The Apocalypse of St. John- Sungenis

[lumengentleman]

These are three of my favorite statements from Mark’s recent explosion of posts:

In CASB 2, he did not say that “it does not refer to Israel”. He just did not say that it does

Now that’s the kind of spin control we’ve come to expect from the CAI crowd! Good to have you back, Mark!

Where are you leading with this Jacob? Are you leading to a Hahnian type interpretation of Apocalypse whereby the entire Apocalypse is interpreted as occuring in the past, ending with the destruction of the Temple (except all of a sudden chapter 20 pertains to the end of the world with nothing in between)?

Red herring, and since I said nothing about whether or not I personally disagreed with Bob’s view, it’s irrelevant. This is not about which of the two views he’s advocating is correct, one in CASB1 and one in CASB 2, it’s about the fact that he’s advocating two views. In the same series. On the same subject. In the space of a couple of years.

Is is possible that his view shifted when he actually studied the Apocalypse and researched it?

I have to wonder sometimes if Bob knows the kind of PR work his shills are doing for him. Statements like the above actually make Bob look really bad. Yes, Mark, it is entirely possible that, when Bob “actually” got around to studying the issues, after he’d written a CASB volume that partially addresses those issues, he changed his mind.

In fact, it’s not only possible. It’s probable. He changes his mind with the changing of the wind (witness his recent about-face on the SSPX issues).

But seriously, Mark, you should stop making those kinds of defenses for Bob - people are going to think that you’re my sock puppet.

Robert is not writing a Time-Life series. He is not writing all the books, having them edited by editors to make them completely consistent, etc. There could be some shift in his views as he does the detailed research necassary to produce the quality work he produces.

And again, I say, that’s a really, really poor defense. Basically you’re arguing that, because this isn’t a “Time-Life series,” consistency is not that big of an issue. As Bob gets around to doing his “detailed research”, he should be allowed to change his views as he’s writing the series - is that right?

Here’s an idea: maybe Bob should do his “detailed research” before he takes it upon himself to start teaching others!

Looking at this situation, I think I might have a pretty good idea why his bishop won’t give him an imprimatur … and it has little to do with translations.

 

[trth_skr]

Mark Wyatt–

…
“Clearly the “translation of a translation” is a technicality which does not allow the bishops to deal with the Matthew volume. This puts the book outside their pervue (by their own admission).”

What? Sungenis said he was going back to the original languages. And he said he was using the Latin Vulgate, too. He even wrote that Greek manuscripts were being looked at to come up with the best translation.

The Douay used the Latin Vulgate so its a translation of a translation, too. And even that got official approval. What your writing doesn’t make any sense to me.

Who is the bishop who said this is outside their pervue?

Your analysis sounds equally sound, but this is what the Bishop said. I do not know who the bishop was.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Augustine22]

I’m really not trying to be mean here but how do you know this is what the bishop said if you don’t even know which bishop said it?

And what about the first part of my post? I don’t know if you meant that you agreed what I wrote there made sense, too or just the part at the bottom you quoted.

Agree? Disagree?

(You) “Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert’s solidly orthodox books.”

(Me) Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?

And there’s obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can’t you? I can.

And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don’t know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.

 

[trth_skr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
In CASB 2, he did not say that “it does not refer to Israel”. He just did not say that it does

Now that’s the kind of spin control we’ve come to expect from the CAI crowd! Good to have you back, Mark!

No, Jacob, you are the one with twisted logic. Shall we examine it? (answer- yes we shall):

You said:

lumengentleman:

Here is Bob, circa 2006-2007, in CASB 2:

Quote:
… there are two kinds of apocalyptic language. The first speaks of the effects upon the sun and the moon, while the second of the effects upon the sun, the moon and stars. Whenever the stars are involved in the cataclysm, we can be rather certain that the text is describing the physical end of the world.
Got that? When the stars are involved, we’re talking about the end of the world - and not, as the first quote said, about the “demise of Israel.”

