CASB2's Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said "No"?

In his January 2008 article for Culture Wars, "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith", Bob Sungenis offers his readers an explanation as to why his study bible on The Apocalypse of St. John was turned down for an imprimatur.

Our readers will recall that this blog uncovered several interesting details concerning CASB2's conspicuous lack of an imprimatur; the most important of these details included the fact that Bob and his associates engaged in a campaign of deception in order to hide the fact that the imprimatur had been denied because of CASB2's treatment of Jewish issues (link).

In an attempt, no doubt, to recover from the damage of these revelations, Bob tried to justify himself with the following words:

Referring back to the United States Catechism's provocative statement on page 131 ("Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them"), the relevance of the USCCB's liberal stance on the Jews was brought home to me loud and clear when the bishop of my diocese, Kevin C. Rhoades, denied an imprimatur to my book The Apocalypse of St. John and cited page 131 as one of his proofs that my book, amazingly enough, because it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ, had a "lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism." He made this accusation without pointing out even one example in the book where I had violated Church teaching, and further added that he would accept no more discussion on the issue. ("Covenant", p. 11)

Our first step here will be to break down this rather lengthy excuse and boil it down to the bare essentials:

1) Bishop Rhoades denied an imprimatur to CASB2

2) Bishop Rhoades allegedly said that CASB2 "[lacked] adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism"

3) Bishop Rhoades cited page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) in support of this conclusion

4) Bob assumed that the specific sentence on page 131 referred to by the bishop is the sentence dealing with the "eternally valid" Mosaic covenant

5) Bob further assumed that this must mean his book got turned down because "it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ"

6) Bob concluded that his bishop agrees with "the USCCB's liberal stance on the Jews", that "Rhoades and the USCCB [are] attempting to propagate [erroneous theology] to unsuspecting Catholics", specifically the "Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB [are] apparently promoting." ("Covenant", p. 11)

To make the matter plain: Bob accuses Bishop Rhoades of censoring him because the bishop holds to Dual Covenant theology, which Bob considers to be a heresy. And he bases this accusation on the fact that his bishop made a reference to "page 131" of the USCCA (as well as two other objectionable "observations").

Bob is wrong for three reasons:

1) Bishop Rhoades has now directly refuted Bob's accusations about him [see a complete account here.]

2) There are six sentences dealing with the Jewish people in this section of the USCCA, not just one. Yet, remarkably, Bob jumped to the conclusion that the one potentially problematic sentence must be the one to which his bishop referred.

3) Bishop Rhoades does not interpret this one sentence in the same way Bob does (that is, using a "hermeneutic of suspicion" that seeks the worst possible meaning first)

So why did the bishop reject Bob's book?

Here is the full paragraph of the USCCA to which Bishop Rhoades referred (addressing Jews and Judaism):

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that "this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues" (LG, no. 16). When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a "great nation." This began the history of God's revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, "remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews" (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4).

The actual reason why Bob's bishop declined to grant an imprimatur becomes more obvious when we look the entirety of the paragraph in question. It speaks of several things which Bob has repeatedly gone to extraordinary lengths to repudiate, dismiss, minimize or re-define:

1) The Church's "special relationship to the Jewish people."

2) The quote from Nostra Aetate regarding our "common heritage with the Jews" that repudiates "all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews."

3) The acknowledgment of God's abiding interest in, continuing concern for, and unique relationship with the Jewish people.

Could it be, perhaps, that Bob's CASB2 smacked too much of that anti-Jewish sentiment that, as we have amply shown in many articles on this blog, so permeates all of his writing and thought?

Why don't we look at CASB2 and verify it for ourselves?

Barely 30 pages into the text, Bob deals with the passage "every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him."

First, Bob applies this text simultaneously (and confusingly) to both the Jews of the future and all the Jews of past ages:

If the reference to "those who pierced him" is more general, it may refer to Jews living at the Second Coming who represent all the Jews from the past who have disbelieved in Christ (CASB2, p. 31).

Then, Bob turns the interpretation on its head, and says it refers to the Jews of the first century, who will "be raised from the dead in order to see Christ coming to earth at the end of the world". (ibid.) He writes, "John intends to convey the idea that the Jews, who had disbelieved Christ at his First Coming, and continue to do so in their blindness (Rm 11:7-8), will, on the Last Day, finally see and be forced to accept that the man they crucified was, indeed, the very Son of God" (ibid).

Indulging in a bit of theatric melodrama for a moment, Bob continues, "Thus the Jews will be beside themselves with grief and vexation when they finally realize that they were totally wrong. But it will be too late, for the Second Coming is the time of judgment, not repentance, and this is the reason they will be 'wailing'" (ibid, p. 32).

He then ties this "every one who pierced him" phrase to Zech. 12:10, and notes that it has reference to the Roman soldier who literally pierced Christ's side - but then, amazingly, he manages to bring even this literal/historical fact back to an accusation almost entirely against the Jews, while excusing the Romans:

The phrase in Zc 12:10, "they have pierced," is plural, and thus the soldier of Jn 19:34 represents both the Romans and the Jews who were involved in the death of Jesus. But though the Romans were involved, it is well known from both Scripture and Catholic commentary that the Roman officials were instigated into the crucifixion because of the hatred the Jewish leaders had against Christ (ibid, p. 32).

Bob's campy and contrived pathos is bad enough, as he sketches for the reader a picture of the first-century/present-day/future Jews (he apparently doesn't care which) being "beside themselves with grief" at the moment when they "finally realize" that they were not only wrong, but "totally wrong" - but alas! it is "too late" for them, for this is "the time of judgment, not repentance."

But much worse is the fact that Bob is apparently so driven to keep the reader fully focused on the Jewish fault at the Crucifixion, that he introduces a novel interpretation wherein even the Roman soldier who actually pierced Christ becomes a symbol of "the Romans and the Jews" who killed Christ - and when he says "Romans and Jews", he really means just "the Jews" because "though the Romans were involved," everyone knows through the teaching of "both Scripture and Catholic commentary" (you'll have to fill in the blank here with titles, because Bob doesn't cite any) that the Romans were only "instigated [sic] into the crucifixion" (Noah Webster, please call your office) because of the "hatred" of "the Jewish leaders."

Moving on to the passage that speaks of "the synagogue of Satan", Bob does not hesitate to interpret this as a reference to "the Jews". He doesn't explain, he doesn't persuade, he doesn't interact with any existing scholarship that argues that these people who "say they are Jews, but are not" are really not rank-and-file ethnic Jews - he just assumes that conclusion. But then he goes a step further:

. . . Satan is the instigator behind the attack against the Church. He is not a figment of our imagination. He is as real as real can be, and he is, indeed, very powerful. He wants worship and will settle for nothing less. He has incited the Jews against Christianity just as he incited Judas against Jesus (ibid, p. 50).

Bob's misstep here is that he cannot seem to utilize any kind of verbal precision when making these sorts of statements about "the Jews". He does not discriminate - the "synagogue of Satan" is simply equated with "the Jews", and Satan "has incited" (present-continuous) the Jews against us. Because "Most Jews simply would not accept Jesus", says Bob, "they became the sworn enemy of Christianity." (ibid.) Missing from this rather sensitive discussion, which Bob is content to handle with sandpaper and steel wool, is any distinction between the select group of first century Jews who did indeed persecute the Church, and the generic "Jews" of all time. For Bob, it is enough to wax schmaltzy about that old Devil who is "real as real can be", and who - it must be repeated - "has incited the Jews against Christianity."

It is beginning to become clearer why Bishop Rhoades chose not to sanction this manuscript with the Church's own seal of approval.

Moving further into the book, we arrive at Bob's commentary on Apocalypse Chapter 7. After eleven pages, there, sticking out like the kosher pig's feet, is the bold heading: "Romans 11 and the Future of Israel." For the next sixteen pages, the reader is treated to a full-blown soap-box sermon on the following subjects: Israel is no longer the Chosen People, there will be no special future conversion of the Jews, the hardness that has come upon the Jews will endure until the end of time, the Old Covenant has been revoked, Israel has no right to the Promised Land, the Church Fathers do not teach a future special conversion of Israel, and the "constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church" is that the "Olive Tree" of Romans 11 refers to Christ and not to Israel.

The words "propaganda piece" are almost too perfect to pass up.

What is a little more than entertaining is the way Bob cannot seem to make up his mind concerning the number of Fathers who hold to a special, future conversion of the Jews. In a dialogue with John Pacheco, he wrote, "Only two Fathers hold out for any future large restoration of faith in Israel". (The Fathers and the Return of the Jews) Later, however, in another article, he wrote, "Only three Fathers hold out for a future and distinct conversion of Jews." (Judaizers in the Catholic Church)

In his CASB2, he admits that "a few Fathers anticipated a significant conversion of the Jews". (p. 147) But a little later on the same page, he writes, "a little over half a dozen [Fathers] speak about an anticipated conversion of Jews," although he claims (on the strength of his own say-so, and without offering the least shred of proof) that "half of them apply it exclusively to the salvation of a remnant during the Church age". (p. 147) Note well: as of this writing, Bob has yet to demonstrate that the word "remnant" represents an insignificant number; for example, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that at "the end of the world ... the remnants of Israel will be converted" (Summa, I-IIae, q. 102, a. 5, reply to obj. 5), but elsewhere he shows that by "remnants" he means all of the Jews living at that point in history: omnis Israel salvus fiet, non particulariter sicut modo, sed universaliter omnes. ("All Israel will be saved, not individually as it is now, but all universally"; Super Ep. B. Pauli ad Rom., Cap. 11, Lect. 4)

Bob has yet to demonstrate, when the other Fathers or Popes use the term "remnant" in reference to the future conversion of the Jews, that this term is incompatible with the idea of a significant majority of Jews living in the end time, as we saw in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Be that as it may, Bob moves from "two Fathers" to "three Fathers", from "three Fathers" to "a few Fathers", and from "a few Fathers" to "half a dozen". Last year, in response to Ben Douglass, he admitted that "there is a prevalent opinion in the early Church that the last generation of Jews might be saved en masse" ("I'm Mad, and I'm not Going to Take it Anymore", p. 19), although he quickly shrugged this off by adding, "but there was also a prevalent opinion endorsing Premillennial eschatology in the early Church".

