Author Topic: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis  (Read 2190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Reputation: +1272/-216
  • Gender: Male
Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« on: October 12, 2018, 09:18:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://gwwdvd.com/2018/10/11/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/

    Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    Posted: 11 Oct 2018 09:44 AM PDT
    Robert Sungenis responds to Fr. Paul Robinson's latest rebuttal regarding evolution. October 2018.
    The post Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis appeared first on Journey to the Center of the Universe.



    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #1 on: October 12, 2018, 09:27:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1
    Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    October 2018
    Fr. R:
    Sola Scriptura is not Catholic!
    R. Sungenis:
    Congratulations. Sola Anything is not Catholic, including the
    Sola Science that Fr. Robinson often follows on questions of science that
    overlap with the Bible.
    Fr. R:
    The Kolbe Centre and Robert Sungenis add to the confusion Catholics
    face in the debate on science and religion with their biblicism.
    R. Sungenis:
    So it appears Fr. Robinson believes the Bible “confuses” the
    issue. We can see why. Since the Bible contradicts Fr. Robinson’s belief in the
    Big Bang, long-ages (billions of years for the universe), heliocentrism and a
    local Noachic flood, either the Bible has to be demoted or Fr. Robinson has to
    demote those who trust the Bible’s declarations.
    Fr. R:
    Fr Robinson refutes their claims and articulates a well-researched
    argument on the Church’s position. A must read for any Catholic who wants to
    accept reasonable science and the Church’s authority.
    R. Sungenis:
    Much of Fr. Robinson’s book is not “Catholic.” It is filled with
    modernism and liberalism. Anyone who ignores the consensus of the Fathers
    on these particular subjects (as Fr. Robinson does) is not being Catholic.
    Anyone who ignores the magisterial decrees against these particular subjects
    (as Fr. Robinson does) is not being Catholic. Anyone who accepts, uncritically,

