Sungenis Apologetics

[PhilVaz]

misterX << So you think the bible is either wrong or gensis was/is a lie? >>

Yes, that is right, it is official Catholic teaching, and has been for 2000 years, that the Bible is a lie, is wrong from the first words of Genesis “In the Beginning…” to the last word of Revelation “Amen.” All a lie.

Wait…pause…

Just kidding!

If you want my position on Genesis and evolutionary creationism, see the Wikipedia entry I helped edit. It’s a start at least. Anyone can edit it, but please be careful. We need more on the meaning of “myth” but what’s there is very good.

If believing the earth is billions of years old makes Genesis a lie, then I guess Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all think Genesis is a lie since I have statements from them on the universe and earth being billions of years old. They all accept modern science.

My position on Genesis is pretty much what I have here from Pope John Paul (the Great):

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)

The important parts to notice here, according to John Paul II:

(1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise;
(2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator;
(3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology);
(4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made;
(5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

Now which points of (1) to (5) don’t you understand, and don’t you agree with?

Also I would recommend Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Benedict XVI) commentary on Genesis 1-3. I give excerpts, but please get the whole book if you can. All of his books have recently been re-published, the copy I have says Benedict XVI on it even though it was first published in 1986.

And if you want a little historical lesson on WHY even Christian creationist geologists came to understand the earth was very very old, see this article by Davis Young, an evangelical geologist from Calvin College. There – now you have my best stuff.

Phil P

 

[misterX]

PhilVaz:

misterX << So you think the bible is either wrong or gensis was/is a lie? >>

Yes, that is right, it is official Catholic teaching, and has been for 2000 years, that the Bible is a lie, is wrong from the first words of Genesis “In the Beginning…” to the last word of Revelation “Amen.” All a lie.

Wait…pause…

Just kidding!

If you want my position on Genesis and evolutionary creationism, see the Wikipedia entry I helped edit. It’s a start at least. Anyone can edit it, but please be careful. We need more on the meaning of “myth” but what’s there is very good.

If believing the earth is billions of years old makes Genesis a lie, then I guess Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all think Genesis is a lie since I have statements from them on the universe and earth being billions of years old. They all accept modern science.

My position on Genesis is pretty much what I have here from Pope John Paul (the Great):

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)

The important parts to notice here, according to John Paul II:

(1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise;
(2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator;
(3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology);
(4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made;
(5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

Now which points of (1) to (5) don’t you understand, and don’t you agree with?

Also I would recommend Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Benedict XVI) commentary on Genesis 1-3. I give excerpts, but please get the whole book if you can. All of his books have recently been re-published, the copy I have says Benedict XVI on it even though it was first published in 1986.

And if you want a little historical lesson on WHY even Christian creationist geologists came to understand the earth was very very old, see this article by Davis Young, an evangelical geologist from Calvin College. There – now you have my best stuff.

Phil P

Yes i agree the bible isn’t a science text. i have often scratched my head in amazement when a athiest asks me “why doesn’t the bible mention dinosaurs?” .Don’t get me wrong i’m not a young earther. my answer to the age old question " your bible must be wrong because if you add up the ages of the people in it, it only adds up to 5,000 yrs old. is HOw long was adam in the garden? one year? two? a thousand? I don’t know why i left the 4.5 billion year old qoute in there. and as far as the evolution thing, i get a little defencive when it comes to it. most people i know who support evolution is a dyed in the wool athiest who uses evolution against the idea of God. I guess i’ve been arguing with those morons on yahoo for too long…And i accept your reasons for accepting the old earth theroy, so i’m sorry i questioned your faith. It was inapropriate.

 

[PhilVaz]

MrX<< and as far as the evolution thing, i get a little defencive when it comes to it. most people i know who support evolution is a dyed in the wool athiest who uses evolution against the idea of God. I guess i’ve been arguing with those morons on yahoo for too long… >>

Some evolutionists do argue against God, many don’t since they realize God is not a scientific question. Don’t be defensive, get Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation and be extremely offensive. There is also one chapter in the Ken Miller (no relation to Keith) book Finding Darwin’s God called “The Gods of Disbelief” responding to atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennet you might find interesting.

Also you can quote for atheists the last line from the Origin of Species, maintained from the 2nd to the 6th and final edition:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter 14, last sentence)

See also evangelical Denis Lamoureux’s informative article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

MrX<< and as far as the evolution thing, i get a little defencive when it comes to it. most people i know who support evolution is a dyed in the wool athiest who uses evolution against the idea of God. I guess i’ve been arguing with those morons on yahoo for too long… >>

Some evolutionists do argue against God, many don’t since they realize God is not a scientific question. Don’t be defensive, get Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation and be extremely offensive. There is also one chapter in the Ken Miller (no relation to Keith) book Finding Darwin’s God called “The Gods of Disbelief” responding to atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennet you might find interesting.