Now let’s ask the Bob Sungenis who wrote CASB 1 what he thinks:

Quote:
“Many of the references to the darkening of the sun, stars and moon are used as figures of judgment upon Israel (Is 5:30; 24:23, 34:4, Jl 2:10, 3:15), although each can be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated (Is 13:10; Jl 2:10, 3:15, :l 21:25; Ac 27:20; Ap 6:13)”
Notice what passages he references as examples of “figures of judgment upon Israel”?

And notice what passages he references as examples of “complete destruction”?

In both cases, he refers to Joel 2:10 and 3:15, so apparently verses that have the “specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated” (ie. Jl 2:10, 3:15) can also be understood “as figures of judgment upon Israel.”

At least, that is, if you’re reading CASB 1. If you’re reading CASB 2, it’s a different story.

To summarize, you say that in Volume 2 (Apocalypse) he says that the stars indicate the end of the world. You later claim that he says that it does not indicate a judgement of Israel. Where does it claim that Jacob? It does not it simply says that [in the context of the Apocalypse] it is to be interpreted as the end of the world. This does not exclude it being interpreted as a judgement of Israel in other passages of Scripture. You took this quote from a book on the Apocalypse.

You then show that in Volume I (Matthew) he says that it is interpreted as a judgement against Israel, and in general can be interperted as the end of the world. Consistent.

So in both volumes he says it can be interpreted as the end of the world. In Volume II, where perhaps he did not feel the “judgement against Israel” statement fit, he chose and presented the interpretation he thought correct (end of the world). He discusses the relation of Apocalypse to many OT prophecies and ideas throughout the book. If you have not read it, I suggest you do.

Don’t presume to know his thoughts. This is a prefectly reasonable possibility.

I will let my arguments on the other points stand. I am now going to press you to answer the hard questions, rather then get mired in your silly little traps. Let’s see if you have any brains behind the mouth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Jacob:

Let me get back to my questions to you. I answered yours. You disagreed and expressed your opinion, so I will let it stand where it is. Now, please answer my questions to you. Let me summarize them:

1. Have you read Vol. II (Apocalypse)?
2. Do you agree or disaree with the CONTENT of the book?
3. Do you have anything to say about the interpretations laid out in the book?
4. Where are you leading with this Jacob? Are you leading to a Hahnian type interpretation of Apocalypse whereby the entire Apocalypse is interpreted as occuring in the past, ending with the destruction of the Temple (except all of a sudden chapter 20 pertains to the end of the world with nothing in between)?
5. Do you recognize or accept that at least since Augustine that the traditional and supported view is the amillenial whereby the entire Apocalypse starts with the Cross and ends with the second coming, including everything in between?
6. Do you accept, at least as possible that the the beast(s) are currently acting in the world sending false messages and “deceiving the nations”?
7. I…am convinced that he [Robert Sungenis] put forth the correct basic interpretation that the Church holds and has held [amillenial- Apocalypse occurs in the Church age (cross-present- end of world)]. It was an eye opener for me, as all these new fad type interpretations are being circulated as authoritative. I have nothing against specualtive theology, but the problem is that they are being sold to the public as the Church’s view, when in fact they really are not. Do you have anything to say on that bigger issue?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

I’m really not trying to be mean here but how do you know this is what the bishop said if you don’t even know which bishop said it?

This is what Robert told me. It could either be his bishop or the bishop in the parish which published the book (Queenship). I do not know who either are offhand.

And what about the first part of my post? I don’t know if you meant that you agreed what I wrote there made sense, too or just the part at the bottom you quoted.

Agree? Disagree?

Not really a agree/disagree question. I will answer below.

(You) “Considering the complete garbage available out there, some even with imprimatur, I do not understand why you are applying such a stringent standard to Robert’s solidly orthodox books.”

(Me) Not to be a jerk, but if even garbage can get an imprimatur then why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one?

Apparently the technicality of a “translation of a translation” is what stopped the particular bishop in question. We will see what happens with volumes II and III. This can easily take 6 months to a year or more.

And there’s obviously a diff between a regular book and a translation of the Scriptures. The Church is very protetctive about that. You can understand that can’t you? I can.

Agreed.

And the idea that someone can do a translation and publish it before getting permission sounds past sketchy to me and I don’t know much about canon law.

Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

I am not a canon lawyer either. This is obviously part of the reason he switched to the RSV, it is already approved.

