Staples vs Sungenis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rogerteder

Guest
Tim Staples and Robert Sungenis had an interesting e mail exchange that Sungenis posted on his web site. here it is:

Thanks for writing back. In going over your answers, I have apologized for some of things I have said in the past, but I would also encourage you to see where you have either misunderstood me, exaggerated your objections, or are simply uninformed about certain issues. I would suggest to you out of common decency that the epithet “whackiness” is unbecoming of you and certainly doesn’t fit the descriptions of your objections. I think you will see what I mean after you read my response.

Also, I will be posting this exchange on our website in the QA section so that people can judge the issues for themselves. If you choose to respond again, I will include your remarks as an update to the dialogue between us.

God be with you.

Robert Sungenis

Tim Staples: Sorry it took so long to respond to this email. I originally decided to just ignore it, but, perhaps against my better judgment, I will email you all one more time. I sent a private email to a friend to warn her of Bob Sungenis’ “whackiness” that was not intended to become public information. I am not going to enter into a lengthy argument with you about this. I have gone down that road before with Mr. Sungenis and I have made the judgment that it is not worth the time. But now that I have been threatened with some untold “consequences” for my actions, and I have been accused of “slander” by Mr. Sungenis, I will spell out for you SOME of the reasons why I said what I said to my friend. And just so you’ll know, these are just SOME of the examples, not all of them, of things Bob has said TO ME involving serious errors. I am not recounting anything as second-hand information.
  1. Code: 
    Mr. Sungenis claims Pope John Paul II taught Justification by Faith alone. And not just the words. Because as you may know, the Council of Trent did not condemn the words themselves in the sense that there is no possible way the words could ever be used and remain within the pale of orthodoxy. The Council of Trent, in session six, canon nine declared:
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Notice, the Council defined what it meant by “faith alone.” “In such wise to mean…” This is why then Cardinal Ratzinger has said that phrase could be used in an orthodox manner as long as “faith alone” does not place faith in opposition to hope and charity, or as long as the “faith alone” is placed in opposition to “works of law” or “works done by our own power” apart from Christ (see canon 1 of session 6 of the Council of Trent). It cannot be used to mean that our cooperation is not essential, or that works are not required in any sense. At any rate, to quote Mr. Sungenis from our “dialogue,” he said John Paul II not only taught “Justification by Faith alone,” but he said our Holy Father taught “the very idea that Mr. Staples ridicules his Protestant opponents for believing.” That is what I meant by “whacky.” Mr. Sungenis accused the Pope of heresy and Mr. Sungenis was wrong. Does this mean he is not Catholic? No. But it does mean that he is not a good apologist. And I warn people accordingly. I recommend some of his earlier works, like the “not by” series, but I cannot recommend a man who is this far off on something as important as the truth about Justfication and the truth about what Pope John Paul II taught.

R. Sungenis: First, I don’t remember saying that John Paul II taught justification by faith alone. If I did, I was wrong, because he never said or wrote that he believed in faith alone. The only document we have that uses “faith alone” in the positive sense is the 1998 Catholic/Lutheran Joint Declaration in section 2c of the Annex. But that document is not an official Catholic teaching insofar as Catholics would be required to accept it as dogmatic. Neither JP2 nor Cardinal Ratzinger signed it. In fact, Ratzinger did not even go to the signing in Germany, allegedly because he was not satisfied with the document. It was only signed by Cardinal Cassidy because he was the head of the commission on interfaith dialogue.

As for whether “faith alone” could be used in the positive sense, I guess if you qualify it to the extent that Tim has done above perhaps one could reach that point. One can redefine any word he wishes and make it palatable. The problem is, there is no Catholic doctrinal teaching, including the 1992 Catholic Catechism, that either encourages the use of “faith alone” or redefines it or qualifies it as Tim does above, especially since our Tradition has told us not use “faith alone.” Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to Protestants who are departing from their historic roots in the Reformation who now use “faith alone” in a qualified sense, but he was not teaching Catholics to use the phrase.
 
continued
As for the Council of Trent saying “in such wise to mean,” I agree with Tim that someone would have to understand “faith alone” to mean that nothing else was required of salvation except faith in order for them to fall under the anathema of Trent. This begs the question, of course, as to why someone would want to use the adjective “alone” with “faith” if he intends on teaching that faith is not alone in justification. It is one thing to say that “faith alone” might be used legitimately as long as it has the proper qualifications, but it is quite another to recommend that we use “faith alone” if, in its face value appearance and historic connotation, it does not say what it means. Our task as Catholics is to teach Protestants that it is better not to use such confusing phrases as “faith alone,” not allow them to think that they should continue using “faith alone” as long as it is qualified to be a faith that is not alone. Let’s use our common sense here. Don’t you think, Tim, that it’s about time that we stopped playing semantic games with these phrases, especially when we know it is being done in order to meld two opposing theologies on justification that simply cannot be melded, as was even admitted by the Joint Declaration?

