Robert Sungenis

[trth_skr]

Gottle of Geer:

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; … ##

Lactantius was a Christian apologist (newadvent.org/cathen/08736a.htm), not three Popes and agreement of all the Fathers.One apologist’s opinion is just that.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[MrS]

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.

and perhaps JPII,… and in some years to come perhaps Benedict XVI too???

TNT, I think you should share some of your name with this off-base poster. IMHO, if explosives were common sense, he doesn’t have enough to blow his nose.

 

[pnewton]

I do not understand how this is like mormonism. Each pope does not re-write doctrine, although doctrine may be developed more fully over time (like the dogma now of the assuption of Mary) Many areas of authority do pass with each new pope, though. In matters of discipline, the most current is the most authoritative.

What military commander would defy rules of engagement and burn and pillage, then justify that he was following General Sherman’s command philosophy?

Obviously one area we all often disagree on is where doctrine ends and discipline begins. I do not envy those in authority who must weigh such issues.

One more thought: while I am sure that many Catholics today are well-versed in the writings of the Father and papal encyclicals, I have no reason to doubt that John Paul II was not equally well versed. I doubt if any apologist could have surprised him with some writhing of Urban VIII or Benedict the XV. In addition to his knowledge he had the authority to go with it in steering the church.

Now we have a new Holy Father who is knowledgeable and proven himself a defender of the faith. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, why would I listen to anyone who tried to undermine his authority?

 

[Michael_Paul]

## 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. ##

In the above quote you stated “Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium”. I would be interested in learning which dogma Mr. Sungenis denies. Would you supply a quote from him denying one or more?

Thank you,
MP

 

[MrS]

Michael Paul:

In the above quote you stated “Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium”. I would be interested in learning which dogma Mr. Sungenis denies. Would you supply a quote from him denying one or more?

Thank you,
MP

never happen… 'cuz GofG is off base on this one.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

USMC:

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.

I’m only citing something I found in the Catholic Dictionary of 1955 - sorry ​

BTW - that “false prophet in the Revelation” thing was fulfilled ages ago: Revelation was taking about the late 1st century, not about the distant future

The fact remains that Sungenis cannot tell other Catholics what is or is not Catholic doctrine, as he is neityher a theologian, nor (especially) a bishop. He has no teaching mandate and no authority to judge others guilty of error in faith. That, is for the bishops, not for self-appointed zealots who have the impertinence to dictate to the Church what is or is not “modernism”. As for some of his material being good: that plea doesn’t get the Bayside people off the hook, yet much of their literature is identical with that of (say) TAN Books - so there may be good stuff written by him; but that doesn’t make him a Catholic in any real sense, if he is not still a Catholic in reality.

It is absolutely no business of his, or anyone else’s for that matter, to condemn a manner of studying Scripture which has been approved by the Church. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not committed to Robert Sungenis, but to St. Peter - anmd not to self-styled, self-appointed, self-called would-be schismatics who object to the teaching of the Church, but haven’t the decency to admit that they prefer a faith cobbled together by themselves to the teaching of that Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

USMC:

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.

I’m only citing something I found in the Catholic Dictionary of 1955 - sorry ​

BTW - that “false prophet in the Revelation” thing was fulfilled ages ago: Revelation was taking about the late 1st century, not about the distant future

The fact remains that Sungenis cannot tell other Catholics what is or is not Catholic doctrine, as he is neityher a theologian, nor (especially) a bishop. He has no teaching mandate and no authority to judge others guilty of error in faith. That, is for the bishops, not for self-appointed zealots who have the impertinence to dictate to the Church what is or is not “modernism”. As for some of his material being good: that plea doesn’t get the Bayside people off the hook, yet much of their literature is identical with that of (say) TAN Books - so there may be good stuff written by him; but that doesn’t make him a Catholic in any real sense, if he is not still a Catholic in reality.

It is absolutely no business of his, or anyone else’s for that matter, to condemn a manner of studying Scripture which has been approved by the Church. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not committed to Robert Sungenis, but to St. Peter - and not to self-styled, self-appointed, self-called would-be schismatics who object to the teaching of the Church, but haven’t the decency to admit that they prefer a faith cobbled together by themselves to the teaching of that Church.

When apologists presume to contradict and defame the bishops, they show theit true parentage. If God had wished them to be bishops in His - His - Church, they would have been. They are not - therefore they should hold their noise and listen to the accredited teachers of the flock of Christ. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael Paul:

In the above quote you stated “Sungenis is not being faithful to the Magisterium”. I would be interested in learning which dogma Mr. Sungenis denies. Would you supply a quote from him denying one or more?

Thank you,
MP

He is contradicting the Pope on evolution, by trying the Pope with an earlier form of the doctrine on that subject. JP2 may reasonably be assumed to be rather more familiar with that doctrine, in all its bearings, than Mr.Sungenis - because he was a theologian, bishop, and pastor, which Mr.Sungenis is not.​

Far too often, ignorant zealots oppose their ignorance to the considered judgement of those who are wiser, more learned, more mature, more intelligent, and more Christian than they - but because they are noisier, they attract the favourable notice of those who know no better, and lead them astray, compounding the harm already done ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

pnewton:

I do not understand how this is like mormonism. Each pope does not re-write doctrine, although doctrine may be developed more fully over time (like the dogma now of the assuption of Mary) Many areas of authority do pass with each new pope, though. In matters of discipline, the most current is the most authoritative.

