Robert Sungenis

[Gottle_of_Geer]

<< I have never heard of anyone teaching this for centuries. >>

Welcome to the sixteenth century

There it is, with responses by Gary Hoge, brave defender of 21st century astronomy and physics.

Phil P

Someone should do something about that fellow Friar Thomas of Aquino - only the other day, so I’m told, he wrote something which suggested the world might be round Disgusting, I call it - hasn’t he read Lactantius ? And St. Boniface ? That’s the trouble with these new-fangled religious orders: a pope approves them, and that makes them think they know everything.​

At this rate, someone one will get into their heads that the earth moves. Why can’t they get into their heads that if Scripture says it is not moved - then it’s not: and that’s all there is to it. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

<< Come on… Einstein, Newton,Lyell,and Galileo aren’t infallible. >>

Not only are they fallible, they were totally wrong. The earth is flat as a pancake, does not move, does not rotate, the moon is made of cheese, the sun is about the size of a basketball, the stars are the sizes of marbles with tiny candles in them, and are about 150 feet in the air but only at night (during the day they are 500 feet high which is why we can’t see them), and evolution as we all know is a lie from the pit of hell, and E = mc hammer. Come on.

Phil P

As it so happens, the heavens are moved by angels, within epicycles, of which there about 30; and these heavens are made of crystal - every schoolboy knows that.​

If the moon were made of cheese, it would have been eaten by now.

“Back to Ptolemy”, I say - and the sooner the better. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

Leo XIII on the Anglican Service: "There is nothing more pertinent than to consider the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, the laws of believing and the laws of prayer [Lex Credendi, Led Orandi], and under the pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers.
“For this reason in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice or consecrating … and offering sacrifice, but as we have said, every trace of these things, which had been in the prayers of the Catholic Rite … was deliberately removed and struck off. Their object in discarding it was to disavow Catholic Apostolic doctrines, and not as you contend to render the rites simpler.”

Comment: All of the same comments were made by Cardinal Ottaviani about the New Mass.

That however is not why the Pope found against Anglican Orders:​

1. With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
2. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

The Pauline Missal is valid at least because of the context in which it is used - ex adjunctis - so it is different from the former Missal, but not invalid. Paragraph 35 does not apply to it, for lack of a positive intention to reject doing what the Church intends. It is thus a valid Catholic rite ##

 

[PhilVaz]

Gottle << “Back to Ptolemy”, I say - and the sooner the better. >>

Um, hee hee.

The Universe (actual size) picture below

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ancientworld.jpg

This kind of Catholic/Christian apologetics unfortunately allows people to create sites like this one

Might I suggest my philosophy and science articles as an antidote

Some new ones by Apolonio, an article on the Flood by Davis A. Young, and a somewhat speculative article on Hominization and the Origin of Humankind are my latest additions. Thank you, I defend Catholicism, modern science and reason. You’re very welcome.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

All right, who resurrected this 6-month old thread from the dead?

http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

Phil P

Don’t blame me (unless you must ) - I merely saw the thread and pounced ​

 

[hecd2]

trth_skr:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
*Alec,

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the following debate on the subject. I believe the link I am providing will take you to the 4th part of the debate, but the link to the first three is located at the top. When you have some time, read over it and let me know what you think.

catholicintl.com/epologe…nce/cole4-1.htm*

hecd2:

It’s quite simple. Sungenis is a scientific crank.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

It is clear that you only intend to attack Robert Sungenis, Alec. Ken Cole’s case proves nothing, and you should know it. He ignores relativity, Mach’s Principle, the possibilty of rotating universes, etc., and claims to disprove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics of the solar system in isolation from the rest of the universe. True if the solar system existed in an isolated static vacuum universe, his case may make sense.

You should know that. The fact that you do not comment on Ken Cole’s errors makes me wonder wht your motives are.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

My motives are simple. I am pointing out that Sungenis’s geocentric beliefs are scientific bunkum; and that he is doing untold harm to the image of Catholicism amongst knowledgeable and intelligent people by claiming that such obvious poppycock represents a required opinion for good Catholics. He is basically bringing the image of the Church into disrepute by parading, under a Catholic banner, his scientific ignorance, his contempt for logic and his misinterpretation of authority.

St Augustine could have had Sungenis in mind when he wrote his famous reproof: ‘Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men… Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.’

It doesn’t require many words or complex logic to demonstrate why Sungenis’s geocentric position is scientific blancmange. Let me state it in three sentences: In a Newtonian model that incorporates an absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe for compelling reasons, many of which have been rehearsed in this and other similar threads. In a model based on Einsteinian General Relativity and the Machian principle that has no absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe because such a concept has no meaning. There is no tenable cosmological model in which geocentrism can be true.

