Catholic Apologetics International

[J_Chrysostomos]

Anyone familiar with these folks? I looked them up because I wanted to read about the “Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.” I then started looking around the site - quite hostile to Dr Keating and “liberals”, a bit friendly with the SSPX, and seem to have a small fixation on geocentrism as the correct view of the universe. Anyone else had much experience with them?

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

CAI and its founder, Robert Sungenis, used to be a decent apologetics resource. But things started to go wobbly a couple years ago when Sungenis started arguing that the earth was the center of the universe, according to science and to Catholicism. Then he started quoting (without attribution) some anti-semitic materials. And then he started moving pretty far to the right, as is evidenced by the articles on the CAI website these days.

Too bad.

 

[system]

It appears that anyone who mentions him, gets written up on his site and a phony “debate” is created. (e.g. Mr. Donovan at EWTN w.r.t. veils).

Quite hostile to anyone who questions or disagrees, it seems.

 

[Hananiah]

J_Chrysostomos:

Anyone familiar with these folks?

I sure am. They posted my study on NAB liberalism on their website. It’s at the top of the Catholic issues section. Moreover, I’ve always found Mr. Sungenis polite and helpful whenever my apologetics requires knowledge of the Biblical languages.

a bit friendly with the SSPX

Exactly where did you get this from? It is the firm position of the apostalate that the SSPX is in schism.

and seem to have a small fixation on geocentrism as the correct view of the universe.

Yes, that seems to be the Mr. Sungenis’ pet project. But don’t let that stop you from making use of the excellent apologetics work which he and the other members of his apostalate do. Being a geocentrist does not make one any less Catholic than being a heliocentrist.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Hananiah:

Yes, that seems to be the Mr. Sungenis’ pet project. But don’t let that stop you from making use of the excellent apologetics work which he and the other members of his apostalate do. Being a geocentrist does not make one any less Catholic than being a heliocentrist.

Hananiah, it’s not just a matter of being a geocentrist; Mr. Sungenis argues that geocentrism is the clear teaching of scripture and is also the official teaching of the Catholic Church (see this interview with him). And he says that geocentrism is “a hallmark of [CAI’s] ministry to the world.”

Saying that Scripture and the Church definitively teaching something which neither does should give one pause, no?

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Mr. Sungenis argues that geocentrism is the clear teaching of scripture >>

I think Sungenis may have a case there depending how you interpret Scripture of course. Taken literally, the Psalms and other texts do plainly teach the earth does not move, it is fixed. I think it’s also clear all the Church Fathers, Doctors and Catholic theologians up to the Reformation period were geocentrists and young-earthers. Though I haven’t done a study on that.

(See especially 1 Chron 16:30; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 96:10; Psalm 104:5; also implied in Psalm 8:4; 19:4-7; 104:19; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:5; 2 Kings 20:9-11; 2 Chron 32:24; Isaiah 38:7-8; 45:18; Joshua 10:12-14; Judges 5:31; Job 9:7; Habakkuk 3:11; James 1:11-12; and in the deuterocanon Sirach 43:1-10; 46:3-4; Wisdom 7:18-19).

His science ideas are incorrect (young earth, geocentrism) but his books Not By Scripture Alone, Not By Faith Alone, and Not By Bread Alone are still quite useful. The latter book has some controversial ideas on God and time, also an appendix on the geneaologies of Genesis hinting at his young-earth viewpoint.

I converted from cassette tapes some recent debates he had that are excellent (Papacy, Eucharist, and sacraments), you can listen to them below. Left Click the 1K .ram to stream, or Right Click “save target as…” on the large .rm file to download. Good Catholic apologetics there.

crescentlakeapartments.com/DEBATES/

It’s unfortunate he feels he has to argue with his fellow Catholics and other apologists (in self-defense I guess)…

Phil P

 

[Tarcisius]

Sungenis not only believes in geocentrism. He says the Earth is entirely stationary. It doesn’t even rotate on its axis. There are two problems with this idea. (Actually there are many more, but I’ll look at just two.)

First, it means all the stars orbit the Earth every 24 hours. If the stars are as far away from the Earth as scientists say they are, in that 24-hour orbit they would far exceed the speed of light. This can’t be, which means the stars must be quite close to the Earth. This in turn means that all the astronomers and astrophysicists are wrong and that only Sungenis is right.

The other problem is geostationary satellites. Scientists say the satellites stay above the same spot on the Earth because their orbital speed exactly matches the rate at which the Earth rotates beneath them. Sungenis says that since the Earth doesn’t rotate, the satellites just hang there, immobile, in the sky.

How do they do that? He says the gravity of the Earth is countered by the gravity of the stars on the other side of the satellites. What he fails to account for is that the stars on the far side of the Earth have gravity that cancels out the gravity of the stars above the satellites, leaving nothing to cancel out the gravity of the Earth. His immobile satellites should be plummeting back into the atmosphere, but they don’t do that.

