Does Robert Sungenis REALLY believe this?

[PUP]

Bob Sungenis’s defense of the Catholic faith is second to none! You have to read some or all of his books. They are spectacular! I have a theory though. I believe Bob so completely obliterated every possible Protestant attack of the Catholic Church (especially Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura) that he actually got bored! There were no more Protestant Hypothesis to discredit anymore so he moved onto discrediting Atheists (Geocentrism, Heliocentrism, Evolution, Science, etc.) and Zionists (Jews). Now, discrediting atheists and Zionists is taking on a political football and Bob had difficulty in separating his own political opinions from his apologetic work. For example, he does not need to place his opinion on how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It is irrelevant to his apologetic work. He was instrumental in getting the Duel Covenant theory removed from the US Catechism and there is no need to put his personal or political views about the Holocaust out there to accomplish that! I know Bob is trying to keep political views separate from his apologetic work but it is difficult given the topic he is fighting. I think it is worth it for you to spend $3 and ask Bob your question!

 

[PUP]

Sungenis does believe in a few unusual thinks, concerning the Holocaust from what I read on his site he does not believe that necessarily 6 million Jews died, but he does not deny it either, he just has not accepted it as fact yet. I remember reading this on his article the on the SSPX bishop Williamson.

I think Sungenis on certain things is a genius, but I just hate how he is so obsessed with Judaism and in an almost useless way, He is really wasting his time and talents by his obsession with dealing with Jews. The only point related on Judaism that I think he pointed about that was actually useful was saying the Old Covenant that was made at the time of Moses is no longer valid. I also think he is wasting his talent by pushing for geocentrism. He is a 7 24 hour days creationist, which I think is fine to believe in, but he spends too much time on his website for that too. He should stick to more important issues that are about apologetics and avoid the Jews topic like his bishop requested.

 

[PUP]

As for Geocentrism, I initially agreed with your position as to “Who cares!” It does not change my Faith but when I actually decided to read his work about if the Earth is simply a spec on the edge of the Universe with no special purpose then where is God? Scientist try to make you believe that a Theory is fact when theories are just well defined speculation. Einstien, Hubble, Darwin, etc. could only come up with theories to describe our Universe and not Laws! Man does not even have a good grasp of our ocean floor let alone the Universe! If you are bored it is actually quite good reading to look at Geocentrism from the view that it is as qualified of a theory as Heliocentrism. Remember, I said theory not Law! For example, Einstien said the speed of light must be constant for many of his theories but we now know that the speed of light is not constant!

 

[Rogerteder]

I was reading this document on the website of the apologist, Robert Sungenis. The essay is sharply critical of the remarks of emeritus Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza concerning Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (relation of the Church to non-Christian religions).

On the whole, I found Sungenis’ remarks to be a cogent expression of legitimate Catholic teaching regarding the Jewish people, and a good refutation of the errors of Zionism which permeate many modern protestant churches and even Catholic priests and bishops. I would have preferred Sungenis to adopt a more respectful tone to Bishop Fiorenza (who is, after all, a successor to the Apostles), but his criticisms generally seem orthodox and accurate.

However, I was shocked by this quote (which spans pages 5 and 6):
That’s silly on several levels, not the least of which is that it is logically impossible. It is impossible for historical records to “prove” a negative - to even attempt such a proof would require documentation about each and every person who did kill an innocent Jew and reliable information about his/her religious affiliation. Silly. Not to mention, I KNOW a German who killed a Jew (maybe more than one - he’s never said for sure), and he is a lifelong Lutheran (and he is wracked with guilt about it). And, besides, as Sungenis surely knows, the Catholic definition of “Christian” is “a Baptized person” - which makes such a sweeping statement even more implausible.

Sungenis criticized the Bishop several times for making bold claims without offering any supporting evidence. Yet, this statement is bolder than anything the Bishop said, and lacks any supporting evidence.

I thought I would write to Sungenis to ask if he really means what he clearly seems to be saying here. But it costs three dollars to ask him a question, so I declined and decided to ask here (where there may be folks who have read more of his stuff than I).

He has been accused of being a “Holocaust denier” and an anti-Semite (he is clearly anti-Zionist, which is not the same thing as anti-Semitic, though they are often confused). I have not read a lot of his writings, but, until now, I have not read anything that seemed to clearly support either accusation (though some of his stuff has an edge to it that makes me uncomfortable).

But this statement - though it does not clearly fall into either category - seems irrational and extreme. Is this simply a poorly-worded paragraph or does it represent his actual views?

If you read the quote in context Sungenis simply says that Christians are not responsible (AS A WHOLE) for the deaths of the Jews during the holocaust. However, we should have general repentance for humanity when atrocities occur.