Also you can quote for atheists the last line from the Origin of Species, maintained from the 2nd to the 6th and final edition:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter 14, last sentence)

See also evangelical Denis Lamoureux’s informative article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design.

Phil P

That quotation from Darwin reminds me of Psalm 8.​

This is interesting - and IMO worrisome - - -

====

**A. What does *Arcanum *teach about our physical origin? **

There are essentially five points of Catholic truth explicitly affirmed by the Pope in the paragraph we have reproduced above, in addition to another point (the first in the following list) which is presupposed or implied as the necessary foundation of those which follow:

(1) the historical character of chapters 1-3 of Genesis;
(2) the creation of Adam by God on the sixth day, including the formation of his body from the slime (or dust) of the earth;
(3) the formation of Eve’s body from the side of Adam;
(4) monogenism - the doctrine that the entire human race has been propagated from this original couple alone;
(5) the unity of marriage - that it is between one man and one woman, thus excluding adultery and polygamy;
(6) the perpetuity of marriage - its life-long character, excluding divorce.

In regard to the first of the above points, it is clear that in this passage Leo XIII wants not only to profess, but even to emphasize, the truly historical** 8** character of the Genesis narratives. In the first place, he makes a point of asserting that those “detractors of the Christian faith” whose views he wishes to censure are striving to “erase the history” 9 of the nations. Then, immediately after that, he makes a point of placing the divine creation of Adam and Eve - body and soul - in its precise time-slot within biblical history: “on the sixth** 10** day of creation.” The implication is unmistakable: Leo XIII is asserting here that first among those historical truths whose light the enemies of the faith “can neither extinguish nor weaken” are those recounted in Genesis 1-2: the creation of the world by God in six days, 11 including the creation of Adam and Eve.

[The text is as presented in its source]

====
Points 5 & 6 are no problem - point 1 is impossible (It’s against the CCC, for starters). And who was there to see 2 and 3 happen ? As for 4 - it sounds rather odd, but I’m not a scientist ##

 

[hurst]

Gottle of Geer:

…
(1) the historical character of chapters 1-3 of Genesis;

…

point 1 is impossible (It’s against the CCC, for starters). …

It is not really against the CCC. When the CCC says figurative language is used, it is referring to the “working” and “resting” of God, not to the number of days. For God doesn’t get tired and have to rest as we do.

I agree though, that the CCC is not unambiguous, so you have to fill in the blanks from other more explicit sources.

hurst

 

[Psalm45_9]

Psalm45:9:

I don’t like how they say the current liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Here’s an update, Sungenis and Matics never had the debate of does the NO fulfill your Sunday Obligation? Sungenis, who says it does is was invited to debate a Fundamentalist Church in Florida instead.

 

[challenger]

Psalm45:9:

Here’s an update, Sungenis and Matics never had the debate of does the NO fulfill your Sunday Obligation? Sungenis, who says it does is was invited to debate a Fundamentalist Church in Florida instead.

“Instead” is a slight distortion. The debate with John Polk had nothing to do with the debate with Gerry Matatics.

 

[hurst]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

What is everone’s opinion of Bob Sungenis’ and Gerry Matatics Apologetics.

I don’t know much about Gerry Matatics, but I just came across Sungenis this past year, and was amazed!

I have benefitted very much from his work and courage. The first thing I noticed is that he successfully explained the error of sedevacantism to people who were heading that way. He seems to me to be rescuing many intellectual rebels. He clearly establishes the authority of the Church and Popes.

I bought his book on the Gospel of Matthew, but I don’t have any other books. I liked his Internet Bible Study and signed up for that, too.

Just last month, I came across his “Geocentrism Challenge”, and have to admit I didn’t even understand what all the commotion was about at first. His site is hard to navigate, but I managed to track down all the relevant articles and figure out what it was all about. I think it is brilliant! The whole point is that many people today discount the Church on the basis that science has trumped the Pope and the Bible. Many have abandoned the Faith on this account, all because they believe science has disproved the Church or Bible. Sungenis’ challenge makes an excellent case that science does not disprove it at all. I look forward to the book “Galileo Was Wrong”. The whole point is that we should put our trust in the Church and not in the “Scientific Community”.