    2
    the views of modern science on these particular subjects (as Fr. Robinson does)
    is not being Catholic.
    Fr. R:
    Is Biblicism Catholic? In my article “St. Maximilian Kolbe’s
    Disagreement with the Kolbe Center”, I pointed out that St. Maximilian Kolbe
    held positions on science that are directly contrary to positions which the Kolbe
    Center holds to be “clearly” taught by Scripture and so the only views allowed
    to Catholics. Robert Sungenis, whose books are promoted by the Kolbe Center,
    wrote a rebuttal to my article in order to come to the defense of the Kolbe
    Center. This rebuttal was posted on the “Catholic Layman’s Theology” group’s
    Facebook page. The main contention of my article was that, while Catholic
    creationists—I will refer to them as ‘biblicists’ in the rest of this article to be
    clearer—pretend that only their views are orthodox, it is, in fact, difficult, if not
    impossible, to find those views among the perfectly orthodox Catholic exegetes
    of the first half of the 20th century.
    R. Sungenis:
    That’s because most of them, like Fr. Robinson, have abandoned
    the traditional faith and have chosen the unproven theories of modern science
    as their authority. Apparently, Fr. Robinson has no shame in admitting that
    only 1/40 of Catholicism takes his view of the world, and that 39/40
    th
    of the
    Catholicism before him had a totally different view than he does.
    Fr. R:
    Biblicism is the practice of using the Bible as an exclusive determinant
    of truth, especially in its strict literal sense. The biblicist begins by holding that
    certain passages of the Bible can only be interpreted in their proper literal
    sense.
    R. Sungenis:
    As I said above, Fr. Robinson is afraid of the Bible. Unfortunately
    for him, the very reason we have the sacraments is because the Fathers weren’t
    afraid to interpret the Bible literally. When Jesus said, “This is my body, take
    and eat,” the Fathers unanimously interpreted it literally. It was the body and
    blood of Christ, regardless what science said about it then or now. This view of
    the Eucharist was finally confirmed at the Lateran Council in 1215. But like
    3
    most modernists today, Fr. Robinson forgot his heritage and made popular
    science his god of choice. So, as the Fathers rejected the long-ages and
    heliocentrism of the Greeks because they all interpreted the Bible in unison as
    teaching a short-age for the Earth and geocentrism, and the Church confirmed
    the former at Vatican 1 in 1870 and the latter in 1616 and 1633, Fr. Robinson
    rejects the patristic Tradition and the magisterial decrees following, and
    chooses to follow the unproven theories of modern science.
    Fr. R:
    Then, clinging to that sense as infallibly true, he refuses to allow any
    information from outside the Bible to deny that interpretation.
    R. Sungenis:
    That is false. My books are filled with science, but it is science
    properly interpreted instead of the one-sided view that Fr. Robinson promotes
    in order to agree with the Big Bang, long ages, a local Noachic flood,
    heliocentrism, etc. Let’s look deeper. Does modern science agree with the
    Eucharist? Certainly not. They think it is impossible. But we hold the
    Eucharist as “infallibly true” nonetheless. Why? Simply because Jesus said so
    in Mt 26:26. That is where the Fathers began their work – from what the Bible
    stated as the truth.
    Fr. R:
    Such information would include the data of science, arguments of
    reason, and even statements of the Church’s Magisterium.
    R. Sungenis:
    Data from science gives us nothing but data. That data needs to
    be properly interpreted, just like Scripture needs to be properly interpreted.
    Those interpretations were already given to us by the Fathers and the
    Magisterium, and no amount of human reason can or will change them. Suffice
    it to say, none of them teach the Big Bang/long-age worldview of Fr. Robinson.
    Fr. R:
    In the end, biblicism is simply a species of the Protestant doctrine of sola
    Scriptura.
    4
    R. Sungenis:
    Hardly. What Protestant interprets the Eucharist to be the body,
    blood, soul and divinity of Christ, which doctrine we get from a literal
    interpretation of the Bible? What Protestant believes in papal primacy and
    infallibility, which we Catholics get from a literal interpretation of the Bible? It’s
    not “Biblicism” that is the issue, but what verses the Church has already
    decided to be interpreted literally. The die has already been cast, but Fr.
    Robinson is trying to change it. Fr. Robinson has chosen NOT to interpret
    Genesis literally just as the Protestants have chosen not to interpret Mat 26:26
    literally. They come from the same mold—the mold in which the individual
    chooses what is literal instead of the Church. The Fathers, backed by Leo XIII,
    told us that everything in the Bible is to be interpreted literally, unless it is
    unreasonable or impossible to do so. The science Fr. Robinson attempts to use
    to deliteralize the Bible is nothing but unproven theory. Without the slightest
    critical evaluation, Fr. Robinson accepts what they claim about the Big Bang
    and long ages, and they become is “sole” authority.
    Fr. R:
    In The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, I point out how dangerous
    it is for humans to isolate one particular mode of knowing and make it the only
    way to discover truth. Doing so leads the mind to form a priori ideas about
    reality and then forbids reality itself to teach the mind anything different from
    those ideas. In this case, biblicism reduces all knowledge to Biblical knowledge.
    R. Sungenis:
    As he does many times in his book, Fr. Robinson creates his own
    straw man to beat up. Catholics don’t believe the Bible alone gives us all we
    need to know. The Bible gives us some knowledge. But the point at issue is:
    when the Bible gives us knowledge on any particular subject, what are we
    going to do with it? Are we going to claim, as Fr. Robinson frequently does, that
    it isn’t true or real knowledge and we
    can interpret it any way we want? No,
    whatever the Bible says on a given topic we trust it as true because it is
    inspired and inerrant, and God cannot lie. That is what the Fathers did, and
    they are our guide. That’s what it means to be Catholic, at least until the
    modernists and liberals got hold of the Bible and turned everything upside
    down.
    5
    Fr. R:
    The Catholic Church has always fostered a realist view of reality, one
    which balances the modes of human knowing: sense knowledge, conceptual
    knowledge, and the knowledge obtained from revelation.
    R. Sungenis:
    No Catholic would disagree. But it’s not the knowledge that is the
    issue, but how one interprets the knowledge. Do we interpret in line with what
    the tradition has given us, or do we make up our own interpretations, as Fr.
    Robinson frequently does?
    Fr. R:
    As such, she has never employed a biblicist model of Scriptural
    exegesis.
    R. Sungenis:
    Fr. Robinson continues to build his straw man. He stated earlier:
    “Biblicism is the practice of using the Bible as an exclusive determinant of
    truth.” But there is no Catholic on our side of the fence that does so. I have
    dozens of lectures, papers, and books saying that to base truth on the Bible
    alone is heretical, but Fr. Robinson simply ignores that stipulation. True
    Catholics simply trust what the Bible says on a given topic. They also trust
    what the Tradition and the Magisterium have stated on that topic. That’s all
    there is to it. But Fr. Robinson thinks he can buck all three simply because
    modern science has a theory that the Earth is 4 billion years old.
    Fr. R:
    This is why she has allowed for varying interpretations of Genesis 1 over
    the ages, as long as those interpretations remained within the boundaries of
    the faith.
    R. Sungenis:
    Another straw man. The Church has not “allowed varying
    interpretations of Genesis 1.” As of 1909 PBC, the only “variation” She allowed
    was that the days of Genesis 1 could be 24-hours or a “certain space of time.”
    6
    She didn’t deny the 24-hour interpretation, but Fr. Robinson wants to
    eliminate it from our interpretive repertoire. And although She did allow “a
    certain period of time,” all this shows is that the Church decided not to be
    definitive, at that time, about the question. But the Church’s indecisiveness
    does not mean Fr. Robertson has the right to say, with any certainty, that the
    Days of Genesis were billions of years. The reason is that Fr. Robinson doesn’t
    follow the chronology of Genesis 1’s “days.” For example, he doesn’t believe the
    Earth came first on the First Day, before the sun and stars on the Fourth Day
    (as do all liberals and modernists), in direct contradiction to Genesis 1. So it
    doesn’t matter whether “Day” refers to 24-hours or billions of years. Fr.
    Robinson isn’t going to say that Day 1 allowed the Earth to exist billions of
    years before the sun and stars, since he believes, from the Big Bang theory,
    that the stars came billions of years before the Earth! So all this argument
    about what the 1909 PBC said about the word “Day” is just a canard.
    Fr. R:
    It would be heretical to hold that
    Genesis 1 is a myth, that is, a pure
    invention of humans with no truth value. But it is not heretical to hold that
    Genesis 1 teaches certain religious truths, necessary for our salvation, but
    does not teach that the universe is a certain age,
    R. Sungenis:
    So, in Fr. Robinson’s worldview, it’s alright to mangle the history
    of Genesis 1 and turn it into a total falsehood (e.g., Genesis 1 says the Earth
    came before the stars, but Fr. Robinson says the stars came before the Earth),
    but in this pseudo-history Fr. Robinson somehow extracts “religious truths,
    necessary for our salvation.” What does he mean? Read his book. He will tell
    you that the only truth we can get out of Genesis 1 is that “God created the
    world,” period, full stop. All the detail is just window dressing. Wow. Some
    exegesis. This is the same thing that the liberal, Raymond Brown, said about
    Genesis 1. He said that when we read Genesis 1 to a child, we are to simply
    say, “God created the world,” and don’t entertain any questions the child might
    have on the details. This is why I say Fr. Robinson is a liberal through and
    through.
    Conversely, the Bible gives us details for a reason, and they are just as true as
    the general truths it gives. As such, the Bible certainly DOES give us an age to
    the universe, but it is an age that Fr. Robinson doesn’t like. Genesis 1 provides
    7
    six days, and Genesis 5-11 allows about 4000 years between Adam and Christ.
    THAT is what the biblical text says, and
    it is inspired and inerrant. So, in order
    to get to what Fr. Robinson suggests for the age of the universe (13.7 billion
    years) he has to ignore what Genesis literally teaches and/or claim that what
    Genesis teaches is not inspired and inerrant. He then has to impose another
    form of interpretation on the text. What form is that? For lack of a better term,
    I’ll call it the “salvation interpretation.” That is, according to Fr. Robinson and
    his liberal colleagues, the history, chronology, geography, and time-scale of the
    Bible are not important because they don’t talk about salvation. So, salvation
    becomes the ultimate criterion of how we judge whether other statements in
    the Bible are either true or worthy of our attention. Where did this cockamamie
    idea originate? From the liberals coming out of Vatican II, of course. They
    twisted Dei Verbum 11’s words “for the sake of our salvation” to mean that only
    passages that speak about salvation are inspired and inerrant. Everything else
    is just story-filler made up by some uninspired author or subsequent redactor.
    This doctrine comes right from the Devil himself.
    Fr. R:
    a question that has no direct bearing on salvation.
    R. Sungenis:
    As we can see, Fr. Robinson fulfilled my description. Unless the
    biblical passage in question speaks directly about salvation, Fr. Robinson and
    his ilk reserve the right to regard it as either untrue, myth, legend, figures of
    speech, historiography, fiction, or just plain false. But as Bellarmine told
    Galileo, if the Scripture errs in one place, it can err in all places, and it
    becomes worthless. But Fr. Robinson thinks he can dichotomize Scripture into
    two compartments (e.g., salvific and non-salvific) to allow himself to dismiss or
    interpret non-literally those that are non-salvific. The Church nowhere teaches
    such a hermeneutic.
    Fr. R:
    With the advance of science, it became clear that the universe has a
    history, that it is much older than 6000 years, that it was not created by God
    in a fully formed state.
    8
    R. Sungenis:
    No, it didn’t become clear, at all. In fact, the more science
    advances the more they find the Big Bang simply doesn’t work. Please read
    pages 535-574 of my book,
    Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church
    .
    Moreover, the more science advances, the more they realize that the human
    population would outstrip its room and resources if mankind inhabited the
    Earth for more than 7000 years. For example, if we used a conservative human
    growth rate of 150 years to double the population, and we used the
    Smithsonian’s estimate for the arrival of homo sapiens at 300,000 BC, there
    would be two trillion people on Earth as early as 293,000 BC. Imagine what it
    would be 295,018 years later in 2018? We would have enough people to
    populate 1000 earths. Nowhere do we find Fr. Robinson dealing with these
    kinds of anomalies in his book.
    Fr. R:
    Catholics had no problem utilizing this information to assist in finding
    the right sense of the Bible.
    R. Sungenis:
    The reality is, the only “Catholics” who were accepting popular
    views of science were the liberals and modernists, of which de Chardin,
    Lemaitre and Jaki were the leaders. They chose to believe Scripture’s history
    and chronology were not inspired and inerrant, just like Fr. Robinson does.
    Fr. R:
    Specifically, Pope Leo XIII and the Pontifical Biblical Commission
    clarified that there is no need to interpret Genesis 1 as saying that the universe
    was created in six, 24 hour days.
    R. Sungenis:
    Notice how Fr. Robinson twists the PBC. The PBC did not say
    “there is no need to interpret Genesis 1....as 24 hour days,” but “...the word
    ‘day’ can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the
    improper sense of a certain space of time...Reply: in the affirmative.” That
    means exegetes can interpret it literally or as a certain space of time, and not
    “there is no need to interpret it literally.” As we can see, Fr. Robinson forbids
    you to interpret it literally, because, in his eyes, you would be scientifically
    wrong to do so. But that is not what the PBC said.
    9
    Fr. R:
    Despite the freedom granted by the Church on these questions, Catholic
    biblicists are convinced that the strictly literal sense of Genesis 1 is the only
    orthodox one.
    R. Sungenis:
    Obviously we don’t, because the PBC said “day” could be “a
    certain space of time.” But there was only one other view traditional
    Catholicism offered than 24-hours, which was Augustine’s “one day” or
    instantaneous interpretation, not evolution, progressive creationism or theistic
    evolution. Moreover, Fr. Robinson doesn’t allow the 24-hour interpretation. See
    if you can find one statement from him that says Catholics are allowed and/or
    should interpret the “days” of Genesis as 24-hours. There isn’t a single one.
    Fr. R:
    To assist their cause, they portray their position as authentically
    Catholic
    R. Sungenis:
    Because that is what the Fathers taught; and that is what the
    councils (Lateran IV and Vatican 1) taught; and that is what every saint,
    doctor, theologian, pope or bishop taught, at least until the onslaught of
    Darwinism and the JEPD theory claimed the Bible was not inspired or inerrant.
    Fr. R:
    and, whenever upstanding Catholic figures disagree with them, they
    attack them as being either ignorant or heterodox.
    R. Sungenis:
    Rightly so. As St. Paul said to the Galatians: “As we have said
    before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to
    that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:9).