No offense, but what your making sounds like an argument I would expect from someone like a Fr. McBrien.

Don’t know anything about him.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[pacislander4lif]

Jacob:

I have read The Apocalypse fo St. John cover to cover. It is based on the RSV. I do have the Matthew Study Bible also and have read parts of it. It is the “updated” Douay Rheims.

As to ‘why the change’, here are some comments from Laurence Gonzaga, CAI’s Media Technician:

“The choice for RSV was purely for the sake of seeking Imprimaturs… That is, his use of the DR in Vol 1 was not the DR really, he revised it, and that’s why it failed to get the Imprimatur. Thus, using the RSV made it easier since the translation already had the Imprimatur.”

I heard about the change a while ago in the Q&A’s, but was not sure exactly why he made the change.

Unfortunately the description you are reading about the updated DR is in the ad titled "1 down *, 12 more to go!! ". In fact this was true when he started and finished the Matthew study bible, but is not true now after finishing the Apocalypse and Romans / James (in publication). He needs to update his site.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*

*** I didnt write that comment on Mark’s blog within my capacity as a representative of CAI, afterall I am not an “apologist” for CAI-- but I made a comment based on what I read… Below is my latest response on Mark’s blog, with the explanation from Bob…

I don’t “field questions” btw, as an “apologist” for CAI or for Bob Sungenis, since that would be outside of my lowly role as “media technician” … I am simply repeating what I myself have read from Bob’s own words… I’d appreciate it if people wouldnt question my ability to comment on these issues, and be reasonably accurate for that matter, in spite of my own limited knowledge of the issues. It’s not like I am writing theology books or anything, since I don’t have any degrees in that field. Let me quote Bob himself:

“When I applied for the Imprimatur for the Matthew volume, the USCCB determined that my modifications to the DR were a “translation of a translation” and not a true translation, and therefore, I could not get the specific Imprimatur for a “translation.” That being the case, I could not get the Matthew volume to the censor librorum for review of its apologetics material, since the “translation” was not first approved. So instead of going through all that rigamarole again, I’m just going to use a translation already approved. Someday, however, we are going to submit a revised DR translation of the whole Bible, and we are working on that now” (Sungenis, Question 73, Nov. 2006)

 

[spauline]

Scott:

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I am travelling, and today is the first time since I posted the book review that I have had a chance (or ability) to get on the internet.

I will take a look at your ideas. I am going to download them for later reading. I am not against speculative theology, and it appears that you are in fact stating that your view is different (though I am sure you feel consistent with) from the traditional Catholic view. As you appear to have spent a lot of time studying the Apocalypse, I would appreciate you stating for the benefit of others that (regardless of whether you think it is correct or not) that the general view used by Robert as the basis of his book (i.e., the amillenial, or millenium as the Church age) is the predominat Catholic view since at least Augustine, and in fact this view has considerable support from the Church.

Thanks, and God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Dear Mark,

Thank you for responding. Yes, I should admit that Augustine’s second solution, otherwise known as amill, has been the tendency of Catholic thought for the most part since him. But let me emphasize that I don’t deny it one layer of meaning, I’m just suggesting a deeper meaning of the Millennium as the age of peace, a veritable imperfect rest that is more practical than the whole age of the Church . But also note, I view the book as a type of symbolic expression of the entire process of salvation history as it completes in the Church age. So I’m not contesting that part. But anyway, bon appetit with my stuff. I think you will like it, or at least hope you do!

Blessings to you, Mark!
Scott

 

[Augustine22]

Something’s still not making any sense to me. Why would anyone publish something before getting the imprimatur if they are looking for it? You want the imprimatur printed right in the book for people to see and it can’t be in the book if you don’t get it until after its printed and published.

And the translation of a translation thing still doesn’t make any sense to me either. The Douay is a translation of the Latin translation, right? And it needed and got the imprimatur.

Sungenis said he was going back to the Greek and the Vulgate to give the best translation. So it’s a translation into English.

Sungenis wrote:

“The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation.”

catholicintl.com/products/books/casb.html

and

“great care has been taken in producing the CASB translation…Both scholar and layman can trust that what is presented in the CASB is a faithful representation of what appears in the original languages”

“The CASB endeaovrs to bring out even more accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew text underlying the Latin Vulgate.”