RikasAngel:

They have an obvious love for the Catholic faith, but their Traditonalist perspectives about the Modern Liturgy and Creation Science are rather troubling.

I don’t think you can group the two anymore. He just posted a rebuttal to Matatics, who has apparently become sedevacantist. That shows he is not always successful in convincing rebels, and also shows that Matatics has rebelled, unfortunately.

I am not sure what you mean by “Traditionalist perspectives about the Modern Liturgy” being troubling. It should be obvious over the past 30 years that there have been many abuses - even Cardinals have asserted that. Also, Sungenis defends its validity against those who try to use it as an excuse to leave the Church.

As for Creation Science, I have not read much of what he says, except his belief about the dating of ancestry trees in Scripture.

I personally believe it is logical to believe what the early Church Father believed about creation. I know there are various research centers on creation nowadays, but I don’t think they all agree with each other, because the various religious denominations are involved. Besides, the miracle of creation isn’t necessarily able to be proven or demonstrated by nature itself.

RikasAngel:

There is also apparantly a fair amount of animosity between Sungenis & Karl Keating. Mr. Sungenis has been a guest a few times on Catholic Answers Live, but now he has made several harsh comments regarding Karl Keating’s managment, finances, and relationships with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/keatings-gospel.htm.

I’m staying out of that one, as this proverb advises:

**
Proverbs 26:17 As he that taketh a dog by the ears, so is he that passeth by in anger, and meddleth with another man’s quarrel.
**

RikasAngel:

Is this kind of stuff at all good for Catholic Apologetics. I feel the Church has enough problems defending itself from Fundamentalist Protestantism, Militant Secularism, and Cafeteria Catholicism to have deal with squabbles among our best and brightest. What do you all think?

I wouldn’t say it is, but I think what is worse for apologetics is for them to become lukewarm. Part of it seems like more than a private squabble. Their public sparring shows a desire to resolve the sense of public scandal rather than hide it - which I think is commendable. It’s just that they have to be careful how they do it.

I have had to overlook much more serious deficiencies in higher-profile representatives of the Church.

In the end each of us will be judged and rewarded according to our conduct. But God will turn all evil into good. So let us also see the good in this, or in what God will bring of it, including the squabble part.

hurst

 

[trth_skr]

Hurst:

Good response on Robert Sungenis. I could not agree more.

It is unfortunate that Gerry Matatics has left the Church, but a good thing coming out of it is that a lot of people, including (I believe) Karl are re-examining their position regarding Robert. Some of Robert’s detractors are turning to him to help resolve the Matatics issue (such as the lidless-eye).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Hurst:

(I thought I already posted this)

Excellent comments on Robert Sungenis and his work. I agree with you.

It is unfortunate Gerry Matatics has taken the position he has, and I hope he reverses it.

If anything good has come out of it it is a possible change of attitude between a lot of Robert’s detractors and Robert over this issue, including Karl. I can see a possible cooling of the conflict between Robert and others being the result.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[PeVee]

I’m thankful for Gerry Matatics and his speaking. It was one of his lectures on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide that was the catalyst that converted my wife.

He is an excellent speaker, but it seems like he went from being an anti-Catholic Protestant to an anti-Catholic Catholic.

When Scott Hahn mentions his friend from the seminary that was trying to keep Scott from converting, but later they were racing to see who could get into the church first, that was Gerry.

 

[mark_a]

Is this kind of stuff at all good for Catholic Apologetics.

I think familiarity breeds contempt.

 

[mark_a]

There is also apparantly a fair amount of animosity between Sungenis & Karl Keating. Mr. Sungenis has been a guest a few times on Catholic Answers Live, but now he has made several harsh comments regarding Karl Keating’s managment, finances, and relationships with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid

I think familiarity breeds contempt.

 

[danielsgram]

Hi Sacramentalist,

You: Its a question of whether said theories are like to be scandalous and injurious

Me: Which of Sungenis’ theories are “scandalous and injurious”?

You: especially when said theories are in open contradict …of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Me: I’m sure you meant contradiction not contradict. So could you please tell me which theories of Sungenis is in open contradiction to the ordinary Magisterium?

You: Sungenis is a crack-pot; he says that the obligation for women to wear head-coverings in church is still in foce. Every single solitary bishop in the Catholic world is wrong, including the Pope; but Sungenis alone has interpreted canon law correctly on this one.

Give me a break . . .

Me: Sacramentalist, would you please quote the bishops who interpret canon law to say that head coverings are no longer an obligation for women?

