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

Author Topic: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis  (Read 6818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2018, 09:28:47 PM »
Did you invite Sungenis to debate Fr. Robinson?
Good Question!  Answer: It wasn't necessary.  Sungenis would love to and I and Sungenis both know that.  If you have any doubts on the matter feel free to contact Sungenis, yourself.

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2018, 08:36:22 PM »
Open public debate can serve as a great means of comparing 2 sets of diametrically opposed scientific claims such as geocentrism vs. heliocentrism.  It is very rare that someone, regardless of how great their credentials are, has shown a willingness to publicly debate Robert Sungenis on geocentrism.  Those with credentials sometimes rationalize their unwillingness by asserting that Sungenis either doesn't have credentials or that his credentials are fake.

Others will refuse the challenge to debate by trying to dismiss geocentrism as being more or less equivalent to flat earth and thus a subject not worth engaging someone one.  The excuses are endless.

I submitted a question to Fr. Robinson 3 days ago via his Quora link asking him if he would be willing to accept a public debate on geocentrism with Robert Sungenis.  I also asked him via his direct contact link on his website.  I am not holding my breath for an answer, but if I do I hope to be able to post it verbatim on this thread and on another thread where I mentioned the submission of my question to Fr. Robinson.

In considering whether to debate Robert Sungenis, hopefully Fr. Robinson who no doubt prides himself on being a Thomist will draw inspiration from the Angelic Doctor who was one of the greatest public debaters of all time.  

Still no response from Fr. Robinson so today I sent him a direct email inquiry at the following email address: probinson@sspx.net.   I'm not holding my breath for an answer, but will just continue waiting.  Below is the text of my email inquiry.

Dear Fr. Robinson,

Regardless of whether or not you could convince Robert Sungenis of your position that geocentrism is false or whether he could convince you of his position that geocentrism is true would you nevertheless be willing to engage him in a public debate on the subject?  It is no doubt the rule, not the exception that debaters do not convince their actual debating opponents of their side of the subject being debated.

Debates can certainly be very useful to the public, especially those members of the public who are undecided on one issue or another.  They may even be useful in changing the minds of some of the already decided.  Why not give it a go?  The Angelic Doctor certainly did not shy away from public debates.  He regularly engaged in them and no doubt many souls benefited from his willingness to do so.

In all Christian charity, I hope you will respond to my aforesaid inquiry.  Thank you for your anticipated answer.

In Christ the King and Mary our Queen,
Signature


Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2018, 02:09:44 PM »
Good Question!  Answer: It wasn't necessary.  Sungenis would love to and I and Sungenis both know that.  If you have any doubts on the matter feel free to contact Sungenis, yourself.
True, Robert has made it known he is willing to debate Fr. Robinson. I also asked Fr. Robinson, but he did not respond to that question.

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2018, 09:45:50 PM »
This includes Sungenis' extremely good response to a recent interview of Fr. Robinson: https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/

Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2018, 09:47:50 AM »
This includes Sungenis' extremely good response to a recent interview of Fr. Robinson: https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/
Here is the first of 30 pages of the response.
(Sorry, the copy and paste doesn't come out well.  Best to go directly to the link above.)

Response to the SSPX’s 2011
Press Release on Geocentrism
And Fr. Robinson’s November 2018 Australian Interview
SSPX:
What is the SSPX
’s position concerning the heliocentric and geocentric scientific
theories of the solar system?
PLATTE CITY, MO (8
-30-
2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society
of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teach
ing based
upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.
The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to
assert explanations about natural science,
R. Sungenis
: That is false. The Catholic Church
has never made such a statement. The Catholic
Church
teaches that in places where Scripture touches upon natural science, such as the origin and
operation of created things, Scripture is just as inerrant and applicable as it is about soteriologic
al
matters.
This is because all of Scripture is inspired by God and is
thus inerrant in all its
propositional truth, and that is because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews
6:18).
This was the
position of the Fathers
and
the medievals
who used Scripture to explain the created order (
e.g
.,
creation, the flood, genealogies, chronologies, geography,
cosmology, cosmogony, astronomy,
origin of species
); and the magisterium
, especially as
expressed in its formal decrees against
Copernicanism in 1616 and 1633, as well as
other
papal
and conciliar decrees
on creation at
Lateran Council IV and Vatican I
.
Conversely, modernism and its unorthodox
imposition on Scripture
claim
s either:
(1) Scripture is
not inerrant in all its propositional statements, or (2) when
ever
Scripture speaks of history or the
cosmos it speaks only
in figurative
or imprecise language and is thus not giving didactic truth.
The first (
1) of these erroneous impositions on Scripture is derived from
a number of Catholic
liberals
who
distorted
the meaning of Vatican II’s
Dei Verbum
11’s phrase
, “for the sake of our
salvation
.”
From this one phrase, liberals claim Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks about
salvation, and thus Scripture
inadvertently
errs when it addresses matters
that overla
p with
natural
science.
In short, this hermeneutic seeks to separate Scripture’s salvation statements from its
historical statements based on the fallacious idea that the historical statements are not inspired by
God and thus could, and often are, in error
.
This dichotomization of Scripture into parts that are inspired
/inerrant and parts that are not
inspired/inerrant
was condemned not only in the footnotes that
Dei Verbum
added to paragraph
11, but in many papal declarations long before Vatican II took pla
ce. Here are some of them: