Exposing Bob Sungenis and his recent debate
By
Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
“For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (
R. Sungenis: “Whoever says
R. Sungenis: “No, only those who reject
While posing as a tough defender
of truth, Bob Sungenis is actually a pathetic wimp who recently threatened to
walk out of a public debate
In
his articles, Bob Sungenis presents himself as a “tough” defender of Catholic
truth ready to take on all comers. In
reality, however, he is a pathetic wimp who is scared to death of the
truth. He recently threatened to walk out of a public debate on sedevacantism
because his opponent was supposedly not showing him enough kindness. About half way through, the debate the
moderator was forced to stop the debate and announce: “Mr. Sungenis said he will walk out of the
debate if what he perceives as insults are continued.”
This
was a debate for which Sungenis actually raised money to pay his expenses to
fly across the country. No matter that
he had raised money for the debate, no matter that people had traveled to see
it, he was ready to quit about half
way through. Frankly, this is the activity
of a little girl and a hypocritical brat.
What makes it all the more outrageous is that, in the debate, Bob
Sungenis had no problem indicating that his
opponent’s position was schismatic and heretical (by virtue of it
supposedly contradicting
Do
you get it? It’s fine for Bob Sungenis
to repeatedly insult his opponent; it’s fine for him to accuse his opponent
(and many in the audience) of the mortal sin of schism, “demagoguery” and
having no faith in Christ, but if his opponent questions his knowledge in a public debate, Sungenis is ready to
turn tail and run. This kind of
double-standard typifies the dishonesty and hypocrisy of heretics. The reason that Sungenis was ready to turn
tail and run is because deep down he knows that his knowledge of these issues
is actually nonexistent in certain vital areas (see below), and he didn’t want
his opponent to pursue this angle. Moreover,
threatening to quit (besides being utterly cowardly and hypocritical) can also
be a tactical move to cause one’s opponent to be less aggressive in pursuing
points for fear of saying the wrong thing and having the opponent walk out of
the debate completely.
If Bob Sungenis was ready
to quit in the face of the weak case made by his opponent in the recent debate
on sedevacantism (his opponent didn’t even cite one heresy in Vatican II, nor
one act of false ecumenism), can you imagine what he would have done if he had
debated us? After we proved to him that
even his own Antipope Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II contradicts Catholic
teaching on religious liberty and other religions (the very thing Sungenis vehemently
denies), and after we refuted his many false assertions, such as false his
argument from the Council of Constance, etc., Sungenis would have almost
certainly screamed foul and gone crying home to Mommy.
SOME OF THE FALSE
STATEMENTS MADE BY SUNGENIS IN HIS RECENT DEBATE
Here
are just a few of the false statements that Bob Sungenis made in his recent
debate on sedevacantism:
SUNGENIS’S BLATANTLY FALSE
STATEMENT ON THE CATECHISM, NO, THE
COUNCIL OF
In
his opening statement in the debate, Bob Sungenis decided to give a
dissertation on the New Mass. This
constituted a major part of his “argument.”
He boldly asserted that the words “This is My Blood” are sufficient for
a valid consecration of the wine. He
said that the Catechism of the Council of
Trent teaches this. Later on in the
debate, Sungenis’s opponent challenged him to cite the exact passage and
reference from the Catechism of the
Council of
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism: “John was
questioning where I got the notion that This
is My Blood is all that is required for the consecration. That
comes from Session 7, Chap. 24 of the Council of Trent. If I had time to go into that I would love
to… it’s just too big to cover in twenty minutes and I can’t do it.”
First
of all, notice that Sungenis is now
contradicting himself by saying that his “proof” for his bold assertion on
the words of consecration is found, not in the Catechism of Trent, but in the Council of
Second,
let’s analyze what Sungenis is now saying.
Sungenis is now saying that his “proof” for his bold assertion is found
in Session 7, Chap. 24 of the Council of Trent.
The big problem for Mr. Sungenis
is that no such chapter exists.
There aren’t 24 chapters anywhere in Session 7 of the Council of
Trent.
Nor
are there 24 canons – in case someone
wants to argue that that’s what he meant – in any set of canons that was
promulgated in Session 7. Session 7
promulgated 13 canons on The Sacraments
in General, 14 canons on The
Sacrament of Baptism, 3 canons on The
Sacrament of Confirmation, and 15 chapters on reform. None of them mention or address the words
“This is My Blood.” In conclusion,
therefore, we can say that, when challenged to provide a specific citation to back
up his bold claim, Sungenis responded by
contradicting his earlier reference and then making reference to a section of
Trent that doesn’t even exist. His
argument on the words of consecration is as false and as fraudulent as his
sources.
