Robert Sungenis


#1

I wanted to know what the general consensus is around here on Robert Sungensis. Is he considered to be orthodox from a Catholic perspective? Would he best be characterized as a Tradionalist Catholic? I have visited his site lately and have been impressed with his reasoning and willingness to say things that won’t always win him fans. He seems to be somewhat critical of John Paul II on several issues, however, he still remains loyal to him and the office of the papacy. Any thoughts?


#2

I am also interested in knowing what peoples opinion is. His “Not by… Alone” books seem to be very good, but his views on the solar system seem a bit odd.


#3

My opinion of him is positive. He is standing up for what the Church has always taught, and that is an unpopular thing to do in our day. In a day such as ours, we should not expect everyone to like us when we are standing up for the truth.

What many people do not like to admit is that today, on the practical level, the Church is doing things that has always been condemned. Many apologists twist themselves into pretzels trying to reconcille what the Church has always taught, with what is taking place today in high levels. Robert admitted that he himself was doing that for years, and finally had all he could take. If one is honest, they must admit that many things taking place within the Church today have already been condemned.

In the 4th century the heresy of Arianism began to spread rapidly after it has been condemned. Arianism was a heresy that denied the divinity of Our Lord. This was condemned at the council of Nicea in 325AD. Nevertheless, the heresy continued to spread. It is said that up to 90% of the clergy were infected by this heresy. Some held fast to the truth, but most did not. St. Athanasius was one of the few who stood firm against this heresy. There was a saying “Athansius contra mundum” - “Athanasius against the world” because it seem he was alone in his stand against the heresy. Athanasiuis was excommunicated by the Pope 5 times and spent 17 years in exile. In the end, Ariansism finally died out and Athanasius was declared a saint. Do an internet search on quotes from the Church fathers (those who stood against the heresy) during that day. They are very interesting, and sould very similar to our day.

We live in a similar time today. Modernims and liberalism is the “Arianims” of our day. It has already been condemned, yet it continues to spread at all levels of the Church. Those who stand up against these two heresies have to go through a difficult time, but their consolation is the writings of the previous Popes, and a firm faith. To keep the faith today, one should attend the Traditional Latin Mass, read older Catholic materials (Catechisms, writings of the Popes, etc.), and pray. That is the answer to the confusion of our day. If you do these things you will have a strong faith, but you will have to endure persecution, just as Robert is doing.


#4

I hope going to Mass in the vernacular doesn’t put me on the same level as Arians… that’s not what you meant, was it?


#5

My pastor recommened his books to me when I was going through RCIA last year, and my pastor is very loyal to Church teachings. :thumbsup:


#6

I’ve read two of his “Not by…” books including “Not by Bread Alone” and “Not by Scripture Alone” I just recently purchased his “Not by Faith Alone” book and am looking forward to that book as well. I like his writing. It’s filled with citations to good authorities in support of his positions. It’s both scholarly and easy to follow, even for a lay-apologist like myself.

He also seems to be well in line with the Church’s teachings IMHO. If anyone out there feels differently, I’d sure like to know where they think he strays from Church doctrine.

Yours,


#7

[quote=patricius]I hope going to Mass in the vernacular doesn’t put me on the same level as Arians… that’s not what you meant, was it?
[/quote]

No, I was just telling what I thought the answer for Catholics is today. Liberalism and modernism is the error of our day, and you will rarely find that at a Traditional Latin Mass. The Priest is usually orthodox and you will almost never find the abuses you do at the new Mass. In addition to that, there are some very serious problems with the new Mass. When it was first being introduced, Cardinal Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes (the Holy office is the Vatican tribunal responsible for uprooting heresy and protecting the purity of the Catholic faith) came out with a scathing letter against it. He said that if Pope Paul VI issued the new Mass he would declare him a heretic. After that Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced, a few changes were made, and we were given the new mass.

I am including a link that will take you to Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter to Paul VI. Keep in mind that what the Cardinal was condemning was the new mass when it was still in Latin, the Priest was still facing the altar, there were no altar girls, and the words of consecration had not been changed (since the change was made in the translation to the vernacular).

Even in its most pure state, the Cardinal felt it his duty to tell Paul VI that he would declare him a heretic if he approved it.

Here is the link:

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm


#8

can a pope be declared heretic by a cardinal??

:confused:


#9

[quote=Asking]can a pope be declared heretic by a cardinal??

:confused:
[/quote]

When Vatican I defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility it found that 40 Pope had taught heresy. For example, Pope John 22 taught that the soul will no enter into the beatific vision until after the final judgment day. Although he was corrected by many Cardinals he continued to teach this error. Finally, on his death bed, he singed something retracting this error.