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #2 on: October 12, 2018, 09:29:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 11
    R. Sungenis:
    Let’s back up here. Did I not commend Fr. Robinson for his
    teaching on philosophy in the first six chapters of his book? I certainly did,
    many times. So one’s education in philosophy is not the crux of the issue.
    Fr. R:
    He went on to earn a second doctorate in theology at the Pontifical
    University of St. Bonaventure. In other words, it would be hard for any Catholic
    to dream of a better seminary formation than the one that St. Maximilian
    received. Mr. Sungenis, meanwhile, has never studied Catholic theology in any
    official capacity.
    R. Sungenis:
    I don’t need to study Catholic theology in “any official capacity” to
    know what Catholic theology is. I’ve been studying it intensely for 45 years and
    I’ve read the books and articles of just about everyone out there. After talking
    to Catholic seminarians, I seem to know a lot more about the Catholic faith
    then they do, especially since most of them were educated in corrupt modernist
    and liberal seminaries, the very ones that have produced all the homosexuals
    and child predators this past century. Hence this is just a desperate attempt by
    Fr. Robinson to hit below the belt. Read my books,
    Not By Faith Alone
    ,
    Not By
    Scripture
    and
    Not By Bread Alone
    , and tell me if you will conclude I don’t know
    what Catholic theology is. They were issued with a Nihil Obstat and
    Imprimatur. These works in Catholic theology have been praised by Catholic
    and Protestant alike.
    Here is a word from
    Samuel Hutchens
    , Ph.D. (Protestant), Senior Editor of
    Touchstone Magazine
    : “For those who require an exhaustive exposition of the
    point, the best book I have found is Robert Sungenis’
    Not By Faith Alone
    ...This
    reviewer thinks he has successfully made the point he started out to make, and
    that if one remains a Protestant after reading it (as I do) it will be vastly more
    difficult to mount his protest on the basis of belief that we are justified by faith
    alone apart from works...” (Touchstone: Sept./Oct. 1998).
    Here is a word from
    Fabian Bruskewitz
    , bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska: “In
    proving from Sacred Scripture the veracity of the Catholic theology of
    justification, Robert Sungenis leaves nothing to chance, no stone unturned, no
    concession for any other reasonable argument. The Protestant Reformation
    sowed confusion about the biblical theology of faith and good works, and many
    today rely on this confusion to defend or excuse a failure to live holy lives of
    12
    service and goodness. Robert Sungenis has systematically addressed the
    confusion and demonstrated what we have always known, namely that Sacred
    Scripture and the Catholic Deposit of Faith are in complete agreement about
    justification. I applaud this work, and recommend it for all who wish to know
    how and why the Bible teaches that we are not saved by faith alone.”
    Here is
    Karl Keating
    : “The notion of ‘justification by faith alone’ is so alluring
    that countless good people have been convinced by the (weak) arguments in
    favor of it. Robert Sungenis turns those arguments on their head and shows
    what the real biblical doctrine is. It may not have quite the pizazz of the
    position espoused by Martin Luther, but it has one great advantage: It’s true.”
    Here is
    Scott Hahn
    : “...This work represents the first book-length response by
    an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s
    teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps
    longer, since I am not familiar with a sing
    le title written in the 20th century!...If
    you are a Protestant, this book affords you today’s greatest opportunity to
    judge fairly — for yourself — the solid scriptural grounds for the Church’s
    teachings on justification, and how an informed Bible-Catholic would respond
    to standard anti-Catholic arguments put forth by many evangelicals today.”
    Here is Professor
    William Marshner
    of Christendom: “Catholic Apologetics has
    rarely been in more flourishing condition, and this book is one of the foremost
    proofs of it.”
    So how could I not know Catholic theology and receive accolades like this?
    Fr. R:
    He received a Master’s in theology from a Protestant seminary in
    Pennsylvania. He also claims to hold a doctorate, but the worth of that
    doctorate may be safely questioned. The degree was obtained from the
    organization Calamus International University in the third-world archipelago of
    Vanuatu—a university without Catholic faculty or courses in any Catholic
    discipline—under a non-Catholic academic advisor who specializes in past-life
    regression and neo-shamanic healing.
    R. Sungenis:
    Regarding my Ph.D. degree, Calamus International University
    (CIU) issued bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees under the governmental
    authority of the Republic of Vanuatu. Therefore the degrees issued were not
    “fake.” They were legal degrees, as official as degrees from any other institution
    13
    under governmental authority. However, the CIU degrees were not accredited in
    the United States, and that is because CIU did not seek accreditation from
    governments outside of Vanuatu, and Vanuatu did not require accreditation,
    similar to Denmark. Further, CIU was not a “diploma mill,” since diploma mills
    are facilities that issue fake degrees for money but require no previous or
    current academic work, nor previous bachelors or masters degrees. CIU
    required both previous accredited bachelors and masters degrees, as well as
    significant academic work from each of its Ph.D. students, as well as a
    monitored and graded Ph.D. dissertation, judged and approved by other Ph.Ds
    in the same field. My dissertation took over two years to write and was
    approved “Excellent” in nine out of nine categories. For the past 12 years I have
    freely divulged all these details to the public since I received the Ph.D. degree
    from CIU in 2006. I went into the CIU program knowing full well it was non-
    accredited, and I did so because, after investigating what was available, I could
    find no accredited institution that would allow a Ph.D. in geocentrism. What I
    didn’t expect is that my ideological enemies would exploit CIU’s non-
    accreditation in the fierce defamatory manner they have. These kinds of people
    judge from appearance, not from substance. The substance of my work for the
    past 30 years has been acknowledged both nationally and internationally, by
    peer and foe alike, and that work took much more time and effort than my
    Ph.D. The high academic quality of my work is obvious for all to see, at least
    those who are not filled with animosity and prejudice against me simply
    because I sometimes deal with esoteric issues with which they don’t agree.
    Over the past 25 years of service I have given to the Catholic community in
    teaching and defending the Catholic faith, I have written over 45 books;
    produced three movies; hosted two television shows; was a guest on 45 radio
    shows; participated in 30 formal debates; written hundreds of articles; ran an
    apologetics organization and was one of the best apologists in my field. What
    counts is the quality of my work, and that work speaks for itself, including my
    most recently published book,
    Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the
    Church
    .
    Fr. R:
    (For more about Sungenis’s academic credentials, see here or read The
    New Geocentrists by Karl Keating.)
    R. Sungenis:
    After you read Keating’s book, read my book against Keating,
    titled “A Critical Analysis of Karl Keating and His Book ‘The New Geocentrists’”
    14
    (go to
    www.jttcotu.com
    ). There you will find the same kind of detailed and
    comprehensive critique of Keating as you will find in Scientific Heresies against
    Fr. Robinson. These men are two peas in a pod.
    Fr. R:
    If one wishes to escape the charge of being a biblicist, the reasonable
    thing to do when confronted with St. Maximilian Kolbe’s positions is to admit
    that the Church does not teach geocentrism or a 6000 year old universe.
    R. Sungenis:
    Before the modernist onslaught (of which Fr. Robinson seems to
    be a part), the Church DID teach geocentrism, which is the very reason the
    Church of 1616 and 1633 condemned heliocentrism as a “formal heresy.” Of
    course, Fr. Robinson avoids all these fine details in his lectures and books.
    Also, the 1909 PBC said that we are permitted to interpret “day” of Genesis 1
    as 24-hour periods, and since that is so, then the Catholic Church teaches, as
    one of two possibilities, that the universe is 6000 years old.
    Fr. R:
    For to be a biblicist is to refuse to countenance the Church, or a saint,
    holding any position other than that of the strictly literal sense.
    R. Sungenis:
    As you can see, Fr. Robinson continues to appeal to his straw
    man. I don’t know of any Fathers or medievals who read and interpreted the
    geocentric passages of scripture other than literally. I don’t know of any
    Fathers or medievals who read and interpreted the creation passages of
    scripture other than literally. I don’t know of any Fathers or medivals who
    dichotomized scripture into “not inspired and not inerrant” and “inspired and
    inerrant,” as Fr. Robinson does. What we don’t countenance is 20
    th
    and 21
    st
    century modernists and liberals, like Fr. Robinson, turning our faith in the
    Fathers and our Tradition upside down with their highfalutin and unproven
    theories of how the universe came to be.
    15
    Fr. R:
    As such, when biblicists are confronted with evidence that perfectly
