T
trth_skr
Guest
Oh, oh. I see “JohnTaylorandtheJews.com” coming down the pike!
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Donna:
Robert is not writing articles on the Jews right now. He is still a nswering Q&A’a and posting news stories. Ben Douglass is writing an article on the Talmud. I do not think anyone is going to attack Ben on this as long his scholarship is good (or maybe we will also have BenDouglassandtheJews.com).
The point is let’s all cool it and see what Ben is going to say. Here is someone who is bravely putting his neck on the line to address this issue factually (not name calling, whining, character assasination, etc.). If you agree, fine. If you disagree fine, too.
My understanding is that Ben is putting is article before Jewish apologists before releasing it. I suspect it will be worthwhile to read.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Sungenis claim that Shoeman and Moss, amongst others do teach something like that. Here is a blip from a 32 page manuscript which becams an article in Culture Wars:
…Much of the problem in the Judaistic-Catholicism advocated by Moss and Schoeman can be traced back to their view of the Old Covenant. For example, Moss writes:
We can consider the Abrahamic covenant to be the primary and eternal covenant established by God. All the subsequent covenants God made with Israel can then be understood as developments of that primary covenant, culminating with the final covenant in Jesus Christ. And it is through this new and final covenant that the nations, with Israel, find salvation.
The New Covenant in Jesus, therefore, does not revoke the prior covenants but, rather, fulfills and transforms them.
Analogously, the various stages in a caterpillar’s life eventually give way to its transformation into a butterfly. The caterpillar is not revoked - it is the same creature as the butterfly but in a different stage of its development.
The problem here is that Moss does not make the proper distinctions. It is wrong to say: “The New Covenant in Jesus, therefore, does not revoke the prior covenants…” In regards to “revoking,” a distinction must be made between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. Scripture and Tradition are clear that the Mosaic covenant, which is also called the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3:14), was, indeed, revoked. In fact, the book of Hebrews uses some very technical Greek terminology to get the point across. Hebrews 7:18 says: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect.” The phrase “set aside” is from the Greek “aphetesis,” which also means “to annul” or “to remove.” When something is annulled it means it does not exist as a legal and binding entity any longer. Similarly, Hebrew 8:13 says: “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete.” Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “…these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.” The contexts of these passages are referring exclusively to the Mosaic law, and thus it was that covenant which was abrogated, abolished, annulled. As we noted earlier, the Council of Florence made it crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant was taken away and replaced by the New Covenant. Pius XII reiterated this principle in *Mystici Coporis *29-30. The Fathers also, in unanimous consent, teach that the Mosaic covenant was abolished.
The Abrahamic covenant, however, is treated differently. It transitions into and becomes the New Covenant. But, as we noted earlier, one of the reasons it can do so is that the Abrahamic covenant was not initiated when Abraham was a Jew, but a Gentile. This is St. Paul’s main argument against the Jews who claim Abraham as their sole and exclusive father…
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
A
Augustine22
Guest
Look AGAIN at what Sungenis said about Dave Armstrong. Question 3, January 2005–
catholicintl.com/qa/2005/…m#Question%203–
R. Sungenis: Dave,
Regarding the references on your site to Kristol, Coulter, et al:
If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can’t blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your website would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.
Let’s at least hold Sungenis to his own standard. We have common sense, so we believe that Sungenis supports the views of Holocaust deniers and White Surpremecists.
Where exactly did Sungenis come right out publicly and say exaclty, “I do not support the views of racist National Vanguard and apologize for using them as a source?” Can you giive us the link to the apology and retraction? I ask becasue he’s done this before if you read www.sungenisandthejews.com and link to what he said. But you can’t say the open letter. Its pretty obvious now that the open letter was a CYA. Its easy to talk about vague mistakes without really saying anything specific.
From the record, he only took down that stuff on the white surpremecist National Vanguard after Matthew Anger made it public. And even then he wrote to Douglass that he didn’t care who they were–at least until the heat came up because of Anger’s article and Douglass complained even more, then he cared. Thats how good his moral compass is?
Why don’t we see “accidental” and “sloppy” bad sources that defend Jews or have something positive to say about Jews at CAI? Maybe because the guy likes this stuff and doesn’t care to check? Doesn’t that make you think A LITTLE at least?
This looks a lot like Bill Clinton with Monica or Dan Rather with his own bogus documents he and his interns-volunteers or whatever want him to get credit for apologizing without ever really apologizing and then like Rather the guy even sticks by the material. Its what he did before and he’s doing the same thing now.
