Robert Sungenis in the News

[TMC]

That’s not what was originally claimed in this thread. The original claim was that he was asked to not use Catholic for his views. And that’s still unsubstantiated.

Well, if you are trying to establish that he was not prohibited from ever using the word Catholic in a sentence again, I’ll concede the point. But I think real point is that he was told by his bishop to take the label “Catholic” off his organization precisely so that he did not mislead people into thinking that he somehow speaks for the Catholic Church or that his views are anything more than his private thoughts. And that goes directly to the OP’s original concern, that this fellow’s eccentric views get taken as somehow representative of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

I was the person that claimed he was asked not to use the word Catholic to describe his views, and the statements about the bishop telling him to remove the word “Catholic” from the name of his organization and his website is what I was referring to (although I did not remember the details at the time.) To be fair, I think that the bishop’s main concern was the anti-Semitic content of his writings/website and not the geocentrism. As others have said, I don’t think the Church is too concerned about the geocentrism stuff because, frankly, everyone knows the Catholic Church hasn’t taught geocentrism for a long, long time.

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s an unreasonable belief but geocentrism is on a whole other level like believing the earth is flat.

Flat-earthism and geocentrism are on different levels as well.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Anyone read his book Gallileo was Wrong (or something like that) to determine what is the foundation for his geocentrist argument?

 

[Fink]

I just looked up this guy. What a strange man. . . .

It worries me that, one day, he mght join forces with Gerry Matatics!
Is that a groundless fear?

 

[iamrefreshed]

That’s an unreasonable belief but geocentrism is on a whole other level like believing the earth is flat.

So are you saying that our flat, 6000 year old earth is not the center of the universe?

 

[Third_Day]

Anyone read his book Gallileo was Wrong (or something like that) to determine what is the foundation for his geocentrist argument?

Yes and it is an amazing book.
People love to hate Robert Sungenis and I don’t know why. HIs books, Not by Faith Alone, *Not by Scripture Alone *and *Not by Bread Alone *are three of the greatest apologetics books ever written. He is also the best Catholic debater around. His debates with James White on Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone are terrific. His debate with James White on Predestination and on the Assumption of Mary were two of the best.His debate against Mr. Lane, a sedevacantist, was a slam dunk for the Catholic Church.
By the way after reading his book *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and watching his DVD on geocentrism I beleive he makes valid points as to why Geocentrism cannot be discounted as true.
He believes scripture which says the earth does not move. Science has never proven that it does move. SInce we are to believe the literal meaning of scripture unless there is a valid reason to do otherwise on what basis do we have to believe the earth moves around the sun when that theory cannot be proven?

 

[StAnastasia]

He believes scripture which says the earth does not move. Science has never proven that it does move. SInce we are to believe the literal meaning of scripture unless there is a valid reason to do otherwise on what basis do we have to believe the earth moves around the sun when that theory cannot be proven?

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese?

 

[Third_Day]

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese?

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the earth moves? Let’s not forget that Sungenis co-author Dr. Robert Bennett has a PhD in physics. They are not alone. There are othe scientists that hold that view as well. Please consider what Wolfgang Smith, who was a scientist from MIT has to say in his book The Wisom of Ancient Cosmology

“heliocentrsim has proven to be scientifically untenable and in fact the palm of victory belongs to the wise and saintly Robert Bellarmine…two crucial experiments, based upon different physical principles, had now reached the same conclusion: the Earth does not move…whereas contemporary astronomy is thus implacably opposed to the geocentrist hypothesis, it happens that pure physics is not. According to general relativity,it is in fact permissible to regard the Earth as a body at rest: as Fred Hoyle has put it, the resultant theory “is a good as any other, but not better.” Relativity implies that the hypothesis of a static Earth is not incompatible with the laws of physics and cannot be experimentally disproved…If the Airy or Michelson-Morley experiments had yielded their intended result, the scientific case against geocentrism, though still not compelling, would have been at least impressive, however, as the matter stands, the ancient doctrine has not even been rendered improbable, let alone has it been disqualified…one knows today that on the basis of physics that Galileo’s arguments are inconclusive, and that in fact the stipulated motion cannot be proved at all…the most that physics as such can say is that geocentric astronomy cannot be ruled out.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