    orthodox Catholics believed in an ancient universe, they do not conclude that
    their own position is not Catholic, but rather that the position of the perfectly
    orthodox Catholics is not Catholic. What eventually happens, when this
    strategy is employed consistently to meet every challenge, is that all Catholic
    authority crumbles, and we are only left with the sola Scriptura authority of
    the biblicist.
    R. Sungenis:
    Fr. Robinson lives in a dream world of his own making. The
    Catholic creationist and geocentrist is virulently against sola scriptura. The
    very reason we believe in creationism and geocentrism is because the Fathers
    and medievals taught both, and the Magisterium officially indoctrinated it. Fr.
    Robinson consistently ignores these facts, both here and in his book. No
    wonder he doesn’t get it. He keeps beating up a straw man of his own making.
    Fr. R:
    The authority of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Having seen how
    Mr. Sungenis handles the witness of St. Kolbe, we must turn to the authority of
    the Pontifical Biblical Commission and that of Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux. In The
    Realist Guide to Religion and Science, pp. 277-278, I state the following: “In an
    effort to see what was the standard pre-Vatican II teaching in Catholic
    seminaries on these questions (pre-Vatican II texts would be, if anything, more
    conservative than post-Vatican II ones), I investigated several manuals. What I
    found was that not a single manual advocated any of the Protestant
    fundamentalist positions.” I then provide a table with four examples of such
    pre-Vatican II Scripture manuals. Since Mr. Sungenis agrees with the
    Protestant fundamentalist positions that I mention and disagrees with the
    manuals, he portrays the teaching of Catholic manuals as being un-Catholic:
    “In his book, Fr. Robinson gives us only four individuals he regards as “pre-
    Vatican II Catholic exegetes” (Gigot, Vigouroux, Renié, Simon-Prado). The first
    three were French liberals who were already entrenched in the neo-orthodox
    interpretation of Scripture they learned from the Protestant liberals, beginning
    with the Protestants of the 1700s. As such, Fr. Robinson’s mention of these
    individuals only proves our point that Vatican II’s liberals did not arrive in a
    vacuum. The seeds of dissent were laid many decades prior, mostly by the
    liberal French and German schools.” In another place, he states: “These
    manuals are not Catholic doctrine, either official or unofficial. They are the
    16
    opinions of the men who wrote them (Gigot, Vigouroux, Renié, Simon-Prado).”
    It is a dangerous game to attack these manuals, for they were used to instruct
    generations of priests in the study of Sacred Scripture. The manuals all
    received their imprimaturs and were a benchmark for orthodoxy. They
    encapsulated the age-old teaching of the Church on Scriptural matters in clear,
    readable, multi-volume sets. If those manuals were wrong, then we may really
    wonder if the Church was ever right.
    R. Sungenis:
    First, each of the manuals disagree with the other regarding
    evolution and creation, some holding to various ideas and details, others
    rejecting those very details. Second, it is nothing but an exaggeration for Fr.
    Robinson to suggest the whole Church would fall apart because Vigouroux
    might have gotten the issue of creation wrong. Third, the manuals simply show
    that evolution (the very theory that Fr. Robinson rejects) had already made
    inroads into corrupting the Church, since many of these manuals promoted
    evolution or didn’t see anything wrong with it.
    Fr. R:
    I could have listed several more manuals in my book, and I have yet to
    find a single one that took biblicist stances, but let that pass.
    R. Sungenis:
    I sure hope they didn’t take a “biblicist” stance, since the
    Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible alone is our authority. The
    Church teaches (and Fr. Robinson ignores) that the Fathers, in consensus,
    were our guide to interpretation of Scripture. But Fr. Robinson doesn’t like this
    part of Catholicism, which is why he replaces the Fathers with his own
    “reason.”
    Fr. R:
    I rather want to focus on the accusations that are laid against the four
    authors I cited, and specifically, the implications of those accusations for one of
    them, Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux. According to the statement above: Fr. Vigouroux
    learned his interpretation of Scripture from Protestants. He was a precursor for
    the liberals of Vatican II. He was a member of the French liberal school of
    interpretation. The first point, we note in passing, would disqualify Mr.
    Sungenis himself, for, as we saw, he did his Scriptural training under
    Protestants.
    17
    R. Sungenis:
    Fr. R. doesn’t seem to know that I left the Protestant church and
    became Catholic. When I did, I was introduced to the fact that the Council of
    Trent taught that the Fathers, in consensus, were our teachers and we are
    obligated to abide by their teaching, under pain of sin. I found that all the
    Fathers taught creationism and geocentrism, and that Paul V and Urban VIII
    used that very fact to condemn Galileo. I found no Father that taught evolution
    or heliocentrism or even progressive creationism. I was also taught that the
    Catholic Church does not change its doctrinal teaching. And now that I want to
    stick with those teachings, I am condemned by “Catholics” who, although they
    give lip service to patristic authority, don’t abide by it when it contradicts one
    of their pet theories (evolution, progressive creationism, heliocentrism, etc).
    Fr. R:
    At least, it does seem that Mr. Sungenis is willing to accept some
    Catholic authority on Scriptural matters, namely, the Pontifical Biblical
    Commission: “One only needs to read the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission
    to see the Church settled many of the issues, as did Lateran Council IV and
    Vatican Council I, and the PBC was an authoritative arm of the Church at that
    time under Pius X. The only thing the Church left open was whether the
    Hebrew YOM was to be interpreted as a “24-hour period” or a “certain space of
    time.” It left both meanings open, but no
    t because it was endorsing or allowing
    evolution, but because the Hebrew YOM has five different meanings in the
    Hebrew language. Even then, the most
    that anyone could get out of the 1909
    PBC, that is, if he were to base it on what the Tradition taught, is that “a
    certain space of time” in Augustine’s alternative interpretation, is that God
    created everything at once. There was no recourse to either evolution or theistic
    evolution or progressive creationism in the 1909 PBC document.”
    R. Sungenis:
    For the record, I abide by ALL Catholic Church teaching.
    Fr. R:
    Now, what Mr. Sungenis does not realize when he makes this statement
    is that he disagrees with himself. He both accepts and rejects the same
    authority. For the primary signatory of the 1909 PBC document was Fr.
    Fulcran Vigouroux.
    18
    R. Sungenis:
    If so, then it’s Fr. Robinson who disagrees with Vigouroux, and
    vice-versa, because at least Vigouroux, in signing the 1909 PBC document,
    would have allowed and welcomed a 24-hour day of Genesis 1, since that is
    what the 1909 PBC teaches. If he didn’t allow and welcome a 24-hour Day,
    then he would be disobeying the 1909 PBC.
    But let’s look a little deeper, and let’s be honest. What Fr. Vigouroux actually
    did in the 1909 PBC on the “Days” of Genesis is cause confusion. Obviously,
    “Day” in Genesis 1 cannot be both 24-hours and “a certain space of time,” but
    that is what Fr. Vigouroux gave us. As such, the only authoritative statement
    on the “Days” of Genesis 1 that Fr. Vigouroux gave us is that he,
    authoritatively speaking for the Church, either didn’t know what the truth was
    or was afraid to side with either 24-hours or “a certain space of time.” We can
    understand why Fr. Vigouroux had such equivocation. As the manuals he
    wrote in the late 1800s show, he was beginning to side with the evolutionists
    (some during this time were also Catholic) right after the release of Darwin’s
    1879 book on evolution,
    The Origin of Species
    . But he knew the Fathers and
    medievals (except for Augustine’s alternative “one-day” interpretation) taught,
    in consensus, the Day of Genesis 1 were 24-hours, and the medievals followed.
    So instead of deciding for one or the other, he equivocated, and then put his
    equivocation into the 1909 PBC. In effect, the only “authoritative” thing the
    PBC said in this regard was that no exegete would be canonically penalized if
    he chose one or the other. But the equivocation set the stage for the liberals
    and modernists, and by this time they were coming out of the woodwork, to
    ignore the 24-hours and then inject billions of years into the “a certain space of
    time.”
    Fr. R:
    Fr. Vigouroux the traditionalist. Not only was Fr. Vigouroux neither a
    liberal nor a Modernist, he was one of the purest representatives of Catholic
    orthodoxy in Scriptural interpretation, which was why St. Pius X chose him to
    be a consultor for the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its first secretary,
    from 1903-1912. Marvin O’Connell wrote an historical study of the drama
    leading up to St. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism in 1907, a book entitled
    Critics on Trial. Here is O’Connell’s portrayal of the rivalry between Vigouroux
    and the Modernist Fr. Alfred Loisy: Alfred Loisy was duly named professor of
    sacred Scripture in the Institut Catholique of Paris. But the prior appointment

