(** Additions 5/14 **)
Recently, Robert Sungenis had the following to say:
Sungenis: "Sometimes there is a germ of doctrine in the Fathers which is enhanced by the medieval theologians, but which the Church eventually rejects (e.g., limbo)...The case of Limbo is especially significant since Pope Benedict XVI recently approved a papal commission document that essentially removed Limbo from the teaching of the Church. This shows that even cherished theological ideas from tradition, if not officially accepted and dogmatized by the Church, can be eliminated by a future pope or council."
(Sungenis, "Will Enoch and Elijah Return to Earth to Preach to the Jews?", p. 3, fn. 2)
**The article/quote above is an excerpt from Sungenis's upcoming Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.**
Question: Why would such an historically staunch defender of tradition and a critic of novelty be so quick to believe and accept that a teaching like Limbo has been tossed aside? Certainly there were varied and somewhat contradictory views (for instance, St. Augustine taught that unbaptized infants go to hell). But Limbo is usually defended with intensity by those with Traditionalist leanings. So why the eagerness?
One word: Jews. It seems that Sungenis was eager to enlist the purported rejection of Limbo in order to give more credence to his odd hostility to the vast and consistent Catholic witness that something decidely positive like an unusual "Conversion of the Jews" to Christ will take place in the last days. While there are differences in the details (a phenomenon seen even in dogmas, like the Immaculate Conception for instance), there is solid, historical consistency in terms of the expectation itself (read here and here).
As was pointed out at Robert Sungenis and the Jews, Sungenis adopts radically different standards depending on how his agenda is served. In the case of something decidedly negative, like the Antichrist being of Jewish ancestry, Sungenis has been eager to claim that this is "unofficially declared" by "Catholic tradition" and that "the Fathers" taught this expectation. Indeed, the bar he establishes is quite low:
Sungenis: “…Antichrist, who, according to the Fathers, is supposed to have his ancestry in the tribe of Dan.” (here)
Sungenis: “In fact,…Catholic tradition… has unofficially declared that the future Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction." (here)
Yet, there is far less evidence for this belief among the Church Fathers than for the "Conversion of the Jews" in the last days (although to be clear, this is not intended as a statement against the idea that the Antichrist may have Jewish ancestry).
Once again, Sungenis gives evidence that his animus toward Jews drives even his theology. If tossing Limbo will help promote his anti-Jewish agenda, out it goes, and with gratitude.
In this case, however, Bob betrays the fact that he is once again working exclusively with secondary sources. The actual study written by the International Theological Commission explicitly says that Limbo "remains a possible theological option," contrary to Bob's claim that Limbo has now been "removed" from "the teaching of the Church." For more on this, see Jacob Michael's article on the subject here.
When it comes to whacking the Jews, once again we see that Bob is content to rely on secondary sources. Apparently he will even let the mainstream liberal media instruct him, **and subsequently those who purchase his Catholic Apologetics Study Bible**, in the Catholic Faith.
