Bob Sungenis leads Catholics into Heresy and Schism

 

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

 

Bob Sungenis, Jan. 2004, Q. 4: “Understand that the Dimond Brothers are out to prove a point -- that the Catholic Church is over, finished, terminated. They will do anything they can to convince you that there is error in official church documents because this will mean that there is no Catholic Church any longer as we once knew it. But they are being trapped by their own so-called wisdom.”

In this Article:

 

-          MR. SUNGENIS ON GIVING HOLY COMMUNION TO NON-CATHOLICS

-          MR. SUNGENIS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW MASS

-          MR. SUNGENIS ON NO ONE JUDGING APOSTATE ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II *** (St. Robert Bellarmine devastates his argument)

-          MR. SUNGENIS ON WHETHER MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS HAVE THE SAME GOD

-          Mr. Sungenis on Interpretation

-          Mr. Sungenis in Defense of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty

-          Mr. Sungenis promotes Schism and encourages Catholics to deny the Papacy

Bob Sungenis claims to be a “traditional” Catholic and an apologist for the Catholic Faith.  On his website, he has attempted to respond to some of our articles and publications relating to Antipope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.  Since some of our readers are familiar with Mr. Sungenis, and may have been influenced by him, some of his positions will be addressed this week in this column.  Here is what Mr. Sungenis says about Vatican II:

Bob Sungenis, On Vatican II: "Let me assure you that I consider Vatican II a legitimate ecumenical council. I will go one step further and say that it was a council that contains no error.” (found in Question 9, Dec. 2003)

This means that Bob Sungenis thinks that none of the following propositions in Vatican II are even erroneous, let alone heretical.  He is, therefore, a defender of the following Vatican II heresies, among others. (See the article, “The Principal Heresies of Vatican II” for many other heresies in Vatican II).

1.        Christ is united with each man (Gaudium et Spes, 22);

2.        Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

3.        Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion (Orientalium ecclesiarum, 27)

4.        Muslims and Catholics together worship the one true God (Lumen Gentium, 16)

5.        The Catholic Church is united with those who don’t accept the faith or the Papacy (Lumen Gentium, 15)

6.        The College of Bishops is the subject of full and supreme power over the universal Church (Lumen Gentium, 22)

7.        Some people above the age of reason don’t believe in God (i.e., are atheists) through no fault of their own (Lumen Gentium, 16)

8.        The State exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious activity (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)

9.        In Buddhism men reach the highest illumination (Nostra Aetate, 2)

10.     All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown (Gaudium et Spes, 12)

 

In fact, Mr. Sungenis has actually gone out of his way to defend the heretical teaching of Vatican II (Orientalium ecclesiarum, 27) and Antipope John Paul II that Catholic priests may lawfully give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. 

 

MR. SUNGENIS ON VATICAN II AND ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II’S HERETICAL TEACHING THAT IT IS LAWFUL TO GIVE HOLY COMMUNION TO NON-CATHOLICS

R. Sungenis, Jan. 2004, Q. 4: “… they don't apply, because Canon 844.4 is not referring to those outside the Church (Protestants, et al). It simply says "other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church," which in paragraph 3 it already noted were "Eastern Churches" or other "in the same condition in regard to sacraments as these Eastern Churches." Believe me, they have protected themselves from error here… The simple answer to this is that Canon 844.4 is speaking about something far different than the above mentioned papal decrees, namely, the "danger of death." None of the papal statement you have solicited are addressing the issue of death, but only the general rule that the sacraments are not to be given to non-Catholics. Moreover, canon 844.4 is careful to say that those who do not have full communion can receive the sacraments "provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed." Thus, the even in the face of an emergency such as death, precautions are taken.”

Bob Sungenis is here attempting to defend the heretical teaching of Vatican II, Antipope John Paul II and the New Code of Canon Law (Can. 844.4) that Holy Communion may lawfully be given to non-Catholics.  In the quote above, he is referring to Canon 844.4 of Antipope John Paul II’s 1983 Code.

