Robert Sungenis


#21

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

Not only are they fallible, they were totally wrong. The earth is flat as a pancake, does not move, does not rotate, the moon is made of cheese, the sun is about the size of a basketball, the stars are the sizes of marbles with tiny candles in them, and are about 150 feet in the air but only at night (during the day they are 500 feet high which is why we can’t see them), and evolution as we all know is a lie from the pit of hell, and E = mc hammer. Come on.

Phil P


#22

I would think one can pick any frame of refrence one wants for a though experiment?e

They may not correspond to the “truth” but the certainly can help us to understand things better.

For example saying “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.” Doesn’t mean a bloody thing to me…

Now…

I’m absolutely certain that my 2 year old daughter is certain that the entire universe revolves around her. (And by golly I thinks she’s right!)

So if you could tell me where my daughter would be sitting, relative to her current postion here on earth, if she was at the center of the Machian absolute reference frame, it would be more useful in terms of understand your point (and then she could visit and for a while she would be right.)

Chuck

[quote=hecd2]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
[/quote]


#23

[quote=hecd2]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
[/quote]

Alec,

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the following debate on the subject. I believe the link I am providing will take you to the 4th part of the debate, but the link to the first three is located at the top. When you have some time, read over it and let me know what you think.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/cole4-1.htm


#24

[quote=clmowry]I would think one can pick any frame of refrence one wants for a though experiment?e

They may not correspond to the “truth” but the certainly can help us to understand things better.
[/quote]

Dear Chuck,

I don’t disagree with what you say here - for a thought experiment you can pick any reference frame. What you can’t do, and still make sense, is suggest that if some supernatural force grabbed the earth and stopped it in its tracks then the other planets would revolve around it or that the entire univverse would revolve around it.

For example saying “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.” Doesn’t mean a bloody thing to me…

Sorry - you’re right - I got carried away. Let’s ignore GR which makes things more complicated than we need. Then, there is an absolute Machian reference frame which is the inertial frame of the mean of the fixed stars. The residual coriolis and accelerational forces from the earth’s diurnal and annual rotation don’t exist in an inertial frame such as this.

Now…

I’m absolutely certain that my 2 year old daughter is certain that the entire universe revolves around her. (And by golly I thinks she’s right!)

So if you could tell me where my daughter would be sitting, relative to her current postion here on earth, if she was at the center of the Machian absolute reference frame, it would be more useful in terms of understand your point (and then she could visit and for a while she would be right.)

Chuck

I understand exactly what you mean about your daugher as I have two of my own (now grown up and still the centre of their universes ), but reference frames have no centre.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


#25

[quote=RSiscoe]Alec,

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the following debate on the subject. I believe the link I am providing will take you to the 4th part of the debate, but the link to the first three is located at the top. When you have some time, read over it and let me know what you think.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/cole4-1.htm
[/quote]

It’s quite simple. Sungenis is a scientific crank.

Alec
evolutionpages.com


#26

[quote=RSiscoe]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.
[/quote]

The priests are frequently schismatic in advising people to suppose that the “Novus Ordo” (by which they intend to refer to the Pauline rite of mass) should be avoided. They advise this in person, in the confessional, and in homilies.

Cardinal Ottaviani

Other threads have already handled this source: the article Card. Ottaviani wrote referred to a draft of the Pauline rite of mass which had not been released yet.


#27

Former Trad,

Quite frankly, the reason I have not responded to your posts is because of what you wrote to me earlier, on the boards. You mention having some kind of emotional, or neuroligical problems (we all have faults), which resulted in your “itching ears” etc., so I did not want to get into a augementative discussion with you - even though it may have been beneficial. I started to write you a long response on the other thread, but ended up deleting it. I may respond to you, but I’m still thinking it over.

I will only ask you to consider the Lex orandi - lex credendi. Read what Leo XIII said about the Anglican Rite. Now, the Anglican (Episcopal) church service is virtually identical to the New Mass. I grew up as an Episcopal and was an altar boy. The New Mass is virtually identical to that service. In fact, when my sister went to a Catholic (Novus Ordo) Mass for the first time, after growing up Episcopal, she said: “that was just like church when we were kids: I followed right along”. She was right. The Novus Ordo is virtually identical to the heretical Episcopal service which Leo XIII condemned. One argument he made against it was the “led orandi - lex credendi”. That is what I would ask you to consider.