Although it is not common, it has happened that Popes have taught error. Papal Infallibility does not mean everything a Pope says in the area of faith or moral is guaranteed to be infallbile. What the doctrine means is that when a Pope defines an article of faith, and when He intends to bind all Catholics to that teaching, the Holy Ghost will keep him from speaking error: thus the statement will be infallible, because the Holy Ghost will protect the Pope from error. Infallibility does not apply to everything a Pope says, or does.


#10

Not By Faith Alone :thumbsup: (5)
Not By Scripture Alone (5 thumbs up)
Not By Bread Alone (4 thumbs up)
Not By Historical Criticism (don’t have that one)

Not By Science Alone :rolleyes: (3 roll eyes)
Galileo Was Wrong :frowning: (4 sads)
Lyell Was Also Wrong :mad: (4 mads)
Newton Was So Wrong :o (4 embarrassed)
Einstein Wrong Too :rolleyes: (5 roll eyes)
And Please Let’s Not Even Get Into How Wrong Darwin Was :frowning: (3 frowns)
Geocentrist vs. Biologist, my debate with Kenneth Miller :thumbsup: (7 thumbs up)


#11

What exactly is Bobs arguement when it comes to Geocentricism? I have never heard of anyone teaching this for centuries.


#12

<< I have never heard of anyone teaching this for centuries. >>

Welcome to the sixteenth century

There it is, with responses by Gary Hoge, brave defender of 21st century astronomy and physics. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#13

If you compare Sungenis to other apologists… his critiques of others are found only on his site… while others who critique him will often post their comments anywhere they can … like hit and run trolls, I guess.

His works in the theology/apologetics arena are always so well referenced, and supported with documentation, and proofs, not opinion. So it is strange when another criticizes him for what he writes when it comes from the Fathers, Scripture, and so many other stated sources.

As for his views on science… he states that they are his views, and it is my understanding he is well versed and well educated in physics (except to those who disagree). His more “controversial” views are often just as acceptable as contrary views (like the earth being the center of the universe - laws of physics would indicate it could be true) . At any rate, it makes for zealous posting by the “experts”.

I have never heard any orthodox Catholic, or reputable apologists say or write anything critical about Sungenis’ books on Catholic though. That alone says a lot

Pick up his first volume of the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.
It is on Matthew… them decide if he is credible. Personally, I think it is masterful, and I look forward to the other 12 volumes over the next ??? years.


#14

[quote=Uranage]What exactly is Bobs arguement when it comes to Geocentricism? I have never heard of anyone teaching this for centuries.
[/quote]

I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, I was sitting down with a few Priests and a few laymen discussing theology, when one lay person asked the Priest if he thought the earth revolved around the sun or vica versa. When he asked the question, I thought he was joking. Everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun. Then, when the Priest said “I don’t know” I was shocked. I remember thinking “wasn’t this settled hundreds of years ago”. For a split moment I kind of felt like I was in the twilight zone.

From that day forward, I began to think about it, and I have come to the same conclusion as the Priest: There is no way to tell for certain whether the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun around the earth. We have all seen pictures of the solar system with the sun fixed and all teh planets revolving around it. However, there is no way to know if the sun is fixed for not, since all planets are floating in space. From the perspective of the earth (where we stand) everything revolves around us. I have found that scientists also admit that there is not way to say for sure what revolves aroung what.

This is an example that I have used when considering the subject. Try to follow it. Consider a model of our solar system. with all the planets floating in the air and revolving around the sun (the sun being fixed). Now while the planets are all floating around in their proper motions, someone grabs hold of the earth, which causes the other planets to revolve around it (although the patern is exactly the same). In other words, the planets will still maintain their exact same motion whether the sun is fixed, or the earth, so there is no way to tell what the center is.

I was also surprised to learn that when NASA does its calculations for space travel, they do them based on the EARTH as the center of our solar system.

In conclusion, from a scientific standpoint, there is really no way to tell what the center or our solar system is, since all of the planets are floating in the air.


#15

RSiscoe

[font=Arial]Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope 5 times and spent 17 years in exile.

[/font]It’s true that St. Anasthasius was exiled, it was because of the Arians, not the Pope. No Pope ever excommunicated him. It’s true that St. Anasthasius was condemned by Pope Liberius, but the pope was under threat of his life and was forced to sign it, it was never a formal excommunication, and St. Anasthasius was fully aware of the conspiracy against him, and did not hold it against the pope, because he knew it didn’t really mean anything.

The excommunication of St. Anasthasius is a rad-trad invention to justify rebellion againt the magisterium.

kepha1


#16

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock

May God console you!..What saddens you…is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there – they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…

You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.