Sungenis works from a misinterpretation of Scripture and ends up with nonsense physics. When people write against him, he claims they don’t have the right credentials in science, yet he has only a bachelor’s degree in physics from a so-so school.

His scientific writings are in the form of snatches of debates and e-mail exchanges. He hasn’t written any coherent book espousing his theories. This makes it hard to write against him because you have to chase down his silly remarks in all sorts of online files. It isn’t worth the effort.

Some people think Sungenis must know what he’s talking about because he uses so many scientific terms and because he name-drops so many books, some of which are in foreign languages that he seems to have no skill in. If he impresses people with his scientific writings, it is because of their length, not their logic.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Tarcisius:

His scientific writings are in the form of snatches of debates and e-mail exchanges. He hasn’t written any coherent book espousing his theories. This makes it hard to write against him because you have to chase down his silly remarks in all sorts of online files. It isn’t worth the effort.

Well I guess you are in luck then because he’s writing a book on the subject called “Galileo was Wrong”. He is also marketing a “Galileo was Wrong” t-shirt and mug.

ken

 

[Hananiah]

II Paradox II:

Well I guess you are in luck then because he’s writing a book on the subject called “Galileo was Wrong”. He is also marketing a “Galileo was Wrong” t-shirt and mug.

ken

If he wants to give me something in exchange for my NAB study I am so going to get one of those coffee mugs.

 

[Hananiah]

Tarcisius:

First, it means all the stars orbit the Earth every 24 hours. If the stars are as far away from the Earth as scientists say they are, in that 24-hour orbit they would far exceed the speed of light. This can’t be, which means the stars must be quite close to the Earth.

Sungenis doesn’t believe in relativity, so this argument is moot.

There are two things which impress me about Sungenis’ theories. The first is the quantized redshifts of various heavenly bodies, especially quasars. This means that they are placed in concentric spheres roughly centered on the earth. Of course, since they are all extremely far away this might as well be an argument for strict Copernicanism, with the sun of our solar system as the absolute center of the universe. Or maybe all it proves is that the milky way is the central galaxy of the universe. In any case, while quantized redshifts do not necessarily prove geocentrism, I take it as an extraordinary example of how God has left evidence of Himself in His creation as taught by Romans 1:19f.

The other thing which impresses me is his citations of interferometer experiments which have been done subsequent to Michelson-Morley, and have discovered a slight aether drag. If this is true, even though it might not prove geocentrism, it would necessitate a revolution in astrophysics.

Sorry, I got no idea how to respond to the argument from geostationary sattelites. I guess if I were defending geocentrism I would just cite Einstein’s principle of covariance, and say that if the numbers can work out from one perspective, they also have to work out from other persepctives, although the calculations would be far more complicated from the geocentric position.

 

[Hananiah]

By the way, this isn’t just Sungenis contra mundum. There are other geocentrists out there, who are more scientifically qualified than he. They even publish a magazine.

geocentricity.com/

 

[beng]

J_Chrysostomos:

Anyone familiar with these folks? I looked them up because I wanted to read about the “Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.” I then started looking around the site - quite hostile to Dr Keating and “liberals”, a bit friendly with the SSPX, and seem to have a small fixation on geocentrism as the correct view of the universe. Anyone else had much experience with them?

Sungenis stated that SSPX is in Schism.

Sungenis’ material is good. in spite his geocentrism most of his material are pretty solid. His “Not by … alone” serie should be pretty good.

 

[ServusChristi]

Hananiah,

I started reading your work on the NAB. Excellent, keep it up. Personally, I find myself refusing to look down at the notes when I read the NAB for fear of sowing doubts in my mind. Truly the worst commentary liberal scholarship has to offer. I got Sungenis’ CASB. It is excellent and I recommend it to everyone.
Peace,
Ryan

 

[csr]

Geocentrism appears to have been the broad assumption of the Church Fathers. I just noticed another

(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm), from Pope St. Clement:

The heavens, revolving under His government, are subject to Him in peace. Day and night run the course appointed by Him, in no way hindering each other. The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation. The fruitful earth, according to His will, brings forth food in abundance…

 

[Maccabees]

Sungenis has some of the best apologetic books out there and some of his articles like how bad the NAB are right on.

I don’t care about his geocentricism its his pet view I can take it or leave it. But his rants are bordering on obsession lately.

What I do care about is he had developed a pattern of personal attacks against the many people he worked with in the past suchs as EWTN and here at Catholic Answers and those at Saint Joseph communications and other catholic apstoletes.
Can’t he deal with these people on a one on one manner?
It certainly is not very christian of him to have his personal attacks of other Cathlics on his website.
You really have to pick and choose with this guy. When dealing with the basics of the faith the guy is simply awesome but when dealing with more gray issues like customs and traditions and interpretation of Vatican 2 and now science itself. He tends to be a little wacky at the very least controversial.

