Robert Sungenis responds

The following is a dialogue between a concerned traditional Catholic named Kathy, and Robert Sungenis, about the state of the Church, the papacy, and the ramifications of the teachings of Vatican II. We will see that far from supporting the modern Catholic Church and its unprecedented innovations, Vatican II opened up the door to judge the modern Church as “deficient” in almost every respect.

Kathy : Dear Mr. Sungenis, I have had some correspondence with Mr. Larson and with you and I have read your exchanges with him on the internet which I think are very good. I would like you to explain to me how it is that we can refute the way Mr. Larson is using his arguments see below to bolster for instance and justify:

1. John Paul II's actions at the Ecumenical Prayer Meeting at Assisi

2. The policy reversals found in this document vs. past papal statements on ecumenism and ecumenical relations. )The Vatican Document on Ecumenism (1993) (LINK) and also the way he uses this to justify the

3. New orientation which stems from the Vatican II documents themselves regarding the Jews, Ecumenism, and that the church is in need of "constant reformation" when past popes said that it was a perfect society (in its divine element) with unity and that it didn't need to search for it as the conciliar popes imply.

Was Vatican II an effort to undermine the Catholic Church with the protestant principle? To be sure there are many good and orthodox things in the Vatican II documents but what of the curious statements of the Vatican II documents for instance on the Decree on Ecumenism Chapter II sec 6 ,"Christ summons the Church on her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation [no Church document before ever said the Church needed to have a continual reformation- that is what Protestants said of the Catholic Church] of which she always has need in so far as she is an institution of men here [this is a qualifying guardrail] on earth therefore if the influence of events or the times has led to deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment. The liberal Fr. Waltar Abbott, commenting on this about sentence:" It is remarkable, indeed, for an Ecumenical Council to admit the possible deficiencies of previous doctrinal formulation." The Documents of Vatican II by Walter M. Abbott, S.J. 1966 Guild Press New York. The Documents of Vatican II by Walter M. Abbott, S.J. 1966 Guild Press New York pg 350. The [brackets are my comments] the (parenthesis) are Fr. Abbott’s

This statement would please any Protestant given that the Church is in need of a “continual reformation.” Isn’t this just what the Protestant Martin Luther said and did? Martin Luther certainly thought there were deficiencies in conduct as he nailed his 95 thesis on the wall.

R. Sungenis : Kathy, no, Martin Luther and Vatican II are quite different. By its own words, Vatican II is concerned with "formulation," that is, how a certain doctrine is expressed, but Luther was concerned with the actual "doctrine." Someone can always think of a better way to say something, since so many features go into expressing oneself (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, context, meaning, etc). So, as a working principle, there is nothing wrong with saying that "formulation of doctrine" may need improvement. On the other hand, if Vatican II said that in the past we have had "deficiencies in doctrine" then we would have a big problem. But Vatican II does not say “deficiencies in doctrine.” The bottom line is that Vatican II, ipso facto, cannot change Catholic doctrine, and it never claims to do so. It can only take a given doctrine and make it clearer to us, or at least, attempt to do so.

Now, here is the most important part of what I am going to say to you, and which will help you sort out these issues and put to rest Mr. Larson’s objections. Let’s take Vatican II’s statement that you mentioned above just as it stands:

“...therefore if the influence of events or the times has led to therefore if the influence of events or the times has led to deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine.”

Mr. Larson, I assume, would seek to apply this to past popes and councils, and thus hold that these past magisteriums had “deficiencies” in “conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” (albeit, Mr. Larson does not know the “conducts, disciplines and formulations” to which Vatican II is referring by the mere fact that Vatican II does not specify any of them but merely speaks in generalities).

On the basic premise that there were “deficiencies” in the past, I can agree with Larson. For example, in the area of “conduct,” we’ve had some popes that have been real scoundrels. We have wicked cardinals and bishops and priests. At times we’ve had terrible “discipline” in the Church, and we’ve had popes and councils that haven’t said things in the best manner possible.

But here is the rub, Kathy. What Mr. Larson applies to previous popes and councils can also be applied to Vatican II and John Paul II. They are not immune from being judged as having “deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” that they point out occurred in past magisteriums.

In fact, by creating the awareness of, and making “deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” a working principle to judge the Church, Vatican II, to use an analogy, has cut its own throat, for now, by Vatican II’s own order, we must searching for all the “deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” that Vatican II produced, and by extension, the “deficiencies” that John Paul II has produced. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or, to risk mixing metaphors, Vatican II and John Paul II cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They will be judged by their own words.