Tim Staples: 2. Mr. Sungenis claims Pope John Paul II did not fulfill the criterion of our Lady of Fatima when he consecrated the world to her Immaculate Heart in 1984. The SCDF has said that he did, as did Sr. Lucia and thus, as the SCDF has said, “Hence, any further discussion is without basis.” The matter is closed for Catholics. Mr. Sungenis does not agree and publicly contradicts the decision of the Church. It is the Church that interprets private revelations; not the other way around.

R. Sungenis: First, I, as a Catholic, acknowledge what the SCDF said, and I also hold them as my authority. But in having the SCDF as my authority, I can also acknowledge that the SCDF did not say that a faithful Catholic, in good conscience, could not disagree with the SCDF’s interpretation of Fatima. Catholics are only barred from further discussion on an issue if the Church, in an infallible statement, says that all future discussion is disallowed. The SCDF’s statement on Fatima is certainly not infallible, and the SCDF did not say that the matter was “closed to Catholics.” If Tim can show us a statement from either the pope or the SCDF that no Catholic is allowed to disagree with its conclusion about the 1984 consecration, then I will submit to it without question. If Tim cannot find such a statement, then it seems to me that he needs to retract his ultimatum.

Second, the statement, “Hence, any further discussion is without basis” is part of a paragraph that applies to what Sister Lucia allegedly said about the 1984 consecration, not to the whole topic of the 1984 consecration and its meaning. In other words, there is no concluding remark in the CDFs essay “The Message of Fatima” that says “no further discussion is without basis and is disallowed.” Tim simply took the sentence out of context. Here is the paragraph from which it is taken:

Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.

Be that as it may, there are two other important issues here. First, if we accept Sister Lucia’s words as authentic, the fact remains that she received no private revelation from heaven telling her that the 1984 consecration “corresponded to what Our Lady wished,” so how could her words be used as official verification to make all future discussion without basis? Sister Lucia was a messenger of what Our Lady said in 1917 and 1929, not the divinely appointed judge as to whether the Church fulfilled Our Lady’s request in 1984. What she said was merely her opinion and it is as fallible as any other opinion.

Second, as I pointed out in my essay on Fatima (Fatima: Consecration or Coverup?), there is credible documentation that Sister Lucia did not, in fact, say the above words about the 1984 consecration but that someone made it appear as if she did. Tim should read the essay before he makes any firm conclusions. There are at least three instances in which Sister Lucia said the consecration of 1984 was not done properly. Unfortunately, the SCDF did not even address this alternate evidence, much less give people a chance to discuss it openly. One reason people were led to investigate the issue is (which even Tim admits above), John Paul II did not specifically consecrate RUSSIA as was specified in the 1929 request of Our Lady, but merely consecrated the “world,” and then added that we were “awaiting” the consecration of Russia at some time in the future. Pius XII had already consecrated the “world” in 1942 to fulfill the Fatima request of 1929, and did so with the bishops of the world, but apparently John Paul didn’t think that consecration was sufficient, otherwise he would not have done another consecration of the world in 1984. Obviously, John Paul II believed that Pius XII made a mistake in his attempt to fulfill Our Lady’s request. So, if John Paul II believes Pius XII made a mistake, is it not also possible that John Paul II made a mistake in 1984? Tim needs to answer that question before he marginalizes someone for questioning the validity of the 1984 consecration.
 
continued
Tim Staples: 3. Mr. Sungenis teaches geocentrism. Catholics are free to hold this position so that is not what is so bad; rather, it is Mr. Sungenis’ claim that the Church teaches geocentrism that is bad. Or, to use the words of Mr. Sungenis, the Church taught geocentrism as “an ordinary magisterium.” I always got a kick out of how Mr. Sungenis misused the term. Rather than saying this is “a teaching of the ordinary magisterium,” he would say, this is “an ordinary magisterium.”

R. Sungenis: Tim, if at any time I said “an ordinary magisterium” I was wrong, but I don’t remember using such a phrase. The correct phrase, as you say, is “a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.”

Tim Staples: At any rate, my boss, Karl Keating, wrote a rebuttle to this back in December of 2004 and Fr. William Most, in his book, “Apologetics Today,” has given an excellent and succinct treatment of the situation regarding the magisterium and geocentrism. No Catholic is bound to believe geocentrism.