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #3 on: October 12, 2018, 09:31:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 20
    patriarchs and know within a reasonable margin of error, when Adam was
    created. If this wasn’t true, then why would Luke give us an inspired genealogy
    that connects Adam to Jesus? Why would Genesis 5 and 11 bother adding
    numbers of years to the genealogy? Even if in using the numbers of the Bible
    we misinterpreted by, say, a thousand years, still, none of this margin of error
    gives room for the billions of years Fr. Robinson is seeking from his Big Bang
    theory.
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “The sacred text does not determine the origin of man in a
    manner that is chronologically formal and precise; nowhere does it say: Adam
    was created on this date.”
    R. Sungenis:
    How benign! First, how could the Bible give a date for the
    creation of Adam in Genesis 1 since the only date that could have been given is
    “Day 1, Year 1”? That kind of date would tell us nothing. Instead, the Bible
    begins from the rear, not the beginning. It will start with a date that can be
    reasonably verified by the historical record, say, the day Israel left Egypt (1447
    BC
    ) or the day the Solomonic kingdom was divided (931
    BC
    ), and it will allow us
    to work backwards as it gives us time bridges between major events (
    cf
    . 1 Kings
    6;1; Acts 13:19; Gal 3:17), and, using its genealogies and chronologies (Gen 5,
    11; 1 Chr 1-10; Luke 3) to come to the year in
    BC
    that Adam was created.
    Scholars have been doing this for hundreds of years, and even the Fathers did
    it. It’s nothing new. The Fathers came to dates between 5000 and 5500
    BC
    as
    the creation year of Adam. But because Vigouroux says we can’t, Fr. Robinson
    licks it up like a lapdog. Second, nowhere does it say that Jesus was born on
    December 25, but we can make calculations from both the biblical record and
    history to come to December 25. I have done so, and December 25, 1
    BC
    , is the
    correct date. Please consult my book,
    Commentary on Genesis 1-11
    , pages 370-
    402 (www.jttcotu.com).
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “Many commentators and theologians of our day believe
    that the deluge of Noah should be restricted to the region of the earth which
    was populated when the deluge happened. According to them, all humans,
    besides Noah’s did not cover the whole earth nor destroy all the animals. The
    21
    universality of the deluge is neither geographical nor zoological; it is only
    anthropological.”
    R. Sungenis:
    Just because many “commentators and theologians” of
    Vigouroux’s day were trying to reverse the traditional consensus (a global flood,
    according to all the Fathers and medievals) doesn’t mean they were right. Let’s
    be reasonable. There would be no reason for Noah to make a big boat and put
    animals in it if the flood was just local. If it was local, Noah and his family
    could have just moved away and started elsewhere. Most important, there
    would be no reason for Genesis 7:19 to specify that all the mountains were
    covered by 15 cubits. Essentially, those who opt for a local flood are calling
    Holy Writ a liar, and the God behind it a liar. But the real liars are those who
    twist the Bible from a great flood so that they can promote their
    uniformitarianism so that they can then believe in long-ages of uninterrupted
    development lasting 13.7 billion years, which is total nonsense.
    Fr. R:
    So, Fr. Vigouroux was not a liberal after all; he was rather an
    ‘intransigent traditionalist’.
    R. Sungenis:
    He might have been an “intransigent traditionalist” in many
    areas, but he wasn’t one regarding the date of Adam or the great Flood (the
    only two positions of Vigouroux that Fr. Robinson allows us to see). The
    Fathers and medievals before Vigouroux denied what Vigouroux was pushing.
    They calculated dates for Adam and all believed the flood was global.
    Fr. R:
    (For other examples of Mr. Sungenis attacking other pre-Vatican II
    traditionalists, see here and here). This explains the confidence of St. Pius X in
    him. After all, the documents of the PBC had tremendous weight. St. Pius X
    bound Catholics to submit to its decisions in his Motu Proprio Praestantia
    Scripturae in 1907: “After long discussions and most conscientious
    deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical
    Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies
    and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not
    22
    lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the
    obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.”
    R. Sungenis:
    So if that is the case, why does
    Fr. Robinson say that the Days of
    Genesis cannot be 24-hours? Fr. Vigouroux allowed them to be 24-hours.
    That’s because Fr. Robinson has an agenda that Fr. Vigouroux did not have.
    Fr. Robinson wants to set the stage to believe in long-ages and progressive
    creationism. Fr. Vigouroux admitted to no such agenda.
    Fr. R:
    “Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now
    declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to
    submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which
    have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed,
    just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine
    and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions
    as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on
    this account be free of grave sin. (Dz 2113).
    R. Sungenis:
    So why doesn’t Fr. Robinson submit himself to the 1909 PBC’s
    statement that the Days of Genesis can be 24-hours? Why doesn’t Fr.
    Robinson include 24-hours as a viable paradigm in his book? That’s because
    Fr. Robinson comes to Genesis 1 with a presupposition, namely, that long-ages
    are proven by radiometry and therefore no Day, at least in Genesis 1:1-19,
    could be 24-hours. But, of course, as we saw earlier, turning the Days of
    Genesis into billions of years doesn’t fit with Genesis in any case, and that is
    because Genesis says the Earth came before the stars, and Fr. Robinson says
    the stars came before the Earth.
    Fr. R:
    Thus, St. Pius X certainly followed closely the work of the Commission
    and approved its decisions. This is why he accorded those decisions a
    magisterial weight. This includes the clarifications made in 1909. If Catholic
    biblicists accept the authority of the PBC under St. Pius X, it would only be
    logical for them to hold Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux in very high regard.
    23
    R. Sungenis:
    The 1909 PBC said nothing about the Bible’s genealogies or
    chronologies, and nothing about the great flood, but those were the only two
    subjects of Fr. Vigouroux’s that Fr. Robinson mentions in his book. Again, the
    difference between Fr. Vigouroux and Fr. Robinson is that the former allowed
    24-hour days in Genesis 1, and the latter does not.
    Fr. R:
    Fr. Vigouroux’s understanding of Fr. Vigouroux. For Mr. Sungenis, when
    the PBC allows that YOM or ‘day’ can mean ‘a certain space of time’, the PBC is
    only allowing for one other interpretation than ‘day’ meaning a 24-hour period
    (see citation above). The other permitted interpretation is that everything was
    created at once, that is, instantaneously. In other words, ‘a certain space of
    time’ can only mean no time at all, for what is instantaneous is what does not
    take place in time.
    R. Sungenis:
    Two can play that game. The words “a certain space of time” does
    not support evolution or long-ages since evolution and long-ages doesn’t know
    when the world began evolving or existing nor when it will stop evolving or
    existing; and therefore there is no “certain” time. It is anything but “certain.” At
    least Augustine said that the “certain space” was the time between when God
    declared it and the time it actually arrived, in one day.
    Fr. R:
    If we want to find Fr. Vigouroux’s thinking on this question, we have
    only to consult his manual. I have available to me three editions of that
    manual, the 7th appearing in 1890, the 8th appearing in 1892, and the 11th
    appearing in 1901, two years before Fr. Vigouroux began his work on the
    Commission. I will quote a paragraph from each of them. Here is something
    from the 1890 manual (all translations mine): “When did the great events that
    we have just studied take place? Scholars hold that matter was produced at a
    very distant time. The Bible is silent on this point. Consequently, it leaves us
    free to accept the scientific opinion on the date of the origin of the world that
    seems to be the most probable. (Manuel Biblique, vol. 1, §278).
    24
    R. Sungenis:
    The Bible is not silent on that