 

[oat_soda]

There are two problems with this idea. (Actually there are many more, but I’ll look at just two.

as i understand it according to relativity, one can’t absolutely determine if two events happen simultaneously. this is because it is relative to one’s reference frame. or, one can look at the earth as rotating or the universe is rotating around us. they are completely equivalent. in this sense, it is accurate to say we are the center of the universe because you could say that from any place in the universe. no matter where you are, the universe appears to be expanding outward from your reference frame.

 

[csr]

oat soda:

…one can look at the earth as rotating or the universe is rotating around us. they are completely equivalent… no matter where you are, the universe appears to be expanding outward from your reference frame.

I have sometimes thought that it must be so with a balloon–and yet is there not a center of a balloon?

The equivalence of perception must, like all things, be guided by faith. God does not give us random, pointless untrue Scripture. He wants us to know what history is, and tells us the truth about ourselves, for any with eyes to see or read, ears to hear. We can’t tell if we go around the sun or if the sun goes around us–strictly from natural (name removed by moderator)uts. But we know from faith that the sun goes around us. Modern interests create so many myths to distract the faithful, probably because if we fall away from our ennobled understanding, then sin becomes less of a problem. This is the secret driver of novel philosophies. Deny original sin, and bury it.

 

[JimG]

Sorry, but I just can’t get past his geocentrism and stationary earth theories. I’ve read some of his posted “debates” on these issues, and just had to laugh. If he’s this out of touch with reality how can he be taken seriously on anything?

 

[Matt16_18]

Tarcisius:

Sungenis not only believes in geocentrism. He says the Earth is entirely stationary. It doesn’t even rotate on its axis. There are two problems with this idea. (Actually there are many more, but I’ll look at just two.)

Einstein’s theory of relativity is founded upon the idea that there are no privileged frames of reference. In General Relativity, the only thing that is “fixed” in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum for all observers in any frame of reference.

From a mathematical point standpoint, and from a relativistic standpoint, it is perfectly acceptable to imagine that the earth is fixed in space. That frame of reference is just as valid (and just as arbitrary) as any other frame of reference. The only reason that the “fixed earth” frame of reference is seldom used for solving the problems of orbital mechanics is because that frame of reference makes solving the problems unnecessarily complicated.

If Sungenis wants to maintain that it is scientifically acceptable to posit a fixed earth frame of reference, there is nothing scientifically wrong with doing that. Mathematically, it is indeed possible to construct a consistent space-time that “sees” our earth as being fixed, and that the rest of the universe moves relative to the fixed earth.

Why an arbitrary mathematical construct such as this should raise any theological problems is beyond me.

 

[Matt16_18]

csr:

I have sometimes thought that it must be so with a balloon–and yet is there not a center of a balloon?

The equivalence of perception must, like all things, be guided by faith.

An expanding balloon analogy can be used to illustrate what oat soda has said in post # 16.

Imagine that the surface of a balloon is a universe for some pac-man type creatures. The position of these pac-men in their universe can be described by two spatial dimensions. If we add a third dimension, time, the pac-men can move about on the surface of their balloon universe, and their universe can be modeled as a three dimensional space-time continuum (two space dimensions and one time dimension). Since the pac-men can only dwell on the surface of their balloon universe, their “natural” frames of references will always be fixed on the surface of the balloon.

Now imagine that all the pac-men are arbitrarily darting here and there on the surface of the balloon, and that they are evenly distributed on the surface of the balloon. Imagine that the balloon that they dwell on is also expanding, so that the pac-men are living in an expanding universe. Any single pac-man can imagine that he is fixed in his universe, and that, as a whole, the rest of the pac-men are moving away from him in an expanding universe. No pac-man really has a privileged frame of reference that is more “real” than any other pac-man. Each pac-man perceives his universe the same way, that he is fixed, and that the rest of the universe is epanding away from him.

Let’s go back to the idea that the balloon universe of the pac-man universe has a “real” center from which all pac-men are equally moving away from with equal velocity. If you say that the center of the balloon is that place, then you are saying that the “real” center of the pac-man universe is in a frame of reference that exists outside the universe of the pac-men, since the universe of the pac-men is only on the surface of the balloon.

That wouldn’t have to be an insurmountable problem to the pac-men. We can imagine that the pac-men are intelligent beings, and that a pac-man genius could develop a higher mathematics that describes the pac-man universe with more than the two spatial dimensions that seem real to pac-men. Pac-men cosmologists could develop a geometry of space-time that describes their universe using three spatial dimensions (and even more than three). Such higher dimensional mathematical models might be useful to the pac-man cosmologists, and let them make scientifically verifiable predictions about their universe. They could even see that this model is so useful, that they come to prefer using the geometry with the “extra” dimensions for solving problems of cosmology.

A Robert Sungenis pac-man could exist in the pac-man universe too. He could argue with the pac-man cosmologists that they are being silly, and that they should accept as absolute truth a model of the pac man universe that has only the two spatial dimensions, since that is what all religious pac-man with common sense believe. A religious pac-man cosmologists could point out to pac-man Bob that God created the universe out of nothing, and that God can see his creation from a frame of reference that is outside the universe perceived by pac-man common sense.