R. Sungenis: I guess that depends on what one means by “bound.” Later in this email Tim will argue that we are bound by what is said in an encyclical. Yes, in a certain sense. But what is the difference between being bound to obey an encyclical and bound to obey an infallible papal decree? Obviously it is one of degree. The same is true of the Church’s teaching on geocentrism. It was decreed by a canonical trial by the Church in 1633 to be the correct view of cosmology for the Church to hold, and the Church has never rescinded that decree. Additionally, there are four references endorsing geocentrism as Catholic teaching in the Catechism of Pius V. The Fathers of the Church believed geocentrism in consensus, with no deviation, as did the medievals who followed them, and the Council of Trent said that we are bound to follow the Fathers if there are in consensus. None of these things have ever been refuted or disputed by the Catholic Church. The closest the Church came to addressing it was John Paul II’s speech in 1992 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, but one can examine it thoroughly and he will find no official rescission or abrogation of what the Church decreed in 1633, in addition to the fact that the 1992 PAS speech is not official Church teaching. So I would say there is quite a bit of weight on my side of the fence, weight that Tim seems to give no respect to whatsoever.

Tim Staples: The alleged condemnations to which Mr. Sungenis refers are examples of the Church urging caution and rejecting dogmatism on either side in a purely disciplinary way.

R. Sungenis: I don’t know what “alleged condemnations” Tim is referring to. If he is referring to the decrees of the canonical trial against Galileo in 1633, there is nothing in those decrees that says the decrees are merely “examples of the Church urging caution and rejecting dogmatism on either side in a purely disciplinary way.” Rather, Pope Urban VIII sent out the binding decree to all the papal nuncios and universities of Europe telling them not to teach heliocentrism, for it had been condemned as “formally heretical” at the canonical trial of 1633. Urban VIII was in protracted discussion with Archduke Cosimo Medici for the purpose of collaborating with him to stop the teachings of Galileo because they were “involving great harm to religion, indeed the worst ever conceived” and that “the Faith is facing many dangers and that we are not dealing with mathematical subjects here but with Holy Scripture, religion, and Faith” and that “God forgive Mr. Galilei for having meddled with these subjects. He added that one is dealing with new doctrines and Holy Scripture” (Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. 14, pp. 428-429, et al.)

Pope Urban was following the decree approved by Paul V in 1616 in which the CDF argued, under Robert Bellarmine, that geocentrism was indeed a matter of the faith since heliocentrism implicitly denied the veracity of Scripture. Bellarmine also argued, and which argument was accepted by Pope Paul V, that when the Fathers are in consensus on a given doctrine (as they were on geocentrism) then a Catholic could not reject the doctrine. These are certainly not mere “disciplinary” actions that Tim is arguing for. Even by the 1800s the tradition of papal condemnation against heliocentrism was well known. In 1833 the Catholic editors Thomas Le Seur and François Jacquier said in their disclaimer to Newton’s Principia: “Newton in his third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s [Newton’s] propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees made by the Supreme Pontiffs against the movement of the earth.” In 1850, Marino Marini, Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives, was commissioned by the Vatican to write an updated apologetic work on the Galileo affair. The book’s title was Galileo e l’Inquisizione (“Galileo and the Inquisition”) and was published by the press of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome. Marini’s purpose was to demonstrate that the Catholic Church had saved Europe from heresy. Marini paid special attention to the meetings that the Tuscan ambassador, Francesco Niccolini, had with Pope Urban VIII in 1632, in which the pope stressed the importance of silencing Galileo, and which papal resolve was reported to Duke Cosimo II, and from which Urban VIII implored Cosimo’s help in curtailing Galileo’s cosmological heresies. There are many other such instances. I document them all in my book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume 2. Tim should read it before he comes to any rash conclusions.

Tim Staples: The Church no longer silences anyone for denying geocentrism. The Church leaves this issue to science; this is not a matter of faith and morals that binds Catholics.
 
continued
R. Sungenis: If that is the case, then the Church has changed its mind without making it official, since, as I noted above, the Church under Paul V, Urban VIII and Cardinal Bellarmine argued just the opposite. Cosmology was a matter of faith because it reflected the veracity of Scripture. Bellarmine said this could only change if science could prove heliocentrism, but it never did, neither in Bellarmine’s day nor ours. So if, as Tim argues, it is correct that the issue was “left to science,” then science hasn’t done its job in refuting the Church’s claims, because no proof for heliocentrism has ever been given to mankind. In fact, modern science is now supporting a return to geocentrism. You can read all about it in my book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right.