Canon law doesn’t look very confusing to me–

**Canon 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published **unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

And it doesn’t given an answer why his next one on the Apocolyspe doesn’t have the imprimatur either. He used a version of the english bible that’s been aproved before so there should be no reason for not getting the imprimatur unless theres a problem with what Sungenis wrote in his book.

The idea that he published his book first and then hopes to get the imprimatur later doesn’t make any sense to me.

But if you are fine with all of that I guess that’s your business.

 

[pacislander4lif]

And the translation of a translation thing still doesn’t make any sense to me either. The Douay is a translation of the Latin translation, right? And it needed and got the imprimatur.

Did they employ Imprimaturs in the 16th century?

 

[pacislander4lif]

And it doesn’t given an answer why his next one on the Apocolyspe doesn’t have the imprimatur either. He used a version of the english bible that’s been aproved before so there should be no reason for not getting the imprimatur unless theres a problem with what Sungenis wrote in his book.

The idea that he published his book first and then hopes to get the imprimatur later doesn’t make any sense to me.

But if you are fine with all of that I guess that’s your business.

Why is this Imprimatur business such a big deal? Thera re many heretical books which have Imprimaturs… And there are also commentaries without Imprimaturs…

I think CAI should revise their page on the CASB to avoid any confusion about changing from DR-Revision to RSV…

I will talk to Bob about it later…

Laurence
CAI

 

[Augustine22]

Did they employ Imprimaturs in the 16th century?

I don’t know about the orgininal way back when. My Douay right in front of me has the imprimatur. If everything is so loose and unimportant with versions and needing imprimaturs why would this one have it?

My Douay is an updated version, too. It’s kind of a translation of a translation, too, like Sungenis wrote.

But its got the imprimatur. But your saying you can’t get an imprimatur of a translation of a translation.

And my Haydock version of the Douay even has the imprimatur.

This isn’t making any sense to me.

Why is this Imprimatur business such a big deal? Thera re many heretical books which have Imprimaturs… And there are also commentaries without Imprimaturs…

Like I said before, if its so easy to get one why is Sungenis having a hard time getting one? He tried and hasn’t gotten it.

You say he’s still waiting and trying but that doesn’t make sense to me. Why would you publish a book and then try to get the imprimatur later? You want people to see it in the book so they know.

And the Canon law says that he should get it. So he was right to go for it.

But he hasn’t gotten it. The answers don’t add up to me.

 

[pacislander4lif]

I don’t know about the orgininal way back when. My Douay right in front of me has the imprimatur. If everything is so loose and unimportant with versions and needing imprimaturs why would this one have it?..

I hope this works…never double quoted before… I dont think they used Imprimaturs back then in the original publication. The fact that your DR has one, which is an “updated” version, I assume by Bishop Challoner, which you claim is like a “translation of a translation” (your assumption), cannot be used as a basis for comparison with Bob’s case… for one, you have a hundred years+ in between the two Imprimaturs, right? Nobody said it is “loose” and “unimportant”… I assume you mean, “why wouldnt this have one”? Well, it does have one, for the translation… The commentary itself is being sought…

 

[Augustine22]

I dont think they used Imprimaturs back then in the original publication.

If they didn’t use imprimaturs back then, and I don’t know if they did or not, then what matters is that the new translations have it and Canon law says they have to have it now.

The fact that your DR has one, which is an “updated” version, I assume by Bishop Challoner, which you claim is like a “translation of a translation” (your assumption), cannot be used as a basis for comparison with Bob’s case… for one, you have a hundred years+ in between the two Imprimaturs, right?

This what it says at CAI–

“The Douay-Rheims Bible is for the most part a translation of a translation.”

catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-dec-06.htm

Then theres this–

“Dear Robert, I came across an article by James Akin on the Douay Rheims which I have cut and pasted from. He seems to imply that Douay bibles today have been changed so much today that they are unlike the original and they are not a pure translation of it.”

