L
Luke65
Guest
Thank you, and thanks for the links. I’ve read a lot of books (etc.) on these topics, but I haven’t read The Book Of Destiny. I’ll put it on the list!
- Status
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Per the OP’s original question, I think it would be useful to look at the volume on the Apocalypse in the Navarre Bible Commentary series. Also see the sections on the Apocalypse in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. Dom. Bernard Orchard, unfortunately out of print but worth getting on inter-library loan) and A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. R. C. Fuller, again out of print, but ditto.) I have also heard good things about the volume by Desmond Birch from people whose opinion I trust, but I have not read it myself.
Luke65,
You made a book recommendation and I pointed out that there were significant problems with that recommendation. You responded by unjustly attacking a Catholic bishop and making another false statement about Sungenis being unfairly attacked because he had already “apologized”. I refuted both your unjust attack on Bishop Rhoades and your contention that Sungenis had truly apologized. If you want to keep defending your recommendation of a problematic book, don’t complain if I continue to provide evidence why I believe it is not a good recommendation.
I don’t disagree that it’s sometimes too easy to get an imprimatur these days. But that only makes the fact that Sungenis can’t seem to get one all the more significant. He has been rejected by two bishops now, not merely the bishop you unjustly accused. And for good reasons. Besides the anti-Jewish bigotry, there are scholarly blunders in CASB2 – some of which he was warned about by his own acting vice president before publishing. Yet he published them anyway, mostly likely because they were negative in regard to Jews (note especially the sections on the “root” in Romans 11):
The Theology of Prejudice
CASB2’s Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said “No”?
He’ll even go after the Holy Father, while making blunder after blunder:
The Pope’s “Blunder” or Sungenis’ Prejudice?
This is why I take it seriously when people recommend these later writings; the scholarship just isn’t trustworthy and it’s laced with propaganda. And considering Sungenis’ rather notorious history in regard to Jews, I’m not surprised that the bishops have been reticent to allow him to spread his bigotry under the guise of supposed “Catholic theology.”
I think you were right and BrendaForGod was wrong about CASB 2, although perhaps she can be excused for the mistake. Each of Sungenis’ CASBs except #2 (1, 3, 4 and 5) appears to be in violation of canon law because they contain unapproved translations. Here is an article documenting this: More Imprimatur and Canonical Difficulties for Sungenis? However, there was an issue even with CASB2 on the Apocalypse because it appears Sungenis did not gain the required approval to use the RSV-CE before publishing it. Find the relevant documentation here (scroll down to point #5 on the RSV-CE).
You wrote: “That vote had to be done by a secret ballot, but the bishops decided by a vote of 231-14 to remove it.” This sounds similar to a conspiracy theory of sorts that Sungenis floated in his article More Confusion on Page 131 of the USCCB Catechism. The suggestion here seems to be that the bishops were afraid to vote openly for the change–perhaps for “fear of the Jews” or for fear of other bishops. You failed to back up your contention with any real evidence, for the good reason that there isn’t any evidence for it. It was not a “secret ballot”, it was a commonly used “mail-ballot” (see here for an example: the-tidings.com/2008/071108/newsbriefs.htm ). And the vote did not “[have] to be done by secret ballot”–the unsexy truth is that the meeting in Orlando was not very well attended and so there were not enough bishops present to represent a quorum. I thought it worth setting the record straight on that point because this is how unsubstantiated rumors take on a life of their own, growing more and more sinister with each telling.
In the end (no pun intended) what in the world does Sungenis being denied imprimaturs have to do with “the prophecies”? I assume you are suggesting that he is somehow being persecuted for his “orthodoxy”? I know that he would like for everyone to believe that he has been criticized by laymen and bishops alike simply for opposing the dual covenant error, but that’s nonsense. He has been opposed for plain old bigotry, for misusing Catholic theology and the Catholic name to promote that bigotry, for shoddy scholarship, and for unjust treatment of fellow Catholics including his own bishop. That has all been very well documented. Besides, our Lady doesn’t condone anti-Jewish bigotry any more than the bishops do, so don’t try to hide behind her mantle on this one.