The real problem, in my opinion, is that Catholic Answers (for whom Tim works) has chosen to take the politically correct road in their treatment of this issue. Karl Keating was sent my Galileo Was Wrong books, but as far as I know, he still hasn’t read them and has never interacted with any of the arguments presented in them. Instead, Karl keeps repeating the same elementary viewpoints he has used in the past, but which have all been scientifically disqualified.

Tim Staples: Now, I don’t know if Mr. Sungenis is still teaching this because frankly I do not have the time nor the desire to keep up with Mr. Sungenis’ latest musings, but he used to teach that the Church teaches geocentrism. This is simply wrong.

R. Sungenis: I suggest that Tim take the “time” to study the issue before he finds himself divulging such uninformed opinions. Everyone who is an authority on the issue knows the Catholic Church taught geocentrism as the true cosmology, otherwise the Church could never have issued these two statements at the trial of Galileo in 1633:

“The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture”)….“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith” (Galileo E L’Inquisizione, Antonio Favaro, 1907, p. 143).

There may be a lot of Catholics in the world today who, because of the pressures they have been receiving from popular science, don’t give these decrees much relevance or credibility, but they cannot do so on any canonical basis, for the Church has never officially rescinded the 1633 decrees. They are still in force. The decrees issued from a canonical trial cannot be overturned unless it is done so officially and formally, but the Catholic Church has never done so. That is a fact.

Tim Staples: Also, he used to teach that the earth does not rotate at all as a part of this geocentrism that he claims the Church binds us to believe. Geosynchronous and geostationary satellites give us ample proof that the earth rotates. We launch satellites and we know precisely how fast they need to travel in order to remain in a geostationary position. When these same satellites’ orbits decay due to various problems that arise, they re-enter the atmosphere at enormous rates of speed far greater than would be the case if the entire universe was revolving around the earth.

R. Sungenis: In a second email to me today, Tim said the following: “One correction: After writing this, I realized that whether one believes the universe is revolving around the earth or vice versa, the geostationary satellite would still have to travel at the same speed in order to maintain its location. So erase that one.” I’m glad Tim sees the logic of that position. It is the same reason why these scientists say the following:

“The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating” (Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 1923, p. 41).

“Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers – in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter….So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus’ book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant…” (Astronomer Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 1).

“…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless Earth.’ This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth’s axis…one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency” (Physicist, Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, 1962, 1965, pp. 344-345).
 
continued
“Which point of view is ‘correct’? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless” (Physicist, Martin Gardner, The Relativity Explosion, 1976, pp. 86-87).

There are dozens more like these from many other scientists. The point is, modern science supports the biblical teaching that the Earth is motionless in the center of the universe, and there is nothing Tim or Catholic Answers can prove to the contrary.

Tim Staples: And, as Karl Keating pointed out in his response to Mr. Sungenis’ position, this understanding would involve the stars and galaxies traveling at rates of speed that would give Albert Einstein a laugh, but that reach the level of the absurd when one tries to defend geocentrism.

R. Sungenis: If Albert is laughing it would only be against Karl, since Albert allowed for the stars to travel around the earth. Here is what Albert said on the issue:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)” (Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85.).

Using Albert’s theory, another Relativist wrote:

…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light. (Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.)

A more technical book on Relativity written for the scientist admits the same:

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have…linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c…. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions” (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 1964, p. 460)

If Tim wants further information on this issue, he can consult my book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume 1, pages 105-119, under the subtitle: “Isn’t It Impossible for the Stars to Travel So Fast Around the Earth.” I am sorry to say that when Tim and Karl make such statements they only reveal their ignorance about this issue. I suggest they study the issue before they make any dogmatic conclusions. I sent Karl the Galileo Was Wrong volumes, so all he needs to do is look up the answer.

Tim Staples: Mr. Sungenis claims centrifugal and Coriolis forces along with the gyroscopic effect can explain geocentrism. I think he is losing his credibility in the process of trying to defend the indefensible.

R. Sungenis: The only one losing credibility here is Tim, since it is obvious by the above statement that he has never really studied the issue. Let me give a few quotes from famous scientists to prove my point:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” (Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212).

“
 
continued

“By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.” (Hans Thirring, “Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918).

“As we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits…In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s ωUe, where vme is the velocity of the test body´surface in the form –2mgvme relative to the earth and ωUe is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars” (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191.)

Tim Staples: Remember folks, his claim is that God placed all of the stars in the “firmament” in a fixed location and they revolve around the earth. The discoveries of the Hubble telescope have demonstrated scientifically that the universe is expanding, meaning that the stars and galaxies are not fixed.