 

Antipope John Paul Canon 844.4, 1983 Code of Canon Law:

“If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

 

Mr. Sungenis begins by arguing that Canon 844.4 is not referring to non-Catholics.  This is obviously absurd, for the canon clearly says that Holy Communion may be given to those “who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.”  Probably realizing that this was a hopeless argument, Mr. Sungenis then abandons his argument in the course of his response and switches to another.  He then begins to argue that it’s okay to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics in danger of death.  So much for his argument that it wasn’t referring to non-Catholics! 

 

R. Sungenis, Jan. 2004, Q. 4: Believe me, they have protected themselves from error here… The simple answer to this is that Canon 844.4 is speaking about something far different than the above mentioned papal decrees, namely, the "danger of death."

 

He now seems to be definitely conceding that the canon says that one can give Communion to non-Catholics, and he attempts to defend that by pointing out that the canon only mentions “in danger of death.”  But this is also a hopeless argument which crumbles quickly, first of all, because Vatican II, Antipope John II’s Catechism (#1401) and Canon 844.3 all teach the same heresy that Catholic priests may give Holy Communion to non-Catholics without any mention of “danger of death.”

 

Vatican II Document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:

“Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401):

“When, in the Ordinary’s judgement, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.”

 

Canon 844.3, 1983 Code of Canon Law:

“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed.  This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”

 

We can see that Mr. Sungenis’ “danger of death” argument is blown out of the water: Vatican II teaches that Holy Communion may be given to Eastern Schismatics without any mention of danger of death.  But even if Vatican II had mentioned “danger of death,” it still wouldn’t change the heresy.  It is never lawful to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic, and every Catholic should know this.  Mr. Sungenis is actually a heretic for defending and asserting that it is allowable to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic in danger of death.  He rejects the following dogma that the sacraments do not profit non-Catholics unto salvation; and, therefore, it is never lawful to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic. 

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

It is a solemnly defined dogma that only for those who abide in the Roman Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation.  Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.

 

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:

“Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:

“… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”

 

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:

“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

To assert that one can give Holy Communion to an Eastern Schismatic at any time is to deny this dogma which was defined by the Council of Florence and reiterated by these Popes.  In a desperate attempt to defend Vatican II and Antipope John Paul II, Mr. Sungenis denies this dogma and is therefore a heretic.  In fact, he is so desperate to defend Antipope John Paul II’s official pronouncements that he switched his argument on what the canon was actually saying in just a matter of a few paragraphs. 

MR. SUNGENIS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW MASS

Mr. Sungenis also makes it a point to repeatedly “assure” his readers that the New Mass is valid.

Bob Sungenis (Jan. 2003) Question 1- The Dimond Brothers Say the New Mass is Invalid. Is it?: “Matt, syntactical changes in the consecration formula do not make the New Mass invalid. As long as the words Jesus said at the Last Supper are repeated over the host, then the Eucharist is confected. I would suggest that you not be moved by the hair-splitting arguments of the Dimond brothers. Although it would have been better for Paul VI not to have made any changes (for the mere sake of tradition and posterity), still, what we are left with does not invalidate the mass. Since the very matters the Dimond brothers bring forth as contestable, e.g., "the mystery of faith," "all as opposed to many," are matters that Scripture itself (by a comparison of the Synoptic passages and Paul's epistles) does not consider as critical in the consecration formula, then no judgment of "invalidity" can be made using those examples as the criterion… Nor does a change from "many" to "all" invalidate the mass, since Scripture itself juxtaposes the two words very often, without any change in meaning (cf., Mt 26:28; Lk 22:20; Mt 20:28; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 2:2; Lk 3:6; John 6:51; Heb 9:28, et al).”

This has to be one of the most theologically perverse arguments I’ve ever seen.  Mr. Sungenis argues that because “many” and “all” are used to mean the same thing in certain passages of scripture, it definitely doesn’t change the meaning to insert “all” in place of “many” in the formula of consecration.  Does anyone actually buy this?  Does anyone actually fail to see the absolute illogic in this argument?  Does anyone not see that it is completely ridiculous to say that because in certain passages of scripture “many” and “all” happen to mean the same thing, that many and all necessarily mean the same thing in the Mass?  It is so ridiculous and illogical that it’s a shame it even has to be addressed.  Matthew 7:13 says that broad is the way that leadeth to hell, and “many” there are who go in thereat.  Can we substitute “all” for “many” in Matthew 7:13 without changing the meaning, Mr. Sungenis?  According to Bob Sungenis’ “great” argument, there would no change of meaning.  But obviously there is a change of meaning – thus disproving Mr. Sungenis’ claim.  In fact, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, contrary to Mr. Sungenis, explicitly states that “ALL” CANNOT BE USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE MASS, totally refuting Mr. Sungenis.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist:
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS ‘FOR ALL’ NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)