Luke65,
You made a book recommendation and I pointed out that there were significant problems with that recommendation. You responded by unjustly attacking a Catholic bishop and making another false statement about Sungenis being unfairly attacked because he had already “apologized”. I refuted both your unjust attack on Bishop Rhoades and your contention that Sungenis had truly apologized. If you want to keep defending your recommendation of a problematic book, don’t complain if I continue to provide evidence why I believe it is not a good recommendation.
I don’t disagree that it’s sometimes too easy to get an imprimatur these days. But that only makes the fact that Sungenis can’t seem to get one all the more significant. He has been rejected by two bishops now, not merely the bishop you unjustly accused. And for good reasons. Besides the anti-Jewish bigotry, there are scholarly blunders in CASB2 – some of which he was warned about by his own acting vice president before publishing. Yet he published them anyway, mostly likely because they were negative in regard to Jews (note especially the sections on the “root” in Romans 11):
The Theology of Prejudice
CASB2’s Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said “No”?
He’ll even go after the Holy Father, while making blunder after blunder:
The Pope’s “Blunder” or Sungenis’ Prejudice?
This is why I take it seriously when people recommend these later writings; the scholarship just isn’t trustworthy and it’s laced with propaganda. And considering Sungenis’ rather notorious history in regard to Jews, I’m not surprised that the bishops have been reticent to allow him to spread his bigotry under the guise of supposed “Catholic theology.”
I think you were right and BrendaForGod was wrong about CASB 2, although perhaps she can be excused for the mistake. Each of Sungenis’ CASBs except #2 (1, 3, 4 and 5) appears to be in violation of canon law because they contain unapproved translations. Here is an article documenting this: More Imprimatur and Canonical Difficulties for Sungenis? However, there was an issue even with CASB2 on the Apocalypse because it appears Sungenis did not gain the required approval to use the RSV-CE before publishing it. Find the relevant documentation here (scroll down to point #5 on the RSV-CE).
You wrote: “That vote had to be done by a secret ballot, but the bishops decided by a vote of 231-14 to remove it.” This sounds similar to a conspiracy theory of sorts that Sungenis floated in his article More Confusion on Page 131 of the USCCB Catechism. The suggestion here seems to be that the bishops were afraid to vote openly for the change–perhaps for “fear of the Jews” or for fear of other bishops. You failed to back up your contention with any real evidence, for the good reason that there isn’t any evidence for it. It was not a “secret ballot”, it was a commonly used “mail-ballot” (see here for an example: the-tidings.com/2008/071108/newsbriefs.htm ). And the vote did not “[have] to be done by secret ballot”–the unsexy truth is that the meeting in Orlando was not very well attended and so there were not enough bishops present to represent a quorum. I thought it worth setting the record straight on that point because this is how unsubstantiated rumors take on a life of their own, growing more and more sinister with each telling.
In the end (no pun intended) what in the world does Sungenis being denied imprimaturs have to do with “the prophecies”? I assume you are suggesting that he is somehow being persecuted for his “orthodoxy”? I know that he would like for everyone to believe that he has been criticized by laymen and bishops alike simply for opposing the dual covenant error, but that’s nonsense. He has been opposed for plain old bigotry, for misusing Catholic theology and the Catholic name to promote that bigotry, for shoddy scholarship, and for unjust treatment of fellow Catholics including his own bishop. That has all been very well documented. Besides, our Lady doesn’t condone anti-Jewish bigotry any more than the bishops do, so don’t try to hide behind her mantle on this one.
L
Luke65
Guest
You refuted nothing. You posted links to Sungenis’ enemies and now you pretend you’ve proved your points. First of all, to correct the record, I said, “I think its very unfair and uncharitable for our Catholic brethren to continue to attack Sungenis for things that he said or wrote which he has apologized for and or removed from his website”. I said nothing false as you falsely accused me of doing. He has apologized for some of those things, and he did remove all the items after his bishop admonished him about them. And I put it that way precisely because I know that you guys dispute what he has or hasn’t apologized for. But I don’t care about that dispute, my point was that the anti-Sungenis cabal continues to attack him for things that are no longer on his website, and haven’t been for a long time. In fact, they even post his retracted writings on their own websites, even going so far as to dig them up out of internet archives. And what Christian continues to attack their brother for something they have retracted?