In his review of Jacob Michael's Never Revoked by God, Bob writes, "Mr. Michael cites Pope St. Gregory the Great as supporting his view, and rightly so. But what Michael doesn't tell us is that Gregory is merely reiterating the views of a few Fathers who went before him, since Gregory doesn't offer any exegesis of the passages from which he quotes." ("Jacob Michael's 'Never Revoked by God': A Review by Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.", p. 13) He quickly lapses into an exegetical argument with the sainted Pope ("Gregory's citation of Isaiah 61:7 as applying to the Jews of the future is undercut, etc., etc."), but not before the audience has hopefully picked up on his unintended admission: when Pope St. Gregory the Great spoke of a future significant conversion of the Jews, he was "reiterating the views of a few Fathers who went before him." When a Sainted Pope "reiterates" the position of saints "who went before him", Catholics call this "handing on a tradition."

When it comes to preserving his interpretive bias, however, Bob is unshakeable, and un-teachable; even the witness of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Sainted Popes to the contrary will be met with protestations from Bob like the following:

• "some of the Fathers were poor at exegeting Scripture." (Will Enoch and Elijah Return to Preach to the Jews?, p. 3)


• "Some of [the Fathers] did not even know the languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew." (ibid., p. 3)


• "with the tools of biblical exegesis we have today, as well as the exegetical knowledge and easy access of Greek and Hebrew not available to some of the Fathers, contemporary exegetes of Scripture have a distinct advantage in discovering the truths of Holy Writ that were not always available to the Fathers." (ibid., p. 4)


• "Of the dozen or so Fathers that speak about a future conversion of the Jews, only superficial and question-begging assertions are made of Rm 11:25-27, and often with some obvious blunders." (ibid., p. 11)


• "Gregory’s treatment of both Rm 11:25 and Is 61:7 contain obvious blunders" (ibid., p. 20)


• "Gregory interprets the Greek word [houtos] as 'and as follows,' ... But as we noted previously, [houtos] does not mean 'then' or 'afterwards'" (ibid., pp. 20-21)


• "Here we see Jerome interpreting the Greek adverb [houtos] as if it were the word 'then.' It seems that the Fathers were so conditioned by the Chiliasts that went before them, even when the definitions of Greek words were staring them in the face, that they didn't see the real meaning of the word." (ibid., p. 21, fn. 34)


• "As a result of [Augustine's] exegetical duplicity, Augustine and his followers subsequently produced many forced interpretations of Ap 11:5-8 and Rm 11:25-26 to make room for both a Jewish conversion and a Jewish evangelism to the Gentiles." (ibid., p. 17)


• "As we will see, not one Father addressed the exegetical details of the passages in question, much less could any of them come to firm conclusions about their interpretations." (ibid., p. 20)


• "Not knowing Hebrew, Chrysostom and Augustine often end up in unsupported exegesis by relying only on the LXX" (Intense Dialogue on Romans 11)

"In fact, Chrysostom incorrectly turns the Greek 'houtos' in Romans 11:26 from its function as an adverb modifying how Israel will be saved into a future time element for the salvation." (Judaizers in the Catholic Church)

Bob's demand for proof of a "consensus" (which he arbitrarily defines as "unanimous consent", cf. Intense Dialogue on Romans 11) on this point is disingenuous anyway; perhaps finally realizing that the patristic witness against him really is quite substantial, he has begun to forge a new position, a position he had not previously promoted:

It is the divine origin of a particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medievals or theologians and prelates of today (Enoch and Elijah, p. 3).

. . . no Catholic is under any compulsion whatsoever to abide by whatever was predicted about Israel among even a majority of patristic writers ... even if the Fathers are in consensus on a given topic, we are still permitted to add information that has been gleaned from fresh studies of Scripture (Never Revoked, p. 12).

In other words, we're dealing with a lost cause: if Bob is shown that a Father or Doctor of the Church believes in the conversion of the Jews, he will dismiss their opinion because they failed to give a thorough textual exegesis; if patristic textual exegesis can be demonstrated, or it can be shown that a Father or Doctor interprets Scripture in a particular way, Bob will not hesitate to belittle that Father or Doctor's knowledge of the original languages or exegetical skill; in any case, he will say, no consensus (read: total unanimity) exists; but if that consensus can be shown, he will still duck and dodge and retort that we need not agree with the patristic majority view ... when he says so, anyway. Certainly we've all witnessed this kind of (mis)treatment of the Fathers of the Church. But it comes from certain Protestant apologists.

In short, Bob is making this up as he goes along, evading the evidence at all costs so long as it allows him to maintain his negative view that there will be no significant future conversion of the Jews - remember, Bob has publicly accepted as the "unofficially declared" teaching of the Church the position that the anti-Christ will be a Jew, and he does so on the testimony of maybe two or three Fathers, without once demanding proof of textual exegesis and unanimous consent. And now he has declared in his CASB II "the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church" was that Christ is the Olive Tree of Romans 11 (see point #5). As such, the one consistent rule of Bob's theological world seems to be: listen to me, I alone have figured it out!

As a side note, Bob ridicules several Fathers above for interpreting houtos as "and THEN" instead of "and IN THIS MANNER"; in particular, we saw him criticize St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom (a native Greek speaker!), and Pope St. Gregory the Great for interpreting the Greek in this way (thus proving that even if you do show Bob the patristic exegetical witness, he'll just argue that their exegesis is wrong, even if they were native Greek speakers). It is worth pointing out that, here too, the patristic majority is against Bob:

. . . the Greek Patristic literature in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM ... shows that kai houtos in Rom 11:26 was most commonly (73% of 60 citations!) understood in the temporal sense of "and then." For Greek Patristic texts frequently substitute for kai houtos some other expression, such as tote or meta touto ..." (J.M. Scott, "And then All Israel Will Be Saved", in J.M. Scott [ed.], Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001], p. 491).

We will not hold our collective breath waiting for Bob to admit that his exegesis on this point stands soundly corrected by a large majority of the Greek Fathers, who forgot more Greek than Bob Sungenis will ever know.

Not only is he treating his audience to an improv act, he is also willfully ignoring and suppressing evidence. Before CASB2 was published, Bob purchased, read, and wrote a review of Jacob Michael's book Never Revoked by God; in that book, some twenty Fathers, saints, Doctors of the Church, Medievals, etc., were brought forward as witnesses to this common Catholic belief. For Bob to still move forward and publish a book that says "only a little over half a dozen [Fathers] speak about an anticipated conversion of Jews", when he had seen solid evidence to the contrary, illustrates what kind of person we are dealing with.

The way in which Bob's animus towards the Jews permeates his theology and hampers his exegetical ability is also evident in other ways in this bible study. At one point, while discussing the army of 200,000,000 that will destroy "a third of mankind", Bob somehow manages to bring the discussion around to the issue of Jewish unbelief. he writes:

In the time of Elijah, there were approximately 3 million men in Israel. A million and a half came out of Egypt 600 years earlier ... so an estimate of 3 million in the time of Elijah is conservative. But out of that huge number, God says that only 7,000 could be found in the whole nation who had not bowed the knee to the false god, Baal. That is 0.23% of the people (p. 187).

He said the same things in his infamous radio interview with Mark Dankhof, only using slightly different numbers:

... if we say a million or two million people back in that time, in 800 BC, and as Paul says, that God told Elijah that "I have 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al", well 7,000 out of a nation of a million or so is .7 percent, ok? Now, you take that .7 percent, that's much more of people that were saved in Israel in 800 BC than we see today, in Modern Israel, where it's .08 percent, you see. So the statistics don't lie, I mean, if you look at them closely, there haven't been any real conversions to Jesus Christ from Israel - these people are as blind as they were 2,000 years ago!

Aside from the fact that Bob is pulling these numbers out of thin air, a more fundamental problem exists with this smoke-and-mirror show. Bob says "the statistics don't lie", but in this case the corollary is all too true: liars often use statistics. Bob breathes new life into the saying, "57% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In both of these quotes, he uses the seven-thousand faithful Israelites of Elijah's day to start building his line graphs and pie charts of fabricated percentages as though "seven thousand" is absolutely and without question, literal. But the actual biblical text from which Bob continually wrenches this number suggests a different sort of story.

. . . you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha ... you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. And him who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him (1 Kings 19:15-18).

So what is the text saying? Who are these seven thousand? Are these just seven thousand souls that have not bowed the knee to Baal? They are at least that, but read closely: they are the "seven thousand" that God will "leave" as survivors after the swords of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha have finished dispensing God's justice.

The problem is simply this: if this number is literal, the passage is saying that God intends to wipe out hundreds of thousands - millions, if we believe Bob's numbers - and leave only seven thousand survivors in the Northern Kingdom. It's not that this scenario couldn't be true - it's that there is no record of such a scenario in Scripture or secular history. God did literally use Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha to administer the sword and slay the wicked, but it seems far more likely that they left more than seven thousand survivors in the Northern Kingdom.

The point? The number seven thousand is very likely a symbolic number - the covenant number, seven, multiplied by a thousand, showing that God has indeed preserved a faithful, covenanted remnant for Himself. More than a literal seven thousand, but a remnant all the same.

In fact, two renowned biblical scholars, Fr. George Leo Haydock and Dom Bernard Orchard both raise this very issue and treat the symbolic interpretation of this passage as the more likely:

Dom Bernard Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p 337:

The 'Remnant' (this is the first instance of an idea common in the 8th century prophets), from which flourishing religious life was to grow, is given in a figurative number, the 7 suggesting health. Perhaps however, the actual number of the orthodox in the North is indicated.

Fr. Leo Haydock, Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, p 451:

God lets him know that he is not left alone, but that many thousands (C.) even in Israel still continue faithful; so far was the true Church from being in danger of perishing entirely. H. - Seven is often put for a great number. Prov. xxiv 16. Yet some suppose, (C.) that only this number served God out of 1,110,000 men in Israel.

But did Bob inform his readers of this more likely interpretation? No. He only presented the most negative (and less likely) interpretation of this number and then even proceeded to use it to arrive at his own estimated percentages, all in order to convince his readers how faithless the Jews really are. Perhaps this is simply a hangover from his years as a protégé to Harold Camping, a man infamous for such numerological shenanigans.

As we continue our tour of the Apocalypse, we finally reach the chapter on the Whore of Babylon, and it is here that Bob can no longer restrain himself from spewing forth things he's been wanting to say about the Jews. On pages 346-347, Bob goes on about the Jews for several paragraphs.