Exactly - thanks. Pius XII is no longer Pope - sorry (regrettable as some may think this) So what he said, has to be intepreted by his current successor: in this case, Benedict XVI: not by malcontent Catholics who want V2 to “unhappen”. It’s not going to.​

What military commander would defy rules of engagement and burn and pillage, then justify that he was following General Sherman’s command philosophy?

Obviously one area we all often disagree on is where doctrine ends and discipline begins. I do not envy those in authority who must weigh such issues.

One more thought: while I am sure that many Catholics today are well-versed in the writings of the Father and papal encyclicals, I have no reason to doubt that John Paul II was not equally well versed. I doubt if any apologist could have surprised him with some writhing of Urban VIII or Benedict the XV. In addition to his knowledge he had the authority to go with it in steering the church.

Now we have a new Holy Father who is knowledgeable and proven himself a defender of the faith. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, why would I listen to anyone who tried to undermine his authority?

That is the trouble with the modern swarm of apologists - who called them ? Who vets their writings for orthodoxy ? Who gave them leave to say what is or is not Catholic teaching ? Who gave them jurisdiction to denounce their fellow-Catholics as “heretics” or “modernists” ? How many of them even have degrees in Theology ? Who gave them leave to attack the (Divinely appointed) shepherds of the flock of Christ ? Who do they think they are, to set themselves up as authorities in doctrine, dogma, orthodoxy & the discerning of who is or is not a Catholic ? The impertinence of those who do this is monstrous. Sungenis is a divider of Catholics - not a builder of the Church’s unity.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

challenger:

Dude, we are only bound to agree to the Magisterium’s infallible proclamations,

That is utterly false - we are to believe ALL the teaching of the CC, not just the defined teaching. Very little has been defined; V2 defined nothing - it is still a teaching Council.​

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?

Mentioning the sins and abominations committed by weak or cowardly or semi-heretical or corrupt Popes has no bearing on the value of their teaching. Even if they had all lived like devils, they would still be devilish men exercising Christ’s authority; which would be completely binding.​

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

This claim is often made - I’m surprised you’ve never come across it.​

If the Church in Council, or the Pope alone, says the reformed Missal is the Mass of the Church, then it is. ##

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

The Church has never infallibly unsaid the once common belief that there were no Antipodes. But Australia exists nonetheless. The Church does not need to unsay nonsense, for it to be seen to be nonsense. If not giving an infallible declaration denying X, means that X is Catholic teaching, then no end of rubbish is Catholic doctrine: must the Church infallibly deny the existence of Leprechauns for us not to believe they exist ? Is the existence of leprechauns Catholic doctrine ? Such reasoning as this would make the existence of witches, night-hags, lamiae, incubuses, succubuses, & werewolves undoubtable facts ​

As for Mr. Sungenis’ ideas on evolution - see this link for page one of a six-page dialogue on the subject. It would be needless, if he were not taking issue with the teaching of JP2 on the matter: catholicintl.com/scienceissues/dialogue-evolution1.htm ##

 

[TNT]

## He is contradicting the Pope on evolution, by trying the Pope with an earlier form of the doctrine on that subject. JP2 may reasonably be assumed to be rather more familiar with that doctrine, in all its bearings, than Mr.Sungenis - because he was a theologian, bishop, and pastor, which Mr.Sungenis is not.
…

Well, it makes no difference now. Isn’t Sungenis cleared by your own words?
How can you “agree” with someone who is no longer a pope, but others cannot?
Remember:

Agreeing with Urban VIII or Pius XII —Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II– is no good, because none of them is any longer the Pope.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TNT:

Well, it makes no difference now. Isn’t Sungenis cleared by your own words?
How can you “agree” with someone who is no longer a pope, but others cannot?
Remember:

Because pnewton was the one person who did not misunderstand what I meant. That post should answer you question. ​

 

[TNT]

## That is utterly false - we are to believe ALL the teaching of the CC, not just the defined teaching. Very little has been defined; V2 defined nothing - it is still a teaching Council. ##

…Such reasoning as this would make the existence of witches, night-hags, lamiae, incubuses, succubuses, & werewolves undoubtable facts

As for Mr. Sungenis’ ideas on evolution - see this link for page one of a six-page dialogue on the subject. It would be needless, if he were not taking issue with the teaching of JP2 on the matter: catholicintl.com/scienceissues/dialogue-evolution1.htm ##

To the best of my knowledge, all I have to believe concerning the origins of species, etc. is that the human race all, and every one of them came from a single set of parents. You don’t even have to call them Adam and Eve.
All else is speculation and subject to advances in true, unbiased, demonstrable scientific proof. No one has proved evolution into any new species That much we know. Even JPII, only prompted the idea that “evolution is more than a theory”. He never said WHAT it was, and could have been talking about micro evolution. He just never clarified. So, the whole idea is open to debate. Some are trying to prove Pro, others, Con. Big deal. As long as they don’t mess with Adam and Eve, or my fuel supply, or my Night-Hag, I couldn’t care less.