He left that stuff up there for months and months and now it takes his college intern to start taking it down for him? That’s how good his moral compass is?
And let’s remember his Open Letter again:
Open Letter–
Sungenis: “we are retreating from those more controversial areas for the foreseeable future .”
Sungenis: “Presently, our goal is to write and publish a volume of the CASB every six months. The third volume will be The Epistles of Romans, Galatians and James….We will hardly have time for anything else.”
Sungenis: “Lastly, let me offer my sincerest apologies to all the people or groups that I have offended by the manner in which I have sometimes communicated my ideas in the past four years. Whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or whatever, I know that some of the words I chose and some of the sources I used tended to incite offense. I can assure you that such will be the case no longer. Whenever we write about any group or individual it will be with much care and consideration.”
Looks pretty obvious that he was worried because the heat was on and then less than a month later, he can’t stop himself again.
And now he has a young man to handle his dirty laundry who gives it to another young man to clean on the internet. You give a lot of effort to prop up and make excuses for a guy who shows no such mercy to the people he goes after. The guy lives in a very, very big glass house. Maybe if you stepped outside it, youd see it better.
No one is that important.
catholicintl.com/qa/2005/…m#Question%203–
R. Sungenis: Dave,
Regarding the references on your site to Kristol, Coulter, et al:
If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can’t blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your website would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.
Let’s at least hold Sungenis to his own standard. We have common sense, so we believe that Sungenis supports the views of Holocaust deniers and White Surpremecists.
Where exactly did Sungenis come right out publicly and say exaclty, “I do not support the views of racist National Vanguard and apologize for using them as a source?” Can you giive us the link to the apology and retraction? I ask becasue he’s done this before if you read www.sungenisandthejews.com and link to what he said. But you can’t say the open letter. Its pretty obvious now that the open letter was a CYA. Its easy to talk about vague mistakes without really saying anything specific.
From the record, he only took down that stuff on the white surpremecist National Vanguard after Matthew Anger made it public. And even then he wrote to Douglass that he didn’t care who they were–at least until the heat came up because of Anger’s article and Douglass complained even more, then he cared. Thats how good his moral compass is?
Why don’t we see “accidental” and “sloppy” bad sources that defend Jews or have something positive to say about Jews at CAI? Maybe because the guy likes this stuff and doesn’t care to check? Doesn’t that make you think A LITTLE at least?
This looks a lot like Bill Clinton with Monica or Dan Rather with his own bogus documents he and his interns-volunteers or whatever want him to get credit for apologizing without ever really apologizing and then like Rather the guy even sticks by the material. Its what he did before and he’s doing the same thing now.
He left that stuff up there for months and months and now it takes his college intern to start taking it down for him? That’s how good his moral compass is?
And let’s remember his Open Letter again:
Open Letter–
Sungenis: “we are retreating from those more controversial areas for the foreseeable future .”
Sungenis: “Presently, our goal is to write and publish a volume of the CASB every six months. The third volume will be The Epistles of Romans, Galatians and James….We will hardly have time for anything else.”
Sungenis: “Lastly, let me offer my sincerest apologies to all the people or groups that I have offended by the manner in which I have sometimes communicated my ideas in the past four years. Whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or whatever, I know that some of the words I chose and some of the sources I used tended to incite offense. I can assure you that such will be the case no longer. Whenever we write about any group or individual it will be with much care and consideration.”
Looks pretty obvious that he was worried because the heat was on and then less than a month later, he can’t stop himself again.
And now he has a young man to handle his dirty laundry who gives it to another young man to clean on the internet. You give a lot of effort to prop up and make excuses for a guy who shows no such mercy to the people he goes after. The guy lives in a very, very big glass house. Maybe if you stepped outside it, youd see it better.
No one is that important.
