Is Sungenis pro SSPX?


#1

Robert Sungenis:

“…if the pope says there was an excommunication, then there was an excommunication. It doesn’t matter what form the excommunication is manifested. The pope can use any means he wants to make the excommunication valid. Vatican I says we cannot contravene a disciplinary decision of the pope. Apparently, the pope thinks that the latae sententiae is sufficient, and that’s where the matter rests.”

“Telling Arch. Lefebvre not to consecrate four bishops without the pope’s approval is not a command to do evil. If anything is “evil” it is a bishop who presumes upon himself to contravene a direct order of the pope and disobey canon law. It is also “evil” for the SSPX to invoke the “necessity” argument when the pope has given no indication to them that he has accepted it, nor have they sought his will on this, for the last 16 years.”

“…When they decided to contravene his direct authority, the pope had no choice but to consider it a threat to the papacy and its authority, and that simply could not stand. In that sense Archbishop Lefebvre did us a great disservice.”

“Such hairsplitting arguments only show that Lefebvre and the SSPX are not willing to abide by the pope’s intention. They know precisely what the pope wanted, but they decided to go against it. That is very clear.”

“God blesses obedience, not presumptuousness. As it stands now, the only thing God has to look upon is a group of schismatics who have assaulted the very thing that makes the Catholic Church what it is. All the devotion and holiness in the world is not going to make an excuse for contravening a direct papal order regarding who has the right to consecrate bishops. If the pope does not have the right (whether he or his decision is good, bad or indifferent) to say who can consecrate and who cannot consecrate, then we have no Catholic Church, and you are living in an illusion.”


#2

No. He has written against them quite a bit lately. He may critisize the Pope but as Catholics we are permitted to do so. He strongly advocates obedience to the Holy Father.

James


#3

I think his position on this is the right one. He does take issue with certain actions of the Pope, but he absolutely draws the line at disobeying a Papal order, which is what the Archbishop did.


#4

I don’t know his position on the SSPX, but he sure appears to be a geocentrist, believes in a “young earth” and doesn’t believe that the earth rotates on its axis. His scientific theories give a bad name to Catholic apologetics.

JimG


#5

[quote=JimG]I don’t know his position on the SSPX, but he sure appears to be a geocentrist, believes in a “young earth” and doesn’t believe that the earth rotates on its axis. His scientific theories give a bad name to Catholic apologetics.

JimG
[/quote]

Every orthodox Catholic apologetics website, including EWTN, has removed links to his website because of this odd obsession of his.


#6

[quote=Southernrich]Every orthodox Catholic apologetics website, including EWTN, has removed links to his website because of this odd obsession of his.
[/quote]

Are you sure this is the one and only reason?


#7

[quote=cassman]Are you sure this is the one and only reason?
[/quote]

No, there are also some problems with his papal fidelity as I understand it. He, however, has produced some excellent apologetics works, including “Not By Faith Alone.”


#8

[quote=JimG]I don’t know his position on the SSPX, but he sure appears to be a geocentrist, believes in a “young earth” and doesn’t believe that the earth rotates on its axis. His scientific theories give a bad name to Catholic apologetics.

JimG
[/quote]

Since when does failing to be in lock-step with current scientific thought make you a lousy apologist for the faith. His Geocentric views are somewhat unique in the modern world, but rejection of evolution and believing in a young earth are hardly ‘out-there’ ideas.


#9

[quote=ServusChristi]Since when does failing to be in lock-step with current scientific thought make you a lousy apologist for the faith. His Geocentric views are somewhat unique in the modern world, but rejection of evolution and believing in a young earth are hardly ‘out-there’ ideas.
[/quote]

And if someone were a flat-earther, it wouldn’t mean that person would be a lousy apologist either, but…


#10

[quote=Southernrich]Every orthodox Catholic apologetics website, including EWTN, has removed links to his website because of this odd obsession of his.
[/quote]

Links to Sungenis’s site were removed when he wrote some things that were interpreted by many to be anti-Semitic. For example, he backed up certain arguments by using quotations from people who were well-known Nazi propagandists during World War II. Sungenis removed those quotations after he took heat for them, but he never disavowed what they were saying.

His scientific ideas are often weird. Not only does he push geocentrism, but he thinks Einstein was entirely wrong on relativity. There are other controversial scientific positions Sungenis takes, even though he has no real background in science. But those aren’t the reasons dozens of Catholic sites removed links to his site. The scientific weirdness came later. The problem with Jews came first.

His “Not by …” books have some weird ideas in them too. For example, he thinks God actually gets mad and changes his mind. Yes, some OT books say something like that, but we understand them to be teaching in symbolic terms for the benefit of the simple people they were written for. Sungenis says all this has to be taken literally: God really blows his top and then changes his mind.


#11

[quote=Tarcisius]His “Not by …” books have some weird ideas in them too. For example, he thinks God actually gets mad and changes his mind. Yes, some OT books say something like that, but we understand them to be teaching in symbolic terms for the benefit of the simple people they were written for. Sungenis says all this has to be taken literally: God really blows his top and then changes his mind.
[/quote]

I find Sungenis’ hermeneutic to be by far the more faithful to the original intent of the text than this position. God’s wrath is very real.


#12

[quote=Southernrich]And if someone were a flat-earther, it wouldn’t mean that person would be a lousy apologist either, but…
[/quote]

Geocentrism is no where near on the same level as belief in a flat earth. Geocentrists have some very interesting theories about cosmology and even if their central thesis (i.e. the earth is the center of the universe and doesn’t move) is wrong I think they definitely have something to give to the scientific world. For example LeSagean gravity predicts various anomalies which have yet to be accounted for in either Einstein’s or Newton’s systems. Also, the geocentrists’ postulate of the ultradense firmament seems to be more feasible than mainstream physics’ postulate of an ultradense foam of spontaneous particle/anti-particle formations and destructions. Also, if it is true that interferometer experiments done subsequent to Michelson Morley have detected a slight aether drag this should necessitate a revolution in astrophysics. Finally, the quantized redshifts of various heavenly bodies place the earth roughly in the center of several concentric spheres. Now, these spheres are so big that pretty much anywhere in the milky way galaxy it would still appear to be the center of the pattern, so it at most these quantized redshifts prove milky-way centrism. But even if this does not prove geocentrism it is nevertheless and extraordinary example of how God has left evidence of Himself in His creation, and I commend the geocentrists for propagating this valuable information.

Further reading:
www.geocentricity.com


#13

[quote=Southernrich]Every orthodox Catholic apologetics website, including EWTN, has removed links to his website because of this odd obsession of his.
[/quote]

He still googles in at #3 for “catholic apologetics.” :slight_smile:


#14

After stumbling across and reading through this discussion between Sungenis and Gary Hoge at this website catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
where Sungenis is trying to account for the orbits of geosynchronous satellites with a non-rotating earth, (!) I decided that he was just too weird to be taken seriously.

JimG


#15

Notice:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.