I will try to locate a link to the encyclical of Leo XIII so you can read through it. Aside from all of the abuses and sacreliges at most Novus Ordo Masses; and aside from the fact that the words of consecration have been changed (for “all”) in the vernacular, the lex orandi - lex credendi is one good reason to avoid that Mass. Because, if one “prays as a Protestant (Episcopal), one begins to think as a Protestant”. What do you think? Are many Catholics beginning to “think” like Protestants? Now be honest.


#28

Leo XIII on the Anglican Service: "There is nothing more pertinent than to consider the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, the laws of believing and the laws of prayer [Lex Credendi, Led Orandi], and under the pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers.
“For this reason in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice or consecrating … and offering sacrifice, but as we have said, every trace of these things, which had been in the prayers of the Catholic Rite … was deliberately removed and struck off. Their object in discarding it was to disavow Catholic Apostolic doctrines, and not as you contend to render the rites simpler.”

Comment: All of the same comments were made by Cardinal Ottaviani about the New Mass.


#29

RSiscoe,

Are you saying the current Mass is invalid? A yes or a no is all that is needed.

Peace

Tim


#30

[quote=RSiscoe]Former Trad, Quite frankly, the reason I have not responded to your posts is because of what you wrote to me earlier, on the boards. You mention having some kind of emotional, or neuroligical problems (we all have faults), which resulted in your “itching ears” etc.,
[/quote]

Note here how you have taken to grave insult, for the sake of “tradition”. You are prepared to say I have emotional or neurological problems? You are probably also prepared to propose a novel ecclesiology as well. What I said was that in my opinion, it was my impatient streak that led me to seek a way ‘out’ of the ‘novus ordo’, rather than more carefully investigate how the Church works. I have since then been more patient, and have realized I was mistaken in my estimation of the Pauline rite. Perhaps you were confused by my statement that I have a “disordered nature”–in Catholic theology we all have a disordered nature. Be careful that yours doesn’t lead you away from communion with Rome.

I will only ask you to consider the Lex orandi - lex credendi. Read what Leo XIII said about the Anglican Rite… Are many Catholics beginning to “think” like Protestants? Now be honest.

I think you may have read a hysterical new book by Fr. Trinchard. The Pauline rite is not the Anglican rite, and we are not separating ourselves from Rome. The Pauline rite faithfully expresses Catholic dogma, and to accept that is to perceive it more fully. To reject that is to go down the path of novel ecclesiology, bunker mentality, and schism. Regardinging “for all”, this has been dealt with on former occasions. I wish you more patience in your explorations.


#31

[quote=Uranage]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?
[/quote]

On september 2. 2002 Sungenis shall have written an antisemitic article, if the information that is given is correct. This gave him perhaps some unforseen effects: "His article went on to repeat old antisemitic charges, some dating back a century. I began to look up some of the charges he made, and was surprised by the sources of some of the material, which I began to post on my webpage.

Sungenis soon found onetime friends distancing themselves from him. EWTN pulled his programs from the air, and removed all mention of him from their page. Articles by Sungenis were also removed from the webpage of Envoy magazine" .

You can read the rest on this website:

wquercus.com/sungenis/

If I am not seriously mistaken, Sungenis, started on a road at september 2. - 2002, that may lead him to scism with Rome!

REPLY TO ROBERT SUNGENIS’ CRITICISMS
OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
By James Likoudis, President-emeritus
Catholic United for the Faith

tcrnews2.com/LikoudisSungenis.html

G.G.


#32

I think some of the moderators of Catholic Answers are really biased, it seems that if anybody makes any mild observations on James White the thread will get closed, yet people are almost free on the CA forum to post personal attacks on Robert Sungenis as they will, quite strange indeed…


#33

[quote=Tim Prescott]I think some of the moderators of Catholic Answers are really biased, it seems that if anybody makes any mild observations on James White the thread will get closed, yet people are almost free on the CA forum to post personal attacks on Robert Sungenis as they will, quite strange indeed…

[/quote]

Tim,

Take heed…questioning Moderator’s actions is banned in the rules may be punnishable by suspension.