R. Sungenis: Well, Tim, if the universe is expanding and you claim that this expansion is moving the fixed stars away from each other, then why have we seen the constellations Orion and the Big Dipper in the same dimensions since recorded history? Even if the universe were expanding, it affects neither the dimensions of the stars’ fixed relationship nor the possibility that the earth is in the center of the expansion. You really need to read up on this issue, Tim, before you speak your mind. But unfortunately, this hit-and-run approach is the way Catholic Answers has treated the issue – nobody really wants to take the time to delve into it.

Here is an article that appeared recently in Science Daily regarding the expansion. Notice the solution of having the earth in the center of the universe:

“The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists” (“Dark Energy: Is it Merely an Illusion?” Science Daily, Sept. 29, 2008).

Again, on the expansion, Tim probably doesn’t know that there are two viable interpretations to it, the other one, admitted by scientists, is that the Earth is in the center of the universe. Paul Davies, who recently won the Templeton Prize, once remarked on physicist George F. R. Ellis’ design of having the Earth in the center of the universe, saying this:
 
continued

“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own” (Paul C. W. Davies, “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336, 1978).

As for what Hubble found will amaze you, Tim. He found that the earth was in the center of the universe, but his mind wouldn’t allow him to accept what his eyes were showing him. Here is what he said after looking through his telescope and seeing the earth situated in the center of the universe:

“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59).

There are dozens of other astronomers who have found the same thing, Tim. I quote them all in my book. Here’s another:

“The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe… No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge” (Jonathan Katz, The Biggest Bangs:The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, 2002, pp. 90-91, 111).

Here’s another from astrophysicist Y. T. Varshni:

“The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe” (Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1) (1976), p. 8).

Tim, all I can say to you is, you really need to read up on this stuff. If you do, I think I know you well enough to say that it will blow your mind. You cannot make an intelligent decision about this issue unless you take the time to read it. I’ll even send you the books free of charge. Just ask and it will be done. What you will find if you open your mind is that we don’t have to be hampered any longer by the “Church got Galileo wrong, I wonder what else they got wrong” mentality. You will see that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church and never left her. We can hold our head up high and show the world that our Fathers, our medievals, our popes, our cardinals and catechisms who endorsed geocentrism and condemned heliocentrism as a formal heresy did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and from this position it is the world who must bow to the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The only thing modern science has proven is the heliocentrism cannot be proven; and that geocentrism is the best answer to all the astronomical evidence we have found in the last century. If you would only read it and see for yourself then your whole world view would be changed for the better. Or, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist.

Tim Staples: But the point here is not so much the science, the Church leaves these questions to scientists. The point is that Mr. Sungenis claims the Church teaches that the earth does not rotate, etc. And that is simply false.

R. Sungenis: If it is “simply false,” Tim, then explain to us: 1) the absolute consensus of Fathers for geocentrism; 2) the absolute consensus of medievals; 3) the Catechism of Pius V teaching geocentrism; 4) the condemnation of heliocentrism by Paul V in 1616; 5) the condemnation of heliocentrism by Urban VIII in 1633; 6) the allegiance of Catholics to the papal decrees through the 1800s; 7) the absence of any official rescission of any of these Church teachings on geocentrism in the years following. In other words, where has the Church official reversed its teaching on geocentrism, especially the results of the 1633 canonical trial against Galileo and heliocentrism? If you can find it, I’ll obey it. If not, then I’ll keep teaching it and keep trying to persuade you. Fair enough?
 
continued
Tim Staples: 4. As long as we are talking about slander, because Mr. Sungenis has accused me of slandering him and tells me that “I am in very deep sin,” Mr. Sungenis has repeatedly called me a modernist without a shred of evidence. To quote him, he said, “Although, “he is certainly in keeping with the modernists in the Church with his penchant to “invent.”” Yet, he never provided a single example of how I “invent” things “in keeping with the modernists in the Church.” His accusations against me as a modernist, and publicly so, are far worse than my warnings to a friend in private to “run the other direction” when considering the work of Bob Sungenis. In fact, I am sending this to my friend in order that she may know precisely why I said what I said, complete with my recommendation of his older works. Mr. Sungenis has never recanted his accusations against me, claiming that I am a “modernist” heretic.

R. Sungenis: Ok, I’ll say it here. You are not a “modernist” heretic, and I apologize for calling you one in the past in the heat of our discussions. I just think you haven’t thought out many of your positions as well as you should.

Tim Staples: 5. Mr. Sungenis accused Pope John Paul II of the sin of indifferentism at Assisi in 1986, even though the Pope explained the truth of the matter in his Encyclical Letter, “Ut Unum Sint,” paragraph 76.3:

In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world. That same day, IN A DIFFERENT BUT PARALLEL WAY, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit."