“Love… keeps no record of wrongs.” (1 Cor.13:4-5)
Hate digs up the records and parades them in front of the world.
Now, since you continue to slander me with “unjustly attacking a Catholic bishop”, you force me to defend my statement by presenting the heretical statement in our Catechism, and Bishop Rhoades’ shameful and embarrassing defense of it. Here is the Catechism:
“When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God’s revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”
This is called the “dual-covenant heresy”, which you well know but refuse to acknowledge or condemn, like Bishop Rhoades and others refuse to do. This heresy is widespread - its not in our Catechism by accident - and Sungenis has documented this well. There are not two “eternal” covenants, there is one – the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. To say the Mosaic covenant “remains eternally valid” flatly contradicts the Word of God and the constant teaching of the Church. Sungenis extensively documented the Church’s teachings on this point, along with the current state of affairs in this article. Here are some of the relevant statements:
• Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
• Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
• Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
• The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
• Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
• Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
• Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
• St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law” (Homily on Romans, 6:12);
• St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
• Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
L
Luke65
Guest
cont.
Now, despite what the Church has taught for two thousand years, somehow this damnable heresy made it into the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Catechism. And Bishop Rhoades, even when asked specifically about it, refused to condemn it. Instead, he defended it with a shameful and yet shameless “interpretation”, and a novel definition - to say the least! - of the word “covenant”.
Bishop Rhoades: "I do not interpret anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ.”
That’s odd, considering that the paragraph on the Jews did mention God’s “plan of salvation”, but noticeably absent was the name “Jesus Christ”. It seems they left our Lord outside in the cold when talking about the Jews and God’s plan for salvation, even though He happens to be the only Savior of the world, and that includes the Jews. And what about the statement that the Mosaic covenant “remains eternally valid” which flatly contradicts the Holy Scriptures? How will you “interpret” that?
Bishop Rhoades: “I can see how the one statement that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”
Well there you go. A bishop of the Catholic Church - a theologian - “interprets” the word “covenant” to mean a “special relationship”! Yes, I suppose it does all depend on what the meaning of the word “covenant” is. Ironically enough, I seem to remember the term “special relationship” used for less than savory relationships. And, of course, marriage is a covenant, and the Church is our Lord’s Bride. So I can’t help but wonder, does the bishop “interpret” this to mean that God keeps a mistress? Enquiring minds want to know!
Yes, its easy to see how that statement can be “misunderstood”. Its just too bad the bishop can’t see that he’s apparently the only one who doesn’t know the definition of the word “covenant”. But this is the man who is passing judgment on Robert Sungenis! Who knows how the bishop “interpreted” his book! Here’s Sungenis:
“[T]he relevance of the USCCB’s liberal stance on the Jews was brought home to me loud and clear when the bishop of my diocese, Kevin C. Rhoades, denied an imprimatur to my book The Apocalypse of St. John and cited page 131 as one of his proofs that my book, amazingly enough, because it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ, had a “lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism.” He made this accusation without pointing out even one example in the book where I had violated Church teaching, and further added that he would accept no more discussion on the issue.”
And as far as I know, Bishop Rhoades still has not said what in Sungenis’ book contradicts the Church’s teachings, or if this means, now that the heresy is being removed from the Catechism, that he can give the book an imprimatur. I don’t recommend that anybody hold their breath.
And there we see the tactics of the anti-Sungenis cabal in all their glory. Defend or promote heresy, no problem. Adhere to the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, especially regarding the Jews, and you will be attacked and smeared relentlessly.
Now, despite what the Church has taught for two thousand years, somehow this damnable heresy made it into the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Catechism. And Bishop Rhoades, even when asked specifically about it, refused to condemn it. Instead, he defended it with a shameful and yet shameless “interpretation”, and a novel definition - to say the least! - of the word “covenant”.
Bishop Rhoades: "I do not interpret anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ.”
That’s odd, considering that the paragraph on the Jews did mention God’s “plan of salvation”, but noticeably absent was the name “Jesus Christ”. It seems they left our Lord outside in the cold when talking about the Jews and God’s plan for salvation, even though He happens to be the only Savior of the world, and that includes the Jews. And what about the statement that the Mosaic covenant “remains eternally valid” which flatly contradicts the Holy Scriptures? How will you “interpret” that?
