Sungenis Back at Jewish Stuff Again


(The Pike Report-- its the first one). I put it into google. What pops up? (BTW…you have to change your filter preferences for google to make them more lenient because some of these sites won’t come up their considered so bad)–

  1. National Vanguard (white supremecist)
  2. TruthTellers Org (filled with conspiracy stuff, especially on Jews)
  3. An internet forum
  4. National Vanguard News Network (white surpremecist)
  5. Twilight News (a conspiracy site)

Pike, the guy who wrote the article has a website called TruthTellers which is all about Jews: Everyone should check it out.

They have a radio program, and the three latest programs were:

  1. Ted Pike Discusses “Pedophilia: The Talmud’s Dirty Secret”
  2. Ted Pike Discusses “ACLU Top Heavy with Jews”
  3. Ted Pike Discusses “Judaism and Homosexuality: A Marriage Made in Hell”

Here are some other front-page article links at his website:

  1. Talmud: Wellspring of Jewish Pornography Industry
  2. Powerful Jews Want to End ‘Net Neutrality’
  3. Pedophilia: The Talmud’s Dirty Secret
  4. The Jewish Kabbalah: Root of Mideast Violence
  5. The Jews Behind Da Vinci Code

Pike thinks the Jews were behind 9-11, too.

Question 64, October 2006

Sungenis: “it will become profoundly evident in the years to come that what I am saying both about science and Zionism is true.”

The words of someone who thinks he’s a prophet?

But what did he say a month ago when some people were saying that he had changed and apologized for all this stuff, that he was going to move on?

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.”

**By the way, you might notice that this was put out by Sungenis as though its something brand new—that’s why they call it a NEWS ALERT. But this was written back in JULY-- Not exactly a “breaking story.” Looks a little like someone trying to find SOMETHING bad to say about Jews, don’t you think? **

Does anyone not know what Sungenis was REALLY up to when he wrote his Open Letter now?



I really just don’t understand. Has anyone gone to him about this? (I mean about what he’s doing now).

I thought this would be over at least for a while. Does his priest or bishop know that he is putting these things on his web site?

It looks like he was not telling the truth in his open letter, I have to admit. But its incredible that he would start doing this so soon again. Doesn’t he know that people are watching this about him?

Or does he think that there’s nothing wrong with any of this?

I looked at that website you gave and it really is all about Jews. The man has a problem. I cannot imagine for the life of me why some people can’t see it now.

I never like to believe these kinds of things, and I didn’t when I first read it, but when you see it all together, its just so ugly and hateful.


I haven’t read the article but I do wonder why he would put this up on his website at this time.


not suprised you took only this long to look for something to pull out of context… or did you overlook that fact that Sungenis stays on his own site, and he has already stated that he will continue to answer civil questions posed to him… and include the pertinent ones in the Q&A section.


Here is the whole thing

Question 64-
This letter was written to Karl Keating

Dear Mr. Keating: While I have had no involvement in the “magisterium of the apologists” in the decade or so since it has become apparent to me that I lack the requisite virtues, I did want to take a brief moment to address the present Movement to Run Bob Sungenis Out Of Town on a Rail. I will be brief: 1. Sungenis is by far the most useful and thought-provoking Catholic apologist of whom I am aware today, precisely because he challenges the Goliath of scientism. 2. I have never known Robert Sungenis to publish an anti-Semitic syllable, and I say this as the father of two sons of a Jewish mother (both, may God be thanked, confirmed Catholics). 3. I have known a number of neo-Catholic apologists to go to great lengths to equate Supercessionsism (an infallible truth of the faith) with anti-Semitism. 4. I would very much like to see the apologists in Category #3 above Run Out Of Town On a Rail, if anyone is going to be. I would ask that you consider anything you might be able to do from your vantage point, however, to tamp down the general propensity toward Running Out of Town on a Rail any Catholic apologist who stands with the magisterium of the Church. I believe Bob Sungenis stands with the magisterium of the Church in a way that will become profoundly evident in the years to come. All the best to Catholic Answers, and may God bless you. Rick DeLano


Why do you think he chose to post that article at this time?