 

[Rogerteder]

At first when Sungenis wrote that the Jews were the true anti-Semites because they rejected Jesus and Jesus was Jewish or when he wrote that Lenin and Stalin were Jewish or when he plagarized from a nazi anti Jewish tract , that here was one of the most brilliant humoristic Catholic satirists alive.

However then I got to thinking how maybe there was no Robert Sungenis and maybe he was just a front for a cabal of power hungry bolshevic Jews set out to destroy Catholicism along with their Judaizer allies

He didnt plagiarize at all. STOP!!! Look on his web site, and he clears all that up.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton-

Have you read Sungenis’ books: Not by Faith Alone, Not By Scripture Alone, or Not By Bread Alone?

Have you ever listened to any of his debates with non-Catholics?

No. Unfortunately I have been put off too much by his tangent interests, like geocentrism, to care to read him. I have other good authors that do not engage in this sort of fringe activity in their apologetics, but stick to the Catholic Faith. They too are razor sharp and speak more to my needs.

 

[pnewton]

If you read the quote in context Sungenis simply says that Christians are not responsible (AS A WHOLE) for the deaths of the Jews during the holocaust. However, we should have general repentance for humanity when atrocities occur.

Yet he stated in the article several times support for the Jews killing Christ. He clarified that position properly, as he did the position on Christians who killed Jews. However, words mean something and reveal things. Rhetoric can be a skillful tool of propaganda. When one says, “The Jews killed Christ” and “Some Christians killed Jews”, you can mean the same thing and clarify the similarities. Yet the fact that the wording is different reveals something. Being technically accurate while adding emotional content is a tool. I do not like his emotional content. It is either deliberate or subconscious. Neither option is good.

 

[chosen_people]

He didnt plagiarize at all. STOP!!! Look on his web site, and he clears all that up.

Well first of all presenting someone else’s work as your own is plagiarizing. Secondly, it was the usual lies that people like Sungenis spread about the Jews and the Talmud. Third, I was referring to another plagiarism, that of the anti-Jewish Nazi tract. Fourth, Sungenis’ attacks on the Jews are not particularly original and may be found in the works of Fahey and Feeney Fifth, his views are in contradiction to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, and are found today only among the most radical anti-Jewish elements of the SSPX, Sixth, with the possible exception of Williamson no person alive can claim to have caused so much damage to the Catholic Church among non-Catholics. He’s such a successful apologist he even requires his own apologists:shrug:

 

[Deconi]

No. Unfortunately I have been put off too much by his tangent interests, like geocentrism, to care to read him. I have other good authors that do not engage in this sort of fringe activity in their apologetics, but stick to the Catholic Faith. They too are razor sharp and speak more to my needs.

Impressive how you can then fault a person you’ve not ACTUALLY read, but base your criticism on the opinion of others!

Hmm. That’s precisely what he is up against regarding how people attack The Church with the misconceptions they have been told or read.

If you think Heliocentricism and science and political agendas in general cannot touch your faith, you’re nowhere near the issues being hurled at The Church! Someday you may see the bigger picture.

 

[Deconi]

Well first of all presenting someone else’s work as your own is plagiarizing. Secondly, it was the usual lies that people like Sungenis spread about the Jews and the Talmud. Third, I was referring to another plagiarism, that of the anti-Jewish Nazi tract. Fourth, Sungenis’ attacks on the Jews are not particularly original and may be found in the works of Fahey and Feeney Fifth, his views are in contradiction to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, and are found today only among the most radical anti-Jewish elements of the SSPX, Sixth, with the possible exception of Williamson no person alive can claim to have caused so much damage to the Catholic Church among non-Catholics. He’s such a successful apologist he even requires his own apologists:shrug:

When I was a child, I already knew only Jews and Romans were present when Christ died! As an adult, that has NOT changed,ergo, the default fact remains true now as it was then!

Yet, no one seems allowed in the USA or some parts of the globe to even start from that premise!..unless you’re Muslim.

Sungenis and a few others who are starting to come out of their hiding places are simply trying to address a basic issue. What is the difference between Judaism and Christianity? Why is the younger brother so obstinate against the older brother? Why do OBVIOUS brothers have such animosity regarding the other?