In fact, if we take the three problem areas that Vatican II emphasized: (1) conduct, (2) discipline, and (3) formulation of doctrine, and apply them to John Paul II, he becomes one of the worst offender in the history of the papacy.

As regards “conduct,” here we have a Church riddled with homosexual bishops and priests, a catastrophe unprecedented in the history of the Church, all under the watch of John Paul II for the past 26 years, and he has done virtually nothing about it, except elevate some of its worst perpetrators to high level Vatican positions (e.g. Cardinal Law).

As regards “discipline,” it is a consensus even among supporters of John Paul II that he has been very lax in disciplining his wayward prelates. He has a virtual schism going on between himself and the bishops in the US, and he does nothing about it.

As regards “formulation in doctrine,” John Paul II is one of the worst “formulators” we have ever had in the papacy. We will see below his ambiguous statement in Ecclesia Dei (“especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church”). I can give you about a hundred other “formulations” of John Paul II that are either erroneous, hurtful to pious ears, and some, quite frankly, verge on being heretical (references available if needed):

1980 speech: “...the Old Covenant, never revoked by God”;

1978 General Audience: “the whole of humanity is redeemed, saved, enobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of grace”;

1980 Homily: “He obtains once and for all the salvation of man, of each man, and for all, of those that no one shall snatch out of his hand”;

1999, General Audience: “Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it”;

1999: “...eternal damnation of hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life”;

1995: “marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection”;

1995: “To wage war in the name of religion is a blatant contradiction”;

2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam”;

1983: Letter to Cardinal Willebrands: “Martin Luther - - Witness to Jesus Christ...our world feels his great impact on History.”

1980: “Luther’s profound religiousness and spiritual heritage”;

1983: “deep religious feeling of Luther, who was driven with burning passion by the question of eternal salvation”;

1984: “This year the memory of the zeal which animated two outstanding religious personalities in Swiss history...the first is Huldriech Zwingli...the second is John Calvin...We find the historical influence of their witness not only in the area of theology and ecclesial structure, but also in cultural, social and political fields”;

1998, John Paul II approved of this statement in the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration, Annex 2C: “Justification takes place by grace, by faith alone...”;

1995: “Today I am appealing to the entire Church community to favor in every way women’s participation in its internal life...including approved forms of liturgical ministry, including service at the altar...”;

1996: “evolution is more than a hypothesis.”

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. If we applied Vatican II’s principle of seeking and exposing “deficiencies,” John Paul II would head the list quite easily. On all three counts (conduct, discipline and formulation of doctrine) John Paul II’s pontificate has failed, miserably.

Moreover, if we applied Vatican II’s “deficiencies” principle to Vatican II, everyone knows that it is loaded with ambiguous statements, most of which are hurtful to pious ears. And it is precisely these ambiguous statements that liberals have interpreted in their own devious ways, making a virtual wasteland of the Church. One of my favorites is the Vatican II statement in Dei Verbum 11, “for the sake of our salvation,” which, because it is ambiguous, has led the majority of Catholic seminaries, universities and other such institutions to teach that Scripture is only inerrant when it teaches about salvation, an idea never before taught in the Church. Would we say that Vatican II, in this instance, is guilty of “deficiencies in formulation of doctrine”? You betcha. And there are many other such “deficiencies.”

So, if Mr. Larson wants to play the “deficiencies” game, then he only paints himself into a corner. Or should we say, the appeal to “deficiencies” opens up Pandora’s box, since now everyone can be judged by the “deficiencies” principle, and it is now only a matter of who has produced the most “deficiencies,” the past popes and councils or the present pope and council? I would say Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II have been the most “deficient” of any councils or popes in history, respectively. Mr. Larson can’t gainsay that conclusion, since it is a working principle of Vatican II that the judgment can be applied to any council or pope. Vatican II and John Paul II are not immune.

Kathy : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/

On March 25th, 1993, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Ecumenical Directory, confirmed it by his authority and ordered that it be published. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Vatican City, March 25th, 1993Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy President

John Paul II said: "The extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church" [Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988; par. 5 b].