    point. It tells us that the first
    matter came into existence on the First Day. That Day, like the rest of the days,
    ends by saying, “and there was evening and morning the first day.” The phrase
    “evening and morning,” in the Hebrew, means 24-hours. It is used only 8 times
    in the Old Testament. Vigouroux’s argument is an argument from silence in
    any case. Even if the Bible were silent on the issue, it doesn’t give Vigouroux or
    anyone else the right to speculate and then turn that speculation into practical
    doctrine. The Bible is silent on a lot of things, but that doesn’t give us the right
    to fill in the gaps with our own dogmatic proclamations. The only way one can
    “accept a scientific opinion” is to look scientifically at the opinion and
    determine if it is true or false. Unfortunately, science doesn’t have the power to
    make such conclusions in most cases, and that is because it will always find
    new data that may disallow the previous theory.
    Fr. R:
    In the 1892 manual, he states: “First, let us examine the word ‘yom’,
    ‘day’. Nothing obliges us to understand it in the strict sense of a duration of 24
    hours.
    R. Sungenis:
    His own words say that 24-hours remains the “proper”
    interpretation, regardless whether he believes we are “obliged” to make it 24-
    hours. Further, we saw above that the phrase “evening and morning” DOES
    require a 24-hour interpretation—something Vigouroux blunders all over a
    little further in this debate.
    Fr. R:
    “God certainly did not take 24 hours
    to create light, nor 24 hours to
    create the stars, the plants, and the animals; “an instantaneous act of the will
    was sufficient for Him to produce all such beings.
    R. Sungenis:
    What a poor argument! With this benign reasoning one could ask
    “how long did it take God to raise Jesus from the dead?” If someone says “it
    took three days,” Fr. Vigouroux would come back and argue, “It didn’t take
    three days, since God could certainly do it instantaneously.” It took three days
    because that is the time period God wanted, and that is because God, as
    25
    opposed to Vigouroux and Robinson, has a precise timetable he is following.
    Vigouroux could ask the same as to why God had Abraham wait 25 years for a
    son; or why he made Israel stay in Egypt for 430 years; or why he allowed the
    east wind to blow the waters away for a whole day to allow the Jews to walk
    across the river bed; or why he allowed Lazarus to remain dead for four days. It
    seems that Vigouroux’s interrogation of the Bible is nothing more than an
    epiplexis.
    The fact remains that Genesis 1 says God created the world in six days, and
    then backs it up by saying “evening and morning” for each of the six days. No
    amount of mental gymnastics is going to take us away from that simple fact.
    The reason for six days is because God is setting up a pattern for man to
    follow: Six days of work and one day of rest, for mankind, as Exodus 20:9-11
    says (“Six days you shall labor, and do all your work....for in six days the Lord
    made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the
    seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it”). If
    God had made everything instantaneously, there would be no paradigm man
    could follow, since he cannot make things in an instant.
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “Since God could not have spent an entire day in giving
    existence to each of the species of creatures which appeared during the days of
    Genesis, there is every reason to think that the word ‘day’ is a figurative
    expression which here means an ‘epoch’. (Manuel Biblique, vol. 1, §267).
    R. Sungenis:
    And how does Vigouroux know that “God could not have spent
    an entire day” on each phase of the creation? He doesn’t know. It’s all
    speculation. Somehow Vigouroux got it into his head that God can’t do
    something the way God said it was done, so now Vigouroux becomes the
    authority on how it was done, and he does so without the slightest backing
    from the Fathers, the medievals, the tradition or the Magisterium. Since this
    manual was written in 1892, it was 17 years before he signed the 1909 PBC on
    “Yom.” So Vigouroux, by this specious argument that “God can’t wait 24 hours
    to make something,” already had it in his brain that “day” was not going to
    mean 24-hours and not the combination of an “evening and morning.”
    Fortunately, at least half of that belief was curtailed before he signed his name
    26
    to the 1909 PBC, since “24-hours,” whether Vigouroux liked it or not, was left
    untouched as a viable interpretation of Genesis 1.
    Fr. R:
    In the 1901 manual, we find the following: “The word ‘rest’, when applied
    to God, is certainly metaphorical, as everyone agrees.
    R. Sungenis:
    No, they are not necessarily metaphorical. God’s “work” simply
    refers to God’s activity in a specific instance, and the word “rest” refers to God
    cessation of that particular work. Those who seek to limit “rest” to the
    metaphorical are looking at work as producing fatigue and the rest as relieving
    it, but that is not the way Genesis uses these concepts with God. Vigouroux’s
    argument simply misses the mark. The dangerous result is what he then
    concludes from his dubious definition. See below.
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “It is to be believed that the expressions ‘day’, ‘evening’, and
    ‘morning’ are likewise metaphorical. ... Yom ordinarily indicates the space of
    time between two risings of the sun, “‘ereb (evening) marks the setting of that
    star, and boqer (morning) its rising;”
    R. Sungenis:
    So, if EREB is the evening when the star set, and BOQER is the
    morning when the star rises, that is only 12 hours and there is only one rising
    of the sun, not two, since the sun travels with the stars. Fr. Vigouroux is
    certainly confused. The more important thing to notice is how Fr. Vigouroux
    separates EREB from BOQER, and thus fails to do an exegesis on the actual
    Hebrew wording, which is “evening AND morning” (EBER VAYEHIY BOQER). If
    he had, he would have discovered that “evening and morning” is a special
    Hebrew ‘construct’ form that refers to 24 hours, not a certain space of time.
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “several reasons which are not without their importance,
    however, seem to indicate that these three terms should not be taken in a
    proper sense, but in a figurative sense.
    27
    R. Sungenis:
    “Several reasons”? And what are those “several” reasons? Fr.
    Vigouroux doesn’t tell us, except for a real doozy below.
    Fr. R:
    (Vigouroux): “The use of metaphors in Genesis, at a time when
    everything was expressed in images, should not surprise those who know the
    customary speech of oriental language. (Manuel Biblique, vol. 1, §267).
    R. Sungenis:
    And now we know from whence Fr. Vigouroux is coming, and it is
    as I suspected. The “oriental language” influence is a common ploy of liberal
    and modernist views of Scripture, just as the “Mesopotamian culture” is also
    used for the same reason. Just because some “oriental” culture used
    metaphors, these modernists claim the Hebrews copied these oriental
    expressions and chose the creation story of Genesis 1 to express them. Keep in
    mind that these scholars do not believe that Moses wrote Genesis 1 in 1400
    BC
    .
    They believe that some Jewish scribe coming out of Babylonian captivity wrote
    Genesis 1 in about 515
    BC
    , and only as a heartwarming gift to his fellow Jews
    to be encouraged on their way back to Jerusalem, not as a treatise on how
    creation actually occurred. This idea comes from the Graf-Wellhausen
    (Protestant) theory, which existed in full flower at the same time Vigouroux was
    writing his “manuals,” and which many Catholics began to succumb to. But all
    of it is just a bunch of theory, and needless to say, a modern ridicule of
    Genesis 1. Genesis 1 reads like a newspaper. It doesn’t have the slightest
    recourse to “metaphors.” That is because it is giving an accurate presentation
    of what happened at creation. But since people like Fr. Robinson don’t like that
    the Light was created before the sun; and don’t like the fact that the Earth was
    created before the sun and stars; and try to claim that the firmament is just a
    big tent or dome so they can dismiss it as primitive thinking; well, that means
    they have to find a way to discredit Genesis 1, and one means they have
    chosen it to claim that it is filled with “oriental language” that used a lot of
    metaphors. They wish.
    Fr. R:
    In the Realist Guide to Religion and Science, besides citing Fr.
    Vigouroux’s position on this question, I also quote at length his presentation of
    the scientific obstacles to there being a globally universal Flood (p. 291).