“heliocentrsim has proven to be scientifically untenable and in fact the palm of victory belongs to the wise and saintly Robert Bellarmine…two crucial experiments, based upon different physical principles, had now reached the same conclusion: the Earth does not move…whereas contemporary astronomy is thus implacably opposed to the geocentrist hypothesis, it happens that pure physics is not. According to general relativity,it is in fact permissible to regard the Earth as a body at rest: as Fred Hoyle has put it, the resultant theory “is a good as any other, but not better.” Relativity implies that the hypothesis of a static Earth is not incompatible with the laws of physics and cannot be experimentally disproved…If the Airy or Michelson-Morley experiments had yielded their intended result, the scientific case against geocentrism, though still not compelling, would have been at least impressive, however, as the matter stands, the ancient doctrine has not even been rendered improbable, let alone has it been disqualified…one knows today that on the basis of physics that Galileo’s arguments are inconclusive, and that in fact the stipulated motion cannot be proved at all…the most that physics as such can say is that geocentric astronomy cannot be ruled out.”

So basically, the idea would be that any particular point in the universe could be the stationary center, correct?

 

[Seamus_L]

I have some books by Sungenis and they’re excellent.

 

[grannymh]

I have some books by Sungenis and they’re excellent.

The difficulty with his Galileo presentations is that the some readers come away with the wrong impression as to how Catholic doctrine is formed under the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

 

[StAnastasia]

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the earth moves? Let’s not forget that Sungenis co-author Dr. Robert Bennett has a PhD in physics. They are not alone. There are othe scientists that hold that view as well.

Since you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese, I shall hold my belief to be as reasonable as your geocentrism.

 

[DavidPalm]

People love to hate Robert Sungenis and I don’t know why.

I don’t know who “loves to hate” Robert Sungenis. But it seems plain that Bob loves to stir up dissension, animosity and controversy because he’s been doing it for 35 years or so. In Surprised by Truth, he fittingly entitled his autobiographical account, “From Controversy to Consolation.” According to Sungenis himself, he left the Catholic faith in early adulthood and spent the next 18 years embroiling himself in one controversy after another. In his conversion story, Bob reveals something significant about his temperament and his manner of searching for truth. For example, here’s his account of a conversation with a friend named Gerry Hoffman who disagree with him in regard to religion:

“My conversation with Gerry [Hoffman] was different. Even though I gave him a few of the standard objections to Catholic doctrines, for some reason, his answers did not make me feel combative. In fact, his explanations made me feel like listening instead of attacking. As those who knew me at that time would have attested, this was not my normal response to a conversation about politics or religion – especially religion.”

There are numerous other examples in his autobiographical conversion story that illustrate his penchant for creating dissension, animosity and controversy (see e.g. here).

The time of “consolation” to which he refers occurred immediately after his reversion to the Catholic faith. At that time, he had a season of grace and relative peace that allowed him to produce his fine “Not by” series. Sadly, that season passed and he’s returned to his old ways.

For the past several years, he’s returned to extreme controversialism – this time, attacking and slandering Jews, his own bishop, and many others.

Please see:

Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory

An Open Invitation to Bob Sungenis

A Defense of Bishop Rhoades from More False Accusations by Robert Sungenis

Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy: Why Don’t They Apply to Bishop Rhoades?

He’s even back to attacking popes (see here). When he’s confronted about his behavior, he typically lashes out and blames everyone else. He even accuses his critics of secretly being Jews (for but the latest case of this click here - go down to the last comment posted by Jared Olar).

Bob regularly peddles a whole panoply of conspiracy theories including, but not nearly limited to: NASA faked the lunar landings, the attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” and the Jewish owner of WTC Building 7 purposely leveled that building with pre-set explosives, NASA creates crop circles to “get our minds off the Bible and Christ”, the Jews sent Monica Lewinski in to take Bill Clinton down because they didn’t like his foreign policy toward Israel, and so on…

And this kind of thinking even muddles his biblical commentary, which he and most people consider his greatest strength. For example, he has insisted in multiple places that the “context” for Romans 11 and St. Paul’s teaching on the Jews is the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, which took place at least twelve years after Romans was written and 3 years after St. Paul was dead! On this and other related issues see “The Theology of Prejudice”, “The Pope’s ‘Blunder’ or Sungenis’ Prejudice?”, and “Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis”. Notice too that Bob hasn’t been able to get an imprimatur on any of his works for many years now, having been turned down multiple times (see here.)