Thankfully, here, I sit down with Judaism (Rabbinic) and am able to ‘hammer-out’ our differences until the bottle of wine is finished and the ‘debates’ deteriorate into loud disagreement! The ‘girls’ take us home and we repeat the process every 4-weeks! Not an anti-Semite in sight. I might add I pity the fools that turn up from 7th Day, JW and LDS sometimes! …very amusing to watch your ‘older’ brother go to work and he doesn’t even believe in Christ! lol

Your views about plagarism is amusing since the original premise is that Christians plagarized Scriptures from their Jewish origins. I’m not excusing Sungenis and I’ve read his explanations. Many prefer to attack the messenger when they cannot refute the charge or rebuttal. That seems to be where you’re from!.

I hold him to the same level as everyone else. I expect mistakes given the multiple afronts against The Church he wants to fight simultaneously!

So far, for mine, he’s proving quite adept with his Lightsaber!

The Church NEED more like him…and Father Corapi.

 

[MonFrere]

For me Sungenis is a mixed bag. On the positive side - His books of Faith Alone and Scripture alone were fundamental to my returning to the Catholic Church in 2000. So, for that, I have a real reason to be eternally grateful for his work.

On the negative side, his WebSite, which I’ve visited a few times, seems to be devoted to some of his personal interests (which for me is wrongheaded), where I agree with pnewton, is at minimum a distraction for me to take seriously because my main interests are WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT XYZ. Because of the emphasis Sungenis gives of his peripheral interests, as well as his feisty nature, FOR ME, he is not one of my prime apologists for reference.

However, one feisty apologist, Art Sippo, has helped me numerous times in leading me to good material on topics where I wanted a good solid Catholic expose; so, feisty doesn’t necessarily mean not worthy of a listen. The great think I like about Art is that he will tell you clearly what the Church believes on any topic. AND he will also give you nuances were there may be ways or reasons where the currently held position of the Church may possibly move in one direction or another. Another feisty Catholic who I really love out on the front line of American Culture is Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. Feisty therefore me is GOOD when directed to defending the Church; but maybe not as an attractive trait when defending personal self interests. Having said that - I’ve heard some of the debates with Sungenis and various non-Catholics and he is exceptional in debate and a very worthy debater to have arguing the Catholic position. I think he is a valuable person to have in the Catholic Camp in spite of his ventures into “his issues”; so, even though I personally may not use his WebSite much because I think some of that material is “off center” he does a lot of good work.

MonFrere

 

[pnewton]

Impressive how you can then fault a person you’ve not ACTUALLY read, but base your criticism on the opinion of others!

I never said I have not read him. I said I have not read his books. I have never commented on them. If you check back to the start of this thread, it is about a specific article, which I read. I have read half a dozen such articles. Please be more careful before hurling accusations. It is decidely not cool.

 

[PUP]

You need to go to Bob Sungenis’s website and pull down the article titled “A Successful Dialog on the Old Covenant” because this article is a dialog between Art Sippo and Bob Sungenis where Bob convinces Art Sippo that Duel Covenant theology is heretical! Also, Art Sippo liked Bob’s book on the Epistle of Romans and James so much that he wrote a book review which is also on Bob’s website!

 

[MonFrere]

You need to go to Bob Sungenis’s website and pull down the article titled “A Successful Dialog on the Old Covenant” because this article is a dialog between Art Sippo and Bob Sungenis where Bob convinces Art Sippo that Duel Covenant theology is heretical! Also, Art Sippo liked Bob’s book on the Epistle of Romans and James so much that he wrote a book review which is also on Bob’s website!

Art and Bob are friendly to each other. This I know. They do not see eye to eye on every issue; but they have a professional respect for each other. Art is a medical doctor and it’s mostly the areas of science where they have the greatest area of disagreement.

The issue of “dual covenants” is from my reading very nuanced and I have not deeply studied it. MY point was that if I wanted to know what the Church believed on this topic I think Art would be more trustworthy to tell me what the Church officially taught where Bob would more likely tell me how HE viewed it in terms of tradition and scripture.

IMV – I think that one of the critical issues of any Catholic Apologist these days is a very precise and accurate assessment of Vatican II. Since this issue is “controversial” and everyone seems to have their opinion – I like to go to the Vatican itself and I try to closely read the statements of our past and current pope. I think Bob is suspect on this point.

MonFrere

 

[chosen_people]

When I was a child, I already knew only Jews and Romans were present when Christ died! As an adult, that has NOT changed,ergo, the default fact remains true now as it was then!

Yet, no one seems allowed in the USA or some parts of the globe to even start from that premise!..unless you’re Muslim.

Sungenis and a few others who are starting to come out of their hiding places are simply trying to address a basic issue. What is the difference between Judaism and Christianity? Why is the younger brother so obstinate against the older brother? Why do OBVIOUS brothers have such animosity regarding the other?