I’m not sure why this thread on Sungenis has survived so long, but I suppose it’s because he’s a Catholic and this could be viewed as self-correction (as opposed to libel). It may also be due to the amount of documentation provided for accusations. Whatever their reasons, I’m sure they are only looking to protect themselves and preserve this entire forum for as long as can be (which includes preservation from law suits).

God bless,
RyanL


#34

[quote=PhilVaz]<< 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
[/quote]

Here is a response to Gary Hoge, which he has yet to answer (though he started the thread):

catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875

See our debate here on Geocentrism:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=688683#post688683

Here is the final Sungenis-Hoge debate (not found on Gary’s site):

catholicintl.com/scienceissues/hoge-sungenis3-1.htm

Gary is brave, and I believe a good Catholic, but has proven nothing againast Geocentrism.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#35

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSiscoe
*Alec,

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the following debate on the subject. I believe the link I am providing will take you to the 4th part of the debate, but the link to the first three is located at the top. When you have some time, read over it and let me know what you think.

catholicintl.com/epologe…nce/cole4-1.htm*

It’s quite simple. Sungenis is a scientific crank.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

It is clear that you only intend to attack Robert Sungenis, Alec. Ken Cole’s case proves nothing, and you should know it. He ignores relativity, Mach’s Principle, the possibilty of rotating universes, etc., and claims to disprove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics of the solar system in isolation from the rest of the universe. True if the solar system existed in an isolated static vacuum universe, his case may make sense.

You should know that. The fact that you do not comment on Ken Cole’s errors makes me wonder wht your motives are.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#36

Who cares what Robert Sungenis or Gary Hodge thinks concerning geocentricism. Shouldn’t these men be concentrating on matters concerning the Catholic faith and living it? I came back from mass this morning and all I thought about was how nice it was to praise the Lord and receive him in the Eucharist. Let’s all dwell on subjects that will strengthen our faith.


#37

Just an observation upon reading this and other threads… I think some of the infighting that goes on between different Catholic apologists and their supporters is quite intriguing, and yet also very sad.

On the one hand, there have been great fruits from the modern apologetics movement, with lay organizations such as Catholic Answers providing some good resources to Catholics having difficulty answering questions about their faith.

However, there’s a certain tendency now that everyone wants to be an apologist (they even have the “Who wants to be a Catholic apologist” quiz on the radio sometimes). Each of these erstwhile apologists has access to the same set of infallible resources (Scripture and Church teaching), and yet sometimes they interpret them in different ways. And so people divide into different camps, e.g. “I follow Karl Keating”, or “I believe Robert Sungenis”. And sometimes the opinions of the self-appointed apologists and their disciples will be at odds with what the bishops have to say. So guess what? That means the bishops are wrong, possibly heretics, and this is yet another example of sensus fidelium where the bishops have lost their way, akin to the Arian heresey of the 4th century.

This all strikes me as very Protestant. It’s almost as if people want to transfer the charism of infallibility, and the teaching authority, from the official representatives of the church, i.e. the Pope and the Bishops, to people like Keating or Sungenis, or to themselves. And people are way, way too quick to pull out the claim that the bishops have strayed from the path, and I myself am the keeper of the one true faith, and the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, and this [insert your favorite controversy here] is just another example!


#38

Geocentrism affects biblical interpretation.


#39

[quote=challenger]Geocentrism affects biblical interpretation.
[/quote]

But, remember challenger, “modern” theologians and exegetes teach us that the Bible is riddled with errors, especially in areas not related to “faith and morals”.:wink:

How do we know what parts of the Bible deal with faith and morals?
How do we know what parts of the Bible deal with “cultural trends” from Biblical times?
Hiow do we know where the errors are?

Why, the “modern” theologians and exegetes alone are qualified to determine this.:wink:

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#40

All right, who resurrected this 6-month old thread from the dead?

Phil P


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.