Bobbo on that fast slide down to the core of Krazytown. Too much certainty and not enough Magisterium. The Definitive Trend of a Public Cold Nut-veturing into anti-Semitism big time. Perhaps he will take advice of Webmaster and seek spiritual direction, chill out, take a nap, watch all college football games on his cable system some Saturday. Perhaps not. More's the pity for him.
Gerard E. | 09.29.06 - 4:27 pm | #

In an interesting aside: A nut-job Protestant Catholic-hater has embraced geo-centrism. He claims that helio-centrism was a sinister Catholic plot. Take a look at the web-site; it's a hoot.

www.reformation.org
.
Francois | 09.29.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Sungenis CANNOT be reasoned out of his weirdness. We must PRAY him out of it.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 09.29.06 - 4:39 pm | #

"Sungenis CANNOT be reasoned out of his weirdness. We must PRAY him out of it." I totally agree.
William | 09.29.06 - 5:36 pm | #

But I thought Sungenis recently wrote an open letter of semi-repentance and toning-it-downishness.

http://www.catholicintl.com/cath.../ openletter.htm

I won't follow the ins and outs but I thought people should know about this.
Elliot B | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 1:52 pm | #

Shea,

The Proverbs quote at the top of Robert's rebuttal to Forrest applies to Jacob Michael as well. His case doesn't seem like such an utter "smack down" either when you read the rebuttal.

For example, the e-mail where Robert says he hasn't read Schoeman's book yet is from before Robert wrote his articles for Culture Wars and The Latin Mass. He read it cover to cover prior to writing those articles.

Also, it seems you have jumped on the "Bob has a messiah complex" bandwagon. It was a calumny when Jacob said so and it's a calumny when you repeat it. Robert is a prophet only in the same sense that you are a prophet (CCC 904-907; CCL 212:2-3).

Please, Mr. Shea, butt out of this until we reach some resolution.
Ben Douglass | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Hello, Ben Douglas who thinks I'm "overrated" as a writer and researcher. (Not to mention your delusion that I'm "always" writing in CRISIS about conspiracy theories.) Your master is a booby who ought to have been hatched years ago.
Sandra Miesel | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 5:38 pm | #

Mrs. Miesel,

You appear to be confusing me with Tom Herron. I don't know that I've ever read anything by you, so I couldn't say.
Ben Douglass | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 6:04 pm | #

Well, if I confused you with Herron, than I'm sorry. But nevertheless your master is still a booby.
Sandra Miesel | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 6:18 pm | #

"Well, if I confused you with Herron, than I'm sorry. But nevertheless your master is still a booby." - Sandra Miesel

How charitable of you dearest Sandra.
Scott | 09.30.06 - 7:46 pm | #

Ben,

The only problem with your defense is that it completely ignores a letter to the editor Bob wrote on March 31st, 2004 to Culture Wars. I'm not sure if it was ever published. It was in response to this article by E. Michael Jones: http://www.culturewars.com/2004/...4/ Schoeman.html (just google E. Michael Jones, Schoeman and 2004) In it Bob criticizes Schoeman's views, even implying that he is dishonest in his treatment of the Fathers. That's something considering he hadn't read the book yet.

Incidentally, Michael Forrest gave me a heads up about Bob's letter at the time because he couldn't believe Bob would criticize something he hadn't read and more recently reminded me of that correspondence at the same time he sent everything to Jacob Michael. And by the way, Ben, notice the date of the follow up email where Michael asks Bob to stop lumping all Jews together...quite a bit before 2005 when he left.

From: Michael Forrest [mailto:mwforrest@ifriendly.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 4:13 PM
To: 'Sungenis@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor

Hi Bob,
Did you read the book?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Sungenis@aol.com [mailto:Sungenis@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:32 PM
To: jones@culturewars.com
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor:

I very much appreciated Dr. Jones' review of Roy Schoeman's book "Salvation is from the Jews." Dr. Jones rightly pointed out that once the Jews rejected Christ they became the "synagogue of Satan" and thus formed one of two Jewish tracks running throughout the Church age....


If we really want to be honest about what Catholic tradition and Scripture say about Schoeman's predictions, the evidence is, at best, divided...

...Schoeman's view seems more of a spin off of the Protestant Dispensationalists who see the Gentile era as a "parentheses" in the divine economy, making headway for the real triumph, the conversion of the Jews, supposedly in fulfillment of OT prophecy.

....Schoeman, for instance, appeals to Ezek 36:22, but there is little evidence that Ezekiel is referring to anything but the return of the Jews from captivity in Babylon under Ezra and Nehemiah. (Be that as it may, even Schoeman admits that, spiritually speaking, Ezek 36 may, indeed, "be fulfilled in the first coming of Christ").