He notes that "Judaism was a grave problem in the first century Church"; then we get a short history lesson on how the Jews "migrated to Babylon where they stayed for the next thousand years", before "they were driven out of Babylon and settled to the northeast in the land of Khazaria" (p. 346).

Going on, he explains that "By the second millennium, many of these same Jews had become engrossed in mysticism, producing the Kabbala and the Zohar." At last, he begins to drive towards the sweeping conclusion:

All of the writings of the Jews had one common trait - they were thoroughly anti-Christ and anti-Christianity. Hence the same antagonism towards Christianity that began in the 'synagogue of Satan' in the first century continued to brew throughout the first millennium and finally erupted in the second. It is predicted by many of the Catholic saints and doctors that the Jews will become a significant force in the oppression of Christianity in the future, some stating that the Antichrist himself will come from the Jewish race. Thus, if there is a more specific historical/apocalyptic relevance to the title 'Whore of Babylon', it could be said that Apocalypse 17-18 is prophesying that Israel, who was divorced from God for her whoredom and sent to ancient Babylon ..., would emigrate to Babylon and remain in her whorish state, from which she would come forth once again in the last days as one of the main persecutors and evil influences upon the Church (pp. 346-347).

And there it is. The fact that the Jews were twice exiled into Babylon is enough for Bob to conclude that the Jews are the famous "Whore" of the Apocalypse. He continues this though a few pages later:

In a similar vein, the church at Smyrna is confronted with the 'synagogue of Satan,' which refers to the religion of Judaism that has now become an antagonist to the Gospel. The Jewish religion has been forsaken and it has become part of the 'Whore of Babylon.' It is this whore who is now trying to entice the Christians away from Jesus Christ, and therefore they are doing the work of "Satan" (p. 376).

As with his previous statements, so also here Bob displays an incredible lack of precision and prudence. He leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Judaism is Satanic, that the Jews are doing "the work of 'Satan'", that the Jews are the "Whore of Babylon" who "is now trying to entice the Christians away from Jesus Christ." He paints with an extremely broad brush, and smears the colors of his anti-Jewish animus on the wall with incredible sloppiness.

Why did Bishop Rhoades reject CASB2 for an imprimatur? Was it because Bob "called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ", as he alleges? Or was it, rather, because of paragraphs like the above, which paint "the Jews" indiscriminately in the most evil light?

Was it, perhaps, because the bishop read statements in CASB2 such as the ones we saw above, and when he compared these statements to the USCCBC teaching (from Vatican 2), "she [the Church] deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews," he had no choice but to judge that Bob's book lacked "adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism"?

Response from the USCCB on Page 131 of the USCCA

In early September, 2007, Robert Sungenis posted a letter he had sent to the Vatican. In this letter Sungenis goes on for 12 pages, presenting his objections to one sentence on page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, a statement he referred to as “erroneous, if not heretical” (p. 2):

"the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

We would note that Sungenis generally managed to express himself in a decent, respectful manner. In fact he wrote:

“I have great respect both for the USCCB and the catechism it produced for the benefit of Catholic adults…” (page 1)

And he even managed to admit the possibility that he may not understand this statement correctly:

“Unless I am misunderstanding the words or the intent of the United States Catechism, I do not see any other conclusions that can be made.” (p.3)

However, it is evident that this respectful approach was a tactic designed to conceal his true opinion of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Clearly, he wanted to be taken seriously by the Vatican and realized that the more contentious, condemnatory approach he usually adopts would fall upon deaf ears. This was certainly a prudent decision, but it would have been more effective had he continued to keep his true views to himself.

In subsequent public writings not sent to the Vatican, he opted to share his honest views of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops. The fact is, completely contrary to his humble statement to the Vatican, Sungenis had no doubt in his mind at all that he was interpreting this statement in the only possible way. One will note that, like his treatment of Jewish issues, he has a penchant for painting the entire conference of bishops with a very broad, condemnatory brush.

“More and more the USCCB has shown itself to be a predominately liberal institution…Where there should be absolute outrage from the USCCB on the scandals and heterodoxy occurring within its own rank and file, there is little more than complacency.” (page 6)

“the USCCB is fast becoming a mouthpiece for modern dissidence and liberalism in American Catholicism. We had a revealing indication of the USCCB’s agenda when it joined with the ADL in reviewing a stolen copy of an early draft of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, which in an ad hoc committee of five liberal Jews and four liberal Catholics condemned it as “anti-semitic.” When Gibson threatened to sue, the USCCB apologized for its devious actions.” (page 7)

“Mouthpiece”, “Agenda”, “Devious"

“I later found out that Rhoades was in league with the USCCB on this issue.” (page 11)

“In league with the USCCB”? That turn of phrase is most often employed with the most nefarious characters…as in, “in league with the Devil.” The negative implication is clear enough.

“I knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology he, Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.” (page 11)

“Attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.” Apparently, Sungenis would have us believe this is part of another conspiracy.
(Article)

If this is representative of the “great respect” Sungenis has for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wonders what he might say if he did not respect them.

The question also needs to be asked: Did Sungenis ever make a serious, filial effort to obtain a clarification from the bishops? We are aware that he once sought out an influential layman at the USCCB who Sungenis knew had strong, liberal leanings. No doubt Sungenis singled him out because he believed this individual would give him the fodder he sought, rather treating this serious matter as a game of "gotcha!" But did he approach the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a faithful son? Did he apply a rule that St. Ignatius recommends in regard to any common individual, let alone the successors to the Apostles? Or did he view the bishops as adversaries, opponents against whom he would enjoy scoring points and “winning”?

"it is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another's statement than to condemn it as false. If an orthodox construction cannot be put on a proposition, the one who made it should be asked how he understands it. If he is in error, he should be corrected with all kindness. If this does not suffice, all appropriate means should be used to bring him to a correct interpretation, and so defend the proposition from error." (Rule #22, The Spiritual Exercises)

Indeed, this is what Jacob Michael set out to do. In a correspondence dated January 26, 2007, Jacob wrote wrote to the USCCB:

In a section of the Catechism dealing with the Old Covenant, the statement is made that ‘the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.’”

”My question is this: what does the Catechism mean here, concretely? Is this an affirmation that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jewish people today? Does it mean that we are living in what some theologians call a "bi-covenantal" situation? Or is this merely an affirmation that the Jews retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, while not stating that the Jewish people can be saved apart from Christ?” (emphasis added)

On February 2, 2007, Msgr. Daniel Kutys of the USCCB responded:

“My understanding of the meaning of that statement is your final observation… God never goes back on his word. But as you also suspect, the enduring nature of the Covenant does not preclude that one day all people will come to Christ and the responsibility all Catholics have to evangelize others about the need for faith in the Triune God revealed in and through Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)

Certainly, as Bishop Rhoades has acknowledged, it is understandable that one might be confused by this particular sentence. It could certainly be improved. And it appears clear that the bishops are already aware of this fact and it would not be surprising to eventually see it modified for the sake of clarity.

But as faithful Catholics, we must refrain from reaching the worst possible interpretation of the teaching being given by our bishops. How much more must we refrain from accusing our bishops of “attempting to propagate” errors to the "unsuspecting" faithful, as though our bishops are willful agents of evil.

Bob has made much of the “response” he received from the CDF to his letter. However, as even Wikipedia has noted, the response he received appears to be a postcard-sized form letter with two brief sentences and a stamped signature. The reader will notice that the letter does not even address Sungenis by name and the topic of the letter he sent isn’t mentioned in this “response” he touts as a “reply from the Vatican.”

Catholics can trust that good, sober minds are already aware of this issue and it will be handled as the successors to the Apostles deem appropriate, with or without the contributions of those who approach them with deep suspicion.

Is Sungenis Schismatic? The Verdict in Sungenis' Own Words

As this controversy has unfolded, we have documented numerous instances in which Robert Sungenis holds to radical double-standards - indeed, with him, one can expect on a regular basis for there to be "one standard for me and another for thee." (see here for examples). When it comes to Sungenis' standards on obedience to ecclesiastical authority, the double-standard rule is also abundantly evident.

That Sungenis has radically flip-flopped with regard to obedience toward his bishop and has engaged in the most outrageous revisionism in the process is now public knowledge. Thanks to an article by Sungenis' new enthusiastic supporter Thomas Herron in Culture Wars (October, p. 9), we now know that Bishop Rhoades stepped in on June 29th to reprimand Sungenis for both the tone and content of his Jewish writings, giving him two weeks to cease writing on this subject and remove his writings from the Internet. Over a month later, on July 31st, Sungenis decided to try to salvage his public image by making a show of his alleged obedience to the bishop (July 31 "Catholic Apologetics International and its Teaching on the Jews). This self-aggrandizement was particularly hypocritical and deceitful considering the fact that he was given 2 weeks to comply with his bishop's directives. Yet during the next month, he not only retained all of his anti-Semitic material at CAI, he even posted more articles and "features" against Jews. Most outrageous was an article, posted a mere five days after reception of his bishop's cease and desist letter, in which he smeared bishop Rhoades himself! (Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record)

Then, on July 31st, he had the brass to "pray thus with himself" (cf. Luke 18:11) in front of all of his readers:

Since I am a faithful son of the Catholic Church, I take their wisdom and counsel with the utmost seriousness and consider their direction as if it was from God himself. I consider it an honor not only to be a member of the Catholic Church but also to be under the vigilance of such wise and caring pastors.

If in the future we write any new material on the Jews, it will always be with the required due diligence, as if the bishop were present with us. Since he acts in God's stead, we will do our utmost to please him so as to preserve the peace and tranquility he so desires to maintain in the body of Christ. (FreeRepublic Archive of "CAI and its Teachings on the Jews")

He even wrote in private correspondence:

The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Edgar Suter, August 5, 2007; forwarded by Suter to a broad group of individuals.)

While Sungenis sought to position himself publicly as a "faithful son of the Church", his private correspondence made it very clear that he had simply decided to change tactics, making a simple, cynical calculation and playing along with the bishop as long as he felt he could still save enough face in the process:

Further on in his letter to Suter he wrote:

"For now, there is no reason to fight [the bishop's directive], because both parties are in a win-win situation."

For now.

A short time later he wrote to Jacob Michael that if this blog was not removed from the Internet, "I will begin reposting the material on my site, one article at a time, revised and expanded, and I'm going to pay particular attention to Roy Schoeman and you" (email of 27 Aug 2007).