For Catholics, when the Pope explains a matter in an Encyclical Letter, the matter is settled. But as far as I know, Mr. Sungenis still accuses Pope John Paul II of grave sin here. Perhaps Bob should inform the Pope who just elevated Pope John Paul II to the level of “venerable,” that he made a mistake? I say that tongue and cheek, of course.

In “Redemptor Hominis,” Pope John Paul II’s first Encyclical Letter, responding to those who had criticized the early apostolic endeavors of the Ecumenical movement in general, in 6.2, he said:

There are people who in the face of the difficulties or because THEY CONSIDER that the first ecumenical endeavors have brought negative results would have liked to turn back. Some even express THE OPINION that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears. HOWEVER, IN THIS RESPECT ALSO, CORRECT LIMITS MUST BE MAINTAINED" (6.2, emphasis added).

Our Holy Father permits dialogue and even disagreement, but only up to a point. You can disagree with what the Pope DOES, but once the Holy Father TEACHES to the Universal Church, it is time to shut up and listen! Correct limits must be maintained. Notice that the Holy Father goes on to say, in that same section:

“But it no way does it or can it mean giving up or in any way diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught.”

The Pope made clear that one can never compromise essential truth in Ecumenical endeavors. He also made clear that at Assisi there was a distinction between the prayer of Christians and the prayers of those in non-Christian religions. But, of course, Mr. Sungenis disagrees with the Pope, accusing the Pope of sin and anyone who defends him is a modernist. I think you can see why I warn friends to watch out for Mr. Sungenis and take what he says with a huge grain of salt, as the saying goes.

R. Sungenis: So is Tim telling us we can or cannot disagree with the pope regarding Assisi? He seems to be saying both. Be that as it may, if the pope believed he was totally correct about Assisi, then how could he allow any level of disagreement? The obvious answer is that Assisi is not necessarily Catholic teaching, otherwise the pope could not allow dissent. I think it is easy to show that Assisi is not Catholic teaching since nowhere in past teaching can anything like Assisi be found, not even in Vatican II. If it is not Catholic teaching, then John Paul II could have made a mistake in allowing Assisi to occur. Does Tim admit that John Paul II could have made a mistake in organizing Assisi, or does he think that Assisi was automatically correct just because John Paul II did it? I don’t know anywhere in Catholic teaching that says the pope cannot make a mistake in his teaching or his acts, except, of course, if he declares it infallible. Moreover, I find it interesting how Tim is so ready to regard the many popes who condemned Galileo and heliocentrism as doing it “in a purely disciplinary way,” but when it comes to John Paul II and Assisi, Tim declares that we have to accept it as Catholic faith and practice without question simply because John Paul II performed it.

As for my prerogatives to object to what John Paul II did at Assisi, Canon Law 212, 2-3 says the following:

“The Christian faithful…according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals…”

The only matter I can concede to Tim, however, is the issue of sin. If I said John Paul II sinned in organizing Assisi, then I went too far. Only God can judge whether John Paul II committed a sin.
 
continued
Tim Staples: 6. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of Mr. Sungenis’ distortions. In our dialogue, he repeated over and over again that I had said, “There is nothing wrong with pagans praying to their false Gods” in the midst of him accusing me of being a modernist, etc. He did not quote the context wherein I was speaking of forcing pagans to cease from prayer. But let me quote myself in the context of our dialogue:

There is nothing wrong with permitting pagans to pray to their gods. It would be wrong to force them not to pray, or worse, to pray to God in whom they do not believe. St. Paul acknowledged the possibility that these people may well be praying to the true God in ignorance. In Acts 17:22-24a:

Then Paul stood up in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, ‘Men of Athens, I see that in every respect you are extremely religious. For as I was going about and observing objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: “To the unknown God.” What therefore you worship in ignorance, that I proclaim to you. God, who made the world and all that is in it…’"

St. Paul does not stop there with the acknowledgment that these pagans may well be praying to the one, true God in ignorance. He presents the one, true God to them. That is precisely what we are about as Catholics. We are not the judges of who is culpable before God for idolatry and who is truly invincibly ignorant. We preach the truth that regardless all men everywhere are to repent and believe the Gospel or they will be lost. That is the objective truth of the matter. The Pope preaches and lives that message every day of his life.