....As for Schoeman's appeal to the 1992 Catechism to support his thesis, if one reads paragraph 674 carefully, the Catechism is doing little more than restating the obvious, as it reiterates the key phrases of Romans 11. Of course the Savior's coming is "suspended...until his recognition by ‘all Israel," for that is exactly what the above interpretation holds – not until all the Jews God intends to save, are indeed saved, will the world end, for only then will "all Israel" have been saved.

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics Intl.
Greencastle, PA

From: Michael Forrest [mailto:mwforrest@ifriendly.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 3:42 AM
To: 'Sungenis@aol.com'
Cc: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
Hey Bob,
....if you're going to write anything more, are we agreed that you'll avoid lumping all Jews together anymore?
David Palm | 09.30.06 - 11:40 pm | #

David,
Thanks for correcting Douglass' ignorance and or selective memory plus Sungenis' spin on these matters. I had to publically shame Douglass into ACTUALLY contacting Roy Schoeman in order to find out what his REAL VIEWS WHERE instead of just assuming Bob's smear mongering(that Douglass did it I'll at least give him small kudos for that). As it turned out Douglass has been misrepresenting what Schoeman believes all along.
It is clear Bob's tactic now is to pull a James White & try to drown his opponents under a ton of long winded irrelavent mega-verbosity(while quietly ignoring their main points). Also like with James White when ordinary people become tired of answering his irrelavent tangents & rants & bow out he will then proclaim "victory". That is why you can't reason with Bob. You can ONLY pray him out of it. Or pray that he returns to reason. I think the same may apply to Douglass as well.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 10.01.06 - 1:02 pm | #

Additionally(I suppose I should make one attemt at reasoning with Douglass.)

Douglass wrote:
>Also, it seems you have jumped on the "Bob has a messiah complex" bandwagon. It was a calumny when Jacob said so and it's a calumny when you repeat it. Robert is a prophet only in the same sense that you are a prophet (CCC 904-907; CCL 212:2-3).

I reply: I have never heard Mark Shea ever claim he had to protect the Church from the errors of John Paul II son.

You have to stop enabling. You are not helping Bob by doing so. Also you can't claim this is a "neo-Catholic" anti-traditionalist conspiracy. I would bet a wad of money David Palm still disagrees with me on Assisi and most likely agrees with you.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 10.01.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Update I just now read this on Michael forrest's page QUOTE"To all readers, I have removed the contents of this website while Robert Sungenis and I discuss Jewish issues and try to reach an agreement. I would ask that everyone pray for us and refrain from heated or pointless banter on the topic at this time. Thank you and God bless, Michael Forrest". END QUOTE

Jacob Michael has done the same thing. I respect their discision so let's have a cease fire in the mean time.
Pray please pray God will open Bob's heart to listen in humility to his friends and accept their sane council.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 10.01.06 - 1:19 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Thanks for the link, Elliot B. I hope I'm not speaking too soon, but after reading the open letter (and knowing about his negotiations with Michael Forrest and Jacob Michael) I am cautiously optimistic about the future of CAI. It's the first time in more than four years that I can say that.

I know things could possibly go sour in an instant, but if Sungenis does continue in this vein by repudiating the falsehoods he has spread about Jews and truly brings forth fruit worthy of penance, we may just regain our brother. I'm not sure whether his reputation will ever fully be restored with everyone. That can be tough after gaining a reputation for some form of prejudice (even when it's undeserved, for that matter). But if he is truly penitent and shows it by his actions he will be restored in my mind at least and I hope in the minds of other Catholics as well.

Bob was once a fine apologist who brought people into the Church and whose writings were so helpful to many Catholics. Then he started in with all the stuff about geocentrism and the Jews, and suddenly his scholarship started slipping (what else can one say about one who defines Judaizing as "Bringing Jewish elements into Catholicism," when it really means believing that circumcision and observing the Mosaic Law are necessary for salvation and binding on Christians. There's a big difference? How can you accuse someone of a heresy when you can't even define the heresy properly?).

His fall was very tragic, even devistating for some of us. For me, personally, it was the last nail in the coffin for my love of apologetics. I don't think his return would really change my disillusionment, but at least he would return and that's what really matters. I just hope it happens; four years is far too long.

Holy Guardian Angels of Bob Sungenis, Michael Forrest, Jacob Michael and anyone else involved, please pray for them and bring this to a positive conclusion.

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | 10.02.06 - 1:42 pm | #

That should be a period after the sentence, "There's a big difference". Don't know where the question mark came from; I guess I got it from the next sentence somehow while editing....

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | 10.02.06 - 1:46 pm | #