A Review of "EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong" ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
What do you think about this?

A Review of “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
Click to expand...
I think it’s very long.

If we don’t have EWTN what do we have? My hat is in the EWTN camp unless someone can come up with something better then the above document.

There may be an occasional gaff by a priest, live on air, but what does this prove? Doctrine can be a difficult subject indeed and I don’t think even the wonderful regular priests on EWTN will call themselves infallible. And, the Schoeman Moss vs. Sungenis debate is same old same old. Schoeman theology just seems to ring true in my admittedly non-scholastic ears.
 
Just another disgruntled ubber traditionalist unhappy that he doesn’t have his own SSPX TV station espousing the theology of Leorard Feeney sending all non-catholics to hell and thier disdain for the Validity of the Norvos Ordo even when EWTN has shown us it can be done well when you take the directives seriously.
The Ubber tradiionalist and the liberals on the other hand hate EWTN because it does not espouse the catholcism of their own choice but reflects the church under the directives of Vatican 2 in keeping with the theology of JP2 and Pope Benedict those who reject the recent popes teachings are sure to be upset whether one is an ubber latin traditionalist or a cafeteria liberal catholic.
It comes down to jealously and the fact they wish they had a tv show of their own.
 
To broad brush that entire article off as mere jealousy is one of the major symptoms the article speaks of. An unwillingness to deal with serious issues.

Some of the subjects touched on arent as serious, while many are.

I had no idea Donovan doesnt have a doctorate in theology but is in charge of theology

EWTN is being co-opted and they are guilty of not looking in thier own mirror - POST Mother Angelica. She wasnt perfect, but since shes been out of charge EWTN has indeed and is falling victim to many of the issues the article covered.
 
The point about sanitizing Mother’s program’s is troublesome.
 
Maybe I just watch the wrong programs (Fr. Corapi, Fr. Spitzer, Chesterton, Rome Reports, various special movies/documentaries) but I’ve never seen anything problematic on EWTN.
 
Cathcentist–

About Donovan, why don’t you ask him about his background and education yourself, or any of the other issues if your concerned? See what he says. It might be interesting.

But did Ferrara ever like EWTN even when Mother was in charge? I doubt it. He’s a hardline traditionalist. And Sungenis was fired from EWTN after his attacks on JPII and his Jewish conspiracy theories. And from what I see I don’t think he has a real degree beyond what Donovan has but he’s running a whole apostolate that writes on theology, politics, other religions, history…lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=242

I have to say though that the review wasn’t as bad as it might have been. Maybe some things have changed there. But I noticed that he had lots of praise for the part of Ferrara’s book that goes after Jews. But that’s not really a surprise because of all of the things he has to say on that score himself. Still, I watch EWTN sometimes and I think that to take the time to write a whole book warning people about how bad it is just seems a little odd.

Could something be not as good or a problem? Sure I guess. But a whole book?
 
CathCentrist said:
I had no idea Donovan doesnt have a doctorate in theology but is in charge of theology
Click to expand...
My dad doesn’t either, and yet he’s routinely amazed by the imbecilic and borderline heretical things DoTs say. Not having a Doctorate in Theology is a bit like not having gone to Yale. It doesn’t mean you’re not qualified, just that you’re not in Skull and Bones.
 
Hastrman said:
My dad doesn’t either, and yet he’s routinely amazed by the imbecilic and borderline heretical things DoTs say. Not having a Doctorate in Theology is a bit like not having gone to Yale. It doesn’t mean you’re not qualified, just that you’re not in Skull and Bones.
Click to expand...
Yeah like that guarantees anything. MacBrien the heretic at Notre Dame has a PHD and teaches graduate courses if thats the criteria he’s looking for than EWTN will even bigger troubleI guess Hans King PHD keeps him from error. The alphabets can be a detriment to one’s orthodoxy like anything else. What Sugenesis wants is an ubber traditionalist station that has it in for the Jews who control the Vatican and the US Governament yada yada.
Isn’t it courious he mentions the jealousy angle up front to disaude the argument althogetehr. Look he’s jealouus he got the can is working for himself, heck he writes on his website and his email practically begging me for money so he can keep afloat so it appears the ubber trads are not large enough in number to support his dissenting views much longer. Too bad he showed much promise early in his conversion but he has gone the way of Tertullian he is now more catholic than the pope, to holy to be associated with the Vatican 2 and Norvos ordo crowd. He has seen the errors of the past 5 popes and they all have missed the pope the keys to the kingdom lies with the ubber trads and not Office of Peter or so they would like us to believe.
 
