Friday, February 11, 2011
Robert Sungenis on a rabbit trail
On Tuesday, I was in attendance for a debate between Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. David Pence at the Twin Cities famous Argument of the Month Club meeting. It was loosely about the relationship between Church and science, but ended up being mainly about geocentrism. Unfortunately Dr. Pence was self admittedly a bit unprepared, so Sungenis handily won the debate. My main beef was that there was not enough emphasis on what to me was the ONLY issue: what MUST Catholics believe about cosmology, paleontology, etc? The questions at the end of the debate reflected an interest in the novel (to modern man at least) idea that the earth is motionless. I admit, it is interesting to talk about! You quikly realize how much you do not know about cosmology, and how many presuppositions and philosophical assumptions scientists make. For the sake of argument, I consider myself an agnostic on the whole helio/geo centrism issue, if only for the simple fact that I am just not a scientist and cannot defend either position on the basis of anything other than feelings and hunches. I did buy Robert Sungenis book Galileo was wrong, the Church was right from him at the debate, and plan to read it in much the same way I read a Brief History of Time by Hawking. It is interesting to try to wrap my feeble noodle around these cosmic mysteries. I read a post by Dave Armstrong which my friend and fellow parishioner Zeb pointed out. It was quite revealing and quite convincing. In a word, it is clear to me that Sungenis is trying to bind consciences where they should not be bound when it comes to geocentrism. Which as a recent convert is exactly what I want to get away from! I did not leave the "self-Papacy" of Protestantism behind to become Catholic and have some guy try to do the magisteriums job for it. Sungenis needs to show where the magisterium has made this a doctrine I must submit to and that it is a doctrine of faith or morals. He has not done that. It amazes me because his debate with James White on papal infallibility was so memorable. In that debate he made a great case that Pope Honorius did NOT infallibly teach heresy. Well, we all agree Honorius was certainly a heretic when it came to a doctrine of faith, so if we can dismiss Honorius, why can't we dismiss this one belief of the fathers and popes that defended geocentrism which is almost certainly not a matter of faith or morals and which they certainly did not teach infallibly? Sungenis seems to CLEARLY understand what makes a doctrine infallible and binding on the whole Church, yet he seems to ignore his own knowledge in this case. He also did not make the case that it matters to the extent he seems to think it does. So the fathers of the Church were unanimous in their geocentric belief and used scripture to back it up, OK fine. But using scripture does not make this a doctrine of faith or morals! I agree with Sungenis that many scientists cling to evolution and and perhaps heliocentrism because of a desire to deny their creator. But so what? That does not mean geocentrism is an issue of faith or morals. Scientists don't get to decide that (thank you God). The one good point Dr. Pence made in the debate a few times was that even in a heliocentric system, there are still many unexplainable scientific things that point to our unique situation in the cosmos and should point us to God. We do not need geocentrism to be awestruck at what we see in a telescope. Robert Sungenis is such an awsome apologist and debater and I am really disappointed that he has gone down this rabbit trail. What a waste of his talent as an apologist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
True-'dat.
ReplyDeleteZeb
There's some good material out there backing up your points, David.
ReplyDeleteThese ones I think are particularly good by a Catholic named David Palm:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=7860342&postcount=174
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/alexander-vii-and-speculatores-domus.html
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/leo-xiii-on-unanimous-consent-of.html
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/geo-what.html
David, allow me to clear up a few points. I am not saying that any Catholic is "bound" to believe in geocentrism, if we define "bound" as that which is required for belief because it has been pronounced de fide by a pope or a council. I am only saying that the Ordinary Magisterium has taught geocentrism since the Church's inception. How far that now goes into the matter of what is "required" is a matter of debate, just as is any teaching that has not been declared infallible and irreformable by the Church. What we cannot deny is that geocentrism is a traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, and, as far as the modern age is concerned, geocentrism is a teaching that the Catholic Church has not officially rescinded. John Paul II's address to the PAS in 1992 did not endorse heliocentrism or geocentrism, and it was not an official statement of the Church in any case. As of now, then, the doctrine of geocentrism awaits the Church to declare something definitive on it. It is my goal to give the Church all the information it needs on the subject, and that includes books like Galileo Was Wrong and debates with people like Dr. Pence. As for David Palm, he is by no means objective when it comes to this issue. He has simply decided that he doesn't want to consider the geocentric option but, unfortunately, he doesn't know any of the science, and thus chooses to confine his approach to hair-splitting arguments about the canonical status of geocentrism. And in that limited perspective, he has made some very specious arguments. I believe, except for his last posting, that I have answered all of his claims on our website www.galileowaswrong.com. You can easily find them since the titles have David Palm's name. If you have any further question or comment, please write to me at cairomeo@aol.com
ReplyDeleteDr. Sungenis,
ReplyDeleteSorry for such a late reply, thanks for your clarification for any readers of this post. As for me, I still want to reiterate my general distaste with the whole topic as being a rabbit trail. You could be completely right about geocentrism and Galileo, and still be on a rabbit trail that is unhelpful to the Church. I hope i am wrong, but there it is.