To Michael Forrest he similarly stated: "If you don't take [www.sungenisandthejews.com] down, then you will force me to take the appropriate counter-action. For instance, I will resume putting up Jewish articles on my site and I will revise and expand each one of them, and I will start with Roy Schoeman specifically" (email of 27 Aug 2007).

Finally, to Ben Douglass he stated, "As for my 'Jewish' articles, let me set you straight there also. I will put up any 'Jewish' article I please, either now or in the future" (email of 2 Nov 2007).

Then, even after this letter of "humble obedience," Sungenis began "testing the waters" so to speak, dropping the word "Catholic" from the masthead of his website (likely to prevent the public relations blow of having it forced upon him by his bishop), posting anti-Jewish Q&As in his forum, posting anti-Jewish news alerts on the website. It did not take long, however, for this trial-balloon of subtle disobedience to break out into full-blown and open defiance. As of January 2008, Sungenis has publicly stated his intention to disobey his bishop's directives. As his sometime promoter and personal apologist Mark Wyatt wrote in the "Robert Sungenis" Wikipedia entry:

Sungenis wrote to the bishop and stated that he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church, and that if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis' stance, Sungenis would be willing to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial. The bishop did not respond to Sungenis's proposal. [See Culture Wars, January 2008, pages 12-39, for more information] (Wikipedia, s.v. "Robert Sungenis", Revision by Mark Wyatt, Feb. 1, 2008)

This view of matters has been echoed by Sungenis himself in a recent email:

. . . it was up to [Bishop Rhoades] to prove his case against me, since it now became a matter of faith and morals, for I am not required to obey the bishop if he is going against Catholic faith and morals. (email of Feb 20, 2008)

In a moment we will look in more detail at this rather interesting approach to "Catholic" obedience (i.e., "take me to court and prove me wrong first, then I'll obey") that Sungenis has adopted.

But first, let's take a look at what Bob Sungenis is currently doing, and how Bob himself must of necessity interpret these actions. In January, Bob Sungenis submitted a brand new article for publication in E. Michael Jones's Culture Wars, which he titled "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith". There are several things about this article that must be highlighted.

First, Bob proudly admits that his ecclesiastical superiors - whom he so recently referred to as "wise and caring pastors" and "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" - do not want him to be writing the very things he is writing in this article (the "Rhoades" he so flippantly refers to in the quote below is his own Bishop, The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Successor of the Apostles in charge of shepherding the Harrisburg Diocese):

I later found out that Rhoades [sic] was in league with the USCCB on this issue, since a few months later he invited me to a meeting with Fr. James Massa, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB, in an effort to dissuade me from pointing out some of the very things I am writing in this essay. ("Covenant", p. 9)

Second, Bob admits to his readers in this article that his own bishop has indeed "ordered" him to stop writing the very kinds of things he is writing in this present article - thus making the article itself an act of self-proclaimed disobedience:

[Bishop Rhoades] then took back his previous offer to allow me to change the 'tone' of my articles and forthwith ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether. ("Covenant", p. 10)

At this point, we should remember what we read of Bob's own words above:

The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Suter, August 5, 2007).

The conclusion is inescapable: by Bob's own standards and measures, he has become a Protestant. He acknowledges that his bishop "has authority over me"; he acknowledges that his bishop "ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether"; and yet he continues to write about the Jews and Judaism, in flagrant and public defiance of his bishop's orders - which, by his own judgment, makes Bob Sungenis a Protestant.

This turn of events recalls a warning issued by a contributor to the Robert Sungenis and the Jews website, Dr. Art Sippo:

I am concerned that [Bob] has started wandering into increasingly extreme and questionable areas that have taken him well out of the mainstream of Catholic thought and which may be leading him out of the Church.

Dr. Sippo took a fair amount of heat for expressing that concern from those who thought it extreme and uncalled for. However, his warning is appearing increasingly prophetic.

The disturbing thing about Bob's defiance is that he has apparently found a way to justify it. Mark Wyatt has already added a helpful update to Bob's Wikipedia entry, as we saw above, cluing the readers in to the fact that Bob has expressed to his bishop two reasons for his disobedience: "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", and also, "if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis's stance, Sungenis would do so only under the aegis of a canonical trial." Of course, as a result of Bob’s latest email, we know that Wyatt was merely repeating what he had been told by Bob.

This latter point is something Bob is also more-than-happy to elaborate upon in his most recent article. He tells his readers (with no small amount of bravado) that,

I ... wrote the bishop a letter saying that, if he wanted to reverse his position once again and censor me, he would have to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial, at which time I would appeal to the Vatican in order to have the matter fully adjudicated, and at which time I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB were apparently promoting. After four months, there has been no response from the chancellery ("Covenant", pp. 11-12).

As a side note, Bob attempts to smear his bishop again by suggesting that his bishop "[wants] to reverse his position once again and censor me". The entry at Wikipedia further implies that Bob's refusal to be censored is based, in part, on the principle that Bob feels "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church."

However, it should be noted immediately that it is Bob who has reversed his position, not the bishop. The bishop's own position, as quoted by Bob, was that Bob could continue writing on Jewish theological issues "provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past." ("Covenant", p. 11)

Bob has manifestly not adopted "an approach quite different in tone and content" from his previous writings, and thus, his bishop is fully justified in insisting that Bob simply "stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether." ("Covenant", p. 11) Bob is correct, in that one of the two parties has reversed their position; he is wrong in his identification of that party. If anyone has reversed their position, it is the man who said in August, when he felt on balance it was to his advantage, that it was a privilege to obey the ecclesiastical shepherds God has put over him, but who is now accusing those same shepherds of being wolves, and refusing to submit to their authority.

In August of 2007, when he was still feeling compliant and generous toward his bishop, he wrote, "Neither our obedience to our bishop nor our bishop's directives should in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

He further noted that, in his 2007 meeting with Fr. King and Fr. Massa, "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" gave Bob "various examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations" in his writings on the Jews - and most importantly, "I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

In other words, Bob has known since August that his bishop has problems with "the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people", and when shown specific examples of this, Bob agreed with the "overall assessment" of these "shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work." He agreed to remove "all the content on [CAI's] website concerning the Jews in order to make the initial adjustments in complying with my bishop's directive", and insisted that neither his bishop's censorship of his work, nor his compliance with that censorship, should "in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

In no small part because of his expanding commiseration-collaboration with E. Michael Jones and Thomas Herron, Bob has now reversed his position, and apparently interprets his bishop's directive for Bob to be silent in this one area as somehow being "in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", even though he at one time spoke of the "wisdom and counsel" of his shepherds and insisted that he viewed "their direction as if it was from God himself." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2) Bob's Bishop, of whom Bob once said that "he acts in God's stead" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), is now merely "Rhoades", a man "in league with the USCCB" ("Covenant", p. 11), who is "attempting to propagate [erroneous theology] to unsuspecting Catholics" (ibid.), and whom Bob "would be quite happy to expose" (ibid.) in a Vatican-sponsored canonical trial.

In short, Bob Sungenis does not intend to obey his bishop until forced to do so by means of a canonical trial, which he already intends to "appeal to the Vatican" so that he can "expose" the bishop's allegedly (and dangerously!) erroneous theology. As we have already seen, Bob's bluster about his bishop's alleged heterodoxy amounts to nothing less than a case of slander against his shepherd.

Bob's insistence on withholding his obedience to what he has called "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), until such time as a canonical trial can be held, is eerily reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation Father Martin Luther, who first promised to heed the commands of the Church's prelates only after a formal trial, then insisted that the commands had to come from the Pope himself, and then (when both of these demands were met) appealed to a future council.

Bob's position is also very reminiscent of the stance taken by a certain Archbishop in Switzerland during the 1970s - an Archbishop whose disobedience Bob has publicly denounced on more than one occasion. We are referring, of course, to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, who similarly insisted on withholding obedience to the orders of his superiors, until the matter could be taken up in canonical court.

But Bob's previous writings leave him little room to make excuse. When the subject is Archbishop Lefebvre, Bob suddenly has great insight and perception: while admitting that "Lefebvre had 'legitimate' complaints about the pope that the pope thoroughly ignored", he also acknowledges that "insofar as legal legitimacy, yes, the pope had his rights". This is absolutely key, because Bob accuses the Pope in this matter: "as far as dealing with Lefebvre's concerns of a Church leaving her traditions and going down the wrong path, the pope totally missed the mark." Regardless of how Bob judges the Pope's theology in this case, however, he still insists that "Lefebvre will be judged for disobeying the direct disciplinary order of the pope", even if "the pope will be judged for bringing the Church to the edge of apostasy." (A Frank Discussion with Jim Likoudis about Vatican II, John Paul II and "The Great Facade")

Similarly, in a 2004 Q&A, Bob displayed remarkable clarity in his ability to distinguish between a prelate's juridical authority and personal theology: "If our obedience was based on whether the pope is always infallible, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with the SSPX is that they confuse the personal faith and practices of John Paul II with the papal office itself. As long as they continue to judge the papal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, they will continue to make problematic judgments that keep them in schism." (Q&A, July 2004, Question 24)

The words of wisdom spoken by Bob here concerning the Pope may arguably become the words of his own condemnation. Indeed, this last quote can be turned around and made to function like a mirror, reflecting Bob's own recent schismatic leanings.

"If our obedience to our bishops was based on whether the bishop is theologically correct, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with Bob Sungenis is that he confuses the personal faith and practices of Bishop Rhoades with the episcopal office itself. As long as he continues to judge the episcopal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, he will continue to make problematic judgments that keep him in schism."

Of course, Sungenis' disobedience is all the more grave because his bishop does not hold to the theological error with which Sungenis has seen fit to slander him. At least Archbishop Lefebvre had a plausible dilemma to sort through. The very suggestion that it would be a "moral evil" for Sungenis to remain silent on Jewish issues is risible, and is yet another indication of the extent to which he over-estimates his importance.

It seems appropriate to end here with Church teaching about our bishops:

“Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishop’s decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.” #25

“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them . . . by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock. . . . This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary and immediate. . . . In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty for the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects. . .

The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully . . . for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern.” #27

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

The Theology of Prejudice

Bob has recently promised that he will only address Jewish issues if they are of a theological nature, because that is where he has “expertise” (Response to P. Catan). Aside from the fact that Bob has already violated this promise (see here), the implication seems to be that Catholics should be able to trust him on theological issues involving Jews because of this “expertise in theology.”

