Robert Sungenis Censored by Bishop

...The issue of how CAI has been communicating its concerns about the Jews was recently brought to our attention by the bishop of the diocese in which CAI is located, the Very Reverend, Kevin C. Rhoades of Harrisburg, PA. In a personal letter he wrote to me, and in a follow up meeting I recently had with his vicar general, the Very Reverend William J. King, JCD, along with the executive director for ecumenical and inter-religious affairs of the USCCB, the Reverend James Massa, the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work have asked me to reconsider the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people for CAI. They provided me examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations, and I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment...

Accordingly, CAI is in the process of removing all the content on its website concerning the Jews in order to make the initial adjustments in complying with my bishop’s directive. If and when CAI edits the material to make it conform to our bishop’s guidelines, we will repost it, but since my time is very limited and I have many other projects that need my attention, I do not see a reposting of the material happening very quickly, if at all. If in the future we write any new material on the Jews, it will always be with the required due diligence, as if the bishop were present with us. Since he acts in God’s stead, we will do our utmost to please him so as to preserve the peace and tranquility he so desires to maintain in the body of Christ...

Sungenis is a geocentrist. In a certain sense, I have to admire a guy just because he’s willing to be that far out there.

Huh? A geocentrist isn’t “out there” at all, is he? He thinks it’s all about “in here”. LOL. Joshing. I get what you mean.

I never heard of Sungenis before this article. But is that what he means by geocentrist, it's all "in here"? The cosmology of western Europe was geocentrist for 2000 years going back to Aristotle. The earth was at the center of the universe, but everyting below the orbit of the moon was subject to decay and death. Thefore, the earth is the least important part of the universe.

The earth was surrouned by a series of conecntric transparent, crystalline spheres. The most important part of the universe was beyond the last sphere, the Primum Mobile, the prime mover. There lay the Empyrean, the true Heaven with God and the highest angels. "In here" was the least important because it was mutable. The most important was "out there", millions of miles way, the realm of the immutable and the eternal.

Is this what Sungenis is talking about? Or is he simply a modern evolutionist, putting man at the top of evolutionary progress, and therefor at the "center".

Anti-semitism is not a Catholic doctrine.

To put it somewhat facetiously, sez you.

Also, geocentrism is not a Catholic doctrine.

It's not? But didn't popes and bishops and theologians teach it for a long time? If long-held teachings can be discarded in the name of "science," then what's to prevent any doctrine from being so discarded???

As I understand it, the acentric position and the Brahian position (which is not called "geocentric" but rather something else which I can't recall right now) explain the observed movements of the heavenly bodies. This being the case, why favor one over the other, except for a need to prove the Bible is primitive and full of mistakes?

I hope you don't defend evolution as well. From your defenses of Mr. Sungenis I had concluded that you shared his commitment to total Biblical inerrancy, but now you seem to be back-pedalling.

Unfortunately, in addition to being anti-Semitic, Mr. Sungenis has long rejected the literal interpretation of the early generations of mankind in the early chapters of Genesis, insisting that "begot" refers not to direct fatherhood but mere paternal ancestry. This is in conflict with Jewish tradition as well as the literal meaning of the text and means his "inerrancy" isn't really inerrancy.

Again, I was sorry to see Mr. Sungenis take the road that he did, but I understand he was merely publicizing teachings not his own and which had fallen into disuse in the modern era. I support this with regard to "science," but not with regard to anti-Semitic teachings.

You wrote:

“To put it somewhat facetiously, sez you.”

Can you show it to me from the Catechism where it says it is a Catholic doctrine? How about the Catechism of the Council of Trent? Nope.

“It’s not? But didn’t popes and bishops and theologians teach it for a long time?”

Not as a de fide Catholic doctrine they didn’t, and it isn’t an issue of faith or morals either.

“If long-held teachings can be discarded in the name of “science,” then what’s to prevent any doctrine from being so discarded???”

No doctrine was discarded. Show me where in the Catechism of the Council of Trent you see where geocentrism is taught as a doctrine of the faith. Can you?

“This being the case, why favor one over the other, except for a need to prove the Bible is primitive and full of mistakes?”

Your question is irrelevant here. Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church.

“I hope you don’t defend evolution as well. From your defenses of Mr. Sungenis I had concluded that you shared his commitment to total Biblical inerrancy, but now you seem to be back-pedalling.”