SUNGENIS DEMONSTRATES ONCE
AGAIN THAT HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY
Bob Sungenis, Debate on
Sedevacantism: “[The sedevacantists argue] If the Novus Ordo is
invalid, hence the pope who allowed it
is invalid; hence the bishops and
priests he ordained are invalid; hence, the sacraments they procure
are invalid… The argument can also be traced back to Vatican II. If Vatican II taught error, it is
invalid. Hence the pope who confirmed it
is invalid, the bishops and priests he ordained are invalid, and so on…”
We
see here that Bob Sungenis demonstrates, once again, that he lacks a basic
understanding of Catholic sacramental theology.
If a particular claimant to the Papacy is invalid, it doesn’t
necessarily follow (as he says) that the bishops and priests he ordained are
invalid. They are distinct issues which
don’t depend on each other. Sungenis
doesn’t understand that because he’s ignorant of basic sacramental theology. That’s why he wrote with confidence that
Anglican Orders are invalid not due to a
defect of form, but due to their excommunication.
R. Sungenis: “Charles, you're mixing apples and
oranges. Pope Leo based his decision on the fact that the Anglicans broke off
and were thus excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The
absence of the sacramental powers are based on the excommunication from the
Catholic Church, not on the form of the sacrament in which the Anglicans
partake. Paul VI's actions have
nothing to do with what happened to the Anglicans.” (Question 22, July 2004)
This couldn’t be more wrong. The invalidity of Anglican Orders has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are excommunicated. The Eastern Orthodox are also excommunicated,
yet they have valid priests. Anyone who
understands sacramental theology knows that excommunication has nothing to do
with the validity of priestly orders, and that the form, matter, minister,
intention (as well as the signification given to those things by the
surrounding ceremonies) have everything to do with the validity of priestly
orders.
Even though Bob Sungenis obviously doesn’t
understand the issue or have a clue what he is talking about, as we can
see from his words, he confidently attempts to direct others on the issue. This man is a dangerous heretic. What’s scariest about this is that Sungenis
wrote this latter statement on Anglican Orders in response to a person who was
informing him of the true position.
In other words, since the individual (named Charles) had brought the
truth directly to his attention, he had every chance to check into what
Charles said. If he had, he would have
discovered that his own position is wrong and that Charles’ position is
correct. But no, utterly blinded by his
colossal pride and mired in his diabolical ignorance and arrogance, he didn’t
even look into what the person said and publicly repeated with confidence the
ridiculous response which contradicts infallible Catholic teaching. He still hasn’t learned the issue, as we can
see from the above statement in the debate on sedevacantism.
SUNGENIS’S BLATANTLY FALSE
STATEMENT THAT A POPE CANNOT BE DEPOSED EXCEPT BY DEATH
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism: “A pope cannot be deposed except by death.”
When
Sungenis says “deposed” he means considered
to have lost his office. His statement
that “a pope cannot be deposed except by death” is complete nonsense, as
readers of this website know. It’s so
commonly taught that a pope would be automatically
deposed for heresy that something as basic as The Catholic Encyclopedia states it as fact:
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of
heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member
of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine
says it’s the teaching of all the fathers of the Church that a heretic would
automatically be deposed. This is rooted
in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “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.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)
This is no problem,
however, for the dishonest Bob Sungenis; he simply dismisses all of this and
says on his own authority without any
citation to support him that “a pope cannot be deposed except by death.” Sungenis’s statement was so blatantly false that
his opponent in the debate expressed amazement that Sungenis could actually
stand up in public (after having supposedly studied this topic) and say what he
said. He stated: “It illustrates that you
[Sungenis] haven’t opened a single theology book on this subject… It’s the most
extraordinary thing.”
SUNGENIS ASSERTS BLATANT
HERESY; HE SAYS THERE ARE “EXCEPTIONS” TO THE DEFINED DOGMA “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
THERE IS NO SALVATION”
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism, Speaking of Outside
the Church There is No Salvation: “There
are exceptions to that dogma.”
This is heresy.
This is a rejection of a defined dogma that there is NO salvation
outside the Church. It is also a rejection
of Papal Infallibility, which means that God watches over the Church’s dogmatic
definitions to keep them from defining error.
Even someone such as Msgr. J.C. Fenton had to admit that to assert there
are exceptions to this dogma is to deny the dogma. Bob Sungenis is a non-believer who corrupts
Catholic beliefs.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford
Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation,
1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that
the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions
is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been
stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and
even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus.’ It is important to note that
such teaching is found in Cardinal Newman’s last published study on this
subject… Obviously there could be no
more effective way of reducing the teaching on the necessity of the Church for
the attainment of eternal salvation to an empty formula than the explanation
advanced by Newman…”
SUNGENIS SAYS THAT APOSTASY
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER WE HAVE A VALID POPE
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism: “[All this]
demagoguery about bad popes and bad bishops and the apostasy and all this. None of that is relevant because we can have… apostasy, we can
have disbelief, we can have confusion, but
that has nothing to do with whether we have a legitimate pope or not.”
Apostasy
has “nothing to do with whether we have a legitimate pope”? This is a typical statement from Bob Sungenis
which reveals that no matter what you say, no matter what proof you bring
forward, he will claim that “it has nothing to do” with the point because he is
a dishonest heretic who will dismiss any fact or truth brought forward against
his position. Sungenis’s statement that
apostasy (i.e. a rejection of the Christian Faith) has nothing to do with
whether one is a valid pope is outrageous.
It’s false and contradicted by Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June
29, 1943: “For not every sin,
however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or
heresy or apostasy.”
Apostasy
severs a man from the Church. A man who
is severed from the Church cannot
command in the Church. Apostasy has everything to do with the
issue of whether Benedict XVI is a valid pope.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “No
one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority,
since it is absurd to imagine
that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
SUNGENIS ON SEDEVACANTISM
AS THE DOORSTEP OF PROTESTANTISM, “THERE’S NO STOPPING THE TRAIN”
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism, speaking of
sedevacantism: “We’re back at the
doorstep of Protestantism… Is that what we want to do: go back to
Protestantism? But that’s where you’re headed; there’s
no stopping the train.”
It’s
actually Bob Sungenis’s Antipope Benedict XVI who holds that Protestants should
turn back from the doorstep of Catholicism, and that Protestantism is not even
heresy.
Benedict XVI, Address
to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What
does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are
convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of
ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio,
nn. 2, 4, etc.); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the
world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be
called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith
history. Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005,
p. 8.)
Speaking
of “trains” and Protestants, the
train that took the various false religious leaders (including Protestants)
from the
SUNGENIS ON POPE PAUL IV’S CUM EX APOSTOLATUS AND RATZINGER’S
HERESY BEFORE ELECTION
Near
the end of the debate, Sungenis was asked about Pope Paul IV’s teaching that
one who is a heretic before the election cannot be considered a valid
pope. He was asked how he dealt with
such a teaching, considering that Ratzinger uttered heresy before his election. He stated:
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism: “It says
before he’s elected. You have to prove
that this person who is going to be elected is a heretic. That does not come from private
judgment. The only one that could possibly make that judgment about someone who
is a potential electee of the Papacy is a canonical court or the pope himself,
okay. Well, it’s certainly not going
to be you and it’s not going to be me. It’s going to be someone who has the
authority to judge it…”
Think
about this carefully. This makes a
complete mockery of the teaching of Pope Paul IV’s bull. If only the heretic himself who is elected
could judge that the election is invalid due to heresy, then why did Paul IV
issue the bull telling everyone that they can regard it as invalid? If only the heretic who is elected could
judge it, then the bull of Paul IV is UTTERLY POINTLESS; for the elected
heretic is not going to denounce his own election as invalid due to heresy! Sungenis’s statement is ridiculous. Further, if a canonical court is required to
judge it, as Sungenis says, why didn’t Paul IV say that in the bull, but
instead declared that anyone may withdraw from the heretic “without need for any further declaration”? Sungenis’s statement is an example of pure
sophistry, a total corruption of the facts directly in front of us.
Pope Paul IV, Bull
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine,
decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any
Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any
Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as
Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into
some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and
by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;…
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall
be deprived automatically, and WITHOUT THE NEED FOR
ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honor, title,
authority, office and power….
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation,
re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by
rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to
attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty
God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given in
+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”
There
were other false statements made by Bob Sungenis in his recent debate, but
these should suffice to establish the point: he is a dangerous corrupter of
Catholic truth.
SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON BOB
SUNGENIS’S RECENT ATTACK
In
addition to analyzing his recent performance in the debate on sedevacantism,
this article allows me to say a few words in response to Bob Sungenis’s recent
assault on Bro. Michael Dimond’s recent radio appearance. About a month ago Bro. Michael appeared for 2
hours on Frank Whalen’s radio broadcast, Frankly
Speaking. During most of the
interview, Bro. Michael discussed the apostasy of the Vatican II sect, the new
religion imposed by its antipopes, and the doctrinal arguments which prove that
they cannot be true popes since they are public heretics. Bro. Michael also made it clear, as he always
does, that it’s necessary for salvation to be a Catholic and practice the
traditional Catholic faith. Bro. Michael
also talked about how most souls go to Hell through sins of the flesh,
denounced pornography and other things which are huge problems today, and
discussed the importance of saving one’s soul.