D
danielsgram
Guest
Mark,
I have not read Shoeman and Moss’ book, therefore cannot comment. However I agree with the quote below because it’s true. However, since Sungenis showed sloppy scholarship when writing about the Jews it is IMHO unwise of him to continue. After Sungenis posted his first article on the Jews, at least the first article that I read I discussed it with two of his friends neither of whom signed the Forrest article. They along with me thought that if he had used the word Zionist we would have agreed with him. We need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. It is not, as I see it, wise a serpents at least in this day and age to come out with such obviously anti-Jewish writings especially when they are IMHO a bit nutty. Like Roosevelt and a Pope’s (Was it Paul VI?) Jewish blood making them suspect. Ben says “Read St. John Chrysostom’s eight homilies against the Jews. This is what it sounds like when a Catholic breaks into a rant about Jews and goes too far. When you go back and read what Robert has written it probably won’t sound so bad.” Perhaps not, But did Chrysostom hunt for Jewish blood in a Pope to cast doubt on them? I have read my share of Papal writings that Catholics of today might think was over the top today. We are in a different era and I’m thinking that the Jews of today are to be referred to in a different manner. I’m here to bet that Sungenis doesn’t really know how many Jews of today hate Christ. He is a Catholic Apologist whose job it is to explain and defend the Catholic faith. To the extent that he reaches out to attempt to defend the Faith to the Jews he is to be respected and applauded he would be terrific at doing this. Has he reached out in an attempt to defend the Church against Jews who attack her?
Mark, to the extent that “Robert is not writing articles on the Jews right now.” You do not see that if it is posted on CAI it is equivalent to Sungenis writing it? I do. And I believe it to be unwise even if every word of it is true. I’ll go farther, I’m betting every word will be true because I believe that Ben would never post anything that he could not back up.
However, you may be correct that some of this is internal bickering but I disagree that it is all about that. The only association that David Palm had with Sungenis that I am aware of was that of friend. As I see it, the problems that the former CAI associates may have degenerated to an extent but the beginning was about the way Sungenis handled the Jews
To the extent that I have inserted myself into private bickering I apologize and I realize that that was unwise. I will try to restrain myself from doing it again. Please read the statement below that I agree with and see what an excellent apologist Sungenis is but few will listen because of his, IMHO, bias.
Donna
The statement that I agree with: “The problem here is that Moss does not make the proper distinctions. It is wrong to say: “The New Covenant in Jesus, therefore, does not revoke the prior covenants…” In regards to “revoking,” a distinction must be made between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. Scripture and Tradition are clear that the Mosaic covenant, which is also called the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3:14), was, indeed, revoked. In fact, the book of Hebrews uses some very technical Greek terminology to get the point across. Hebrews 7:18 says: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect.” The phrase “set aside” is from the Greek “aphetesis,” which also means “to annul” or “to remove.” When something is annulled it means it does not exist as a legal and binding entity any longer. Similarly, Hebrew 8:13 says: “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete.” Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “…these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.” The contexts of these passages are referring exclusively to the Mosaic law, and thus it was that covenant which was abrogated, abolished, annulled. As we noted earlier, the Council of Florence made it crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant was taken away and replaced by the New Covenant. Pius XII reiterated this principle in Mystici Coporis 29-30. The Fathers also, in unanimous consent, teach that the Mosaic covenant was abolished.”
I have not read Shoeman and Moss’ book, therefore cannot comment. However I agree with the quote below because it’s true. However, since Sungenis showed sloppy scholarship when writing about the Jews it is IMHO unwise of him to continue. After Sungenis posted his first article on the Jews, at least the first article that I read I discussed it with two of his friends neither of whom signed the Forrest article. They along with me thought that if he had used the word Zionist we would have agreed with him. We need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. It is not, as I see it, wise a serpents at least in this day and age to come out with such obviously anti-Jewish writings especially when they are IMHO a bit nutty. Like Roosevelt and a Pope’s (Was it Paul VI?) Jewish blood making them suspect. Ben says “Read St. John Chrysostom’s eight homilies against the Jews. This is what it sounds like when a Catholic breaks into a rant about Jews and goes too far. When you go back and read what Robert has written it probably won’t sound so bad.” Perhaps not, But did Chrysostom hunt for Jewish blood in a Pope to cast doubt on them? I have read my share of Papal writings that Catholics of today might think was over the top today. We are in a different era and I’m thinking that the Jews of today are to be referred to in a different manner. I’m here to bet that Sungenis doesn’t really know how many Jews of today hate Christ. He is a Catholic Apologist whose job it is to explain and defend the Catholic faith. To the extent that he reaches out to attempt to defend the Faith to the Jews he is to be respected and applauded he would be terrific at doing this. Has he reached out in an attempt to defend the Church against Jews who attack her?
Mark, to the extent that “Robert is not writing articles on the Jews right now.” You do not see that if it is posted on CAI it is equivalent to Sungenis writing it? I do. And I believe it to be unwise even if every word of it is true. I’ll go farther, I’m betting every word will be true because I believe that Ben would never post anything that he could not back up.
However, you may be correct that some of this is internal bickering but I disagree that it is all about that. The only association that David Palm had with Sungenis that I am aware of was that of friend. As I see it, the problems that the former CAI associates may have degenerated to an extent but the beginning was about the way Sungenis handled the Jews
To the extent that I have inserted myself into private bickering I apologize and I realize that that was unwise. I will try to restrain myself from doing it again. Please read the statement below that I agree with and see what an excellent apologist Sungenis is but few will listen because of his, IMHO, bias.
Donna
The statement that I agree with: “The problem here is that Moss does not make the proper distinctions. It is wrong to say: “The New Covenant in Jesus, therefore, does not revoke the prior covenants…” In regards to “revoking,” a distinction must be made between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. Scripture and Tradition are clear that the Mosaic covenant, which is also called the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3:14), was, indeed, revoked. In fact, the book of Hebrews uses some very technical Greek terminology to get the point across. Hebrews 7:18 says: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect.” The phrase “set aside” is from the Greek “aphetesis,” which also means “to annul” or “to remove.” When something is annulled it means it does not exist as a legal and binding entity any longer. Similarly, Hebrew 8:13 says: “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete.” Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “…these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.” The contexts of these passages are referring exclusively to the Mosaic law, and thus it was that covenant which was abrogated, abolished, annulled. As we noted earlier, the Council of Florence made it crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant was taken away and replaced by the New Covenant. Pius XII reiterated this principle in Mystici Coporis 29-30. The Fathers also, in unanimous consent, teach that the Mosaic covenant was abolished.”
A
Augustine22
Guest
Mark Wyatt–
You worte-- I really do not care that much about the private affairs of Robert Sungenis and Michael Forrest. Unfortunately it has gotten dragged into the public, like a dumped over laundry basket- smelly gym socks, undies and all.
Then why are you bringing it up again? No one here is bringing it up except you.
But who was it that made this a personal thing in the first place? SUNGENIS. Didn’t you read what he wrote?
Did you not read the guys 70 pages in answer to Forest? The first 20 or 30 pages were nothing but personal attacks. It looked to me and many other peoplelike he just wanted to divert attention so people wouldnt read the factual information. And Palm and Michaels just took apart what HE wrote, showing that it was not true.
This is like complaining about getting hit after YOU just started the whacking. But at least this is consistent. Its the same thing your doing with the Jewish stuff. He whacks them, uses racists, Holocaust deniers, misquotes people…and you make excuses for him and trying to make it look not so bad. But then when people get upset and fire back you blame us and say how bad we are.
Okay. So you want to defend and gloss over what Sungenis has written about Jews so people forget. Give him another chance?
The guys been doing this for four years. How long does it take for people to figure out he has a problem and that they shouldn’t go to him if the topic is Jews?
You worte-- I really do not care that much about the private affairs of Robert Sungenis and Michael Forrest. Unfortunately it has gotten dragged into the public, like a dumped over laundry basket- smelly gym socks, undies and all.
Then why are you bringing it up again? No one here is bringing it up except you.
But who was it that made this a personal thing in the first place? SUNGENIS. Didn’t you read what he wrote?
Did you not read the guys 70 pages in answer to Forest? The first 20 or 30 pages were nothing but personal attacks. It looked to me and many other peoplelike he just wanted to divert attention so people wouldnt read the factual information. And Palm and Michaels just took apart what HE wrote, showing that it was not true.
This is like complaining about getting hit after YOU just started the whacking. But at least this is consistent. Its the same thing your doing with the Jewish stuff. He whacks them, uses racists, Holocaust deniers, misquotes people…and you make excuses for him and trying to make it look not so bad. But then when people get upset and fire back you blame us and say how bad we are.
Okay. So you want to defend and gloss over what Sungenis has written about Jews so people forget. Give him another chance?
The guys been doing this for four years. How long does it take for people to figure out he has a problem and that they shouldn’t go to him if the topic is Jews?
M
MrS
Guest
I think that there was alevel of hate apparent from some posters when you started the original thread that was destroyed. Any viewers to that thread more than likely saw the agenda.
Now, I think that you have continued your agenda by starting this thread. It is you Augustine22, who keeps bring this discussion to Catholic Answers.
So now that the few who are concerned with what you have presented have seen it again… let them go to the CAI site… let them ask pertenent questions… let them get the answers in full from Sungenis, instead of your cut and paste.
Or just let them wait and see if any Jews (Moss, perhaps) has something to say.