R. Sungenis: As for Akin’s comments, yes, he is correct about the changes in the DR. The original DR used old English that you and I would hardly recognize today. On the other hand, he makes it sound as if we now have two different Bibles, and that is surely not the case… So it is no surprise to see the DR go through revisions. Our CASB uses something close to the 1899 edition of the DR, but we have made many changes".

catholicintl.com/qa/2004/qa-sept-04.htm#Question%2022

So even CAI says the Douay is a translation of a translation and that its had revisions. And they have the imprimatur. And he says he made many changes to it. If his translation doesn’t have an imprimatur then I think it’s past sketchy to be selling it.

Nobody said it is “loose” and “unimportant”…

But before you said–

Why is this Imprimatur business such a big deal?

I assume you mean, “why wouldnt this have one”? Well, it does have one, for the translation… The commentary itself is being sought

But that’s not quite right. The RSV has an imprimatur but Sungenis doesn’t have an imprimatur on his book anywhere even if he says he used the RSV. And that doesn’t help on the Matthew one.

And it still doesn’t make any sense to me that he is trying to get the imprimatur after he put the book out. I’m sorry but I’m having a hard time believing that. Does that really make sense to you? Would you do that?

I just saw this, too. What do you make of it?

Sungenis wrote–

"And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain."

catholicintl.com/donations/casb.htm

This goes back when the Matthew one just came out. So it’s probably something like 4 years old.

So Sungenis thinks it’s important enough to have it. He’s uses it to assure people. But how can he say it will get it? At least 4 years or maybe 5 years later there’s still no imprimatur.

There’s just a lot that doesn’t make sense to me. If your fine with that I guess its your personal business. But if your out telling other people to buy them thats a different story.

 

[pacislander4lif]

If they didn’t use imprimaturs back then, and I don’t know if they did or not, then what matters is that the new translations have it and Canon law says they have to have it now.

This what it says at CAI–

“The Douay-Rheims Bible is for the most part a translation of a translation.”

catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-dec-06.htm

Then theres this–

“Dear Robert, I came across an article by James Akin on the Douay Rheims which I have cut and pasted from. He seems to imply that Douay bibles today have been changed so much today that they are unlike the original and they are not a pure translation of it.”

R. Sungenis: As for Akin’s comments, yes, he is correct about the changes in the DR. The original DR used old English that you and I would hardly recognize today. On the other hand, he makes it sound as if we now have two different Bibles, and that is surely not the case… So it is no surprise to see the DR go through revisions. Our CASB uses something close to the 1899 edition of the DR, but we have made many changes".

catholicintl.com/qa/2004/qa-sept-04.htm#Question%2022

So even CAI says the Douay is a translation of a translation and that its had revisions. And they have the imprimatur. And he says he made many changes to it. If his translation doesn’t have an imprimatur then I think it’s past sketchy to be selling it.

But before you said–

But that’s not quite right. The RSV has an imprimatur but Sungenis doesn’t have an imprimatur on his book anywhere even if he says he used the RSV. And that doesn’t help on the Matthew one.

And it still doesn’t make any sense to me that he is trying to get the imprimatur after he put the book out. I’m sorry but I’m having a hard time believing that. Does that really make sense to you? Would you do that?

I just saw this, too. What do you make of it?

Sungenis wrote–

"And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain."

catholicintl.com/donations/casb.htm

This goes back when the Matthew one just came out. So it’s probably something like 4 years old.

So Sungenis thinks it’s important enough to have it. He’s uses it to assure people. But how can he say it will get it? At least 4 years or maybe 5 years later there’s still no imprimatur.

There’s just a lot that doesn’t make sense to me. If your fine with that I guess its your personal business. But if your out telling other people to buy them thats a different story.