Bishop Rhoades: “I can see how the one statement that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”
Well there you go. A bishop of the Catholic Church - a theologian - “interprets” the word “covenant” to mean a “special relationship”! Yes, I suppose it does all depend on what the meaning of the word “covenant” is. Ironically enough, I seem to remember the term “special relationship” used for less than savory relationships. And, of course, marriage is a covenant, and the Church is our Lord’s Bride. So I can’t help but wonder, does the bishop “interpret” this to mean that God keeps a mistress? Enquiring minds want to know!
Yes, its easy to see how that statement can be “misunderstood”. Its just too bad the bishop can’t see that he’s apparently the only one who doesn’t know the definition of the word “covenant”. But this is the man who is passing judgment on Robert Sungenis! Who knows how the bishop “interpreted” his book! Here’s Sungenis:
“[T]he relevance of the USCCB’s liberal stance on the Jews was brought home to me loud and clear when the bishop of my diocese, Kevin C. Rhoades, denied an imprimatur to my book The Apocalypse of St. John and cited page 131 as one of his proofs that my book, amazingly enough, because it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ, had a “lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism.” He made this accusation without pointing out even one example in the book where I had violated Church teaching, and further added that he would accept no more discussion on the issue.”
And as far as I know, Bishop Rhoades still has not said what in Sungenis’ book contradicts the Church’s teachings, or if this means, now that the heresy is being removed from the Catechism, that he can give the book an imprimatur. I don’t recommend that anybody hold their breath.
Well, unless the Jews were present at that meeting a reasonable person, not to mention a charitable person, would assume the latter, especially since some bishops changed their tune when they got home…
Are you making that up? Or are you just conveniently misinformed? The bishops voted on, and passed a “Statement on Stem-cell Research” by a vote of 191-1 at that meeting. 167 votes are needed. And considering that only 14 bishops voted to keep the heresy in our Catechism, we can see that a number of them flip-flopped when they got back home and voted in secret. Is there anymore misinformation you would like to spread so that you can smear me (and Sungenis) with “fear of the Jews” conspiracies?
Despicable. I mentioned our Blessed Mother one time, and that was in my response (#17) to Brenda’s comment on the blurb for Fr. Kramer’s book. What that has to do with “anti-Jewish bigotry”, and how you can take my words of context like that so you can smear me as an anti-Semite, are things that you can bet you will answer for. Now go ahead and have at it, I’m done with you.
And there we see the tactics of the anti-Sungenis cabal in all their glory. Defend or promote heresy, no problem. Adhere to the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, especially regarding the Jews, and you will be attacked and smeared relentlessly.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Luke65,
In the spirit of Lent, I’m inviting you to step back a minute and reflect before reacting. I don’t want to “provoke you to wrath” as it were, but you’ve made some erroneous accusations that need to be addressed. And you keep going further with each posting. I’m going to try this one last time, at the very least for the sake of those who may wonder what’s going on here.
First, regarding your reference to the Blessed Mother it appears that I wrongly conflated your reference to “the prophecies” in post #8 with your reference to “The prophecies” in post #17. I apologize for my misunderstanding and for misrepresenting you.
Regarding Sungenis, if you actually read the documentation you would know that he has truly retracted nothing and has issued no apologies worthy of the name. His quasi-apologies are not even as good as the one that Bp. Williamson recently gave – and which the Vatican has rejected as insufficient. And he has repeatedly returned to his anti-Jewish bigotry as soon as he feels the heat has died down sufficiently (LINK). This has been going on since 2002 right up to the present. Simply pulling down slanderous material, with neither apology nor retraction, only to continue on the same course when the “coast is clear” is not the fruit of true repentence (see also here).
Regarding the dual covenant error and my stance on it, you’re mistaken. Even in this very thread I called it an error, yet you stated that I “refuse to acknowledge or condemn” it. On another thread that unfortunately was removed about a week ago, both I and Michael Forrest corrected the dual covenant error at great length (I even called it a heresy) – but without degenerating into conspiracy theories and angry polemics. In fact, we used several of the same quotes you just used about the issue.