In context, I was teaching anything but indifferentism, but Mr. Sungenis continued to take my words out of context and to accuse me of indifferentism. But I suppose I should not be surprised because Sungenis did the same thing to Pope John Paul II, which is far worse. I was in line with our Holy Father Pope St. Gregory the Great, who in his letter to the Bishop of Naples in 602, said:

Those who sincerely desire to bring those outside the Christian religion to correct faith should be earnestly engaged in displays of courtesy, not harshness, lest hostility drive away those whose minds a clearly thought out reason could challenge. For whoever acts otherwise, and wants to keep them away from their customary practice of rites under this pretext, is shown to be more concerned with his own interests than those of God." (Denz.-Hun, 480).

But Mr. Sungenis accused me of the sins of indifferentism and modernism.

R. Sungenis: All well and good, Tim. But the problem with Assisi is, unlike St. Paul, John Paul II never preached Jesus Christ to the pagans who he allowed to pray to their pagan gods, and he never asked them to convert their souls to Jesus Christ. Once St. Paul met the pagans in Athens, he did not encourage them to continue praying to their pagan gods. Rather, he used their “unknown God” as an object lesson and boldly told them that there was a God whom they had not yet considered, the God of Christianity, and he specifically told them it was Jesus Christ (Ac 17:31). In other words, St. Paul told them to STOP praying to their pagan gods and start praying to the real God through Jesus Christ. Not only did he tell them to stop praying to pagan gods, he also told them to pray to the real God for the salvation of their souls (vrs 31-32). John Paul II never did any of these things. He did precisely the opposite. He not only invited the pagans to come with their gods to Assisi and pray to them, he never mentioned one word about having these pagans pray to the real God for their salvation. John Paul II then sent them home never once telling them that they should convert their souls to Jesus Christ. These pagans are now back in their pagan lands believing that praying to their pagan gods is actually the right thing to do. In essence, the Gospel was not preached to the pagans at Assisi, but it is clear that St. Paul preached the Gospel to the pagans at Athens. Unfortunately, these are the issues that Tim never answered in our previous dialogue. The reason Tim never got that far is that he started out with the premise that, simply because it was the pope who was allowing Assisi to take place, then it must be right. From that premise, Tim then tried to defend Assisi as being traditional and biblical. But Assisi is not traditional, since John Paul II is the only pope in history to do what he did at Assisi, and it is certainly not biblical, since it is clear that Tim cannot apply what happened in Acts 17 to what happened at Assisi.

Tim Staples: 7. Mr. Sungenis accused the Pope of teaching indifferentism in his Encyclical Letter, “Redemptor Hominis,” para. 6 because the Pope refers to “prayer in common” being possible in inter-faith dialogue. The Pope was speaking in line with the Post-Conciliar document “Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews,” promulgated December 1, 1974 jointly by the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity and the Committee for Religious Relations with the Jews, which stated,

In whatever circumstances as shall prove possible and mutually acceptable, one might encourage a mutual meeting in the presence of God, in prayer and silent meditation—a highly efficacious way of finding that humility, that openness of heart and mind, necessary prerequisites for a deep knowledge of oneself and of others. In particular, that will be done in connection with great causes such as the struggle for peace and justice.
 
continued

. Sungenis: Although this dialogue took place almost seven years ago, if I remember correctly, I stated that Vatican II said that prayer among Catholics and non-Catholics should only take place with respect to the Catholic encouraging the non-Catholic to become Catholic. I was upholding the teaching of Vatican II regarding prayer with non-Catholics. Hence, “prayer in common” should, according to Vatican II, be for the purpose of evangelism to non-Catholics, not encouraging non-Catholics that their religion is legitimate and that they have no need to convert out of it.

Here is what Vatican II said in Unitatis Redintegratio in Chapter 2, No. 8:

“This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, ‘spiritual ecumenism.’ It is a recognized custom for Catholics to have frequent recourse to that prayer for the unity of the Church which the Saviour Himself on the eve of His death so fervently appealed to His Father: ‘That they may all be one.’ In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers ‘for unity,’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’”

Tim Staples: For these and other reasons I could go into, I do not think Mr. Sungenis is a good apologist. He shows a very superficial understanding of the distinctions between faith and disciplines in the Church and he shows a lack of charity in his communication of the Faith as well. For these and other reasons, I cannot recommend claim him to be what he is not. I recommend what I believe to be good, for example, his “not by” series, as I have said before. But I will continue to warn people to take what he says with great caution and scrutiny—and by that I mean a greater level of caution that one would normally—because he has a great propensity to error and he has shown a lack of ability to admit that he is wrong about anything. Pride is the greatest enemy of apologists because God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble.

God Bless,

Tim Staples

R. Sungenis: Tim can hold whatever view of me he likes, but in order to substantiate his view he must prove his arguments, not just assert them, otherwise he is engaging in slander, as I said previously. Above I have shown the fallacies in Tim’s thinking on these issues. If Tim chooses not engage me any further on these matters, I leave the judgment of them to the reader.

