Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis  (Read 1603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr G

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 431
  • Reputation: +314/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2018, 02:18:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • This really gets tiresome to hear.  Hoping to counterbalance this I've included some links to some of the greats, scientific or otherwise, who didn't have "scientific credentials" or simply no credentials, whatsoever.

    There are people who in spite of all his accomplishments still don't even wish to allow Robert Sungenis, the most preeminent geocentrist in the world, a place at the table because it is claimed he doesn't have "science credentials."  (It's best to judge people by what they do, not by their credentials.)

    https://jamesaconrad.com/TK/famous-scientists-who-never-had-a-science-degree.html

    http://www.cracked.com/article_19248_6-uneducated-amateurs-whose-genius-changed-world.html

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/many-top-scientists-did-not-have-first-says-study#survey-answer
    Plus, Robert Sungenis is just presenting the facts from various sources and highlighting information not commonly known, he is not promoting or developing his own theories.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 266
    • Reputation: +60/-66
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #31 on: October 27, 2018, 12:27:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • (It's best to judge people by what they do, not by their credentials.)
    People with world class accomplishments in science get recognized by other scientists.
    But people without world class accomplishments can still have expertise in the field, and credentials are a way to recognize that.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3476
    • Reputation: +2148/-1061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #32 on: October 27, 2018, 12:59:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The bottom line is that Fr R has the same education level as Sungenis.  So if you want to criticize Sungenis for not being a scientist then that applies to Fr R too.  

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #33 on: October 27, 2018, 07:43:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • People with world class accomplishments in science get recognized by other scientists.
    But people without world class accomplishments can still have expertise in the field, and credentials are a way to recognize that.

    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.  

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 266
    • Reputation: +60/-66
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #34 on: October 27, 2018, 09:06:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In considering whether to debate Robert Sungenis, ...
    Did you invite Sungenis to debate Fr. Robinson?


    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #35 on: October 27, 2018, 09:28:47 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #36 on: November 07, 2018, 08:36:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 431
    • Reputation: +314/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #37 on: November 08, 2018, 02:09:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #38 on: November 20, 2018, 09:45:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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/

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #39 on: November 21, 2018, 09:47:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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:

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1783
    • Reputation: +966/-152
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Paul Robinson v. Robert Sungenis
    « Reply #40 on: November 23, 2018, 08:16:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    !5 days later on November 22nd I received a direct email reply to my inquiry.  Unfortunately, Fr. Robinson appeared quite adamant in explaining why he refuses to debate Dr. Sungenis.   He gave a few reasons, all of which I regard as primarily protective posturing.  The real reason and I think he knows it (if he doesn't something is really wrong) is that Sungenis would inflict one lethal blow after the other.  It would be a complete wipe out.


     

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