As the Catechism of Trent teaches, in the Consecration of the Mass the priest is speaking about those for whom Christ’s Blood is effective.  It further says that “ALL” WAS SPECIFICALLY NOT USED BY OUR LORD FOR A REASON.  This reason is that to put “all” there is to indicate that all men have the remission of sins, which is heretical and false. 

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

Those who fall for Bob Sungenis’ absurd argument (which directly contradicts the Catechism of Trent) and continue to attend or defend the invalid New Mass will regret it for all eternity.

MR. SUNGENIS ON NO ONE JUDGING THE APOSTATE ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II

Mr. Sungenis is also frequently asked about John Paul II’s heresies and the fact that John Paul II is an undeniable heretic.  Mr. Sungenis basically always answers this charge against John Paul II the same way, by asserting that he doesn’t have any authority to say that John Paul II is a heretic and therefore not the Pope.

Bob Sungenis (Dec. 2003) Question 8- The Dimond Brothers' "Heresy of the Week" from Dec. 26, 2003: “… this does not make John Paul II an "Antipope," as the Dimond brothers are so fond of saying. The Dimond brothers can certainly protect their own souls from things they see as harmful coming from underlings at the Vatican, but they simply have no authority to deem John Paul II as an "antipope." There is no official and formal process which directs us in dealing with a heretical pope who is still living. The Dimond brothers can quote some saints and popes as saying that a heretic loses his office as pope, but to this date, no pope has ever given us the process whereby this could be formally and officially accomplished. As it stands, only another pope could issue a decree designating a previous pope a formal heretic...”

First of all, Mr. Sungenis has it all wrong; no process is necessary in “accomplishing” the deposition of a heretical “pope.”  A Pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically deposes himself without any declaration by leaving the Catholic Church through the public profession of heresy.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

Secondly, by what authority does Mr. Sungenis say that Protestant ministers are heretics?  Perhaps he doesn’t at all?  He may actually hold that Protestant Ministers, such as Jack Van Impe and Pat Robertson, are not actual heretics and that they are inside the true Church?  A few years ago I heard Mr. Sungenis debate Robert Zins, a Protestant blasphemer who was attacking the Catholic Church and who has attacked it for years.  In the debate Mr. Sungenis refused to call the Protestant (Robert Zins) a heretic – even though Mr. Zins was begging him to call him a heretic and also proved to Mr. Sungenis from the Council of Trent that, according to Trent’s teaching, he [Zins] is a heretic!

I mention this only because Mr. Sungenis is still employing this heretical mentality, for if he can’t say that Antipope John Paul II is a heretic then he cannot say that any of the Eastern Schismatic (“Orthodox”) Bishops or Protestant Ministers are heretics.  He can’t say that Hans Kung (who denies the Divinity of Christ) is a heretic.  He can’t say that the “Old Catholics” (who reject the Papacy) are heretics.  HE CAN’T SAY THAT ANYONE IS A HERETIC who has not been excommunicated specifically by name, which includes 99.9% of all heretics and apostates today.

Can one not see the absolute falsity and heretical nature of such a position?  I refer the reader to “The Devastating Dilemma” to show why a Catholic not only has the authority but must consider Antipope John Paul II as a non-Catholic.  But there is a passage in St. Robert Bellarmine that is completely devastating to Mr. Sungenis’ argument.  Many of those familiar with our material have never seen this passage before. 