Regarding Bishop Rhoades:
Are you making that up? Or are you just conveniently misinformed? The bishops voted on, and passed a “Statement on Stem-cell Research” by a vote of 191-1 at that meeting. 167 votes are needed. And considering that only 14 bishops voted to keep the heresy in our Catechism, we can see that a number of them flip-flopped when they got back home and voted in secret. Is there anymore misinformation you would like to spread so that you can smear me (and Sungenis) with “fear of the Jews” conspiracies?
You are mistaken. There was no “secret ballot”, no evidence of any “flip-flopping”, and I have not presented any misinformation, just facts. Here is a new piece presenting all of those facts: Debunking another Conspiracy Theory.
All of this conspiracy theorizing is poisonous, Luke. It is confusing and troubling that you seem to care less that Sungenis has called Jews an “infection” (and much more: see here and here), that he has lied about Jewish converts to the faith and refused to clear the record (LINK), has smeared virtually everyone who has corrected him on his anti-Jewish excesses (including his bishop), has been denied an imprimatur on any of his books for the past 11 years, and has made numerous blunders of scholarship in his latest books (LINK). But when we stand against his sustained bigotry and correct his errors – that’s what gets you upset.
At least the information is out there. Everyone can make their own decisions now. Have a blessed Lent.
In the spirit of Lent, I’m inviting you to step back a minute and reflect before reacting. I don’t want to “provoke you to wrath” as it were, but you’ve made some erroneous accusations that need to be addressed. And you keep going further with each posting. I’m going to try this one last time, at the very least for the sake of those who may wonder what’s going on here.
First, regarding your reference to the Blessed Mother it appears that I wrongly conflated your reference to “the prophecies” in post #8 with your reference to “The prophecies” in post #17. I apologize for my misunderstanding and for misrepresenting you.
Regarding Sungenis, if you actually read the documentation you would know that he has truly retracted nothing and has issued no apologies worthy of the name. His quasi-apologies are not even as good as the one that Bp. Williamson recently gave – and which the Vatican has rejected as insufficient. And he has repeatedly returned to his anti-Jewish bigotry as soon as he feels the heat has died down sufficiently (LINK). This has been going on since 2002 right up to the present. Simply pulling down slanderous material, with neither apology nor retraction, only to continue on the same course when the “coast is clear” is not the fruit of true repentence (see also here).
Regarding the dual covenant error and my stance on it, you’re mistaken. Even in this very thread I called it an error, yet you stated that I “refuse to acknowledge or condemn” it. On another thread that unfortunately was removed about a week ago, both I and Michael Forrest corrected the dual covenant error at great length (I even called it a heresy) – but without degenerating into conspiracy theories and angry polemics. In fact, we used several of the same quotes you just used about the issue.
Regarding Bishop Rhoades:
- Sungenis’s allegations have been refuted at great length. He is being dishonest. (LINK).
- You again unjustly accused Bishop Rhoades of defending heresy. His Excellency did not defend a heresy as you initially stated. He made very clear that he does not adhere to the dual covenant theory. And he supports evangelization of Jews with the Gospel (when done respectfully, of course; LINK.) You should retract and apologize the false charge.
- Just because Bishop Rhoades didn’t come out when and how you think he ought to, that doesn’t justify your (and Sungenis’) attacks on him. It is understandable that His Excellency would not come out with something so overt on this issue (involving Jews) in the very context of dealing with a notorious anti-Jewish bigot. Yet, obviously he agreed there was indeed a serious issue. As you yourself pointed out, he and most all of the bishops did something that is virtually unheard of in voting to change the USCCA. As such, it’s plain that almost all of the bishops understood that it was a significant issue that needed to be remedied.
Are you making that up? Or are you just conveniently misinformed? The bishops voted on, and passed a “Statement on Stem-cell Research” by a vote of 191-1 at that meeting. 167 votes are needed. And considering that only 14 bishops voted to keep the heresy in our Catechism, we can see that a number of them flip-flopped when they got back home and voted in secret. Is there anymore misinformation you would like to spread so that you can smear me (and Sungenis) with “fear of the Jews” conspiracies?