Thankfully, here, I sit down with Judaism (Rabbinic) and am able to ‘hammer-out’ our differences until the bottle of wine is finished and the ‘debates’ deteriorate into loud disagreement! The ‘girls’ take us home and we repeat the process every 4-weeks! Not an anti-Semite in sight. I might add I pity the fools that turn up from 7th Day, JW and LDS sometimes! …very amusing to watch your ‘older’ brother go to work and he doesn’t even believe in Christ! lol

Your views about plagarism is amusing since the original premise is that Christians plagarized Scriptures from their Jewish origins. I’m not excusing Sungenis and I’ve read his explanations. Many prefer to attack the messenger when they cannot refute the charge or rebuttal. That seems to be where you’re from!.

I hold him to the same level as everyone else. I expect mistakes given the multiple afronts against The Church he wants to fight simultaneously!

So far, for mine, he’s proving quite adept with his Lightsaber!

The Church NEED more like him…and Father Corapi.

Well apparently there is a serious “Jewish problem” that needs to be dealt with by Sungenis.

 

[Deconi]

I never said I have not read him. I said I have not read his books. I have never commented on them. If you check back to the start of this thread, it is about a specific article, which I read. I have read half a dozen such articles. Please be more careful before hurling accusations. It is decidely not cool.

Clearly I mistook the following post *prima facie * …in answer to a query whether you had read his works.

No. Unfortunately I have been put off too much by his tangent interests, like geocentrism, to care to read him. I have other good authors that do not engage in this sort of fringe activity in their apologetics, but stick to the Catholic Faith. They too are razor sharp and speak more to my needs.

[emphasis mine]
If that is the case, please accept my apologies. The matter is not worth an argument, anyway.

…because I just am! Not necessarily my views!

 

[pnewton]

…because I just am! Not necessarily my views!

No argument there! A sense of humor is always welcome.

 

[Roman_Army]

Although I agree with Sungenis about 95% of the time, I do not like his very rude and insensitive tone and do not agree with many of his political and scientific commentary. Politically he tends to subscribe to the idea that “the Jews, neo-cons, and zionists” control American military and foreign affairs and that certain bad military decisions have been made with malicious intent in mind and excludes honest mistakes or bad judgement. Then in regards to his positions on Geocentrism and Special Creationism, it is perfectly fine for a Catholic to take such positions, but he seems to take an absolutist approach on it in which he excludes the possibility that he might be wrong and the opposite position right and at times tends to misinterpret Magisterial documents and exaggerate their level of authority to support his position. I think over all his explanation of the Faith is great, but he needs to improve on his tone and perhaps not be so pessimistic about certain people’s motives. A lot of times people are in error with good intentions in mind and are simply ignorant. Empathy is always a good thing to practice.

 

[kimmielittle]

Although I agree with Sungenis about 95% of the time, I do not like his very rude and insensitive tone and do not agree with many of his political and scientific commentary. Politically he tends to subscribe to the idea that “the Jews, neo-cons, and zionists” control American military and foreign affairs and that certain bad military decisions have been made with malicious intent in mind and excludes honest mistakes or bad judgement. Then in regards to his positions on Geocentrism and Special Creationism, it is perfectly fine for a Catholic to take such positions, but he seems to take an absolutist approach on it in which he excludes the possibility that he might be wrong and the opposite position right and at times tends to misinterpret Magisterial documents and exaggerate their level of authority to support his position. I think over all his explanation of the Faith is great, but he needs to improve on his tone and perhaps not be so pessimistic about certain people’s motives. A lot of times people are in error with good intentions in mind and are simply ignorant. Empathy is always a good thing to practice.

 

[MonFrere]

Although I agree with Sungenis about 95% of the time, I do not like his very rude and insensitive tone and do not agree with many of his political and scientific commentary. Politically he tends to subscribe to the idea that “the Jews, neo-cons, and zionists” control American military and foreign affairs and that certain bad military decisions have been made with malicious intent in mind and excludes honest mistakes or bad judgement. Then in regards to his positions on Geocentrism and Special Creationism, it is perfectly fine for a Catholic to take such positions, but he seems to take an absolutist approach on it in which he excludes the possibility that he might be wrong and the opposite position right and at times tends to misinterpret Magisterial documents and exaggerate their level of authority to support his position. I think over all his explanation of the Faith is great, but he needs to improve on his tone and perhaps not be so pessimistic about certain people’s motives. A lot of times people are in error with good intentions in mind and are simply ignorant. Empathy is always a good thing to practice.

Well stated, Roman Army. I think you and I (and kimmie) see Robert Sungenis in the same light. When he is debating the faith - e.g. with a James White - he is really good.

MonFrere