Unfortunately, the validity of this argument is undermined by the evidence of Bob’s own writings. If anyone should understand that fact, it should be Bob and his patrons. Bob has long made the case that scientists are too often blinded to truth by their strong personal, philosophical biases (e.g., evolution, heliocentrism). Catholic prelates have even raised similar concerns on occasion.

When one believes something strongly, it can be very difficult to analyze information objectively. At times, it may be difficult to even search out contrary evidence. Little thought may be given as to where one might search. One can stare directly at evidence and miss it entirely because of strongly held biases. One may grossly exaggerate the relevance or strength of supportive evidence. And the deeper the prejudice, of course, the more likely one is to fall into any or all of these traps, quite irrespective of any purported level of “expertise.” In such cases, in fact, “expertise” may even serve to obfuscate the truth, to make what is false appear true, or at least reasonable, to those less informed. It takes great discipline, humility and self-knowledge to mitigate or neutralize such bias.

By his own private and public admission, Bob has acknowledged that he still personally holds to many of the anti-Semitic statements he has made (link). And unfortunately, Bob manifestly does not possess the kind of discipline, humility and self-knowledge necessary to neutralize his deep prejudice. There is ample evidence that his theological work has suffered from it.

For instance, Bob has seriously misrepresented the evidence in regard to the following issues because of this deeply held prejudice against Jews: 1) The “Conversion of the Jews” in the end-times, 2) The identity of the Antichrist, 3) The status of Limbo, 4) The Good Friday Prayer (link) 5) The identity of the Olive Tree or “Root” 6) The status of the Jewish people according to Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. This is only a small sample, but these examples will serve to illustrate the pattern.

While his writing on these topics may not be as virulent as his writing on Jewish ethnic, social and political issues, it is seriously tainted by his prejudice, nonetheless. As such, it is sufficiently evident why Bishop Rhoades has directed Bob to refrain from commenting on Jews or Judaism. When Jews are involved, it is manifest that Bob is neither capable of reliably expressing himself with charity nor able to handle the evidence with any semblance of scholarly detachment.

For his own sake and for the sake of everyone he confuses and scandalizes, Bob needs to obey his bishop.

1) The Conversion of the Jews:

As noted here, Bob has been on something of a crusade over the past several years to belittle and discount the belief that Jews as a people will one day have their relationship with God fully restored, having been grafted back on to what St. Paul describes as "their own olive tree" (Rom. 11:24) alongside the Gentiles.
Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9, Article 10

He has grossly understated the patristic evidence arrayed against him, at one point dismissing it as almost non-existent (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3). He has grossly over-estimated the weight of his personal exegesis of Romans 11 while at the same time making palpable errors in his treatment of that passage of Scripture. He has accused Jewish convert Roy Schoeman of “confiscating” Hosea 3:5 for “Zionism” because he sees in it support for “the conversion of the Jews”, an exegetical belief shared by other Catholic scholars, including Fr. Leo Haydock and Catholic prelates, including Bl. Pope Pius IX. And he has erroneously claimed that no one, aside from him, has exegeted Romans 11 in detail in regard to this issue. Here are only a few sample statements:

At best, you have a couple of Fathers referring to a conversion of Jews, but none of them refer to a ‘mass conversion.’” (Intense Dialogue)

Hosea 3:5 is one of the passages Church tradition has understood as fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, but Schoeman is trying to confiscate it for Zionism.” (Judaizers in the Catholic Church, an article, by the way, that is still active at CAI/BTF).

Finally, let me say that the main reason I hold to the "remnant" idea of Jewish conversions, both now and in the future, is due to the contextual and grammatical information in Romans 11:25-26 (from Michael Forrest and the Jews).

I just don't see anything in the passage that teaches a mass conversion of Jews in the future. This is especially important for the mere fact that not one Catholic exegete in all of Church history (at least that I can find) has done a detailed and comprehensive grammatical and syntactical analysis of Romans 11:25-27. Those who have addressed this passage merely took a phrase here or there from the context and formed an opinion (from Michael Forrest and the Jews).

As illustrated above, Bob’s personal Scriptural exegesis is the engine that drives his conclusions. And he sets out his own view of Romans 11 by giving the “context” of St. Paul’s remarks. This is very important because he falls into an elementary error and shows that his whole understanding of the chapter is characterized by a completely erroneous idea of what St. Paul is saying.

In his review of Roy Schoeman’s book Salvation is From the Jews in the Fall 2005 issue of The Latin Mass, Sungenis says,

The very reason Romans 11 was written is that, after God rejected and decimated the Jews in the first century, the question of whether any Jew could still be saved came to the fore, which is the very reason St. Paul opens the chapter with: “Has God foresaken the Jew?” (p. 54; emphasis added.)

The reader should be rubbing his eyes and reading that again. Does Bob actually mean what he says here? First, God “rejected . . . the Jews in the first century”? This is a plainly erroneous statement. Bob would not have had to go any further than verse 1 of Romans 11 to get the answer to that question: “God has not rejected His people, has He? By no means!” (Rom 11:1). St. Paul’s poses his question using the Greek particle mē, which means that it expects the answer No. And this answer he supplies himself in the very next sentence—the emphatically negative answer, mē genoito can be rendered in English as, “Absolutely not!”, “By no means!”, etc. So according to St. Paul, God had not rejected his people the Jews in the first century, whereas Sungenis said that He had. This is Bob’s first error. But the second is far worse.

Bob also asserts that God had “decimated” the Jews in the first century. Now it’s true that there was a great destruction of the Jewish nation in the first century. But when did this take place? In A.D. 70. And when was St. Paul executed? Around A.D. 66. And when was the Epistle to the Romans written? Scholars typically date it c. A.D. 56-58.

Incredibly, Bob would have his readers believe that St. Paul wrote Romans 11 in reaction to an event which would not occur for another 14 years. It may be worth rereading that last sentence.

This is, of course, a monumental error. Surely he can’t have made the elementary error of asserting that Romans 11 was written to answer a question that could only be raised by the destruction of the Jews in A.D. 70, right? Surely he would try to recast it by claiming that’s not what he meant by “decimated”, right? Wrong. He asserted this elsewhere, in an argument with Dr. Art Sippo, and made his monumental error explicit and undeniable:

R. Sungenis4: I personally don’t see what the difficulty is. The “gifts and call of God” that are “irrevocable” refers to the fact that God will never take away the possibility of salvation for the Jews, since he made an irrevocable promise to Abraham about their salvation.

Why would the salvation of the Jew be an issue that needed to be reiterated? Because Paul opens up the chapter by asking: “Has God forsaken the Jews?”

After God abolished the Old Covenant in 33 AD and destroyed the Jews in 70 AD for their unbelief, a curious observer might ask: “Well, does that mean the Jews can no longer be saved?” The answer comes back, “No, God has not forsaken the Jews, for I Paul, a Jew from Benjamin, have been saved; and even in the OT God had a remnant of Jewish believers that he saved, even though most of the nation was in apostasy.” That is the context of Romans 11:1-8. ("CAI Answers Its Critics", emphasis added.)

There it is in black and white. According to Sungenis, an integral part of “the context of Romans 11:1-8” includes an event which took place at least twelve years after the chapter was written, indeed three years after St. Paul was dead! It is hard to express the magnitude of this error without lapsing into ridicule. And this from a man who is constantly reminding everyone about his accomplishments and academic credentials:

I have spent the last 32 years in intensive study and writing about theology and religion. Additionally, my books have received the Catholic Church’s imprimatur; my articles have been published by over a dozen reputable journals and periodicals; I have written and hosted television programs for EWTN; I have been a guest commentator on CNN and the BBC; I have debated the best and brightest of opposing religions before live audiences, and I continue to be a sought after speaker. ("My Ph.D.", pp. 5-6).

This fundamental error clearly demonstrates what so many have been saying all along. Bob Sungenis is not competent to engage Jewish issues because his deep bias and—to say it plainly—bigotry clouds his judgment and renders his writings on the topic full of serious errors.

Now let’s once again apply Bob's own standards to himself. Sungenis regularly dismisses the views of his opponents if he can catch them in a blunder. Rushing in where angels should fear to tread, he does this even with Doctors of the Church, such as St. John Chrysostom:

If he can make such an error with the text, then we certainly can't put much stock in [his] conclusions about anything else regarding Elijah's appearance. ("Intense Dialogue")

So if an alleged error on the part of a saint and scholar of the stature of St. John Chrysostom means that we "can't put much stock in [his] conclusions about anything else" on the topic, then how seriously should we take Bob's views on Romans 11?

[I]f these witnesses are going to base their view of Israel’s future on an exegesis of the text, then that exegesis better be thorough and exact, otherwise it is not worth the paper it is written on. ("Intense Dialogue")

Not worth the paper its written on would be an accurate assessment of Bob's writings on Romans 11, according to his own standard. We believe this example clearly demonstrates that Sungenis approaches Romans 11 as a propagandist rather than a sober scholar.

With respect to Bob’s contention that he just couldn’t find any Catholic scholars who had done a detailed historico-grammatical exgesis of Romans 11, below you will find a list of no less than sixteen full-length, detailed commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans by Catholic authors who utilize the very modern exegetical techniques mentioned by Bob above:

Aletti, J. N. Romans, International Bible Commentary, W.R. Farmer, ed., Collegeville 1998.

Byrne, B. Romans, Sacra Pagina 6, Collegeville 1996.

Cornely, R. Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli epistolas. I, Epistola ad Romanos. Parisiis : P. Lethielleux, 1896.

Fitzmyer, J. A. Romans, Anchor Bible 33, New York 1993.

Huby, J. and S. Lyonnet. Saint Paul, Épître aux Romains; traduction et commentaire. Verbum salutis 10, Paris: Beauchesne 1957.

Johnson, L. T. Reading Romans. A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament, New York 1997, Macon , Ga. 2001.

Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief, 3 vols., Regensburg: Pustet 1957, 1959, 1978.

Lagrange, M. J., Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains, Etudes bibliques, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda, 1950.

Légasse, S., L'épître de Paul aux Romans, Lectio Divina Commentaires 10, Paris: Cerf, 2002.

Penna, R., Lettera ai Romani, 2 vols., Scritti delle origini cristiane ; 6, Bologna: EBD 2004, 2006.

Pitta, A., Lettera ai Romani. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento, I libri biblici NT 6, Milano: Paoline, 2001.