You are mistaken. There was no “secret ballot”, no evidence of any “flip-flopping”, and I have not presented any misinformation, just facts. Here is a new piece presenting all of those facts: Debunking another Conspiracy Theory.
All of this conspiracy theorizing is poisonous, Luke. It is confusing and troubling that you seem to care less that Sungenis has called Jews an “infection” (and much more: see here and here), that he has lied about Jewish converts to the faith and refused to clear the record (LINK), has smeared virtually everyone who has corrected him on his anti-Jewish excesses (including his bishop), has been denied an imprimatur on any of his books for the past 11 years, and has made numerous blunders of scholarship in his latest books (LINK). But when we stand against his sustained bigotry and correct his errors – that’s what gets you upset.
At least the information is out there. Everyone can make their own decisions now. Have a blessed Lent.
B
Brenda4God
Guest
DavidPalm, thank you for all the information about the bishops’ meeting. 
And you were right about CASB2, I knew that all of Sungenis’ apologetics Bibles had serious problems with them but I forgot that the second one was the only one that doesn’t have his translation of the Bible that wasn’t approved by the Church. Sorry for the mixup. 
And I understand why you were confused by Luke65 on the “the prophecies” thing with Our Lady. I was too. I took it the same way you did.
Peace.
And you were right about CASB2, I knew that all of Sungenis’ apologetics Bibles had serious problems with them but I forgot that the second one was the only one that doesn’t have his translation of the Bible that wasn’t approved by the Church. Sorry for the mixup. And I understand why you were confused by Luke65 on the “the prophecies” thing with Our Lady. I was too. I took it the same way you did.
Peace.
L
Luke65
Guest
Okay, I’ve reflected, and I’m ready to respond in the spirit of Lent.
First of all, don’t you realize that I have no desire to talk about any of this? Have I ever talked about it before? No. And why are we talking about it now? Simply because I recommended a book by Robert Sungenis. But okay, I will answer the new information you’ve brought forward, but first let me apologize to you, because it seems you had a basis for what you said about the bishop’s meeting.And thank you for that, that was the one comment that really got to me.
What’s with all this “conspiracy theory” stuff? It just looked to me like a lack of backbone in some of the bishops when they were together. But we’ll correct that impression momentarily. From the article you linked:
Huh? Everything I’ve seen has said 250 bishops. They point out that they are “Latin Rite” bishops, so maybe that’s the discrepancy. At any rate, there were only 246 voting bishops on this issue (including one abstention), so it looks like it actually needed only 164 votes to pass.
What? Did you notice that the vote of 141-0 “passed”? Did you notice that not all of the bishops were eligible to vote on that issue? Well, my conspiratorial mind
tells me that the other bishops didn’t vote on it because they couldn’t, not because they weren’t “present”, especially since 192 bishops voted again the next day (the 13th).Interesting. But why hasn’t the USCCB told us these things officially? Why is it from an anonymous “USCCB official” who gives this information to who, the “Robert Sungenis and the Jews” website? The USCCB’s website shows no official vote on the Catechism at that meeting. The CNS story on their website says only that the bishops “discussed” it, but it “did not receive the needed two-thirds majority”. They didn’t mention the little detail that this was because many of the bishops had left! And why did they put off removing heresy from our Catechism until it was too late to remove it? Especially if it was such a “slam dunk”? Unfortunately, from what they made public it sounded, to me anyway, like there was sufficient disagreement that they didn’t take an official vote on it there, but voted by mail. That’s why I never said that they voted twice, or that anyone reversed their vote. I said “changed their tune”, not their vote. I said “flip-flopped”, which, in that context, does not mean “changed their vote”, but their position.
Now, I’m sorry I apparently mischaracterized the situation with this vote, but it was based on the only information that the USCCB made public, not some nefarious motive, although obviously I was angry about the whole situation to begin with. So I’m asking you guys, please remove me from your website. You know I can’t use CAF to defend myself, but you can challenge anything I’ve said here. But I believe I have corrected the record here, and you’ve corrected the record on your website, although I hope you’ll correct the issues I pointed out. And I hope we can all have a blessed Lent.
- Status