Or…
get your own site and complain 24/7.
or
Retitle this thread Augustine22 Back at Jewish Stuff Again
B
Brenda4God
Guest
Donna,
Do you know the name of mr. Shoeman’s book? I’d like to read it myself.
Mr. S,
Your “hate meter” is broken. The needle is stuck when you try to measure mr. Sungenis (or maybe you just haven’t even put the meter on yet?)
I don’t see how anyone can read what he has put on his web site over all this time and not say this is not hateful.
I can’t imagine how I would feel if I was a minority and people started writing things like this about Catholics and then other people defended it. It’s wrong.
Do you know the name of mr. Shoeman’s book? I’d like to read it myself.
Mr. S,
Your “hate meter” is broken. The needle is stuck when you try to measure mr. Sungenis (or maybe you just haven’t even put the meter on yet?)
I don’t see how anyone can read what he has put on his web site over all this time and not say this is not hateful.
I can’t imagine how I would feel if I was a minority and people started writing things like this about Catholics and then other people defended it. It’s wrong.
D
danielsgram
Guest
“Do you know the name of mr. Shoeman’s book? I’d like to read it myself.”
No I don’t.
No I don’t.
M
MrS
Guest
Me neither… are we missing something? Where is the (name removed by moderator)ut from those whom Sungenis “hates”??
And where is the (name removed by moderator)ut from those who may choose to critique some of the things he writes(quotes from true sources) which are without blemish/error/proof .
The agenda of the OP is what I find fault with… I am not knowledgable enough on Jewish issues to anaylze what appears on the CAI site. But I have read enough “outlandish” things that were actually true and tried to serve a worthwhile purpose to know that this thread is what is wrong.
I have watched the last few days as the news reports the controversy of Rush Limbaugh and Michael J Fox. Some of the comments of Rush were “outlandish”… but Fox himself admits the medicine dosage was “in excess” and yet he presented himself to the nation with maximum traits of his disease. Rush did not attack Fox, and certainly not the disease.
Rather, he attacked/questioned the reason for the ad, and the errors in the ad, and the selective involvement by Fox in those errors.
It appears that Sungenis has a concern(s) with some things Jewish. And if he details those concerns, provides good references (and removes and condemn the bad ones), then someone more knowledgable in Jewish matters should take the lead in criticism.
All we have here is someone taking the lead in a continuance of personal agenda.
With any luck, these issues (salvation, covenant, etc) might be openly discussed by others and then we can have something (not just somebody) to really evaluate.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Roy Shoeman’s book is called “Salvation is from the Jews”, and it’s absolutely wonderful, IMO. Nowhere does it call for the ideas that Sungenis ascribes to it (he actually argues that the Catholic Church IS the Covenant of Israel in its complete form, not seperate, and not replacing). You can see the website for it here.
Peace and God bless!
Peace and God bless!
D
danielsgram
Guest
But, Ghosty:
That is Sungenis point “(he actually argues that the Catholic Church IS the Covenant of Israel in its complete form, not seperate, and not replacing).”
Read: Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “…these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.”
That’s the rub. The New Covenant is exactly that a New Covenant. The Old Covenant is passed away, gone, kaput and is REPLACED.
Donna
That is Sungenis point “(he actually argues that the Catholic Church IS the Covenant of Israel in its complete form, not seperate, and not replacing).”
Read: Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “…these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.”
That’s the rub. The New Covenant is exactly that a New Covenant. The Old Covenant is passed away, gone, kaput and is REPLACED.
Donna
M
MrS
Guest
thankyou
.
.
A
Augustine22
Guest
Thank you, Ghosty. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. Is Sungenis so unfair on every topic? I didn’t think so. I’ve got his books and have given them away sometimes even. I don’t see him going to sources like, say, atheists, wiccans and pagans against Protestants. Maybe because he WAS a Protestant once and so has a sense of decency toward them.
Douglass at least contacted Schoeman and found out that what they thought Schoeman meant wasn’t what he really thought.
But Sungenis was out basically calling Schoeman dishonest before he even read Schoeman’s book.
Now he calls him a heretic, a hyper-judiazer. Hes a one man inquisition.
Can you imagine how he would have yelled if someone did that to him?
Just read the page at www.sungenisandthejews.com on the Jewish converts and you’ll see the way he treats them.
sungenisandthejews.com/Converts_and_Conclusion.html
Douglass at least contacted Schoeman and found out that what they thought Schoeman meant wasn’t what he really thought.