and here is the answer

R. Sungenis: Rick, thank you so much for the insightful remarks you made. Everything you said above is true. Following our Catholic tradition:
(1) I have maintained the teaching of the Fathers and have shown the foibles of modern science by using modern science against itself,
(2) I have never, and will never, utter any anti-semitic epithets against Jewish people. I love them as much as St. Paul loved them, but I also condemn their sins and unbelief as much as St. Paul did,
(3) to deny that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant is heretical. I am absolutely flabergasted that some Jewish converts are allowed to teach this insidious error without a great outcry from the Catholic community. Those who either promote it or refrain from condemning those who promote it are engaging in one of the worst heresies with which the Church has ever been confronted. Unfortunately, those who are promoting it are under the spell of Zionism,
(4) I stand with the magisterium of the Catholic Church in all I say and do. At no time have I departed from it, and never will, so help me God. As you said, it will “become profoundly evident in the years to come” that what I am saying both about science and Zionism is true. Unfortunately, there are various people going by the name “Catholic” with their own agenda who are trying their best to silence these truths. If you had asked me ten years ago, never would I have believed that some of my worst enemies, and some of the worst heretical ideas, would come from those with whom I once was very close in the Catholic Church. But I have learned that Catholics can hold error just as much as Protestants. Just because one goes by the name “Catholic” doesn’t mean anything today. One needs to know what kind of Catholic with which one is dealing, for some Catholics are worse than Protestants.
St. Paul warned us that as we approach the end, more and more people in the Church will give heed to “seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,” (1Tm 4:1). They will “not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2Tim 4:3).
These people will also have one particular trademark – they will cause division and dissent. They will go “gadding about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not” (1Tm 5:13) all in an effort to spread “quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder” (2Co 12:20). St. Paul warned us against such people in Rom 16:17-18: I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Those who teach that the Old Covenant is still in force and that the Jews will fulfill such a covenant are NOT giving us “the doctrine which you have been taught,” and we are to “avoid them.” Unfortunately, they are deceiving the “simple-minded,” many of which write on Internet forums under various pseudonyms. If it takes a formal declaration that I am against any Catholic who either teaches or refrains from criticizing these anti-Christian teachings, then I hereby today declare my utter and complete opposition to them, and the work of Catholic Apologetics International will henceforth be framed with them in mind.
God be with you.
Robert Sungenis October 21, 2006


the letter to Karl Keating was just written at this time, and Sungenis responed to it at his site… not here like the OP is predictably doing…again.


Mr S,

Sorry to confuse you but I meant “Why do you think Robert S. would post that article at this time?”.

Augustine seems to just have it out for Robert but this does seem to be bad timing by Robert.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the article on CAI but I do consider the source less than savory.


For MrS or anyone who would like to respond, can you give an example of any Catholic apologists who are teaching “that the Old Covenant is still in force and that the Jews will fulfill such a covenant”? I follow Catholic apologetics pretty closely (through books, web sites, Catholic radio, etc.), and I don’t recall ever hearing anyone teach this. That’s not to say that no one is teaching this, since obviously I haven’t read every single apologetics book, listened to every single apologetics CD, etc. But my fairly broad experience indicates that this teaching is far from prominent in the world of Catholic apologetics.



Dear Mr. S & other supporters of Robert Sungenis’ self destruction,

I don’t intend to debate the letter to Karl Keating I could but I won’t. I disagree with “spirit” if not the substance of Robert’s statement if I read him right here. “(2) I have never, and will never, utter any anti-semitic epithets against Jewish people. I love them as much as St. Paul loved them, but I also condemn their sins and unbelief as much as St. Paul did”. I don’t think that anyone accused Robert of calling any Jews names the point is that he has been going after Jews with a vengeance over time in unsavory ways. I won’t describe what I mean it has been said over and over again. But the sad, sad part is that he is still at it. Robert is not being criticized for condemning sins or unbelief. Those who are verbally slapping his back are not his friends.

Message to the person with whom I recently exchanged a few emails on the subject: Let us suppose for a minute, hypothetically speaking, that Sungenis is right about some things that he has posted regarding the Jews, or lets say, hmmm off the top of my head, the Talmud. Exactly how wise is it that he post even correct things on his site when people who really have never read the Talmud have waded through the garbage that was on the CAI site regarding the Jews would run across it. I betting that it won’t be read. I am one of those who will not bother to read anything on the web site that even has a whiff of the topic of the Jews. I don’t want to read something that makes me sad. It is MHO that his private war on the Jews is a type of suicide of his apostolate. I just hate to see this Oh; there will always be those hangers on, people who instinctively stand on the side of those whom they perceive is being attacked. There are those who know me in a cyber sort of way who read this forum so some of those people will know that what I say here is true. I have been in Sungenis’ corner for years and years. I have personally defended Sungenis when I believed that he was unfairly attacked. I never would have read “Sungenis and the Jews”. I didn’t know the author and as I looked over the names who signed it I began to roll my eyes because I have a personal dislike for one of them and disagree with others but when I saw David Palm’s name I thought, hmmm maybe I should at least read it. I wonder if Sungenis thought “et tu, Brute?” when he should have given at least a little pause to reflect on why a man with a stellar reputation on the internet and in publications put his name to something like that. Why would he bother? I challenge Robert to think that maybe just maybe he was being a friend.