 

[pnewton]

TNT:

As long as they don’t mess with Adam and Eve, or my fuel supply, or my Night-Hag, I couldn’t care less.

Unity in essentials, Charity in all else.

TNT - you correctly pointed out the basic essential of creation we are bound to believe, that of Adam and Eve, and all else is exeptable. I would also add the obvious fact that all creation is of direct divine origin, also. My only exception to some of the dialogue on the subject is that it is argued too much from a theological point of view when it should primarily be a matter of science. Jimmy Catholic is free to “believe” the earth is sittng astride a four giant elephants, just as I am free to, charitably, think he has a few screws loose.

 

[challenger]

## That is utterly false - we are to believe ALL the teaching of the CC, not just the defined teaching. Very little has been defined; V2 defined nothing - it is still a teaching Council. ##

We are not bound to believe things which the Church could be wrong about.

## Mentioning the sins and abominations committed by weak or cowardly or semi-heretical or corrupt Popes has no bearing on the value of their teaching. Even if they had all lived like devils, they would still be devilish men exercising Christ’s authority; which would be completely binding. ##

I wonder why you didn’t address my example of Pope Honorius, Geer? Or how about Pope Gelasius, who didn’t believe in the True Presence? They didn’t define those doctrines, but would you have followed them? And you don’t believe in geocentrism, do you? Popes have had different opinions on that.

## This claim is often made - I’m surprised you’ve never come across it.

If the Church in Council, or the Pope alone, says the reformed Missal is the Mass of the Church, then it is. ##

By license, I did not mean that they don’t have the legal right- I mean they really oughtn’t’ve.

## The Church has never infallibly unsaid the once common belief that there were no Antipodes. But Australia exists nonetheless. The Church does not need to unsay nonsense, for it to be seen to be nonsense. If not giving an infallible declaration denying X, means that X is Catholic teaching, then no end of rubbish is Catholic doctrine: must the Church infallibly deny the existence of Leprechauns for us not to believe they exist ?

Friend, since no popes ever believed in leprechauns (AFAIK), the situation is somewhat different.
Geer:

Is the existence of leprechauns Catholic doctrine ? Such reasoning as this would make the existence of witches, night-hags, lamiae, incubuses, succubuses, & werewolves undoubtable facts

Well, can you find any Church Fathers that believed in leprechauns?

**

As for Mr. Sungenis’ ideas on evolution

** - see this link for page one of a six-page dialogue on the subject. It would be needless, if he were not taking issue with the teaching of JP2 on the matter: catholicintl.com/scienceissues/dialogue-evolution1.htm ##

As I recall, Jp2 had different ideas about evolution than Benedict XVI. Did you change your opinion when Benedict XVI came in, Geer? If he dies soon, you’ll have to change again, since you only believe what the current pope believes, even if they haven’t infallibly defined it.

 

[MrS]

Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal, was one of a group of cardinals who attended a series of lectures to teach them more about evolution, geocentrism etc. One of the teachers… Robert Sungenis. This was just a couple of years ago.

 

[challenger]

MrS:

Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal, was one of a group of cardinals who attended a series of lectures to teach them more about evolution, geocentrism etc. One of the teachers… Robert Sungenis. This was just a couple of years ago.

Wow, I didn’t know that.

 

[trth_skr]

MrS:

Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal, was one of a group of cardinals who attended a series of lectures to teach them more about evolution, geocentrism etc. One of the teachers… Robert Sungenis. This was just a couple of years ago.

Robert Sungenis is one of the few top apologists willing to stand up for the controversial, but very important issues, including geocentrism. Everyone is on board for the obvious ones (i.e., abortion). That is not to say that other top apologists are not contributing greatly, but I would like to see a more charitable response to Robert who fields some of the more difficult issues.

It is good that our Pope had a chance to hear the case made by Robert. I am sure there are at least a few theologians in the Vatican aware that geocentrism vs. helio / acentrism is mainly a philosophical issue, as Bellarmine was fully aware almost 400 years ago. It is good that Benedict was exposed to Robert’s presentation of not only the philosophical and Church case, but the scientific controversy behind it.

The key thing is that the Church does not allow itself to issue statements which are not true (i.e., supporting the anti-geocentric case), when in fact it has not been proven. Hopefully Robert’s presentation created some awareness here.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Sirach14]

I own all of Bobs books.
There was a time a few years ago that Bob was friends with all the other major Catholic Apologist, and vice-versa.
Now it seems that these friendships are no more.
This is sad.

 

[pnewton]

trth_skr:

Robert Sungenis is one of the few top apologists willing to stand up for the controversial, but very important issues, including geocentrism.

Is there anything referenced in the Catachism on it?

I do not but that the nature of space/time is primarily a philosophical, as opposed to scientific, question.