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”

Here, St. Robert Bellarmine is discussing Pope Liberius and the Arian heresy in the 4th Century.  It was widely believed at that time that the Pope (Liberius) fell into a compromise with the Arian heretics and had St. Athanasius excommunicated.  This turned out to be false, as Pope Pius IX points out.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations:

“And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”

Even though it turned out that the Pope (Liberius) was not a heretic, St. Robert Bellarmine says that because Liberius appeared to be a heretic (even though he wasn’t!), the Catholics LAWFULLY CONSIDERED HIM A HERETIC, AS ONE WHO WAS NOT THE POPE, AND AS ONE WHO WAS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AND JUSTIFIABLY WENT OVER TO FELIX, WHO BEGAN TO “REIGN”!  In other words, even though Pope Liberius was not a heretic [and actually was still the true Pope], he appeared to be a heretic, and therefore was necessarily considered as not the Pope, BECAUSE CATHOLICS CANNOT PROFESS COMMUNION WITH PEOPLE WHO PROFESS HERESY IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM!  This destroys the argument of Mr. Sungenis and countless other non-sedevacantists.  And if St. Robert’s words show that Catholics were justified in presuming Pope Liberius a heretic and outside the Church, who only appeared to be a heretic [but actually wasn’t], how much more in the case of Antipope John Paul II, who is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT A HERETIC AND AN APOSTATE, WHO HAS IMPOSED HIS HERESY AND APOSTASY ALMOST WEEKLY FOR DECADES.

Ironically, St. Robert Bellarmine is the patron Saint of Mr. Sungenis’ apostolate.

But St. Robert Bellarmine’s words should be common sense to Catholics, for we do not share a unity of Faith and communion (which is what the Catholic Church is) with those who publicly deny the Catholic Faith.  It should be common sense that WE MUST NOT AND CANNOT AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO recognize as Catholics persons who exemplify complete apostasy.  Mr. Sungenis, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO SAY THAT CATHOLICS CAN RECOGNIZE AS A CATHOLIC A MAN WHO TEACHES: universal salvation; the heresies of freedom of religion and conscience; that Jews have a valid covenant; that Catholics shouldn’t convert the Eastern Schismatics; that the Council of Trent no longer applies, etc. etc, etc. ad nauseam.   Mr. Sungenis, you have no authority to recognize apostates and heretics as Catholics.

As touched on already, the reason that we know that the Protestants, the Eastern Schismatics, the “Old Catholics,” etc. are outside the Church is not because all these people have been specifically condemned by name, but because they demonstrate a denial of Catholic teaching.  As the following quotes from Pope Pius IX show, we are not allowed to consider these people who reject the Catholic Faith as Catholics, even if they claim to be.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine…  But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

 

This demonstrates again that we must consider as schismatics and heretics individuals who reject Catholic dogma (such as Antipope John Paul II and his bishops), even though those individuals claim to be Catholic and have not been specifically excommunicated by name. 

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.” 

MR. SUNGENIS ON VATICAN II’S BLASPHEMOUS HERESY THAT MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS TOGETHER WORSHIP THE ONE TRUE GOD

(Dec. 2003) On Muslims Worshipping the Same God as Catholics -Question 9- To: Robert Sungenis: After reading your exchange with Tim Staples, I had a question with regard to your claim that VCII is infallible and contains no errors. You explained your position elsewhere within your site as follows: My question is: How do you reconcile that position with the following passage from Lumen Gentium (to give but one example):

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

Mr. Sungenis goes on for some paragraphs dancing around the key heretical phrase in this passage, which is: Muslims “along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”  After numerous paragraphs, Mr. Sungenis finally gets around to touching upon this blasphemous heresy.

Bob Sungenis’ Answer: “…"who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind." Since, as we see in the story of the Rich Man, that it is possible to obey the commandments of the "one" God, and be "close" to the kingdom because of that obedience, yet at the same time, be outside the kingdom and having great obstacles that keep one from being admitted into the kingdom, then it is possible for one to "profess to hold the faith of Abraham," and profess to "adore the one and merciful God," yet still not be saved.  The Lumen Gentium statement is not saying that the Mohamedans are saved or will be saved. In context, it is simply saying that, in the order of those who are closer to the prospects of becoming saved, the Mohamedans are higher on the scale than, for example, atheists, since Mohamedans, as opposed to atheists, at least "profess" a faith that is near ours (i.e., the faith of Abraham), and from that profession it can be acknowledged that they have a more correct understanding of God than those of other religions (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, etc). This is not to say that the Mohamedans have a correct understanding of God, but only that they are more correct than other religions and thus closer on the scale to us than others. Naturally, it would be easier to talk with a Mohamedan about the concept of one God than it would be with a Hindu who believes in 330 million separate gods, or a Buddhist who believes in pantheism. In fact, we could say that, in its "pastoral" role, Vatican II is showing us that the Mohamedans are fertile ground for evangelization to Catholicism, since the Mohamedans already believe in the one divine being and profess the faith of Abraham. In many cases, we might not have such an uphill battle evangelizing a Mohamedan as we might evengelizing an atheist. We can do the same thing with Mohamedans that St. Paul did with the Athenians on Mars Hill in Acts 17 who had a statue to the "unknown god." In fact, Lumen Gentium 16 quotes from Acts 17 as an authoritative source to spur evangelization of these Islamic religions. The problem with today's liberals and modernists, however, is that they have interpreted Lumen Gentium to mean that Mohamadens are either saved or have the same prerogatives of salvation as Catholics do. Instead of using Lumen Gentium to foster greater evangelistic efforts toward the the unsaved Mohamedans, they have used Lumen Gentium as an excuse NOT to evangelize the Mohamedans.”

I quoted the entire passage of Mr. Sungenis’ response from the time he finally got around to addressing the key part of the passage in Lumen Gentium.  But notice carefully that never once does Mr. Sungenis answer the question: whether it is an error or a heresy to believe that Muslims together with Catholics worship the one true God.  Mr. Sungenis does a diligent job of evading this question, by talking about evangelization; by talking about the Rich Man in the Gospel; by talking about atheism; by talking about people who believe that Muslims can be saved, etc. – all of which have nothing to do with the precise question: whether it is heresy to say that Muslims and Catholics together worship the one true God, mankind’s Judge on the last day.  The closest he comes to addressing the issue is just another evasion.  He says,

“great obstacles that keep one from being admitted into the kingdom, then it is possible for one to "profess to hold the faith of Abraham," and profess to "adore the one and merciful God," yet still not be saved.” 

Notice how Mr. Sungenis has very slyly evaded the question by stating that Muslims PROFESS to adore the one true and merciful God.  Sorry, Mr. Sungenis, but the question was not whether Muslims PROFESS to adore the one true God!  The question was: do Muslims and Catholics together worship the one true God?! 

Mr. Sungenis evaded this question in this way and did not answer it because the passage in Lumen Gentium is outright heresy and blasphemy, as even Protestant Ministers recognize.  Muslims and Christians (Catholics) don’t have the same God.  Catholics worship the Holy Trinity; Muslims don’t.  Thus, what Vatican II teaches is bold heresy.  And Catholics and Muslims most certainly don’t have the same God, WHO IS MANKIND’S JUDGE ON THE LAST DAY (OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST).  But Mr. Sungenis avoided answering this question, probably because he knows that this heresy in Vatican II is indefensible – and therefore devastating to his heretical positions – and devastating to the counterfeit Vatican II sect which he defends.

MR. SUNGENIS ON INTERPRETATION

 

Bob Sungenis, in Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s e-mail on Vatican II’s heresy of religious liberty: “One of the main problems with Bro. Dimond's reasoning is that he is using as his foundation his personal opinion that Vatican II contains explicit errors in matters of faith and morals. But obviously, if Bro. Dimond's opinions are fallible, then he cannot know for certain whether Vatican II's documents contain explicit errors.”

 

This is one of Bob Sungenis’ main theological errors which leads him to his heretical positions.  Think about what he has stated here: his words actually mean that no member of the Faithful (since they are all fallible) could ever identify for certain a theological error against Faith.

 

For example, is the statement Jesus Christ is not present in the Holy Eucharist definitely false?  According to Bob Sungenis, we cannot say for certain because we are only fallible and therefore we “cannot know for certain” whether this is an error.  Does the reader see how mistaken, and in fact heretical, Mr. Sungenis’ argument is? 

 

The truth is that IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A DOGMA ISN’T, THEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS.  If you don’t know what “a” is not, then you don’t know what “a” is.  If you don’t know for certain that the proposition, Jesus Christ is not present in the Holy Eucharist, is heretical and definitely false, then you don’t believe in the dogma that Jesus Christ is definitely present in the Eucharist. 

 

Likewise, if a person does not know for certain that Vatican II’s teaching that Protestant sects are a means of salvation (Unitatis redintegratio #3) is contrary to the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, then that person doesn’t believe in Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. 