Vatican I said see Ses 3 Chapt 4:14 " If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. Thus, according to the Council, the meaning and interpretation of doctrines cannot change according to the development of philosophy or modern values. Neither can it be said that doctrines may acquire a different meaning, by claiming a deeper understanding of them due to the progress of knowledge - as if their original meaning was ambiguous or obscure. Rather, since these doctrines have been divinely revealed in the Deposit of Faith in the time of the Apostles, it is impossible for one to depart from their original meaning. And only that meaning is to be perpetually retained with which our holy Mother the Church has once understood them, and in which these doctrines were once declared – as when they were defined by the Roman Pontiff ex cathedra. Even the Roman Pontiff cannot change the doctrines that his predecessors had defined ex cathedra. “For” – as the First Vatican Council also stated Ses. 3 chapt 4– “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.” It seems Vatican II and the Conciliar Popes are the ones who have pitted themselves against the past infallible teachings of the Church

R. Sungenis : I referred to John Paul’s statement from Ecclesia Dei in my paper “When a Pope Errs.” Although I agree with you that, on the surface, his statement seems to say that Vatican II taught “new”... “doctrine,” John Paul II is apparently saved from this accusation because he says “perhaps.” If someone says “perhaps” then it means he has no firm conviction about the matter, and thus, it means he is merely giving his opinion.

We are not held to any statement that has the word “perhaps” in it. We are only held to dogmatic statements. If John Paul II were to say: “Vatican II taught new doctrine that is different and opposed to what was taught before,” then we would have a serious problem. Moreover, it is clear from the sentence structure that John Paul is concerned with “understanding” of previous doctrines, not changing previous doctrines. At least that is his ideal. Whether or not he has been successful in that ideal is another story. END

Kathy : This is from James Larson's paper pgs 9 and 10 in the file PAPAL PRIMACY AND THE SCHISM OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

“The above passage further emphasizes that this power and authority are “to this day, always”, thus eliminating any possible contention that this living, presiding, and judging by Peter could conceivably fail in any given pope. This also is an extremely important point. It has always been the policy of schismatics to appeal to some other Pope or Council, past or future, against the decisions of a reigning pontiff. It has also been the constant tradition of popes to condemn such a position. Pope Benedict XIV specifically condemns those who would appeal to a future Ecumenical Council:

“We likewise excommunicate and anathematize each and every one, of whatever state, grade, or condition he may be, We place under interdict the universities, colleges, and chapters, by whatever name they are constituted, who appeal from Our ordinances or instructions, or those of the Roman Pontiffs then existing, to a future Universal Council, as well as those who would assist, counsel, or favor this appeal (Benedict XIV, Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, Mar 30, 1741).”

R. Sungenis : This doesn’t apply, since we are not appealing to a “future” council. We are appealing to the dogmas of past popes and councils. END

Kathy (Larson) : Pope Leo XIII, in the following passage, condemns any attempt to oppose the directives of a reigning Pope to those of previous pontiffs:

“Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed,” (Leo XIII, Epistola tua, June 17, 1885).

R. Sungenis : Leo is talking about disciplinary directives, not doctrine, since obviously, he is not suggesting that one pope can officially teach one thing about doctrine, and another pope officially teach something opposite. Otherwise, we would have a contradiction in the dogmatic teaching of the papacy, and that cannot be. But it is possible to have popes diverging on disciplinary actions. One pope can say that we cannot eat meat on Friday, and another pope may dispense with that discipline. As such, I have said, and will continue to say, that in all disciplinary decisions, John Paul II has full reign. That is precisely why I side with him against Archbishop Lefebvre, since it was a matter of papal discipline that Lefebvre was excommunicated.

Kathy : (Larson): The final point regarding this “perpetuity” of Peter’s Primacy is that we are obliged to believe that, under the government of any Pope, “Christ has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” This is, of course, a necessary conclusion from the first two points of this doctrine which we have been discussing. If Peter, in his simple person and through Christ, always rules through any given pontiff, then it is logically and theologically incorrect to assert that the direction or “orientation” given to the Church by any Pope can contradict that which is willed by Christ. This of course does not mean that Christ always wills to give us the most sublime gifts through the papacy, or that He may not use the papacy to chastise us - to take away graces, or to substitute lesser gifts for greater ones. Nor does it mean that the Pope may not make decisions and acts of governance which, at least from some immediate and human judgment, appear neither prudent nor wise. Nor does it mean that, within quite strict limits of prudence and charity, we do not have the right to try to show a Pope that he may he wrong in his course of action. It does mean (and we will see this fully substantiated in our examination of the next part of the Council’s teaching) that Christ always wills that we obey the Pope in his direction and governing of the Church.