I wrote what I did above to show the person with whom I had an email exchange who is in agreement with Sungenis that when he looses credibility people are not inclined to listen to anything that CAI has to say. Sungenis and those who defend him on this issue should first regain the enormous respect that he once commanded. When people lose confidence in a person that person, if he wants to regain that confidence must take, at least at first, baby steps.



I find it unfortunate that Bob Sungenis has dived right back into his Jewish obsession so soon.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that the stuff he has posted
about the ADL and Abe Foxman and their support of the gay agenda, is pretty much obvious to all who pay attention, as well as their antics to declare any criticism of anything Jewish whatsoever as “anti-Semitic.” On the other hand, the church has other enemies besides ultra leftwing members of the Jewish community and I hope Bob will be even handed in recognizing this fact.



Let’s look at what Sungenis said about Dave Armstrong. Question 3, January 2005–

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.

Sungenis is awfully worried about Kristol and Coulter, right? (I’m not a fan, either.) But he puts up stuff by Holocaust deniers like Michael Hoffman II, Michael Piper and now this article by Ted Pike and there’s no problem?

To Bigdawg: I don’t have it out for Sungenis. But he has it out for Jewish people, imo, and I don’t take that kind of stuff lightly. Our families best friends are Jewish and I am ashamed that this man can write stuff and put up stuff like this and call it Catholic.

And I can’t believe there are people here who actually defend this. Great. He writes his stuff only at his website. And Hitler only had concentration camps in Europe.

Look, I’m not saying the guy wants to kill Jews. But you bet I think that people like him would have played right into Nazi plans. People like him would probably have said, Oh, its just those hysterical Jews again.

Yes, I do believe that. If you think we Catholics take heat for Pius XII and WWII (even though not fairly imo), what in the world do you think will happen if views like these from Sungenis aren’t jumped all over?


I’m not sure I understand what the fuss is about over Robert Sungenis’ articles as they relate to the Jewish people…I’ll have to read through some. At a glance, I thought his opposition had to do more with Zionism than with the Jewish people per se.

I’m very much opposed to Zionism (and my own country’s, the USA, support of it) and consider it a heresy when it’s espoused by Christians but I wish nothing but the best and pray for God’s blessing upon the Jewish people as I do for every human race.

Will someone tell me what’s at issue here? I’ve been following the 911 Truth Movement and seriously considering (for the first time in my life, thanks to my children’s openess to ‘hearing the other side of the story’) the Arab’s complaints against Israel’s and the United States’ policies in the Middle East.

From a more religious perspective, I have always understood that “THE Antichrist” will be a man the Jewish people will largely accept as their long awaited messiah. Such was the understanding common among the Church Fathers, if I’m not mistaken. I see Zionism as the near preparation for Antichrist’s advent. Maybe this is the rub as I know Christian Zionism is very prevalent among Conservative Evangelicals in the United States.

In any event, I will look further into this and renew my own efforts to fulfill Our Lady of Fatima’s requests in the hope of living to see the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.

As I see it, all these things are inter-related.

Keep the Faith


From a more religious perspective, I have always understood that “THE Antichrist” will be a man the Jewish people will largely accept as their long awaited messiah. Such was the understanding common among the Church Fathers, if I’m not mistaken. I see Zionism as the near preparation for Antichrist’s advent.

I agree. I can just see a certain man awaking from a certain “head wound” (read: coma) and presenting himself on temple mount, fat and lecherous, to be worshipped as God Almighty.



You didn’t read through and all the links there, right? That would be a good place to start.

Here are some things he’s written, and it doesn’t look like just Zionism to me. And its not about the Anti-Christ. No one has any complaint about that that I’ve seen –

R. Sungenis…. I have my doubts that it was 6 million, but even if it was 1 million, still, the point remains that they were a marked race by the Nazis. Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.”

Sungenis: “95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.”

Sungenis: “The charge of “anti-Semitism” is nothing but a clever ploy…Albert Einstein finally recognized after dealing with his own people:
“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world…the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity” (Albert Einstein, Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938).”

(This quote was proved bogus. Einstein did not say this. If you look on google, you’ll see it comes from Racist sites, Holocaust Deniers, etc…again, Sungenis thinks that the charge of Anti-Semtitism is NOTHING but a clever ploy.)