 

Likewise, if a person does not know for certain that Vatican II’s teaching that the Catholic Church is united with those who don’t profess the Faith or accept the Papacy (Lumen Gentium 15) is contrary to the dogma that the Catholic Church is one in Faith, then he does not believe in the dogma that the Catholic Church is definitely one (as in one, holy, Catholic, apostolic) in Faith and under the unifying factor of the Papacy.  If he can’t definitely identify these clear heresies, then the person doesn’t believe in these dogmas.  One can see that Mr. Sungenis has run the “private interpretation” argument completely amiss and has fallen into heresy on this point, a heresy which would render all Catholics completely faithless know-nothings, never knowing for sure what they do and do not believe.

 

MR. SUNGENIS IN DEFENSE OF VATICAN II’S HERETICAL TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Bob Sungenis, in Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s e-mail on Vatican II’s heresy of religious liberty::”This gives us an opportunity to show how easily Bro. Dimond can be mistaken. Let's look at Quanta Cura and Vatican II side by side.  Quanta Cura condemned the following: "Namely, that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society.” Vatican II asserted the following: "This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom. This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society by law as to become a civil right.  First, Quanta Cura speaks about liberty of "conscience" and "worship," whereas Vatican II speaks about "religious freedom." As we shall see, these are different things. If Vatican II had said: "This Vatican synod declares that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right..." then obviously, this would be in direct contradiction to Quanta Cura, but it did not. The truth is that Quanta Cura is condemning the notion that an individual has the right, morally speaking, to form his own conscience any way he desires, without recourse to natural law or Church teaching, or has the right, morally speaking, to worship any god he chooses; and that because of the so-called moral right, it should also be a civil right. Vatican II, on the other hand, is not concerned with the moral issues of "conscience" and "worship" but with the civil issue of "religious freedom," a term specifically chosen to differentiate civil rights from moral rights. This can be gleaned very quickly from the negative judgment Vatican II’s documents cast upon any coercion by civil government to foster a religion of its own choosing on its people. Vatican II says that such governmental intrusion is unlawful and against divine mandate.”

Mr. Sungenis is a Scripture Scholar.  He knows a lot about Holy Scripture.  However, Mr. Sungenis simply doesn’t know what he is talking about in regard to these issues of the Faith.  And he definitely doesn’t know what he is talking about in regard to the issue of religious liberty, as is obvious from the above paragraph.  Mr. Sungenis is arguing that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is not heretical because Vatican II was only concerned with the civil right to religious liberty.  Mr. Sungenis fails to realize that it is HERETICAL to assert, as Vatican II does, that religious liberty should be a civil right for every man. 

Mr. Sungenis needs to read Pope Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos, Pope Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei and Libertas, Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, and Pope St. Pius X’s Vehementer Nos and Iamdudum, to name just a few of the seemingly countless Papal documents which condemn the heretical concept of religious liberty that was taught by Vatican II.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55:

“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78:

“Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:

“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

 

Notice here that the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CULTS AND SECTS is condemned.  This means that the Catholic Church officially teaches that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and should not grant the civil right to non-Catholics to exercise their false religions publicly. But Vatican II teaches precisely the very thing that is condemned above.

 

Vatican II teaches that the State does not have the authority to exclude other cults and sects, which is bold heresy.

 

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3:

“So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”

 

Could the Vatican II heresy be more clear?  Mr. Sungenis is either profoundly ignorant of the topic or totally blinded by bad will.  Vatican II’s teaching on the civil right to religious liberty granted by the State – and on the State being unable to prevent the public exercise of this civil right – is directly contrary to the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church above in the Syllabus of errors, especially #77 and #78.  It is also refuted and condemned by many other Popes.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34-36), Nov. 1, 1885:

“Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state... IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR THE STATE, ANY MORE THAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, EITHER TO DISREGARD ALL RELIGIOUS DUTIES OR TO HOLD IN EQUAL FAVOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGION…THIS THEN IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21), June 20, 1888:

“Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.  Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it.”

 

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 2:

“This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right… Thus the right to religious freedom is based on human nature itself… Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”

 

Could the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the heresy taught by Vatican II be more clear?  What is most distressing about this is that people actually buy what Mr. Sungenis is arguing on this point and that they don’t see its inherent falsity.  People actually buy his absolutely absurd claim that Vatican II and Traditional teaching are compatible.  I quote it again.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77:

“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

 

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78:

“Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.