Okay… I can understand your concern especially with the information on the CASB page… It needs to be REVISED reflecting this issue and future plans… As far as your logic about why it MUST have an Imprimatur, I dont agree with you. Nor do I believe it must be taken off the market just because it has no Imprimatur. Bob has said that his “translation of a translation” does not require an Imprimatur based on what the USCCB told him. Now, I am asking him to publish the letter from the USCCB for confirmation of this. That’s his decision if he does or does not… But, of course youre going to say, again, for the 10th time, that your DR has one… Yes, we understand, my DR has one too… But, if Bob’s re-presentation of the USCCB letter is accurate, then if it doesnt NEED one, then that doesnt mean you couldnt have one… And again, we cant compare the two since the procedures may have changed over the last 100+ years since the DR received its Imprimatur… Lots of things received Imprimaturs back then, even devotional materials which are not required for the faithful to accept. So, I think this issue is far more complex than it is being made to be… My suggestion to you is to call Bob yourself and ask him these questions. I have the book and I am enjoying reading it… The Not By Bread Alone book didnt get the Imprimatur, and yet nobody raised any objections back then, that I know of… so, I am still not understanding why this is such a big deal. If you do not wish to purchase the book because you fear for your soul b/c it doesnt have an Imprimatur, than thats your decision…

Contact Bob at 1-800-531-6393 or 717-597-8670

Laurence
CAI

 

[pacislander4lif]

I just got off the phone with Bob Sungenis… He read to me the letter from the USCCB… I personally have no reason to doubt Bob Sungenis’ word on this… If that is seen as a “bias” since I work for CAI, though on the other side of the US, then so be it. But it is no more of a bias than the former CAI people and their crusade against CAI. Bob has **agreed **to publish a PDF copy of this letter, which satisfies all the canonical issues raised, by the way, if and ONLY IF, Augustine22 will provide us with his real name and contact information… You can do that privately to me at laurence_gonzaga@yahoo.com or Bob Sungenis at cairomeo@aol.com…

AMDG,
Laurence
CAI

 

[Augustine22]

I wasn’t trying to get you so angry but I never said anything about a letter from Sungenis and the USCCB. I said that it doesn’t make sense to me to be going for an imprimatur now after you publish and not before you publish a book and I still stick to it. I haven’t heard any answer on that. Do you ask him about that one, too?

You never said if you would do that or if that makes sense to you either.

And can’t you admit the translation problem with the Matthew one is pretty weird? The Church said its okay with him putting out his own translation because he’s got a techicality or something? The Church is very careful about the Bible and for good reasons.

Two of you are out here saying things about these books by Sungenis and why Sungenis did what he did or didn’t do about imprimaturs and it doesn’t make sense to me and I know it doesn’t make sense to other people too. If you don’t like when your questioned about things like this then maybe you shouldn’t be out at the CA forums trying to push him.

And some of the things it looked to me like two of you were just coming up with answers that you thought would make everything okay and didn’t really know what you were talking about. And some of it still doesn’t make sense to me. But like I said, if you’re fine with it, that’s your business.

As for talking to you or Sungenis and giving my private information, no. Saying that he needs my private infomation so he can post a letter from the USCCB about his book is a weird thing to do even if I did ask for it. If he thinks it will answer legit questions he doesn’t need my private information. If questions are not legit then getting private information from someone doesn’t change that.

If you think I’m the only one that thinks this is weird you’re wrong. I’ve gotten messages from other people who thinks its weird, too.

But if you don’t want to give the answers about why he didn’t get the imprimatur before publishing his books that’s up to you. I won’t be buying them. And that’s up to me.

 

[pacislander4lif]

I wasn’t trying to get you so angry but I never said anything about a letter from Sungenis and the USCCB. I said that it doesn’t make sense to me to be going for an imprimatur now after you publish and not before you publish a book and I still stick to it. I haven’t heard any answer on that. Do you ask him about that one, too?

You never said if you would do that or if that makes sense to you either.

And can’t you admit the translation problem with the Matthew one is pretty weird? The Church said its okay with him putting out his own translation because he’s got a techicality or something? The Church is very careful about the Bible and for good reasons.

Two of you are out here saying things about these books by Sungenis and why Sungenis did what he did or didn’t do about imprimaturs and it doesn’t make sense to me and I know it doesn’t make sense to other people too. If you don’t like when your questioned about things like this then maybe you shouldn’t be out at the CA forums trying to push him.

And some of the things it looked to me like two of you were just coming up with answers that you thought would make everything okay and didn’t really know what you were talking about. And some of it still doesn’t make sense to me. But like I said, if you’re fine with it, that’s your business.