Thank you,
Donna

 

[Anima_Christi]

I’m not saying Sugenis is a rad trad, but it’s a heresy to discribe the Mass of Paul VI as deficient. The Mass being the Sacrifice, that would mean that for 40+ years, Hell has prevailed against the Church, Christ’s promise has failed and the Vicars of Christ and Successors to Saint Peter have lead us into error. There are egregious abuses and those need to be dealt with, but the efficacy of the Mass of Paul VI is assured by Christ’s promise to Peter.

JKirkLVNV, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Sungenis attends the Novus Ordo and criticizes traditionalists. He believes that Vatican II is a legitimate council.
(Though whether or not it is “legitimate”–and I do question its legitimacy–,it was definitely a pastoral–not dogmatic–council and therefore was not infallible, as Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI have both stated).
Probably the reason so many accuse Sungenis of being a “rad trad” (a label used by neo-catholics to describe all traditionalists regardless of how radical their views actually are) is because of his views on geocentrism, and his criticisms of John Paul II, which were quite valid, although he may not have expressed them in the most charitable manner. Recently he has removed many of the more controversial articles on his website in an effort to be more “moderate”.

It is not “heresy” to describe Paul VI’s new mass as deficient. That does not fall under the category of “heresy”. Paul VI’s new mass is indeed deficient. It is a valid Mass–but once could theoretically reduce the liturgy to the actual words of institution and one would still have a validly confected Eucharist. That doesn’t mean it would not be “deficient.” The new mass has the most rudimentary elements required for a valid Mass within a Lutheranesque order of service. It was created by committee under the leadership of Bugnini–who was suspected of being a Freemason–for the sake of furthering ecumenism, whereas the traditional Mass is the product of centuries of organic development, codified by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent, for the sake of guarding against Protestantism, and it completely Catholic in every way, abundantly rich in theology and spirituality and sound doctrine. If you doubt what I have said about the new mass, all you have to do is go back to the sources and read Bugnini’s writings about the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council, and you will see that everything I have said and everything that the traditionalists (such as the SSPX) claim about Vatican II is true.

 

[seremina]

Just a question since the issue is being discussed back and forth…

As veils are taught in Scripture, I would assume that is Tradition. I also assume the Pope cannot change Tradition, as it would violate his role. If God had meant for veils to be abolished with Judaism, Jesus would’ve mentioned it. He didn’t. Let’s not forget that Veronica wiped Jesus’ face with her veil. If veils weren’t allowed, why would God allow a miracle using a veil? Let’s also remember that veils are prescribed not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament too.

So, logically, veils are still required. Right?

 

[Riley259]

Hello All,

What is everone’s opinion of Bob Sungenis’ and Gerry Matatics Apologetics. They have an obvious love for the Catholic faith, but their Traditonalist perspectives about the Modern Liturgy and Creation Science are rather troubling. There is also apparantly a fair amount of animosity between Sungenis & Karl Keating. Mr. Sungenis has been a guest a few times on Catholic Answers Live, but now he has made several harsh comments regarding Karl Keating’s managment, finances, and relationships with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/keatings-gospel.htm.

Is this kind of stuff at all good for Catholic Apologetics. I feel the Church has enough problems defending itself from Fundamentalist Protestantism, Militant Secularism, and Cafeteria Catholicism to have deal with squabbles among our best and brightest. What do you all think?

Have either Jimmy Akin or Patrick Madrid responded to Mr. Sungenis’s claim of their dislike and criticism for Mr. Keating. Jimmy still seems to be happily employed at Catholic Answers and Patrick is a frequent (especially more recently) guest host to the show, Catholic Answers Live. I’d be curious if either one of these men have responded to Sugenis’s criticism. At the very least, Sugenis’s column is very petty and unchristian. Based on that alone, I have my doubts as to the veracity of his claims.

 

[seremina]

**How would Sungenis stack up to this latest article by Karl Keating? [at least, I -think- its Karl Keating. If its not, how would he also stack up to it?]

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
**

 

[MrS]

On a similar note…

Sungenis has always favored not only a wider use of Latin… but a correct interpretation of the Latin in the Liturgy.

Seems like Benedict is headed that way with the Saturday information on the return to “For many…” and no more of the “…for all…” deficiency.

Interestingly enough, Fr. Fessio gave a talk in Toronto a few years back and discussed this very traslation and he gave a very clear argument for the use of “for many”.

Sungenis is not over the edge… rather he tends to be a lot more outspoken than the Pope …

As for the Keating/Akin thing… lighten up. Karl and Robert are no less than friendly and have respect and admiration for each other. And personally I believe that Madrid and Sungenis will again do things together… (great for us in the trenches)