Nope. I never back pedel. I also don’t defend evolution. I also don’t question Biblical inerrancy.

“Unfortunately, in addition to being anti-Semitic, Mr. Sungenis has long rejected the literal interpretation of the early generations of mankind in the early chapters of Genesis, insisting that “begot” refers not to direct fatherhood but mere paternal ancestry. This is in conflict with Jewish tradition as well as the literal meaning of the text and means his “inerrancy” isn’t really inerrancy.”

Irrelevant. Geocentrism is still not a doctrine of the faith no matter what you think Sungenis denies about anything.

“Again, I was sorry to see Mr. Sungenis take the road that he did, but I understand he was merely publicizing teachings not his own and which had fallen into disuse in the modern era. I support this with regard to “science,” but not with regard to anti-Semitic teachings.”

If you can’t show it in the Catholic catechisms then you have no case.

I said: “If someone calls all the things documented that Sungenis has written attacking Jews mere ‘foibles’, then that tells everyone more than enough about such a person.”

Vladimir said: “You have no idea of what you’re talking about. His actions were examples of his foibles. I said nothing about the ideas he held.”

Here’s what I was talking about. Dmetrius wrote: “Sugenis was under interdict from his bishop and his bishop told him he had to take his anti-semitic stuff down or he would denounce Sungenis.”

Right after that statement, you wrote, “Quite frankly I don’t care about Sungenis past foibles. His books are excellent.”

The only thing Dmetrius wrote about Sungenis here was Sungenis’ “anti-Semitic stuff”. So I think it’s natural I would conclude you were talking about that same thing when you said you didn’t care about “Sungenis’ past foibles” right afterwards.

And a “foible” is “a minor flaw or weakness”...*MINOR*.

My reaction was only that if (if!) you really see Sungenis’ anti-Semitic writings as only a “MINOR flaw or weakness” then that would say something about your values.

Maybe you didn’t think “foible” meant something minor, so maybe it was just a misunderstanding. At the beginning, you agreed that some of the things he’s said are anti-Semitic, so we agree on that much. The only other thing I could think of off the top of my head was that you believe anti-Semitism like that isn’t serious, and I couldn’t believe you’d think that.

You said, “Also, please note, Dmetrius’ account has been banned or suspended. I’m not sure why he was banned but you might want to think about it.”

Not really. One of your comments was removed by the moderator. I’m not going waste time trying to read into either occurrence. I only care about the points that are on-topic. And his points made sense to me for the most part.

My focuse is the original topic. It’s too bad (*really*) it looks like Mr. Sungenis is creeping back on what he wrote about finally cooling it on Jewish things already. There were signs of real hope and I hope they aren’t fading. He took down the letter (the one I quoted at the very top) that was supposed to be kept up at his internet website for good and settle matters. He changed the name of his organization and took the word Catholic out. Now he’s got a couple Q-A’s from someone that has a real issue with Jews (Suter?), new Alerts of whatever he calls them about Jews and Israel and going after Dear Abby (no doubt because he attacked her before as bad Jewish influence) and a newish article against some Protestant guy where Mr. Sungenis says he’s not anti-Semitic but he still keeps lumping all Jewish people together like one big monolith in his defense of himself.

All I can guess is that he must not get how anyone would be offended by that.

I hope he turns around and gets back on track for good. We need the kind of work he used to do for the Church. And he’ll do that a lot better if gets back on good terms with his bishop, who’s supposed to be very good from what people are saying. That’s the Catholic way to do things.

No argument from me that he’s got a lot to offer, especially defending God’s Word from attack. We need to pray for him to get it together for the long haul. We need everyone who will stand up and fight for Truth...with love.

Especially at this time of year.

Merry Christmas!

The way that poor Shoeman convert was treated was so wrong.

That's a pretty damning link you posted.

I have no patience or time with Catholic "apologists" who spend their time trying to trash or otherwise discredit other Catholic apologists who are making a good-faith effort to be orthodox, as I believe both Mr. Shoeman and Mr. Shea are). If you think the other guy is in error, take it up with him privately. Don't write articles or post websites to trash someone else's reputation.

And the ultimate decision on a Catholic's orthodoxy or lack thereof belongs to the person's pastor, his ordinary, the SCDF, or the Pope. Not to Internet bloggers or magazine publishers.

I killed my subscription to New Oxford Review after their vicious little hit piece on Scott Hahn, and this is the reason why.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.