But Sungenis was out basically calling Schoeman dishonest before he even read Schoeman’s book.
Now he calls him a heretic, a hyper-judiazer. Hes a one man inquisition.
Can you imagine how he would have yelled if someone did that to him?
Just read the page at www.sungenisandthejews.com on the Jewish converts and you’ll see the way he treats them.
sungenisandthejews.com/Converts_and_Conclusion.html
M
Magicsilence
Guest
All I can see here is a backhand attack on Sungenis from someone who doesn’t really have anything to talk about.
I have personally contacted Sungenis about the matter, and find that he is really not as bothered about this as you seem to be.
Furthermore, his treatment of Jews would only ever be considered ‘anti-semitic’ in this post-holocaust world when any criticism of the Jews is interpreted as a direct prejudice against them.
If you feel that his treatment of the subject is directly dishonest then please show us, instead of firing out of context quotes, that actually are not anti-semitic, but simply critical of zionism and the Jews in general.
If Sungenis had been born 500 years ago we would be quoting his works now as a champion of orthodoxy.
Peace and God Bless.
I have personally contacted Sungenis about the matter, and find that he is really not as bothered about this as you seem to be.
Furthermore, his treatment of Jews would only ever be considered ‘anti-semitic’ in this post-holocaust world when any criticism of the Jews is interpreted as a direct prejudice against them.
If you feel that his treatment of the subject is directly dishonest then please show us, instead of firing out of context quotes, that actually are not anti-semitic, but simply critical of zionism and the Jews in general.
If Sungenis had been born 500 years ago we would be quoting his works now as a champion of orthodoxy.
Peace and God Bless.
M
MrS
Guest
I hope that someday someone will have reason to express your honest thoughts about me.
I used to “joke” that if Sungenis had written the Not By… series 500 years ago, the reformation would have been short lived.:yup:
D
danielsgram
Guest
MrS
“I hope that someday someone will have reason to express your honest thoughts about me.” was just enigmatic enough and I’m just curious enough to ask you what you meant by that.
Donna
“I hope that someday someone will have reason to express your honest thoughts about me.” was just enigmatic enough and I’m just curious enough to ask you what you meant by that.
Donna
A
Augustine22
Guest
Magic Silence/Andre
Yes, I saw you on CAI’s Q-A board. Were you satisfied with the answers he gave you?
catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%2060
From CAI Question 60- jews?
**(Sungenis): **We have also defended Benedict XVI against all his attackers. But do Palm and his boys credit us with any of this? Of course not, because this is all about silencing me with regards to Jewish issues, not about truth.
Did either of you read www.sungenisandthejews.com or not?
**Forest-- **“In early March 2005, we had two or three very long, heated and difficult conversations. We first discussed the issue of Papal criticism and eventually came to a hard-fought agreement. And to his credit, unlike a few Traditionalist or Traditionalist-leaning publications and apostolates, he has thus far refused to publicly condemn or treat Pope Benedict XI disrespectfully.”
Andre/Magic Silence– “…I agree with you that we need to examine these issues properly, and that anti-Semitism is used as a trump card should anyone not want to deal with criticism of the Jews, but perhaps you should not the different Jews there are. I.e atheistic Jews, orthodox Jews, etc…”
R. Sungenis: “I’ve differentiated among various groups of Jews dozens of times, but Forrest and the gang just ignore it, because their goal is to stop ALL criticism of Jews. They have admitted it. Have you ever seen Forrest, Palm or Michael write an article critical of Jews? Not one.”
You might read www.sungenisandthejews.com and what Davild Palm wrote, too
Didn’t you read his q-a’s with Stefan Trottel? Trottel keeps asking about Judaism and Sungenis keeps coming back with bogus stuff about Lenin and Trotsky, who didn’t follow Judaism. And what about FDR, Andre? Having a little Jewish blood was enough to get him into trouble in Sungenis’ eyes? Going after Dr. Laura and Dear Abby? What was that all about? Going after Jews by saying that Walt Disney didn’t hire Jews? What was that all about?
Also–
A) It is untrue say that these men want to stop ALL criticism of Jews
B) But it looks like they do think that SUNGENIS should stop and I think with good reason. The guy has a problem being fair with Jews for a long time.
C) One more time, did either you or Sungenis even READ the what these men wrote? Does he even read his own website? Forest has TWO ARTICLES that criticize Jews or Jewish interests up at CAI RIGHT NOW–
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/dia-judaism1.htm
and
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/usccb-passion.htm
So was Sungenis wrong or not? Has Forest ever said anything against Jewish interests or not?
