There’s only one problem with your post:
“...the fact that all these doctrines are part of Catholic tradition...”
Anti-semitism is not a Catholic doctrine.
Also, geocentrism is not a Catholic doctrine.
To put it somewhat facetiously, sez you.
Also, geocentrism is not a Catholic doctrine.
It's not? But didn't popes and bishops and theologians teach it for a long time? If long-held teachings can be discarded in the name of "science," then what's to prevent any doctrine from being so discarded???
As I understand it, the acentric position and the Brahian position (which is not called "geocentric" but rather something else which I can't recall right now) explain the observed movements of the heavenly bodies. This being the case, why favor one over the other, except for a need to prove the Bible is primitive and full of mistakes?
I hope you don't defend evolution as well. From your defenses of Mr. Sungenis I had concluded that you shared his commitment to total Biblical inerrancy, but now you seem to be back-pedalling.
Unfortunately, in addition to being anti-Semitic, Mr. Sungenis has long rejected the literal interpretation of the early generations of mankind in the early chapters of Genesis, insisting that "begot" refers not to direct fatherhood but mere paternal ancestry. This is in conflict with Jewish tradition as well as the literal meaning of the text and means his "inerrancy" isn't really inerrancy.
Again, I was sorry to see Mr. Sungenis take the road that he did, but I understand he was merely publicizing teachings not his own and which had fallen into disuse in the modern era. I support this with regard to "science," but not with regard to anti-Semitic teachings.