It’s as simple as that. Neither Robert nor any of his acolytes have ever addressed this simple demolition of their position. The fact is that Robert’s geocentric idea is scientific claptrap, supported by nothing more than a hodgepodge of misunderstood and misapplied scientific ideas and his personal idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/dodecahedral_universe.htm

 

[bassman]

Sungenis argues that Geocentrism was implicitly defined; he went crackpot on us.

bassman

 

[challenger]

bassman:

Sungenis argues that Geocentrism was implicitly defined; he went crackpot on us.

bassman

Is that what you say about all people who become Traditionalists?

 

[awalt]

Sorry to jump in on a more simplistic question, but I ordered Not by Faith and Not by Scripture as both are Imprimatur; Not by Bread is not. How come - to orecent a book? Just hasn’t been reviewed? Problems with it?

 

[trth_skr]

hecd2:

My motives are simple. I am pointing out that Sungenis’s geocentric beliefs are scientific bunkum; and that he is doing untold harm to the image of Catholicism amongst knowledgeable and intelligent people by claiming that such obvious poppycock represents a required opinion for good Catholics. He is basically bringing the image of the Church into disrepute by parading, under a Catholic banner, his scientific ignorance, his contempt for logic and his misinterpretation of authority.

St Augustine could have had Sungenis in mind when he wrote his famous reproof: ‘Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men… Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.’

It doesn’t require many words or complex logic to demonstrate why Sungenis’s geocentric position is scientific blancmange. Let me state it in three sentences: In a Newtonian model that incorporates an absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe for compelling reasons, many of which have been rehearsed in this and other similar threads. In a model based on Einsteinian General Relativity and the Machian principle that has no absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe because such a concept has no meaning. There is no tenable cosmological model in which geocentrism can be true.

It’s as simple as that. Neither Robert nor any of his acolytes have ever addressed this simple demolition of their position. The fact is that Robert’s geocentric idea is scientific claptrap, supported by nothing more than a hodgepodge of misunderstood and misapplied scientific ideas and his personal idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/dodecahedral_universe.htm

The point I was making is that Ken Cole did not disprove geocentrism. You ignored that but attacked what you view as Robert Sungenis’ mistakes (ignoring Ken Cole’s).

As far as quoting Augustine, he was a geocentrist (fully aware of heliocentric theories of his time).

And it is not that simple. If GR is true, one can demonstrate that an earth centered universe has plausible physics. I agree this does not prove geocentrism. Geocentrism, heliocentrism and acentrism all have the status of being unproven at this time. The difference is three Popes, the fathers, and ultimately the Holy Spirit support geocentrism, but not the other two.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[challenger]

awalt:

Sorry to jump in on a more simplistic question, but I ordered Not by Faith and Not by Scripture as both are Imprimatur; Not by Bread is not. How come - to orecent a book? Just hasn’t been reviewed? Problems with it?

The reason is posted on the inside cover- I don’t recall exactly, but it’s something like the diocese of his residence had not activated its abilities to issue imprimaturs (he moved or something), and you’re not allowed to get an imprimatur from a different diocese.

 

[MrS]

challenger:

The reason is posted on the inside cover- I don’t recall exactly, but it’s something like the diocese of his residence had not activated its abilities to issue imprimaturs (he moved or something), and you’re not allowed to get an imprimatur from a different diocese.

Yes he did move. Not a bad discision considering the state of the bishop of Arlington Diocese which he moved out of. (no he did not move because of the bishop… his familiy is growing… needs a bigger house. You know what Scott Hahn often says… “May your tribe increase”

 

[Topher]

Look, Sungenis is not crazy. I have read both Not by Bread Alone and Not by Scripture Alone. Both are well thought out and prove their respective points. These are not the works of a nutball.
I do agree that he can be a bit extreme, however. His criticisms of the state of the modern church are relavant and accurate. He is right that we need to return to traditional Catholicism. Yes the geocentrism is a bit of a stretch, but I think that helps to balance out the modernism that has infected the church. Furthermore, I would much rather have a Robert Sungenis in the church than a Raymond Brown.

Peace in Christ

 

[MrS]

I pray that Sungenis does not tire from his work… we need it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

challenger:

Is that what you say about all people who become Traditionalists?

Some - most - Traditionalists are Cathoics who don’t treat other Catholics as sub-Catholics for not being Traditionalists: they just get on with Loving God, lovng their neighbour for His sake, and going to the TLM & other Trad things.​

But some Trads are not like this. Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium, if he is not faithful to its teaching here and now. Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII is no good, because neither of them is any longer the Pope. Nor are the Fathers - they are as fallible, sin-prone, limited, and uninformed in various ways as we are in ours. They have nothing to say about modern astronomy, because they did not live to see its development.

Lactantius denied the existence of the Antipodes as heretical - but Australia & New Zealand exist, heretical as it may be of them to do so. So a priori judgements about the world which are based on the Bible, and not on proper obsrvation, are completely worthless. One would have hoped that one Galileo affair would have been enough to teach Christians not to apply methods fitting one sort of knowledge, to a wholly different sort of knowledge; but no. One day, possibly, Catholics will learn that science and revelation are so different that they cannot be studied by methods which belong to one of them but not to the other - Sungenis shows that day has not yet dawned.

