Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9

Author Topic: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis  (Read 6860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2018, 06:48:53 PM »
Quote from: ihsv on October 12, 2018, 07:48:56 PM
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.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2018, 06:54:51 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 12, 2018, 08:44:14 PM
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.
Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2018, 07:21:09 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 25, 2018, 06:48:53 PM
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.


Quote from: Ladislaus on October 25, 2018, 06:48:53 PM
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.
Logged

Offline Stanley N

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2018, 07:22:20 PM »
.
Logged

Offline klasG4e

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2018, 07:27:31 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 25, 2018, 06:54:51 PM
  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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
« previous next »