#17

Quotes from the Arian Crisis:

St Basil:"Our afflictions are well known without my telling; the sound of them has gone forth over all Christendom. The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set at nought; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in churches. Men have learned to be speculatists instead of theologians. The wisdom of the world has the place of honor, having dispossessed the glorying of the cross. The pastors are driven away; grievous wolves are brought in instead, and plunder the flock of Christ. --Epistulae

"The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people [Cardinal Kasper]. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. --Epistulae 92 (ca. 372)

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise inform, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and fosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven. --Epistulae 242 (376)

Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts**. The people are in lamentation… Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up; our altars are deprived of spiritual worship**… The ears of the simple are led astray, and have become accustomed to heretical profaneness. The infants of the Church are fed on the words of impiety. For what can they do? Baptisms are in Arian hands; the care of travelers, visitation of the sick, consolation of mourners; succors of the distressed… Which all, being performed by them, become a bond to the people… so that in a little while, even though liberty be granted us, no hope will remain that they, who are encompassed by so lasting a deceit, should be brought back again to the acknowldgement of the truth. --Epistulae 242, to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul (376)

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel [the Church] by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, differing from each other only in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle being overcome by fear, or by interests or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance. --Orationes 21:24 (360)


#18

[quote=Kepha1]The excommunication of St. Anasthasius is a rad-trad invention to justify rebellion againt the magisterium.

kepha1
[/quote]

Correction: Athanasius was not excommunicated 5 times, but was banned from his Dioces 5 times. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.


#19

[quote=RSiscoe]I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, I was sitting down with a few Priests and a few laymen discussing theology, when one lay person asked the Priest if he thought the earth revolved around the sun or vica versa. When he asked the question, I thought he was joking. Everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun. Then, when the Priest said “I don’t know” I was shocked. I remember thinking “wasn’t this settled hundreds of years ago”. For a split moment I kind of felt like I was in the twilight zone.

From that day forward, I began to think about it, and I have come to the same conclusion as the Priest: There is no way to tell for certain whether the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun around the earth. We have all seen pictures of the solar system with the sun fixed and all teh planets revolving around it. However, there is no way to know if the sun is fixed for not, since all planets are floating in space. From the perspective of the earth (where we stand) everything revolves around us. I have found that scientists also admit that there is not way to say for sure what revolves aroung what.

This is an example that I have used when considering the subject. Try to follow it. Consider a model of our solar system. with all the planets floating in the air and revolving around the sun (the sun being fixed). Now while the planets are all floating around in their proper motions, someone grabs hold of the earth, which causes the other planets to revolve around it (although the patern is exactly the same). In other words, the planets will still maintain their exact same motion whether the sun is fixed, or the earth, so there is no way to tell what the center is.

I was also surprised to learn that when NASA does its calculations for space travel, they do them based on the EARTH as the center of our solar system.

In conclusion, from a scientific standpoint, there is really no way to tell what the center or our solar system is, since all of the planets are floating in the air.
[/quote]

Dear R,

I am afraid this view is scientifically flawed and the thought experiment of someone grabbing the earth is horribly muddled.

The fact is that any frame of reference located on the earth’s surface (a non-inertial frame) is different from an inertial frame. All forces in an inertial frame are resolved, but in a non-inertial frame residual forces exist; in the case of the earth, coriolis and centrifugal forces arising from diurnal and annual rotation. These forces can be easily measured. It is fallacious to reason from the correct premise that it is possible to perform an instantaneous mathematical transform between any pair of frames, to the conclusion that all frames are equivalent. When we say the earth spins on its axis and that it orbits the sun, we are saying something that is true and non-trivial - these are more than relative ‘point of view’ statements.

Mach’s principle states that the universal frame is measured against the mean of the stellar field. Debate stiill rages as to whether GR is Machian, but for the purposes of this debate that is complex and subtle and we can consider that there is an absolute reference frame that is something like Machian.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


#20

[quote=PhilVaz]Not By Faith Alone :thumbsup: (5)
Not By Scripture Alone (5 thumbs up)
Not By Bread Alone (4 thumbs up)
Not By Historical Criticism (don’t have that one)

Not By Science Alone :rolleyes: (3 roll eyes)
Galileo Was Wrong :frowning: (4 sads)
Lyell Was Also Wrong :mad: (4 mads)
Newton Was So Wrong :o (4 embarrassed)
Einstein Wrong Too :rolleyes: (5 roll eyes)
And Please Let’s Not Even Get Into How Wrong Darwin Was :frowning: (3 frowns)
Geocentrist vs. Biologist, my debate with Kenneth Miller :thumbsup: (7 thumbs up)
[/quote]

Come on… Einstein, Newton,Lyell,and Galileo aren’t infallible.


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.