Trads like this simply give all Trads a bad reputation - not that Trads are so very traditional anyway: they go back in Tradition no further than about 150 years, with a big jump back to 1570, or, at a push, 1474. The idea that the Roman Missal was unchanged from 600 or so until 1570, is utter codswallop: it’s about as close to to fact as the historical fantasies of Jack Chick. If Trads have to believe in fables, no wonder some of them can’t handle the fact that the Church no longer believes in the (very modern) fantasy of “special creation”, geocentricity, and other such nonsenses.

BTW - mockery & insult are very traditional modes of speech in theological discourse. Some ideas are equine effluvium of the highest quality - and should be described as such: geocentricity is one of these, as is the fairy-tale of a six-thousand-year-old world. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Topher:

Look, Sungenis is not crazy. I have read both Not by Bread Alone and Not by Scripture Alone. Both are well thought out and prove their respective points. These are not the works of a nutball.
I do agree that he can be a bit extreme, however. His criticisms of the state of the modern church are relavant and accurate. He is right that we need to return to traditional Catholicism. Yes the geocentrism is a bit of a stretch, but I think that helps to balance out the modernism that has infected the church.

Lies and nonsense remain lies and nonsense, even if they are “anti-modernist” lies and nonsense.​

Furthermore, I would much rather have a Robert Sungenis in the church than a Raymond Brown.

Fortunately for the Church, two Popes had a rather different idea of Father Brown’s contribution to the life of the Church. Presumably, being mere bishops, and not even USA “true Catholics”, they had no idea of what counted as orthodoxy. . For (self-styled) “true Catholics” in the USA to complain of the choice of Father Brown for the PBC - a choce made twice, not once - is no different from the complaining of the much-abhorred “liberals”: both sets of Catholics want the Church to be run as they see fit - both forget that the CC is larger than the USA, and will be around when the USA is so completely forgotten by future generations that they won’t even know what it was. “The Church is not a democracy” - not even in choosing Biblical scholars.​

They like handing out advice like this - but can they take it ? Who knows ?

BTW, it is Jesus Christ Who decides who will be in the CC - it is His Church, and not ours. If He wants Sungenis *& *Father Brown in it, that is more than enough reason for both to be in it. ##

Peace in Christ

Define “traditional” Catholicism.​

The very label is a bad idea - it is quite sufficient for Catholics to be Catholics, without any of these absurd labels such as “traditional”, “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, or what-have-you. ##

 

[TNT]

## Some - most - Traditionalists are Cathoics who don’t treat other Catholics as sub-Catholics for not being Traditionalists: they just get on with Loving God, lovng their neighbour for His sake, and going to the TLM & other Trad things.

But some Trads are not like this. Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium, if he is not faithful to its teaching here and now. Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII is no good, because neither of them is any longer the Pope.

May I poke in a logical conclusion:
Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII —Pope John Paul II– is no good, because none of them is any longer the Pope.
This of course is theological Mormonism

 

[USMC]

Gottleofgeer:

But some Trads are not like this. Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium, if he is not faithful to its teaching here and now. Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII is no good, because neither of them is any longer the Pope.

TNT:

May I poke in a logical conclusion:
Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII —Pope John Paul II– is no good, because none of them is any longer the Pope.
This of course is theological Mormonism

Thank you for pointing out that absurd statement. But this does show the mentality of the modern Catholic. They will be easy prey the false prophet spoke of in the Apocalypse.

 

[TNT]

TNT:

May I poke in a logical conclusion:
Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII —Pope John Paul II– is no good, because none of them is any longer the Pope.
This of course is theological Mormonism

Oh, and ditto John XXIII, and Paul VI.

Does no one smell a fish when only the sayings of the current prophet (in Mormonism) are valid, and only til he dies?
This is simply ANTIcatholicism, and no teaching is safe or even defensible after their Requiem.

 

[challenger]

Gottle of Geer:

But some Trads are not like this. Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium, if he is not faithful to its teaching here and now. Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII is no good, because neither of them is any longer the Pope.

Dude, we are only bound to agree to the Magisterium’s infallible proclamations, which do not change from pope to pope. We don’t have to give our unwavering assent to the opinions of every pope (if you lived at the time of Honorius, then, you would have said Christ only had one will). Was Paul unfaithful to the Magisterium when he upbraided Peter for his conduct in Galatians 2?
Geer:

Trads like this simply give all Trads a bad reputation - not that Trads are so very traditional anyway: they go back in Tradition no further than about 150 years, with a big jump back to 1570, or, at a push, 1474. The idea that the Roman Missal was unchanged from 600 or so until 1570, is utter codswallop: it’s about as close to to fact as the historical fantasies of Jack Chick.

Who said it was unchanged? That doesn’t mean that there is a license to radically go from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo.
Geer:

If Trads have to believe in fables, no wonder some of them can’t handle the fact that the Church no longer believes in the (very modern) fantasy of “special creation”, geocentricity, and other such nonsenses.

Since the Church has not given an infallible declaration on the subject, you can’t say it no longer believes in it.