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #4 on: October 12, 2018, 09:34:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 28
    R. Sungenis:
    And they are specious, at best. See pages 484 – 512 of my book,
    Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church
    .
    Fr. R:
    And who would dare claim that his position was not Catholic? After all,
    if this terror of Loisy, this confidante of St. Pius X, and this renowned Catholic
    manualist who was behind the great decrees of the PBC in the first decade of
    the 20th century—if Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux, I say, cannot be trusted as being
    representative of Catholic orthodoxy, who can?
    R. Sungenis:
    Fr. Robinson should go to Hollywood and see if he can win an
    Academy Award for that performance. His special pleading would make Marlon
    Brando’s speech in “The Waterfront” a sad second place
    (). Let’s be honest. It is a
    fact that Fr. Vigouroux departed from the Fathers and medievals on the issue
    of the Earth’s age and Adam’s date. It is a fact he departed from the same
    Fathers and medievals on the global flood. We now see that he gave lip service
    to 24-hours in the 1909 PBC, since his previous manuals denounce it. And
    why? Because he claims God couldn’t make things in 24 hours but should do
    so instantly?? Because he claims that Genesis 1 has a “oriental” metaphors??
    Give me a break.
    Fr. R:
    Archbishop Lefebvre: Like St. Maximilian Kolbe, Archbishop Lefebvre
    received his seminary formation in Rome (from 1923-1929). He famously joked
    to his seminarians in later years that he realized, in Rome, that he was a
    liberal, through the teaching of Fr. le Floch (Marcel Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier
    de Mallerais, p. 36). This was his way of indicating that he learned the purest
    of Catholic orthodoxy at the French Seminary there. I asked His Excellency
    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, the greatest living authority on the work and
    writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, whether he knew of any statements of the
    Archbishop on questions of geocentrism/heliocentrism, or suchlike. He did not
    recall any explicit statements on these specific questions, but he did state the
    following, words which he gave me permission to pass on: “Maybe in Mortain,
    in 1945 and 1946, he may have dealt with the subject, as teacher of Holy
    29
    Scripture; but I am sure that he did not depart from the explanations given in
    the Catholic classic manuals of biblical studies.” The Archbishop would
    certainly have received his formation in tradition, namely, the tradition of the
    Catholic manuals.
    R. Sungenis:
    I get it. It was alright for Archbishop Lefebvre to reject the
    Fathers on geocentrism, but to depart from the “Catholic manuals” would be a
    big sin, at least in de Mallerais’ view. But since the Catholic manuals (I am to
    assume from Fr. Robinson’s study of them), did not teach either geocentrism or
    the Fathers’ teaching of it, that the manuals contained no such teaching for
    Archbishop Lefebvre to learn from. This is an indictment against the manuals,
    not a praise of them. It shows the manuals wanted to teach status quo
    Catholicism and forget the memory of Bellarmine, Paul V and Urban VIII who
    said heliocentrism was a formal heresy. I get it. We can throw that cardinal and
    the two popes under the bus so that Catholicism can save face when it
    presents itself to the world. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    Fr. R:
    Conclusion: The Council of Trent, in its decree Insuper, stated the
    following: “No one... shall presume to interpret Scripture contrary to the sense
    which Holy Mother the Church held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the
    true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture.” This statement defeats
    biblicism, because it places an authority above the Bible, an authority which
    determines whether a strict literal sense of the Bible is to be followed or not.
    R. Sungenis:
    And as long as Fr. Robinson keeps using straw men to argue
    against, we will keep pointing it out
    ad nauseaum
    . Of course the Council of
    Trent “defeats Biblicism,” since Biblicism is the idea that only the Bible is an
    authority. But the Fathers are an authority on geocentrism, and the flood, and
    the interpretation of Genesis 1, but Fr. Robinson ignores all of them. The
    Magisterium is an authority on all of those topics, too, but Fr. Robinson
    ignores the 1616 and 1633 Magisterium, and the Tridentine catechism, in
    regards to geocentrism. Those authorities were the very “authority which
    determined whether a strict literal sense of the Bible is to be followed or not,”
    30
    and they said Yes, at least two times in
    17 years. So all Fr. Robinson’s talk
    about “Biblicism” is nothing but hot air.
    Fr. R:
    In the case of Genesis 1, the Church has made it abundantly clear that
    Catholics are not bound to hold that the Bible teaches a 144-hour creation
    period.
    R. Sungenis:
    The preponderance of the evidence rests with the Fathers and the
    tradition. They interpreted the Days of Genesis 1 as 24-hours for 1900 years
    until the liberal-influenced Vigouroux began to break under the pressure of
    modern theoretical science. Until if and when Fr. Robinson comes up with a
    better interpretation than his Big Bang universe, he has no offering to make to
    the 1909 PBC. Scientifically, the Big Bang is a total shame. Augustine and
    Pope Leo XIII said proof was required to depart from the literal reading of the
    Bible, and that is one thing that Fr. Robinson lacks. All he has are theories,
    and most of them are dubious. Read my book and find out why.
    Fr. R:
    They are also free to allow for the universe being far older than 6000
    years.
    R. Sungenis:
    I don’t know anywhere that the Church officially says there were
    long ages or even allows for more than 6000 years. Fr. Robinson gives us no
    references.
    Fr. R:
    To deny this is to place one’s own interpretation of the Bible above that
    of the Church. It is, at the same time, the destruction of the authority of the
    Church.
    31
    R. Sungenis:
    Of course, that is exactly what Fr. Robinson does when he
    interprets the Bible as not teaching geocentrism, in the face of the Fathers, the
    tradition, and the 1616 and 1633 magisteriums, which did. It is no surprise
    that, throughout his book, lectures and Q&A, Fr. Robinson refuses to deal with
    this part of Catholic Church history.
    Fr R:
    The pontificate of St. Pius X is held, by traditional Catholics, to be the
    very model of orthodoxy and magisterial authority. When authorities in the
    immediate environment of that pontificate are torn down, when a saint formed
    at Rome under the watch of St. Pius X is found deficient, when a Scripture
    scholar hand-picked by St. Pius X to be the mouthpiece of his magisterium on
    Scriptural questions is denounced as a liberal—once these authorities are
    discredited, to whom then can a Catholic possibly have recourse as being safe?
    R. Sungenis:
    That’s easy. It’s the Fathers, the tradition and the magisterium.
    Unfortunately, Fr. Robinson is too enamored by individuals within his own
    community to be able to see past them.
    Fr. R:
    There is no need for any faithful Catholic to distrust the standard pre-
    Vatican II Scriptural manuals, or the likes of St. Maximilian Kolbe and Fr.
    Fulcran Vigouroux.
    R. Sungenis:
    We can distrust them when they are wrong, since they are not
    infallible. Fr. Robinson needs to stop idolizing fallible human beings.
    Fr. R:
    All that is necessary is to simply submit oneself to the obvious truth of
    Catholic teaching on these Scriptural questions: the Bible does not teach
    geocentrism or heliocentrism;
    32
    R. Sungenis:
    And there he goes again. He keeps repeating the same thing over
    and over again, almost as if he is hypnotized. But he hasn’t once remarked on
    the fact that the Catholic magisterium condemned heliocentrism as formally
    heretical in 1616 and 1633. He hasn’t once yet dealt with the fact that the
    Fathers, in total consensus, taught geocentrism, such that Bellarmine used
    their exegesis of the Bible to confront Galileo. All this is the “obvious truth of
    Catholic teaching on these Scriptural questions,” but for some reason, Fr.
    Robinson is blind to the very words he just wrote. It’s rather amazing to watch.
    Fr. R:
    it does not teach a universe thousands of years old or billions;
    R. Sungenis:
    False. The genealogies of Genesis 5, 11, 1 Chronicles 1-10, Luke
    3 and Matthew 1 do indeed, limit our time to thousands of years, not billions.
    We either accept these lists as accurate or we throw them out, as Fr. Robinson
    wishes to.
    Fr. R:
    it does not teach a geographically universal Flood.
    R. Sungenis:
    The account of the flood in Genesis 6-9 reads like a newspaper.
    The details simply will not allow someone to conclude there was a local flood.
    Again, read about the Flood in
    Scientific Heresies
    .
    Fr. R:
    Fr. Vigouroux and St. Maximilian Kolbe had freedom on these questions
    under St. Pius X, and so do we now.(This article has been cross-posted at
    Goodreads.) https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/is-biblicism-catholic
    R. Sungenis:
    There is a big difference between saying the Church gives
    “freedom” and what Fr. Robinson declares in his book. His book gives no
    freedom to the other side. He is as dogmatic as they come that his views of
    long-ages, progressive creationism, and heliocentrism are correct, and everyone
    33
    else falls of his “Robinson meter.” I’ve never seen such self-aggrandizement
    from a Catholic author. According to Fr. Robinson, even Vigouroux made a
    mistake in allowing a 24-hour day when he signed the 1909 PBC. Let it be
    clear, Fr. Robinson is on a crusade to erase every last vestige of “24-hours”
    from the intellectual dialogue, and those who persist in using 24-hours he will
    defame by calling them “fundamentalists” or “biblicists,” and accuse them of
    not following “the Church.” Fr. Robinson’s constant harping on “biblicists”
    rings on deaf ears for those of use who know the straw man he is creating for
    his own convenience. In fact, for every accusation Fr. Robinson makes against
    the so-called “biblicists,” if I were a Protestant, I would retort that Fr. Robinson
    is a hypocrite who, although claiming he follows “the Church,” rejects that very
    Church when its Fathers and Magisterium officially approve doctrines such as
    geocentrism and condemn heliocentrism as a formal heresy. But modern
    Catholics who want only status quo Catholicism will continue to make excuses
    or ignore the Catholic Church’s magisterial condemnation of Galileo and
    heliocentrism; and they will continue to denigrate, anyway they can, people like
    me who keep thrusting the Galileo affair into their faces and exposing their hypocrisy.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5319
    • Reputation: +3057/-1363
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #5 on: October 12, 2018, 10:17:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Point 4 -
    It’s not “Biblicism” that is the issue, but what verses the Church has already
    decided to be interpreted literally. The die has already been cast, but Fr.
    Robinson is trying to change it. Fr. Robinson has chosen NOT to interpret
    Genesis literally just as the Protestants have chosen not to interpret Mat 26:26
    literally. They come from the same mold—the mold in which the individual
    chooses what is literal instead of the Church. The Fathers, backed by Leo XIII,
    told us that everything in the Bible is to be interpreted literally, unless it is
    unreasonable or impossible to do so. The science Fr. Robinson attempts to use
    to deliteralize the Bible is nothing but unproven theory. Without the slightest
    critical evaluation, Fr. Robinson accepts what they claim about the Big Bang
    and long ages, and they become is “sole” authority.