 

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis Humanae # 4:

“In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

 

This is clear heresy!

 

Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos (#3), Feb. 11, 1906: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error… Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of separation of Church and State.”

 

Pope St. Pius X, Iamdudum (#2), May 24, 1911: “… they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree of Separation of Church and State (in Portugal)… We by our apostolic authority denounce, condemn, and reject the Law for the Separation of Church and State in the Portuguese Republic.  This law despises God and repudiates the Catholic Faith…”

 

Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty despises God and repudiates the Catholic Faith; those who defend it obstinately simply defend heresy.  The whole document of Vatican II on religious liberty is intended to show how the State must recognize all religions equally, how the State cannot prevent the public practice of false religions.  Bob Sungenis’ argument in defense of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty is hopeless and heretical, and it is rejected, ironically, by even most “traditionalists” who still believe that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope.  Even they can see that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical.  But Mr. Sungenis defends the condemned notion (which was “authoritatively” taught by Vatican II) that each man must necessarily have the civil right to religious liberty.  He defends the condemned notion that the State and the Church must be separated, which Vatican II clearly teaches by asserting that the State cannot prevent non-Catholic religious activity.

 

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition…  Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” (Denz. 1690;1699)

 

The idea infallibly condemned above by Pope Pius IX, that “LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY,” is exactly what is taught by Vatican II in its decree on religious liberty.  The fact that Mr. Sungenis has repeatedly, obstinately and publicly claimed otherwise is patently absurd and outrageous.

 

Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844:

“Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”

 

In fact, based on Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty, the post-Vatican II Antipopes actually took steps to change the Catholic constitutions of Catholic countries.  The Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were actually suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.

 

MR. SUNGENIS PROMOTES SCHISM AND ENCOURAGES CATHOLICS TO DENY THE PAPACY

 

As documented in the Heresy of the Week for 1/16/04, John Paul II has repudiated the Papacy as a binding dogma.  He says that the Eastern Schismatics who reject the Papacy are no longer excommunicated for denying the Papacy (he also says that we shouldn’t convert them: see heresy of the week for 9/19/2003, etc.).  John Paul II thus holds that the Papacy is not a binding teaching.  Mr. Sungenis tells Catholics that they must remain united and in communion with men (Antipope John Paul II and his Bishops) who hold that the Papacy is not a binding dogma.  Thus, Mr. Sungenis is a schismatic and a promoter of schism, since he promotes that people should be united to men who reject the Chair of Peter and the Papacy as a binding dogma. This equivalent to Mr. Sungenis saying that Catholics must remain in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, who also reject that the Papacy is a binding dogma.

 

Antipope John Paul II, Message to Schismatic Patriarch Dimitrios of Istanbul, Nov. 30, 1985:“To His Holiness Dimitrios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patnareb... We see there a happy coincidence for celebrating together the Feast of the Apostle Saint Andrew on this twentieth anniversary of the lifting of the anathemas.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 17), May 25, 1995:

“At the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI sealed the Council’s commitment to ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and profoundly significant gesture which ‘condemned to oblivion’ and ‘removed from the memory and from the midst of the Church’ the excommunications of the past.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 42), May 25, 1995:

“The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.  Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out…”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen (# 18), May 2, 1995:

“All this praiseworthy work was to converge in the reflections of the Second Vatican Council and to be symbolized in the abrogation of the reciprocal excommunications of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.”

 

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Teoctist, October 12, 2002: “At the conclusion of the work of the Council, by a highly significant gesture that took place at the same time in Rome and in Constantinople, the reciprocal condemnations of 1054 were cancelled from the memory of the Church.” (L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 3.)

I will close this Heresy of the Week with a quotation from my article, “The Devastating Dilemma,” which illustrates that it is a denial of Faith not to condemn Antipope John Paul II as a non-Catholic who is outside the Church.  The following words are in reference to Antipope John Paul II’s acceptance of the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification.

Thus, you finally come to the inescapable conclusion that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, IF YOU HOLD THAT JOHN PAUL II IS THE POPE, TO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  It is impossible for you to try to convert a