It seems to me that Galileo Was Wrong is more controversialism and sensationalism brought forth by someone trying to make a name for himself. He’s repeatedly misused the name “Catholic” to give him an appearance of authority that he doesn’t rightly possess – harming the Church in the process – and that’s exactly why he was told by his bishop to stop calling his organization “Catholic.”

I know this is a lot of information. But in light of the sad, unfolding Fr. Corapi debacle, I thought it worth bringing forth. Everybody likes a straight shooter. But when there are warning signs that something is seriously amiss, prudence says you’d better watch out. The warning signs are all over this. Don’t let your loyalties be blind.

It seems to me that what you see as “hate” of Robert Sungenis is by and large a reaction against his continuing unjust attacks/provocations and the harm they cause to the Church.

 

[Muttonchops88]

He believes scripture which says the earth does not move. Science has never proven that it does move. SInce we are to believe the literal meaning of scripture unless there is a valid reason to do otherwise on what basis do we have to believe the earth moves around the sun when that theory cannot be proven?

No one can truly “prove” anything in the realm of science. Science can, however, through repetition of experiment show strengthening evidence for a particular phenomenon. Geocentrism as a theory has less and less evidence, just as heliocentrism has had mounting evidence over the last several years. While we will never prove it one way or another, God endowed us with reason to act based on the best evidence we have.

If you are waiting for conclusive proof, it will never come.

 

[StAnastasia]

No one can truly “prove” anything in the realm of science. Science can, however, through repetition of experiment show strengthening evidence for a particular phenomenon. Geocentrism as a theory has less and less evidence, just as heliocentrism has had mounting evidence over the last several years. While we will never prove it one way or another, God endowed us with reason to act based on the best evidence we have. If you are waiting for conclusive proof, it will never come.

True. Is there conclusive proof that the sun is not sizzling hot nacho cheese? Proof that we can trust?

 

[ringil]

Since you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese, I shall hold my belief to be as reasonable as your geocentrism.

I reject your belief!!!

It’s color shows it to be more of a pale bubbling gruyere than the rich orange hue of a nacho.

 

[TMC]

True. Is there conclusive proof that the sun is not sizzling hot nacho cheese? Proof that we can trust?

Yes, of course there is proof. If the sun were sizzling hot nacho cheese we would periodically see the shadows caused when aliens dipped giant tortilla chips into it. Because we have observed no such shadows, either 1) aliens do not enjoy nachos and chips or 2) the sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. 1 is ridiculous on its face, so the sun must not be made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. Its probably more of a gooey hot orange sauce.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah, I doubt you’ll ever see any of this guy’s stuff in Catholic Answers publications ever again, since he has his own organization where he can crank out this stuff which only makes him look all the worse.

So far as I can recall he has no love for Catholic Answers. Ttbomk, he failed to get an imprimatur on his latest book from the diocesan bishop for just such shenanigans as this.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, of course there is proof. If the sun were sizzling hot nacho cheese we would periodically see the shadows caused when aliens dipped giant tortilla chips into it. Because we have observed no such shadows, either 1) aliens do not enjoy nachos and chips or 2) the sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. 1 is ridiculous on its face, so the sun must not be made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. ** Its probably more of a gooey hot orange sauce.**

Appropriate for Thai food?

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, of course there is proof. If the sun were sizzling hot nacho cheese we would periodically see the shadows caused when aliens dipped giant tortilla chips into it. Because we have observed no such shadows, either 1) aliens do not enjoy nachos and chips or 2) the sun is not made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. 1 is ridiculous on its face, so the sun must not be made of sizzling hot nacho cheese. Its probably more of a gooey hot orange sauce.