5:19 PM 107 Views
 
I thought we would see more comments on this. Keep it positive. No personal attacks.
 
This is an email between them? Why does Staples refer to Sungenis in the 3rd person?
 
In terms of the scientific arguments, Bob marshals a great deal of evidence from people, that I suspect, would not agree with him about his conclusions. If he could get support for his theories from other respected scientists, then I might be inclined to listen to what he has to say, but as it is, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who supports his conclusions.

Granted, science can be blinded by it’s own unanalyzed presupositions, but it seems to me that there should be at least some established scientists who support him. And, as far as I know, he does not seem to have any scientific background or training.

As for the doctrinal arguments, I would really like to get my hands on the source material. Does anyone know where I can find them?

God bless,
Ut
 
He has many scientists that agree with him. Get his book “Galileo Was Wrong”. There are many scientists that will agree but they will not do so in a truly public forum because they do not want to be chastised by the establishment. Many scientists disagree with the Global Warming theories but they will not come out against political correctness of the day because they could lose their grants, don’t want to be ridiculed, etc. The same goes for Evolution.
 
I think every Catholic constructs an understanding of Catholicism from what they have been taught, or learned about the Church. These understandings don’t always, and aren’t necessarily representative of Magisterial teaching. Therefore, I believe we as Catholics should always be willing to reform and conform our understandings of the faith in accordance with the living Magisterium because of the principle vox ecclesiae vox Dei.

On the other hand, I believe, after acknowleging the fact that we as members of the Church only carry the weight of our arguments and possess no authority ourselves, that we should only claim to know what we know, and opine what we opine. By this I mean as intellectually honest, sincere individuals, we should not claim the Magisterium teaches x unless we’ve taken the time to study, and are absolutely confident the Magisterium actually does teach x, and claim to know this only because of documents y, or allocutions a, etc.

I believe Staples has not taken the time to study a number of issues which he claims to possess thorough or sufficient knowlege of. I like how Sungenis points this out, and charitably and fraternally encourages him to study this issue more thoroughly and in the mean time to suspend such conclusive judgments. I think we should pray for our apologists, and appreciate the task they take by encouraging them to be the best they can be, just as Sungenis seems to be doing.

God bless
 
PUP said:
He has many scientists that agree with him. Get his book “Galileo Was Wrong”. There are many scientists that will agree but they will not do so in a truly public forum because they do not want to be chastised by the establishment. Many scientists disagree with the Global Warming theories but they will not come out against political correctness of the day because they could lose their grants, don’t want to be ridiculed, etc. The same goes for Evolution.
Click to expand...
That’s incredible. How did you find out about all these scientists who are afraid to publicly admit they’re really geocentrists? If they’re this cowardly about something so important, you should just list them right here so everyone can see their names for themselves. You’ll be doing everyone a real service.

But it is kind of weird that there are hundreds of scientists who aren’t afraid to sign public statements questioning climate change and even evolution.

Like these people:

Climate change: climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=1

Evolution: dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

Are there big lists of reputable scientists like these for geocentrism? What a shame that it’s just the many secret geocentrist scientists out there who are too cowardly to do the same.
 
Well climate change and geocentrism are “worlds apart”—A scientist can get away with being against global warming. but he cannot advocate geocentrism. Are you kidding me???
 
Rogerteder said:
Well climate change and geocentrism are “worlds apart”—A scientist can get away with being against global warming. but he cannot advocate geocentrism. Are you kidding me???
Click to expand...
:confused:

I don’t think that’s true. There’s a huge amount of political and scientific pressure pushing for global warming today. People get ridiculed for coming out against it. Like PUP said, they risk their grant money for taking that stand. But there are hundreds or thousands of reputable scientists of conviction who are coming out against it anyway.

There’s a huge amount of political pressure pushing for evolution, too. If you question evolution, you’re a fundamentalist right-winger to these people. They’re risking grant money, too. But a good number of reputable scientists of conviction who have come out to question it anyway.

Geocentrism isn’t exactly a hot political and scientific issue today like either of those. So, where are all the same kinds of reputable scientists of conviction and courage?

PUP said he knows there are all these scientists out there who secretly agree with geocentrism. If that’s true and there’s all this evidence for geocentrism that convinced these scientists, then he should come out with their names because they’re total cowards to hide something incredibly important to the world! It’s amazing to me that all these scientists admitted to him that they’re basically spineless cowards like that.

We should all pray that all these scientists out there who secretly believe in geocentrism get some courage and conviction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top