of these facts. We will pretend that the same man is both heresiarch and pope. We will sift and select and rely on our own opinions and magisterial discretion as to what to accept and what not to, from the teachings of these heretic clowns.
Moreover, like our brethren, the outright Modernists and feigned papolatrists, we will pretend that a pope is incapable of ceasing to be pope, of falling away from the faith, even for rank and incontrovertible heresy, despite the clear teaching of the overwhelming majority of Catholic fathers down the ages to the contrary.
[Michael Davies, the Remnant, Society of St. Pius X and affiliated groups, Una Voce, etc.]
Now, of course, invincible ignorance, as Catholic theology teaches, excuses those who reject the Catholic position that these clownarchs are just that, and no popes. But, do Robert Sungenis and Co. suffer from invincible ignorance?
Invincible ignorance is hardly attributable to one who makes it his business to be a Catholic Apologist. To be an apologist, and even a moderately effective one at that, one needs to study Catholicism thoroughly. Such a study would make Invincible ignorance impossible, and also impossible the idea that a manifest and public heretic could ever be pope.
Therefore, we must presume that there is no invincible ignorance, judging from what we know in the external forum. And that is further evidenced by a recent post on the same subject:
From:�"Rob" <rawbit@c...>
Date:� Fri�Mar�28,�2003� 4:31 pm
Subject:� Re: You will deny me three times
Jacob Michael is the moderator on the discussion forum at www.catholicintl.com. There was a man named J. Lawrence Case of "Catholic Dispatch" on their discussion forum since November talking almost exclusively and in repetative detail about how Vatican II was an illegitimate council and how its popes since then are false popes.
For 3 months he argued with people there without the slightest negative comment from the moderator, Jake Michael. Then all of a sudden in the beginning of March, Robert Sungenis, the President, ordered Jake to delete jlcase's account. The man got no warnings, and no notification. He tried to log on one day and a message was posted announcing it. Upon his dismissal the moderator updated the rules to forbid the "heresy of Sedevacantism".
3 Interesting thoughts:
1. This "apologetics" organization made no attempt whatsoever to refute what was being said.
2. The only heresy forbidden by name is "sedevacantism". The rules forbid no other with any mention, even though there are tons of canonical heresies around - and "sedevacantism" is not one of them.
3. JLCase was punished for breaking a rule that existed AFTER his "excommunication". This is the opposite of how the Church has handled those in error in history. Years of warnings & explanations are often given first, then comes the excommunication. When the rule has been established, only THEN did the Church quickly excommunicate because the rule was already in place and well-known.
What does all this tell you?
There is free membership at www.catholicintl.com to use their discussion forum. Every month they delete that month's messages and start fresh.....so, if you want to see the announcment of March 4th, you need to log in there before the end of March. Everyone is free to use any username and password they want, within reason.
Robert
Need I say more?
In all charity, I suggest that we pray for Sungenis & Co., that he may stop pulling his punches on the Truth and start going the whole hog on Catholic theology, for his own salvation, that of his friends and disciples and of those who he is going to be affecting.
Prax Maskaren, Bombay, India.