Hastrman said:
My dad doesn’t either, and yet he’s routinely amazed by the imbecilic and borderline heretical things DoTs say. Not having a Doctorate in Theology is a bit like not having gone to Yale. It doesn’t mean you’re not qualified, just that you’re not in Skull and Bones.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
If I may hijack this thread for a moment …

Robert Sungenis has actually softened a bit. I read on his site in a response to a reader’s question (that would require a bit of searching though) that he now considers himself neither “neo-conservative” nor traditionalist. He said the “neo-conservatives,” as he calls them, are too optimistic, whereas the traditionalists are too pessimistic. Sungenis added that he hasn’t written for or been invited to write for any traditionalist publications in about a year due to his changing views. Please pray for him … he seems to be on the right track, but he hasn’t quite yet pulled into the station.
 
DavidJoseph said:
If I may hijack this thread for a moment …

Robert Sungenis has actually softened a bit. I read on his site in a response to a reader’s question (that would require a bit of searching though) that he now considers himself neither “neo-conservative” nor traditionalist. He said the “neo-conservatives,” as he calls them, are too optimistic, whereas the traditionalists are too pessimistic. Sungenis added that he hasn’t written for or been invited to write for any traditionalist publications in about a year due to his changing views. Please pray for him … he seems to be on the right track, but he hasn’t quite yet pulled into the station.
Click to expand...
Does he say whether or not he is still advocating a geocentrist view of the cosmos?

DaveBj
 
DavidJoseph said:
If I may hijack this thread for a moment …

Robert Sungenis has actually softened a bit. I read on his site in a response to a reader’s question (that would require a bit of searching though) that he now considers himself neither “neo-conservative” nor traditionalist. He said the “neo-conservatives,” as he calls them, are too optimistic, whereas the traditionalists are too pessimistic. Sungenis added that he hasn’t written for or been invited to write for any traditionalist publications in about a year due to his changing views. Please pray for him … he seems to be on the right track, but he hasn’t quite yet pulled into the station.
Click to expand...
You are not hijacking… and your comments are sensible. He will continually be distained by some posters here who seen to only pop up and pop off when his name appears.

When he was “fired” from EWTN, both he and his friend Patrick Madrid lost their show.

He is also not (and has never been) of the same mindset as the Sedevacantists and other ultra-Traditionalists. If he has a fault (or two or three…:rolleyes: ) it could be his passion and zeal to defend Catholicism.

If that means exposing others agendas, or mis-steps by church officials or those in other faiths… good for him.

Finally, I was not aware that JPII was above all criticism. His mistakes are far outweighed by his holiness and Catholic leadership.
 
It’s true that Sungenis has backed off of some extreme things and thats hopeful. But some things he says make it look like the change may be because he likes what this pope is saying now, this Pope agrees more with Sungenis. That could change. And if it does?

Sungenis: “Now that we have a new pope, and one that I see is a lot more sensible, I have a renewed faith in the pope, and thus it has sparked my movement to the middle of the spectrum.”
Question 19, Sept. 2006

But about his criticisms of JPII, it isn’t about stopping all criticism of the Pope as one person made it look on this forum. Even Sungenis says now that he was way out of line. Read his Open Letter and question 26 from Sept 2006:

catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-sept-06.htm#Question%2026

Sungenis: “I framed my criticisms of John Paul II’s…decisions in a reactionary, extreme and denigrating manner. I guess I was so upset, my emotions got the best of me…you are right in rebuking me for the manner in which I expressed it.”

It’s great he’s admitting it and trying to stay away from it now.

And the review wasn’t totally bad. It didn’t look completely off the deep end. So, who knows? Keep praying.

He is definitely still with geocentrism, not that that’s horrible or antyhing… But he still is has a problem with Jews. Look at his homepage. It’s filled with stuff going after Jews.

When his name pops up does catch attention sometimes. His writing is so divisive and hot. He admits he’s not really an expert on the topic of Israel/Jews but he keeps posting aritlces against them. Some people on the CA forum are defenders of his here some are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top