Sungenis: “In fact, Mr. Michael has gone so far as to say that he could not even start to criticize Jewish people because he “will begin to distrust every single Jewish person who crosses my path, including the ones who may kneel beside me at the Communion Rail?” That’s a direct quote from his essay. You know what? That quote is even more anti-semitic than what Mr. Michael accuses me of being! Examine it closely. Apparently, Mr. Michael has such a hair trigger when it comes to having an animus towards Jewish people that one small negative fact will set him off to “distrust every single Jewish person who crosses” his path! Talk about irrationality! Mr. Michael is a walking contradiction, as well as the biggest Catholic gossip we have seen in a long time.”
You complain about quotes out of context, Adre? Can you read what Michaels wrote and honestly say that Sungenis described it right? Here it is–
Jacob Michaels: “I am concerned about what Bob’s work in this area will ultimately yield, in terms of concrete reaction. He has not hesitated to go after even those Jews who have converted to the Catholic Faith, warning us that even here there is a conspiracy to fear. What kind of reaction can this produce, if not that I, the reader, will begin to distrust every single Jewish person who crosses my path, including the ones who may kneel beside me at the Communion Rail?”
Does that say what Sungenis says it does, or not?
Andre: “Regarding the Jews, it would help if you made it clear that not all the Jews are part of the problem.”
R. Sungenis: “I have, but my critics aren’t listening.”
No, Mr. Sungenis, we’re listening to what your saying. And that’s just the problem.
If you were satisfied with those answers, no one can reach you, Andre.
Yes, I saw you on CAI’s Q-A board. Were you satisfied with the answers he gave you?
catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%2060
From CAI Question 60- jews?
**(Sungenis): **We have also defended Benedict XVI against all his attackers. But do Palm and his boys credit us with any of this? Of course not, because this is all about silencing me with regards to Jewish issues, not about truth.
Did either of you read www.sungenisandthejews.com or not?
**Forest-- **“In early March 2005, we had two or three very long, heated and difficult conversations. We first discussed the issue of Papal criticism and eventually came to a hard-fought agreement. And to his credit, unlike a few Traditionalist or Traditionalist-leaning publications and apostolates, he has thus far refused to publicly condemn or treat Pope Benedict XI disrespectfully.”
Andre/Magic Silence– “…I agree with you that we need to examine these issues properly, and that anti-Semitism is used as a trump card should anyone not want to deal with criticism of the Jews, but perhaps you should not the different Jews there are. I.e atheistic Jews, orthodox Jews, etc…”
R. Sungenis: “I’ve differentiated among various groups of Jews dozens of times, but Forrest and the gang just ignore it, because their goal is to stop ALL criticism of Jews. They have admitted it. Have you ever seen Forrest, Palm or Michael write an article critical of Jews? Not one.”
You might read www.sungenisandthejews.com and what Davild Palm wrote, too
Didn’t you read his q-a’s with Stefan Trottel? Trottel keeps asking about Judaism and Sungenis keeps coming back with bogus stuff about Lenin and Trotsky, who didn’t follow Judaism. And what about FDR, Andre? Having a little Jewish blood was enough to get him into trouble in Sungenis’ eyes? Going after Dr. Laura and Dear Abby? What was that all about? Going after Jews by saying that Walt Disney didn’t hire Jews? What was that all about?
Also–
A) It is untrue say that these men want to stop ALL criticism of Jews
B) But it looks like they do think that SUNGENIS should stop and I think with good reason. The guy has a problem being fair with Jews for a long time.
C) One more time, did either you or Sungenis even READ the what these men wrote? Does he even read his own website? Forest has TWO ARTICLES that criticize Jews or Jewish interests up at CAI RIGHT NOW–
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/dia-judaism1.htm
and
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/usccb-passion.htm
So was Sungenis wrong or not? Has Forest ever said anything against Jewish interests or not?
Sungenis: “In fact, Mr. Michael has gone so far as to say that he could not even start to criticize Jewish people because he “will begin to distrust every single Jewish person who crosses my path, including the ones who may kneel beside me at the Communion Rail?” That’s a direct quote from his essay. You know what? That quote is even more anti-semitic than what Mr. Michael accuses me of being! Examine it closely. Apparently, Mr. Michael has such a hair trigger when it comes to having an animus towards Jewish people that one small negative fact will set him off to “distrust every single Jewish person who crosses” his path! Talk about irrationality! Mr. Michael is a walking contradiction, as well as the biggest Catholic gossip we have seen in a long time.”