Schaefer, Aloys, 1853-1914. Erklärung des Briefes an die Römer. Munster : Aschendorff, 1891.

Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ; Bd. 6, Freiburg: Herder, 1977.

Tedros Abraha. La lettera ai Romani : testo e commentari della versione etiopica. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 2001.

Theobald, M., Der Römerbrief. I. Kapitel 1â€"11. II. Kapitel 12â€"16, SKK.NT 6, Stuttgart 1992, 1993. Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000.

Zeller, D., Der Brief an die Römer, Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet, 1985.

To this list should be added a number of less detailed commentaries which are, nevertheless, backed up by historico-grammatical exegesis, such as Fr. C. J. Callan, The Epistles of St. Paul, Fr. Pierre Grelot’s, L’épître de Saint Paul aux Romains: une lecture pour aujourd’hui and Fr. Daniel Harrington’s, Romans: The Good News According to St. Paul. And this is not to mention numerous technical monographs on various aspects of Romans 11 by renowned Catholic scholars, such as Fr. Ceslas Spicq, Notes de Lexicographie Neo-Testamentaire, 1978 and “AMETAMELETOS dans Rom 11:29", Revue biblique, 67 [April 1960] and the notes in Fr. Maximilian Zerwick’s, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974).

None of these Catholic scholars were hiding their works from Bob. And not one of them agrees with Bob’s exegesis of Romans 11 vis-à-vis the issue of the “conversion of the Jews”. Yet Bob, who touts a "research doctorate" in theology, claims he couldn’t “find” any of their writings. Did he actually look and then suppress his findings, failing to tell his readers about the massive scholarly consensus arrayed against him? Or was his prejudice such that he decided that looking for views contrary to his own anti-Jewish one just wasn’t necessary?

In our own literature search, we did find one or two modern exegetes who shared Bob’s views to an extent—although this is saying very little since one can find a great many decidedly quirky interpretations represented in the modern literature. Bob himself, however, has never provided the name of a single Father or Doctor of the Church, or any modern scholar who mirrors his idiosyncratic exegesis of Romans 11.

As a final note, it seems particularly noteworthy that no less a renowned scholar than Fr. M. J. Lagrange, founder of the prestigious Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, has pointed out that it was really the Protestants—especially the undeniably anti-Semitic Martin Luther—who began denying the eventual restoration of the Jews as a people to Christ. And according to Lagrange, even Protestant exegetes have now returned almost entirely to what he called l'exégèse normale (“the normal exegesis”) and it is very true that one searches in vain for Bob’s quirky take on Romans 11 in scholarly non-Catholic commentaries as well. Lagrange’s credentials as a Catholic exegete make him worth quoting at length here (what follows is a translation of the French text of Lagrange):

Though particular individuals convert, the majority of the nation [of Israel] is hardened; this hardening will end when all the nations themselves are converted … In his commentary of 1515/1516, Luther explained the text correctly in the schools, but only, he said, because he followed the authority of the Fathers; the text appeared so obscure to him that the explanation of it in the glossa is different, and he came from there to preemptively deny the conversion of the Jews. This was the opinion of the leaders of Protestantism. The current Protestant exegetes have since returned to the usual interpretation [l'exégèse normale].” (Lagrange, Marie-Joseph, Saint Paul: Epitre aux Romains [Paris, Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda, 1950], p.285)

Indeed, quite opposed to Bob’s view that “all Israel” that is saved in Rom 11:25-6 represents no more than the sum total of a trickle of Jewish converts throughout Church history, Protestant New Testament scholar J. D. G. Dunn states that:

There is now a strong consensus that pas Israel must mean Israel as a whole, as a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions (Romans, 681).

As we just saw, according to one of the greatest Catholic exegetes of the 20th century, Sungenis’ eccentric view on Rom 11:25-6 is simply the product of a leftover Reformation-Protestant bias. He has not somehow stumbled onto a compelling new exegesis of Romans 11 that we should all adopt. Furthermore, such views have never managed to make it into the Catholic consciousness nor gained any significant scholarly support. Yet, in a remarkable display of pride, Sungenis has chosen to feed his personal views to the public as though they are the gospel truth under the guise of a “Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.”

For more information on this topic, click here.

2) Antichrist as a Jew:

While Bob has fought with all the passion and determination of a Protestant apologist to debunk and discount the near-unanimous witness of the Fathers who wrote on the conversion of the Jews, his attitude toward the Patristic witness becomes remarkably more liberal when the subject is the possible Jewish ethnicity of the Antichrist. The reasons for this liberality are not difficult to discern. The following is adapted from Robert Sungenis and the Jews:

Forrest: Bob conveys a high level of confidence that the Antichrist will be a Jew (from the tribe of Dan), even going so far as to has claim that the Church has “unofficially declared” this (a seemingly heterodox, oxymoron) or that “the Fathers” have taught this. While it is true there are several fathers or saints who believed that the Antichrist will be Jewish (although Bob has never provided a detailed account himself and even some of those he lists do not say what he claims), the importance of his assertion here is the confidence with which he makes it based on this level of evidence. His claim that “the Fathers” taught that the Antichrist would come specifically from the tribe of Dan is much more tenuous. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that this man, a purported Scripture scholar, has never even attempted to publish an exegetical examination of the purported Biblical support for this belief. Yet, he has felt free to reject the impressive Catholic witness arrayed against him in regard to the expectation of a future large-scale conversion of the Jews based almost exclusively on his personal exegesis of Romans 11.

As you read on, please continually keep in mind the very different approach Bob takes on a positive development regarding the Jews as opposed to this very negative one regarding Antichrist: reflexively dismissive of the former and reflexively accepting of the latter. This is the essential point of the entire section: further detailing the breadth and extent of Bob’s deeply negative bias and double standards. If something is negative about Jews, Bob exhibits a clear tendency to uncritically believe, defend and further propagate it. If something is positive about Jews, Bob exhibits a clear tendency to automatically reject and discredit it.

In order to bolster his claim, Bob has exaggerated the weight of the patristic witness in favor of this belief. He has exaggerated the force of the magisterial teaching on this issue (even going so far as to create the new quasi-theological category of “unofficially declared”). He has pressed evidence into his service that he has judged as untrustworthy when writing on a topic unrelated to Jews (the prophecies of St. Nilus). He has relied on the 1911 Encyclopedia (and even mischaracterized what it said in the process) in order to support his beliefs about the Antichrist after previously having dismissed the testimony of same encyclopedia when it soundly supported something he opposes: the “conversion of the Jews.”

3) Jumping on the “Dump Limbo” Bandwagon:

This particular theological position underscores the extent to which prejudice can affect areas that may seem entirely unrelated to that prejudice. What happened in this instance? Bob unquestioningly accepted the erroneous account given by the liberal, mainstream media in regard to the Church’s teaching on Limbo. According to Bob, Limbo was recently officially “removed” from the “teaching of the Church.” Why did such a typically staunch defender of tradition so readily accept this as true? Because he believed that it helped bolster his weak justification for opposing virtually every Father of the Church who took a position on the “conversion of the Jews”.

The biggest problem for Bob is that the liberal mainstream media got it wrong. The Church did not dump Limbo. In fact, the actual study written by the International Theological Commission repeatedly notes that Limbo continues to be a valid theological opinion.

What makes this even more troubling is that this article is an excerpt from one of Bob’s upcoming volumes of his “Catholic Apologetics Study Bible.” See more information here and here.

4) The Good Friday “Demand”

The evidence can be found in a separate article here.

5) The Olive Tree or “Root” of Romans 11

Bob has made a fuss over the identity of the olive tree or “root” written of in Romans 11. In Bob's view, Christ is the Olive Tree or "root", period. In fact, he has once again gone so far as to insist that this is "the constant teaching of the Fathers" in his Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Volume II. It is worth remembering this pronouncement in contrast to his treatment of the evidence for a future, unusual conversion of the Jewish people to Christ.

Additionally, once again, we will witness Bob’s inability to see the Catholic “both/and” and his animus against all things Jewish. It seems clear on this issue that Bob is on a quest to eradicate or gloss over the presence of Jewish elements from our faith, apparently including the ethnic identity of our savior. Unfortunately, this prejudice has even made its way into Bob’s CASB 2 on the Apocalypse. Bob writes:

Another aspect of this matter concerns the identity of the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17-24. Dispensationalism mistakenly believes that Israel is the Olive Tree. . . . But the context of Romans 11 indicates that Christ is the Olive Tree and Israel is but a mere branch that was broken off for its unbelief but can be grafted back into the Tree…this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church, a representative sample noted below. (p. 149)

Above we see a classic case of Bob’s methodology. First, he begins by denigrating and stereotyping all of his opposition in order to psychologically soften up his readers. Then he employs dubious exegetical arguments stated in an authoritative manner. Then he exaggerates, dismisses or otherwise mischaracterizes the actual patristic evidence, depending on which suits his purposes. And finally, he provides selective proof of his claims as “a representative sample”.

And it can look convincing . . . unless you take the time to really examine what he claims.

In the case at hand: He began by attempting to associate his detractors with discredited “dispensationalists”. As has already been documented, Sungenis must therefore believe there are many respected Catholic scholars and Fathers of the Church who are “dispensationalists”. Then he engaged in an admixture of non sequitur and ipse dixit in regard to exegetical elements. Christ simply must be the olive tree. There is no other way to interpret it! He continued on to exaggerated the patristic evidence, claiming that it is “the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church” that Christ is the Olive Tree or the “root” of Romans 11...It certainly sounds as though Bob considers this particular view a consensus! And finally, he supplies selective quotes that “prove” his claim. Only, in this case, not only are the quotes selective, some of them are mischaracterized.

Next, in Bob’s artcle, Judaizers in the Catholic Church, we find the following offensive reaction to Jewish convert David Moss:

This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jewish rituals.”

Here, Bob’s animus is particularly evident. He was clearly irritated at what he perceived as David Moss’ Jewish arrogance. (“You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews...”). The nerve of David Moss! But the fact is that Bob’s own negative predispositions are coloring his interpretation of what Moss wrote…as well as the patristic and scholarly evidence.

Click below to view Michael Forrest’s treatment of this issue and see the statements from Fathers, Popes, respected scholars and even the Catechism of the Catholic Church that directly contradict Bob’s claims.

It appears that “black and white-either/or” Bob is at work again:
The Root of Romans 11 and Robert Sungenis and the Jews: David Moss and Roy Schoeman.