    This is a great point by Mr Sungenis.  Fr R tries to write-off all previous biblical interpretations so he can 'start from scratch' with modern science.  Fr R wants to interpret the bible according to modern science.  That's totally backwards!  You have to start with the bible and use modern science to explain and ENHANCE the bible.  Faith and Science are meant to work together.  Science is meant to explain the Faith, to work FOR the Faith, because earthly things are lower than spiritual.

    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 680
    • Reputation: +914/-116
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #6 on: October 12, 2018, 07:48:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow.  Sungenis wiped the ground with Fr. Robinson.  Clear and concise.  

    It's a shame, because Fr. Robinson is a modernist and he doesn't even know it.
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5319
    • Reputation: +3057/-1363
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #7 on: October 12, 2018, 08:44:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Point 30-
    R. Sungenis:
    The preponderance of the evidence rests with the Fathers and the
    tradition. They interpreted the Days of Genesis 1 as 24-hours for 1900 years
    until the liberal-influenced Vigouroux began to break under the pressure of
    modern theoretical science. Until if and when Fr. Robinson comes up with a
    better interpretation than his Big Bang universe, he has no offering to make to
    the 1909 PBC. Scientifically, the Big Bang is a total shame. Augustine and
    Pope Leo XIII said proof was required to depart from the literal reading of the
    Bible, and that is one thing that Fr. Robinson lacks. All he has are theories,
    and most of them are dubious. Read my book and find out why.
    This is another excellent point by Dr Sungenis.  Fr R labels anyone who interprets Genesis as 24hrs a "biblicist" (i.e. a protestant), yet he ignores the fact that the idea of 24hrs is supported by both the Church Fathers, and consequently, the Church.  


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5114
    • Reputation: +5859/-524
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #8 on: October 14, 2018, 08:51:54 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow.  Sungenis wiped the ground with Fr. Robinson.  Clear and concise.  

    It's a shame, because Fr. Robinson is a modernist and he doesn't even know it.

    And Fr. Robinson has resorted to judaic propaganda tactics, labeling his critics.

    If you disagree with a jew, automatically you're anti-semitic. 

    If you disagree with Fr. Robinson, the "science guy" who holds only a Masters degree, you're a "biblicists"  :jester:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #9 on: October 25, 2018, 06:42:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://gwwdvd.com/2018/10/11/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/

    Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    Posted: 11 Oct 2018 09:44 AM PDT
    Robert Sungenis responds to Fr. Paul Robinson's latest rebuttal regarding evolution. October 2018.
    The post Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis appeared first on Journey to the Center of the Universe.


    Hmmm.... here's an interesting comment someone ( ) left under Robert Sungenis' response to Fr. Paul Robinson seen at https://gwwdvd.com/2018/10/11/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/:



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20208
    • Reputation: +11025/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #10 on: October 25, 2018, 06:48:53 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow.  Sungenis wiped the ground with Fr. Robinson.  Clear and concise.  

    It's a shame, because Fr. Robinson is a modernist and he doesn't even know it.

    Yep.  Sungenis destroyed him.  And, yes, Father Robinson is a full-fledged Modernist.  He made one particular statement that we cannot use theological arguments against science, and that totally exposed him as a Modernist.  He would have been on St. Pius X's excommunication list.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20208
    • Reputation: +11025/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #11 on: October 25, 2018, 06:54:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is another excellent point by Dr Sungenis.  Fr R labels anyone who interprets Genesis as 24hrs a "biblicist" (i.e. a protestant), yet he ignores the fact that the idea of 24hrs is supported by both the Church Fathers, and consequently, the Church.  

    I don't necessarily agree with 24-hour days during the process of Creation, and the Fathers were not unanimous on the subject.  In any case, however I too am a "Biblicist".  I agree with the thousands of years for human existence because anything else imputes error to Scripture.  I arrive at the 24-hour day theory based on a reading of the Bible.  Before the sun and the moon, on the first day, when God created light, and divided the light from the darkness, he called the light "day" and the darkness "night".  So God Himself defined the term as referring to alternating periods of light and darkness, but not necessarily 24 hours in length.  Could these have been 24-hour days?  Of course.  And they could have been millisecond-long days also (effectively instantaneous, as St. Augustine concluded).  But none of my conclusion has anything to do with modern science, which is absolute garbage, the product of atheist fantasies.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 587
    • Reputation: +161/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #12 on: October 25, 2018, 07:21:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yep.  Sungenis destroyed him.
    As I read the text, I don't see a real exchange between two people. It looks like Sungenis writing by choosing statements of Fr. Robinson to respond to, and to Sungenis there is no response because Fr. Robinson isn't there. If that is the case, then of course the author who can give himself the last word is going to "look good" in a debating sense.

    But Sungenis does not really come out all the well in that text. Since he gives himself the last word, he doesn't face any criticisms, and by not presenting and answering criticisms of his own argument, that argument is, rhetorically, rather weak.


    He made one particular statement that we cannot use theological arguments against science, and that totally exposed him as a Modernist.
    I don't think that's what Fr. Robinson was saying.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 587
    • Reputation: +161/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #13 on: October 25, 2018, 07:22:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #14 on: October 25, 2018, 07:27:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •   But none of my conclusion has anything to do with modern science, which is absolute garbage, the product of atheist fantasies.

    Sungenis quips that there is no proof in science.  It's only found in mathematics and alcohol


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16