As for talking to you or Sungenis and giving my private information, no. Saying that he needs my private infomation so he can post a letter from the USCCB about his book is a weird thing to do even if I did ask for it. If he thinks it will answer legit questions he doesn’t need my private information. If questions are not legit then getting private information from someone doesn’t change that.

If you think I’m the only one that thinks this is weird you’re wrong. I’ve gotten messages from other people who thinks its weird, too.

But if you don’t want to give the answers about why he didn’t get the imprimatur before publishing his books that’s up to you. I won’t be buying them. And that’s up to me.

I take it since you are asking the same questions, yet again, and airing your same confusions, yet again… that you havent called Bob about this… sigh… if this is bothering you so much, call him, it is toll free.

I find no problems with any of your objections, imprimatur or no imprimatur… and no it doesnt seem wierd to seek it after it is published because the book can be published again…

Laurence
CAI

 

[lumengentleman]

I just got off the phone with Bob Sungenis… He read to me the letter from the USCCB… I personally have no reason to doubt Bob Sungenis’ word on this … Bob has **agreed **to publish a PDF copy of this letter, which satisfies all the canonical issues raised, by the way, if and ONLY IF, Augustine22 will provide us with his real name and contact information

Let me just quote you something from Bob’s earlier work, Not by Bread Alone:

Not by Bread Alone was accepted for the Nihil Obstat by the Archdiocese of Baltimore. However, an Imprimatur could not be issued, since canon law forbids issuance to an author who resides in another diocese. The author resides in the Arlington, Virginia diocese, which has not yet activated its privileges to issue Imprimaturs. (NBBA, p. iv)

The fact that Bob put this notice in NBBA tells us a few things: he considers the imprimatur issue to be quite important, he sought the imprimatur before he published his book, and he made sure to alert his readers to the fact that the book did not get the imprimatur, and gave the reasons why.

Now, it’s time to come clean, Laurence. If Bob was so careful to address the imprimatur issue forthrightly back in 2000 when he published NBBA, why isn’t he being forthright with his readers now? If he has a letter from the USCCB giving him a free pass, where is it? Why wasn’t mention of it made in his CASB 1? Why doesn’t he just put it out there, now that he knows (due to your recent contact with him) that the lack of imprimatur has become an issue?

This whole thing smells like last Friday’s fish, Laurence.

Did Bob get a free pass from the USCCB or didn’t he? You’ve made the claim publicly, so where’s the proof?

Did Bob apply for an imprimatur for CASB 2 or didn’t he? More importantly, when did he apply for it, if he applied at all? Was he rejected? Did the bishop’s office just ignore the request? Was it approved pending further investigation? What’s the deal?

Between you and Mark, there have been a lot of excuses made, which have generated a lot of inconsistencies.

The imprimatur is not a big deal, supposedly, and yet Bob must think it is a big deal, or he wouldn’t have sought it in the first place.

The CASB 1 was rejected for an imprimatur, according to Bob, because it was just a “translation of a translation”, yet the CASB 1 itself makes a lot out of the fact that it’s a new translation, measured against today’s highest scholarly standards.

The CASB 2 supposedly doesn’t need an imprimatur because it uses the RSV, and yet it doesn’t have an imprimatur - why not? I find it hard to believe that Bob didn’t try - after all, you said he switched to the RSV precisely because it would make getting the imprimatur easier. So where is the imprimatur?

And why are you trying to brush off the missing imprimatur as being of little consequence, when obtaining it was clearly significant enough that Bob dropped the entire “new translation” project in order to make it easier to get that coveted imprimatur?

If Bob really has a letter from the USCCB that can clear some of this up, he owes it to his patrons and people who actually spent money on the CASB to publicize that information. And yet, apparently he’s trying to use this letter as a bargaining chip in some bizarre PR game. That just makes it even more fishy! Is he in this for the truth, or for the image?

Somehow I don’t think that USCCB letter is going to appear any time soon. It might just harm Bob’s book sales. If it had any sort of exoneration for him in it, he would have made sure it was included in the CASB itself, or at least mentioned it, like he did in NBBA. The fact that he’s only just now bringing it up, and only in the face of persistent challenges, speaks volumes.

 

[trth_skr]

Robert Sungenis responds to Jacob Michael.