Sungenis: “Other Catholic organizations are also becoming fronts for Zionism. Catholic Answers in San Diego and the Eternal World Television Network seem to be the two mainstays. They are enamored with Jewish converts…”

Sungenis: “In fact, the concentration camps and genocide instigated by the Jewish communists in Russia against Christians and other groups dwarf those against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Hitler was merely modeling what was already practiced in Russia, a fact ignored by such Jewish authors as Daniel Goldhagen. Contrasted to the dozens of concentration camps in Hilter’s regime, the Russian Jews had thousands of such camps…but evidence of these camps have been systematically destroyed and their existence denied by the Jewish controlled media in Russia and the United States.”

Sungenis: “A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.”

Sungenis: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.”

Sungenis: “Today we get deviant sexual advice from such Jewish matrons as Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and questionable behavioral advice from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Landers (formerly Esther Friedman Lederer) and her sister Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips).”

Sungenis: “President Roosevelt had a part in (the Zionist conspiracy) himself. Being of Jewish ancestry, he was sympathetic to their cause…”

Sungenis: “Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.”

Sungenis: “when (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth.”


I went over to CAI (even though thats getting hard for me these days!) and saw this too:

His “book of the month” is about the “Holocaust Industry.” Is this what Mr. Sungenis meant when he said he decided to leave controversial areas and get back to what he does best? :frowning:


I am posting this as a favor to Ben Douglass:


First, Ted Pike is not, to my knowledge, directly involved with the white supremacist National Vanguard. National Vanguard tends to like what he writes, and as such they run a lot of his articles on their website. But they also run articles from the Associated Press, CBS News, the gay libertarian Justin Raimondo, World Net Daily, and various and sundry other sources as well. That doesn’t mean they’re all white supremacists.

Second, Robert will never run any National Vanguard articles again. He ran two a while back, after someone e-mailed them to him, but after I informed him of the racist nature of National Vanguard, he agreed and took down the articles. The worst he was guilty of in that instance was sloppiness in not checking the source of the articles before he posted them. And he has admitted that he has been sloppy with sources in the past, in his Open Letter. This should be water under the bridge by now, though Forrest et al keep using it as a stick to beat Robert with.

As for Ted Pike being obsessed with Jews, the way I see it he is filling an immense lacuna in evangelical Protestant discourse. I can understand why he would devote himself so thoroughly to Jewish issues. So many of his co-religionists think that Israel has a divine mandate to conquer and drive out the Palestinians, and that the United States has a duty towards God to support Israel’s bloody and aggressive foreign policy. They ignore that Israel has repeatedly elected war criminals as their Prime Minister. They ignore the way Israel oppresses Christians. They ignore the corrupt and anti-Christian nature of Talmudic Judaism, and even worse, Lurianic Kabbalah. As John Taylor and batteddy rightly point out, we are witnessing is the near preparation for the advent of the Antichrist. Pike sees this too, and he sees his fellow Evangelicals pitching in with great enthusiasm to boot. If I were in his position I’d write a whole lot of articles about Jews, Judaism, and Israel too.

Granted, I think Pike overreacts against Christian Zionism, and his scholarship can be sloppy at times. I would rather Robert not use him. But he is not just some Jew-hating wacko flying off the handle and ranting about Jewish conspiracies. I’ve read some of his articles, for example “The Talmud: Wellspring of Jewish Pornography Industry.” I’ve investigated almost all of the passages from Tractate Sanhedrin which he cites, and he is largely correct about them. The only serious mistake he makes, that I am aware of (though there may very well be others), is in his treatment of Sanhedrin 55a. He quotes one rabbi’s opinion as representative of the Talmud, whereas the Talmud rejects this rabbi’s opinion immediately after he voices it. But many of his other charges stand, and I have documented this all in an article which I will publish soon. I’m just waiting for feedback from a Jewish apologist.

As for how Robert would have reacted to Nazism, I assure you he would take the exact same positions as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Pope Benedixt XIV, both of whom opposed genocide quite vigorously, while simultaneously saying some very harsh things about Jews and Judaism.

Regarding Robert’s dictum about Judaism considering Gentiles to be less than animals, that was over the top. On the other hand, as was that case with Ted Pike, it’s not just coming from nowhere. The Talmud endorses the most disgusting discrimination against Gentiles. A Gentile who steals a penny from a Jew gets the death penalty, but a Jew who murders a Gentile gets whipped. If a Jew sees a gentile drowning, he is not to save him. According to Lurianic Kabbalah, a later form of Jewish mysticism, Jews have divine souls but Gentiles have only fleshly, demonic souls. As an author from only the last century, Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Kook, put it, “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews – all of them in all different levels – is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” These strains of anti-Gentile animus are very evident in many classical Jewish sacred texts. Again, I document these in my article which will be published soon at CAI. And you had better believe that they have both immediate and remote influence on the consciences of large numbers of Jews today.