Peace to you sir.
David
David, please define "rabbit trail" and how this venture on the issue of geocentrism is "a waste of his talent as an apologist." Even while Robert has devoted most of his energies to this topic in the last decade or so, he has still managed to produce the best apologetical materials out there to a caliber far surpassing all those professional Catholics out there whose main "bread and butter" are solely apologetical. I would only suggest as a possible way to proceed: suppose we were to walk into this issue with no background in the history, science, or ecclesial debates... while at the same time a Catholic, and having the logical capacity to look at the evidence, and then listen to the entire debate and Q and A. Considering the evidence presented by both Dr. Spence and Dr. Sungenis, where Spence offers no ecclesial, Scriptural, or scientific evidence that his opponent could respond to, and yet, Dr. Sungenis presents the witnesses of Scripture, the Fathers, Aquinas, the Trent Catechism, and here's the icing, modern cosmological evidence... I think, then, an unbiased individual would be convinced of the geocentric position. In the interest of transparency, I am an associate of Dr. Sungenis, and for the longest time I was agnostic to this issue for years while working with Bob. I just appreciated his apologetical work so much that I would simply ignore the geocentric stuff. Over the years, however, having listened to his debates, talks, and attending the geocentric conference, and of course the new The Principle documentary, I am convinced of the geocentric position. I am fine with the ridicule from the opposition, in no less way than I am fine with the ridicule on issues of the Eucharist, the papacy, the Mass, the Sacraments etc. I for one don't understand the hermeneutic or heuristic of limiting my assent or support on only the issues which the Church has imposed on the faithful for belief.
DeleteThank you for your time.
David, please define "rabbit trail" and how this venture on the issue of geocentrism is "a waste of his talent as an apologist." Even while Robert has devoted most of his energies to this topic in the last decade or so, he has still managed to produce the best apologetical materials out there to a caliber far surpassing all those professional Catholics out there whose main "bread and butter" are solely apologetical. I would only suggest as a possible way to proceed: suppose we were to walk into this issue with no background in the history, science, or ecclesial debates... while at the same time a Catholic, and having the logical capacity to look at the evidence, and then listen to the entire debate and Q and A. Considering the evidence presented by both Dr. Spence and Dr. Sungenis, where Spence offers no ecclesial, Scriptural, or scientific evidence that his opponent could respond to, and yet, Dr. Sungenis presents the witnesses of Scripture, the Fathers, Aquinas, the Trent Catechism, and here's the icing, modern cosmological evidence... I think, then, an unbiased individual would be convinced of the geocentric position. In the interest of transparency, I am an associate of Dr. Sungenis, and for the longest time I was agnostic to this issue for years while working with Bob. I just appreciated his apologetical work so much that I would simply ignore the geocentric stuff. Over the years, however, having listened to his debates, talks, and attending the geocentric conference, and of course the new The Principle documentary, I am convinced of the geocentric position. I am fine with the ridicule from the opposition, in no less way than I am fine with the ridicule on issues of the Eucharist, the papacy, the Mass, the Sacraments etc. I for one don't understand the hermeneutic or heuristic of limiting my assent or support on only the issues which the Church has imposed on the faithful for belief.
DeleteThank you for your time.