Perhaps even more troubling than Sungenis' complete omissions of contrary evidence are the occasions on which he presents truncated quotes, thereby allowing him to attempt to turn the Fathers on their heads.

Take for example the following quote from St. Augustine:

Come, then, and be grafted into the root of the olive tree, in his return to which the apostle rejoices, after by unbelief he had been among the broken branches. He speaks of himself as set free, when he made the happy transition from Judaism to Christianity. For Christ was always preached in the olive tree, and those who did not believe on Him when He came were broken off, while those who believed were grafted in. These are thus warned against pride: "Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare thee." And to prevent despair of those broken off, he adds: "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou weft cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree." The apostle rejoices in being delivered from the condition of a broken branch, and in being restored to the fatness of the olive tree. So you who have been broken off by error should return and be grafted in again. Those who are still in the wild olive should separate themselves from its barrenness, and become partakers of fertility. (Augustine to Faustus the Manichean, Bk 9 2)

Note that, in this passage, St. Augustine says that "Christ was always preached in the olive tree." Bob is using this passage to prove that, according to St. Augustine, the olive tree is Christ and not Israel. So, Christ was preached in Christ? That makes little sense. On the other hand, St. Augustine's statement makes a great deal of sense if we understand him as saying Christ was preached in Israel. And indeed, St. Augustine explicitly identifies the olive tree as "the holy stock of the Hebrews" in the very book and chapter from which Bob's quotation is taken! The following is the all-important passage which Bob conveniently neglected to quote:

"You say that the apostle, in leaving Judaism, passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself says that the Jews, who would not believe in Christ, were branches broken off, and that the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the olive."

Clearly, St. Augustine's real position is quite the opposite of the position which Bob has attributed to him. How could Bob have missed this if not by willful blindness?

The story is similar with another of Bob's quotes from St. Augustine.

"Therefore did the Lord at once graft the wild olive into the good olive tree. He did it then when He said, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.'" (Sermons, XXVII, 12).

Again, we may quote from the very same sermon and paragraph which Bob quotes from:

"So then for this reason that people did not come to Him, that is by reason of pride; and the natural branches are said to be broken off from the olive tree, that is from that people founded by the Patriarchs."

Again, St. Augustine says, in the immediate vicinity of the passage which Bob has used to support his theory that the olive tree is Christ and not Israel, that the olive tree is in fact Israel. One would be hard pressed to find a Protestant apologist who has engaged in such egregious and deceptive misrepresentation of the Fathers.

What is more, Ben Douglass provided Sungenis with all this information in an e-mail dated January 14, 2007 - while he was still Sungenis' vice-president, by the way - and reminded him of it again on January 20, stating:

"St. Augustine read the root of Romans 11 as Israel, and he says so in the immediate vicinity of the passages you quoted to argue that the root is Christ and not Israel. Again, you're lobbing softballs at your critics, and it's a good thing I caught this before they did. There could hardly be a clearer illustration of Forrest's thesis that your use of the Fathers is highly tendentious when the subject is Jews and Israel."

This was a few months before the CASB2 was released. Yet, Sungenis allowed the book to go to print without lifting a finger to correct this obvious error.

Bob also blatantly misrepresents the position of St. John Chrysostom. He quotes the following text, in which St. John Chrysostom allegorically applies the olive tree metaphor to the Church:

A few days ago the Church was besieged: an army came, and fire issued from their eyes, yet it did not scorch the olive tree; swords were unsheathed, yet no one received a wound the imperial gates were in distress, but the Church was in security. And yet the tide of war flowed hither; for here the refugee was sought, and we withstood them, not fearing their rage. And wherefore? Because we held as a sure pledge saying "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Two Homilies on Eutropius, Homily 2).

What Bob neglects to mention is that, when St. John Chrysostom directly exegetes the olive tree metaphor in his homilies on Romans, he interprets it as a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs:

Ver. 16. "For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches;"
So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament; and the branches, those from them who believed...
Ver. 24. "For if thou were cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree."
If then faith was able to do what was contrary to nature, much more will it that which is according to nature. For if this person, who was cut off from those by nature his fathers, came contrary to nature unto Abraham, much more will you be able to recover your own. For the Gentile's evil lot is according to nature (he being by nature a wild olive), and the good contrary to nature (it being contrary to nature for him to be grafted into Abraham), but your lot on the contrary is the good by nature. For it is not upon another root, as the Gentile, but on your own that you are to be fixed if you are minded to come back (Homilies on Romans, Homily XIX).

Hence, it is indefensible to marshal St. John Chrysostom in support of the contention that the olive tree of Romans 11 is Christ and not Israel. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that Michael Forrest made Bob aware of St. John Chrysostom's real position in September 2006. However, Bob refused to change his book which quotes St. John Chrysostom as representative of the "consensus" of the Fathers regarding the identity of the olive tree.

Bob also quotes St. Irenaeus, who applies the metaphor of being engrafted into the olive tree to being introduced into the spiritual life, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who applies it to the Church. None of this comes close to establishing the patristic consensus by means of which Bob attempts to bind Catholic conscienses to his personal exegesis of the identity of the olive tree, lest they come under suspicion for the heresy of dispensationalism.


6) Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI on the Jews

Fairly recently, Bob engaged in a serious distortion of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s words about the Jewish people. Bob has been on another crusade of sorts against the ideas that 1) the Jewish people can be spoken of by Catholics as “Israel” (only the Church is Israel now, according to Bob), 2) the Jewish people are still “chosen” in any sense, 3) that the Jewish people retain any kind of special relationship with God or 4) that they maintain a unique, ongoing role in salvation history.
As is so often the case with Bob, he insists on a completely binary, black and white view of matters. The very Protestant-style “either/or” propositions seem to readily attract him, while the possibility of the Catholic “both/and” seems to continually escape him.

If you view this Q and A, you will see that Bob goes to great lengths to avoid admitting that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, clearly sees that the Jewish people still retain a unique relationship with God and that they are also still chosen:

Q: God has not, then, retracted His word that Israel is the Chosen People?

A: (Ratzinger): No, because He is faithful. Of course, we can see that Israel still has some way to go. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God's plans... (God and the World, page 150.)

Yet, amazingly, Bob had the following to say:

R. Sungenis: The Cardinal doesn’t say that the Jews are still the Chosen People (Q and A #17).

One will note that the question posed to the Cardinal (now Pope) was whether God has retracted His choice of Israel. The question implicitly recognizes that Israel was once the Chosen People, and asks whether this status has now been “retracted” (or whether, by logical extension, this status continues today). Cardinal Ratzinger’s unflinching affirmation is that God has not retracted Israel’s status as “the Chosen People.” If God has not retracted this choice, as the Cardinal says, then logically, Israel remains “Chosen.” Additional discussion of the “both/and” concept may be viewed here.

In Q and A #1, Sept-July 2007, we have the following, from the USCCB’s letter on Summorum Pontificum):

14. Does the wider use of the extraordinary form of the rites of Holy Week reflect a change in the Church’s teaching on anti-Semitism ?

“No….When Pope Paul VI issued the Missale Romanum of 1969, the only prayer for the Jewish people in the Roman liturgy was completely revised for Good Friday to reflect a renewed understanding of the Jews as God’s chosen people, “first to hear the word of God.”

Bob’s response?

R. Sungenis: Notice that "God's chosen people" is defined as those "first to hear the word of God," which applies to Jews of the Old Covenant, not today.

The reader is advised to review what the USCCB wrote again. Bob insists that the USCCB intended to refer only to Jews of the Old Covenant, “not today.” This is a patently absurd argument. Are we to believe that the Good Friday prayer is directed at “Jews of the Old Covenant” and not Jews “today”? Obviously, the prayer is intended for the benefit of those Jews living today, and the Church wants to reflect a “renewed understanding” of them as “God’s chosen people.”

The evidence that they are still “chosen” in a valid sense will be dealt with shortly.

However, Bob’s answer manages to degenerate even further as he continues:

(Sungenis): Also, he does not say "the Jews ARE God's chosen people." By using the particle "as," the reference is completely to the past.

The reader is given a glimpse at the kind of grammatical gymnastics Sungenis is capable of playing in order to “prove” his case. However, in this instance, the language is English, not Greek, and as such, any American with a high school diploma can detect the nonsense. Frankly, it is remarkable that he would even attempt to make such an argument.

The contention that the particle “as” has the force of implying the past tense is preposterous:

In general, it is understood that particles are function words that tend to be uninflected — that is, words which do not have suffixes, for example, that reflect grammatical gender, tense or person. However, the term may have a broader definition (Grammatical particles).

Let’s try another example to illustrate that this claim is completely false:

“The New Good Friday prayer is intended to reinforce our understanding of Jesus as the savior of all men.”

This is a perfectly good and accurate sentence, to be sure. So, are we to suppose that the word “as” forces this sentence to mean that Jesus was the savior of all men “completely in the past”?

Certainly, the fact that Bob had the audacity to state something so preposterous in such a factual way ought to make one seriously question exactly what similarly dubious “grammatical” arguments Bob has employed in the Greek, where far fewer people are equipped to detect the grammatical sleight-of-hand.

Finally, unless Bob has devised yet a new grammatical rule, there are other texts to which we can refer that prove conclusively that Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) still believes that the Jewish people retain a special, unique relationship with God and that they have a continuing, unique role to play in the story of salvation even today:

...Israel still has a mission to accomplish today. We are in fact waiting for the moment when Israel, too, will say yes to Christ, but we also know that while history still runs its course even this standing at the door fulfills a mission, one that is important for the world (Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, pp 149-150; emphasis added).

. . . a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people, the people of Israel, to whom belong “the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5), and this not only in the past, but still today, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29) (Cadinal Ratzinger, The Heritage of Abraham, L’Osservatore Romano, 29 December, 2000).

A few things should be noted by the careful reader. First, one will note that the Cardinal says the gifts enumerated in Romans 9:4-5 “belong” to Israel (note well: he freely refers to the Jewish people as “Israel”) – he does not say these gifts “belonged” (only in the past) to Israel. Second, he explicitly says that these things apply “not only in the past, but still today.” It was as if the Holy Father knew that people like Bob would strain to find any way to distort his words. And so, he could not be any clearer.