Ben Douglass



It was unfortunate that Robert used Hoffman and Piper in one of his articles, primarily as secondary sources. I tracked down the primary sources for him, so all the Hoffman references and all but one of the Piper references are gone. He has published a revised version of the article:

But in fact, I do think that neo-conservatives can be more dangerous than Hoffman and Piper. For as much as I don’t like Hoffman, at least he isn’t out there starting unjust wars which have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. In fact, he vigorously opposes them.

I know a lot of people are uncomfortable with how harsh Robert is in his treatment of Jewish issues. I have my own disagreements with him, which I freely voice to him on a regular basis. But he doesn’t deserve such a round condemnation. Let me propose a bit of shock therapy to you. 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.

Some more advice: pray the 15 prayers of St. Brisget of Sweden, the Akathist to the Passion, and the prayer of reparation of St. Teresa of Avila. Then read Tractate Sanhedrin 43A and 52A-59B.

Ben Douglass


Now that we are back on topic, here is the last message I posted on the inadvertently deleted thread last week:

Originally Posted by DavidPalm (Post 1580069)
*…Let’s get back to some specifics …Sungenis has publicly accused Forrest of:

  • Leaving CAI in pursuit of a musical career.
  • Rearranging the CAI Web site.
  • Failing to express any concerns to Bob for three years before, out of the blue, coming up with a list of charges against him.
  • Lying to Jacob Michael about the events that led up to Forrest leaving CAI, when in fact Forrest had put all this information in his original article and Bob just failed to read it.
  • Never, ever issuing any critique of Jewish individuals or “interests” and being fundamentally against anybody doing so.

He has also:

  • Claimed falsely that Forrest edited his work for three years and that this “worked wonderfully”.
  • Claimed falsely that he “terminated” Forrest’s sojourn at CAI, when in fact by his own words Forrest had “bowed out”.
  • Threatened a lawsuit against a fellow Christian, in violation of St. Paul’s prohibition.

Again, these are pretty much just off the top of my head. There are a lot more examples. But let’s just take these. Do you think he owes some apologies or not, Mark? Give it to us straight up.*

So this is what it all comes down to basically. This is pretty much internal bickering between a group of people who were associated with Robert Sungenis in the past, but now grouped together to attack him.

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. Robert and Michael are grown-ups and can deal with it themselves. If public apologies are needed, I am sure they will be forthcoming.

This started out on the high note of defending Jews from big bad Robert Sungenis, but now comes down to bickering and squabbles.

I am not going to play this by your rules. You take a series of facts, and yes some are facts, including articles written, private e-mails, sources used, mistakes made, etc. and then weave it together. In the end we have hundreds of pages of documentation, and when someone cannot recall a specific fact (or have fallen behind reading the hundreds of pages of documentation), we get hit over the head with it (who needs a nine pound hammer, you have a 200 lb. docket).

This is the point. Robert Sungenis has written some controversial things. You are trying to squelch his right to write what he wants by attacking his character (this is called character assasination, by the way). You refuse to deal with the facts and factually challenge what he writes. Instead, for instance in the Shoeman case, you rely on two lines from an e-mail of Schoeman’s to counter, what, 10’s of pages of documented work by Robert Sungenis? If this is how you want to work, it is your perrogative. I want no part of it. I will not play by your silly rules and continue to ensnare myself in your little games.

You are right, Robert does criticize others, so he should expect some criticism in return. I suggest you look back at the “irrelevant statistics” I posted earlier concerning the state of the Church (regarding the QA with Dave Armstrong, here and here) and ask yourself how we got to that point and how we can get out of it. I know Robert Sungenis is not the man who is going to solve the problem by himself, hopefully Benedict XVI is (with the Holy Spirit), but Robert is willing to try and understand and discuss what some of the issues are. I may not agree with all his ideas, nor you. Still he presents them and we can either ignore them, challenge them, or accept them.

I suggest that rather than attacking him and his character, that if you find some of what he writes to be incorrect, and leading the wrong direction, that you challenge him on the facts. Not on whether he owes Michael Forrest and apoplogy. I hope we are all on the same side. The real problem is the condition of the Church and where it is going. Let’s get back to concentrating on that. If you feel Robert is wrong call him on it, but do so using scholarship and the facts.

I suggest you start by challenging him directly on the Shoeman articles. This seems to be a big sore spot for you (Forrest, et. al.), and interestingly it ties in directly with Jacob Michael’s new book.

God Bless you,

Mark Wyatt


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