R. Sungenis : No problem. I don’t like altar girls; I think they are bad for the Church; I think it goes against every other discipline the Church has taught for 2000 years. Apparently, the John Paul II of a few years ago agrees with me, since he said then that altar girls will not be allowed. But I accept the present decision of John Paul II and don’t walk out of a Novus Ordo mass if I see an altar girl.

On the other hand, the mere fact that Mr. Larson admits the pope can “make decisions that are not prudent or wise,” or that “a Pope may be wrong in his course of action,” means that the pope’s “orientation” may also be askew, or at least parts of his orientation will be askew.

Logically, if the pope is “wrong in his course of action” on one or more issues, then these aberrations necessarily influence whether his “orientation” is sound, since his “course of action” is dictated by his “orientation.” There is no escaping that conclusion. And logically, if he is “wrong in his course of action” on MANY issues (as we have seen is the case with John Paul II), then this means his “orientation” is seriously in jeopardy.

As regards “deficiencies in conduct, discipline and formulation of doctrine” that we saw above, I would say John Paul II’s “orientation” has indeed compromised the Gospel. We can rest assured, however, that what Christ will not allow to happen is for John Paul II to dogmatize a heresy, and in that sense Christ and the pope will never part company.

If Mr. Larson thinks otherwise, tell him to put on his “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet and ask himself if he can imagine Jesus Christ saying any of the things I listed above as John Paul II’s “deficiencies in formulation of doctrine.” Can you imagine Jesus saying about hell: “we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it”? Can you imagine Jesus saying: “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists”? Or, hear Him saying: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam”? I don’t think so.

Just as the New Testament presents us with two Peter’s, one Peter doing good the other doing bad, so the popes of history often exhibit the same dichotomy. On the one hand, the good Peter was bold in declaring at the first council the dogmatic decree that neither Jews nor Gentiles needed to be circumcised any longer (Acts 15:1-12). On the other hand, there is the bad Peter who is embarrassed about the Christian faith and decides to part company with the Gentiles because he is fearful of what the Jews might think (Galatians 2:9-12). Paul called Peter’s action “hypocrisy” and “not walking uprightly about the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:13-14).

Interestingly enough, today, isn’t it John Paul II who is “not walking uprightly about the truth of the gospel” for fear of what the Jews might think? The parallel is striking.

Paul then added to his admonishment of Peter by reiterating the fact that men are not justified by “works of the law” but by “faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16-21). Again, the parallels are striking here, because it is John Paul II who, like the weak Peter, is attempting to bring back the “works of the law” by teaching that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked,” and implying by the statements of the Cardinals he appointed to their ecumenical posts that the Jews don’t need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved.

Kathy (Larson) : Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus is entitled “On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.” The heart of its teaching is contained in the following paragraph:

“Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.”

Mr. Sungenis, many traditionalists such as myself believe it will take a future pope and a council to correct the abuses and the lack of discipline and enactments of these conciliar Popes which have created rank confusion and led to a loss of faith among Catholics and made the other religions baffled as to how the unchanging Catholic Church could have changed so radically in the past 40 years. How can we reconcile this with Mr. Larson's arguments. I believe that the Church is in the worst heresy it has ever been in which is turning to if not an apostasy leading up to the great apostasy is the great apostasy itself.

Sr. Lucy told Fr. Fuentes this following statement in 1957 is because she knew that there would be a mass apostasy in the church and we simply could not rely on the institutional Church, "Sister Lucy also said to me: Father, we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations. No! Our Lord has already very often used these means and the world has not paid attention. That is why now, it is necessary for each one of us to begin to reform himself spiritually. Each person must not only save his own soul but also all the souls that God has placed on our path ..."

http://www.olfatima.com/page24.html#fuentes Perhaps Sr. Lucy was trying to tell us something in a veiled way about what we could expect from the authorities.

I hope you can answer my questions.

Sincerely,

Kathy

R. Sungenis : Fatima, of course, is just another instance of the failure of John Paul II. He simply did not follow the simple order of heaven to consecrate the nation of Russia. How can we put our full trust in a pope who can’t obey such a simple directive? Other than that, I think I have sufficiently answered your concerns. May God give you grace and help in this time of need.