If Bob finds that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) disagrees with his eccentric interpretations concerning the Jewish people then he should have the courage to say so. As it is, the lengths to which he must (and is willing!) to go in order to pretend that the Holy Father agrees with him simply further undermines what little credibility he has left and, as we have contended throughout this essay, clearly highlights Bob’s bias and animus on Jewish issues.

Bob seems to consider himself what may be termed an extreme supersessionist. He ostensibly believes that the Jews, as Jews, no longer play any role in God's design for man's salvation and that the Catholic Church has entirely and utterly replaced the role of the Jews in every way in regard to promises, eschatology, etc related to Israel. He claims that this is the Catholic view, although he has never proved this from magisterial texts. Thus his contention that it is tantamount to heresy for a Catholic to reject “supersessionism” is totally misguided, for the Catholic Church has never embraced the crude and extreme supersessionism usually peddled by Sungenis—in fact, the word “supersessionism” itself originated in Protestant circles. What’s more, when one examines his beliefs more closely, it becomes clear that Bob is not truly the extreme supersessionist he portrays himself to be. Even under his own views, it is obvious that the Jewish people still have a unique role to play in salvation history. And it is obvious that God still has a special concern for them as a people.

Of course, it is indisputable that He also has retained an eternal, intimate connection with the Jewish people that is not simply “in the past”. The second Person of the Holy Trinity will forever be a Jew. And He was born of a Jewish woman who we shall ever exalt as the highest, noblest and most pure creature on earth…the Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of all Graces. These facts cannot be glossed over as of no account.

While Bob denies a special, future “conversion of the Jews”, he does acknowledge that God has promised to continuously bring some Jews to salvation in Christ until the Second Coming:

God has been saving Jews, and will continue to save Jews, until the end of time. (Article)

St. Paul assures us in Romans 11:1-24 that Jews will be saved right up until the Second Coming. (Michael Forrest and the Jews, p. 47)

As St. Paul said in Romans 11:5...there will be a remnant of saved Jews until the end of time. (Question 271 - Are the Jews Cursed by God?)

Apparently, he has not entirely thought through the ramifications of that promise. Has God made any such promises to the Greeks? The Italians? The Egyptians? Are any of these ethnic groups singled out and assured by God Himself that at least some of them will go to heaven in every age throughout the remainder of history? Is there any ethnic group at all aside from the Jews that have been singled out to receive such a promise? No. As such, this is clear evidence, even under Bob’s stingy theology, that God retains a special relationship with the Jewish people.

And what of Bob’s belief that the Antichrist will be Jewish? While negative, certainly this is further evidence that the Jewish people are not finished in regard to the story of salvation. They still have a distinct, unique role to play. Bob cannot have it both ways.

In fact, there was a time when Bob was capable of admitting that there is something special and positive about the relationship between God and the Jewish people:

(Forrest): How can you flatly disagree that St. Paul indicated in vs. 28 that God still cares for the Jews as a genetic people by the phrase "for the sake of the Patriarchs"? What else does this passage mean?...."As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but are touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers." What else can this mean, other than that God has a particular and continuing concern for them because they descend from the patriarchs?

(Sungenis): I think I was confused by your use of the word "genetic," as if there was something about being Jewish that attracted God. I think you mean to say "ethnic," not genetic. I do agree that there is an "ethnic" issue, and that God intends on saving Jews as an ethnic race of people.
(Email of April 5, 2004)

One wonders what admonishment Bob would offer to Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I, in which 1) the Jewish people are referred to as “Israel” and “Israelites”, 2) the “Mosaic” religion is described as not changed, but completed and crowned, 3) the Jews, as a people, are described as “always very dear to God” (not merely those who accept Christ), and 4) we are reminded that the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity is and will forever be of Jewish, according to the flesh.

Postulatum signed by Pope Pius IX and many of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, 1870:

The undersigned Fathers of the Council humbly yet urgently beseechingly pray that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican deign to come to the aid of the unfortunate nation of Israel with an entirely paternal invitation; that is, that it express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion.

On one hand, the undersigned Fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.

On the other hand, the same Fathers share the sweet and intimate hope that this ardent desire of tenderness and honor will be, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, well received by many of the sons of Abraham, because the obstacles which have held them back until now appear to be disappearing more and more, the ancient wall of separation now having fallen.

Would that they then speedily acclaim the Christ, saying “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!”

Would that they hurl themselves into the arms of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, even now their sister according to the flesh, who wishes likewise to be their mother according to grace as she is ours! (emphasis added)

Sadly, it would appear that Bob is intent upon creating what Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I referred to as “obstacles which have held [the Jewish people] back” from coming to Jesus Christ. This list of areas in which Bob’s theology suffers from a manifest prejudice is far from exhaustive—numerous other examples have been cited throughout the articles on this blog. His prejudice will not allow him to process and present the evidence fairly. Truly, to paraphrase St. Paul, a hardening has come upon Bob Sungenis with respect to the Jews.

-----------------------

Follow-up, in-depth examination of some of Sungenis's additional theological errors and prejudice involving Jewish issues:

Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis

The Theology of ADL Conspiracy Theories

Despite his bishop's order to cease publishing his opinions on Jews and Judaism, Bob Sungenis has written a new article for Culture Wars magazine on Judaism and the Old Covenant. In a recent Q&A posting on his web site, Sungenis drew a line between dealing with Jewish Theological issues and Jewish cultural/political issues, promising to deal with the former exclusively in his writings:

I'll leave criticism of Jewish politics and culture to people more capable than I apparently am. My expertise is in theology, and that is where I will put all my efforts. Hence, any future dealings that I have with the Jews, whether on our website or in published articles, will only concern the theological side of things. As you can see by the Jewish material presently on our website, every article is about theological matters, and that will always be the policy of our apostolate from here on out.(Q&A of January 25, 2008, "Response to P. Catan", Link)

One presumes that the words "every article [presently on our website]" includes the most recent Culture Wars article, "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?" And yet, like a pig to his mud puddle, Bob simply cannot help himself; he makes it an entire two pages into the article before going into a paranoid rant on the ADL and B'nai B'rith:

The original spelling was "B'ne B'rith," which, because of variants in Hebrew vowel pointing, could also be pronounced "B'nai B'rith." In any case, B'ne B'rith originated in 1842, ostensibly for Jewish humanitarian reasons. In 1913, the spelling changed to B'nai B'rith and it then became an organization whose main purpose was to thwart anti-Semitism. By the mid-twentieth century, the ADL arm of B'nai B'rith had grown so large that Congressman John Rarick was compelled to give critical testimony before Congress on Dec 6, 1971. Here are his sobering words: "The world's largest spy network, the ADL...is either too powerful to be curbed or too well embedded to be mentioned or to come under public scrutiny. What is the ADL? It is a private investigative organization engaged in spying and preparing secret dossiers and reports which it uses to suppress free speech and discussion and to influence public thought and sentiment on an unsuspecting citizenry." Rarick adds that the ADL is a "monstrous Gestapo of the establishment," whose purpose is the "use of its intelligence network as a private super-pressure [organization]," and that it engages in "coerced cooperation of newspapers and other media of communication..." Quoting the words of senator Jack Tenney of California, Rarick continued: "The ADL has become the world's most powerful Gestapo; the brain center of a vast spy network and the intelligence unit of a myriad of Jewish organizations. Their secret agents spy on American citizens. Extensive files and dossiers are complied on those whom they dislike...Throughout their multitudinous controls of the media of communication, they are capable of destroying reputations and silencing all rebuttal....We are beginning to appreciate its vast spy network sprawling across the nation and throughout the world. Our imagination is staggered by its apparent control of the avenues of communication." (Sungenis, "Covenant", p. 2, fn. 5)

I will leave it to the more imaginative to explain how the "spy network" of the ADL has anything to do with theology.

The other point that needs to made here is that once again Bob has proven himself unwilling to do real research, or use primary sources, while writing on Jewish issues. The above quotes from John Rarick and Jack Tenney simply lack any citations or references, other than the passing mention of the fact that these words were spoken "before Congress on Dec 6, 1971."

Ostensibly, then, one could find this speech in the Congressional Record. And on a cold Saturday morning, I set out to do just that. First, I searched the Internet for some clue, and discovered that Bob's footnote above is little more than a verbatim copy-and-paste job from his 2005 article, "Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection." Unfortunately, he doesn't give any sources or citations in that article either.

Arriving at the library, I quickly located the stacks which contained government documents. After finding the volume that contained the entries for December 6, 1971, I tracked down the speech in question, and it took all of five minutes to confirm my hunch. Comparing Rarick's speech with Bob's article, it is now a demonstrable fact: wherever Bob got these quotes from, he did not take them from the Congressional Record.

It was a strong suspicion in my mind from the beginning that Bob didn't go through these sorts of steps to do his homework and find these quotes. After all, we're talking about the man who once said, "Posting such CAI News articles is no hard work for me. I just copy and paste." (Q&A, Question 16, November 2006) It is simply not part of Bob's track record, when writing papers on his pet theories, to invest himself in any kind of effort to obtain (or validate) the quotes he uses. In this case, it is beyond doubt: he did no such research.

I am not interested in helping Bob out here by giving him volume and page number information. I have no intention of being his "fact-checker and source-exonerator for CAI articles on Jewish issues", a job he once publicly awarded to Ben Douglass, just months before Ben left CAI over Bob's anti-Jewish activities (cf. Sungenis, "Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL", p. 4)

It will suffice to say simply this: I did the leg-work, and I did the research, and it can now be said with certainty that Bob did not get his quotes from Rarick and Tenney by looking at the Congressional Record.

Which naturally raises the question: where did he get these quotes? Obviously, he plagiarized them from a secondary (or even tertiary) source, which he did not credit in either of the articles in which he "quoted" Rarick. Rather, as is his M.O., he acted as though he was using a primary source in order to give the impression that he actually did his homework, when in reality he was just plagiarizing again. This facade of having done primary research is probably why at least some people still think of him as a reputable scholar. He is not. He is a plagiarist.

So what was his secondary (or tertiary) source, in this case? I have no doubt that with a bit more checking, I could discover this as well, but to be quite blunt, I'm not interested enough at this juncture. Instead, I am raising this open challenge to Bob: reveal your actual sources for the Rarick material, because it certainly wasn't the Congressional Record.

Given Bob's past history with dealing with challenges against his sources ("I don't remember where I got it", or "it doesn't matter where I got it from, what matters is whether it's true"), I don't expect an answer.

Jacob Michael