You complain about quotes out of context, Adre? Can you read what Michaels wrote and honestly say that Sungenis described it right? Here it is–
Jacob Michaels: “I am concerned about what Bob’s work in this area will ultimately yield, in terms of concrete reaction. He has not hesitated to go after even those Jews who have converted to the Catholic Faith, warning us that even here there is a conspiracy to fear. What kind of reaction can this produce, if not that I, the reader, will begin to distrust every single Jewish person who crosses my path, including the ones who may kneel beside me at the Communion Rail?”
Does that say what Sungenis says it does, or not?
Andre: “Regarding the Jews, it would help if you made it clear that not all the Jews are part of the problem.”
R. Sungenis: “I have, but my critics aren’t listening.”
No, Mr. Sungenis, we’re listening to what your saying. And that’s just the problem.
If you were satisfied with those answers, no one can reach you, Andre.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
I really don’t have the time to keep going back to this issue!
I was unaware that Sungenis had posted my comments on the website, but nevertheless, it espouses the very thing I am talking about.
When you realize that everyone holds different views on different things, and that not praising the Jews amounts to anti-semitism is this current age of tolerance, you will realize that Sungenis has a right to proclaim his voice.
Until you can discount his arguments, instead of attacking his personal character and integrity, you will remain nothing more than a bitter person angry over the past!
Peace and God Bless.
A
Augustine22
Guest
Magic/Andre,
Maybe you should have at least read what he had to say and what the others had to say before reaching your verdict?
When you have the time, please go back and read what he wrote and what I quoted. And then tell me hes being honest.
I gave you the proof after you acted very sure and indignant about the treatment of Sungenis.
I went back and read what you wrote on the last thread, btw and I noticed a source of your own that was prejudiced against Jews. You were called on it, too. I can see why you might not notice Sungenis’ problem here because you seem to have a little problem being fair yourself.
I’m really sorry that your having a problem in your family young man. Really and I’ll pray for you. But you shouldn’t go around defending what this guy is doing without even really reading.
But when you say that Sungenis has a “right” to “proclaim” that 95% of Jews despise Christ, that Walt Disney was smart for not hiring Jewish peoople, that FDR was willing to sell our country out because he might have had some Jewish blood, that Antisemtism is nothing but a clever ploy and the Jew Albert Einstein said so and that JFK may have been killed by Jews then we have a problem.
If this is true, that you believe Sungenis has a right to proclaim these ugly things, then you can’t really pretend that I don’t have a right to proclaim that THIS IS NOT CATHOLIC and it is shameful.
Am I bringing a shotgun to his house? Am I suing him? (No, that’s right, he’s the only one threatening to sue anybody) Or are you and your fellow Sungenis supporter here just against censorship if its about Sungenis and Jewish stuff? Because by the standard you use for Sungenis, it looks like your trying to censor me.
Maybe you should have at least read what he had to say and what the others had to say before reaching your verdict?
When you have the time, please go back and read what he wrote and what I quoted. And then tell me hes being honest.
I gave you the proof after you acted very sure and indignant about the treatment of Sungenis.
I went back and read what you wrote on the last thread, btw and I noticed a source of your own that was prejudiced against Jews. You were called on it, too. I can see why you might not notice Sungenis’ problem here because you seem to have a little problem being fair yourself.
I’m really sorry that your having a problem in your family young man. Really and I’ll pray for you. But you shouldn’t go around defending what this guy is doing without even really reading.
But when you say that Sungenis has a “right” to “proclaim” that 95% of Jews despise Christ, that Walt Disney was smart for not hiring Jewish peoople, that FDR was willing to sell our country out because he might have had some Jewish blood, that Antisemtism is nothing but a clever ploy and the Jew Albert Einstein said so and that JFK may have been killed by Jews then we have a problem.
If this is true, that you believe Sungenis has a right to proclaim these ugly things, then you can’t really pretend that I don’t have a right to proclaim that THIS IS NOT CATHOLIC and it is shameful.
Am I bringing a shotgun to his house? Am I suing him? (No, that’s right, he’s the only one threatening to sue anybody) Or are you and your fellow Sungenis supporter here just against censorship if its about Sungenis and Jewish stuff? Because by the standard you use for Sungenis, it looks like your trying to censor me.
- Status