A very short part of the interview dealt with prophecy, since it’s quite
obvious that we’re living in the final days, as even Sr. Lucy told Fr. Fuentes in 1957. Appropriately, in this section of the
interview Bro. Michael discussed some of his opinions about the Antichrist,
certain passages in the bible, etc.
As
we’ve always pointed out, opinions about how biblical prophecies will be
fulfilled are opinions. Catholic
teaching is very clear, of course, that no Catholic is bound to accept one’s
opinions about particular passages of the bible that have not been defined, nor
can a Catholic be condemned for holding a particular opinion about a prophetic
passage in the bible unless the Church
has infallibly declared the meaning or the Church fathers are
unanimous. Nor are any arguments from
prophecy necessary to prove the
undeniable fact that alleged “popes” who agree with the Lutherans on
Justification, etc. are not true popes, as we’ve made clear.
Since
Bob Sungenis is utterly unable to respond
to the doctrinal arguments we’ve made which refute his position, like a Protestant
who attempts to seize upon a particular passage of scripture, twist it and make it the focus of his entire
case while ignoring the rest of the evidence from scripture, Sungenis
recently posted a scathing attack on Bro. Michael’s recent radio appearance. (Sungenis even put the face of “Butthead,”
the diabolical character from Beavis and Butthead, over Bro. Michael’s
head.) Sungenis’s attack constitutes an
interesting study in heretical rhetoric – how heretics attempt and are able to
deceive people who don’t value truth or hear the other side of the story. Sungenis’s puerile attack focuses on a
carefully selected section of about 2 minutes from a live program which was two
hours in total. After reading his
attack, one would think that Bro. Michael went on the radio program to speak
about
Bob Sungenis: “If you’ve ever wondered what Martin Luther sounded like back in the
1520s, Michael Dimond provides you with a good example.”
Even
when you’re battling with someone (even a despicable heretic such as Bob
Sungenis), you cannot lie about him. Bob
Sungenis’s statement above is clearly a lie.
It proves that he has no integrity, but will say almost anything to
attempt to smear someone he doesn’t like.
Bro. Michael told a national radio audience that it’s necessary for
salvation to be Catholic; he denounced the heresy of justification by faith alone,
and quoted scripture’s teaching proving the Papacy and confession, etc. He also pointed out that Luther was one of
the Church’s greatest enemies, and that John Paul II and Benedict XVI
(Sungenis’s antipopes) are the ones who praise him and agree with him on
Justification! To say that Bro. Michael sounds like what Luther would have in the
1520’s is simply to utter an outrageous lie.
It’s an example of what I
call “impressionistic rhetoric,” that is, rhetoric that is completely void of
substance, but makes a strong impression with dull, disinterested or slothful
“Catholics” because it appeals to the
emotions and is said with force. Bob
Sungenis is a prime example of someone
who can speak about something, be completely wrong and not have the slightest
clue what he is taking about, yet convince certain people because he says what
he says with force (see the quote on religious liberty below). Since he doesn’t have a doctrinal leg to
stand on in this debate, Bob Sungenis resorts to such juvenile rhetoric over
and over again.
R. Sungenis, a different article about us: “The
Dimond Brothers (Peter and Michael Dimond) have made a name for themselves in
condemning the present Catholic Magisterium and all the popes since 1958 as
“Anti-popes.”…Like Luther and Calvin,
they claim to be following the Fathers and Tradition.”
Notice
that he simply repeats the same kind of juvenile rhetoric. I wonder if those reading his article
consider that he is defending antipopes who have praised Luther and Calvin,
agreed with Luther on Justification, and taught that the modern-day followers
of Luther and Calvin shouldn’t be converted.
QUICK REMINDER OF THE KIND
OF HERETIC BOB SUNGENIS IS
Bob Sungenis
defends a position on religious liberty which was authoritatively condemned by
the Catholic Magisterium
R. Sungenis: “No error here [in Vatican II]. The State is not in control of religion. The Church is. Therefore, the State has no right to say who has the right to perform religious
acts. The error is from the
Dimond brothers, since they don’t understand the Catholic religion.”
“… the State has no right to say who has the right
to perform religious acts”! This is a
pure expression of heresy solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church in the
Syllabus of Errors, that the State cannot prevent the public expression of
false religions. He is too blinded by his
pride to see that he lacks a basic understanding of Catholic teaching on the
issue. Since he is obstinate, there is
no doubt that he has fallen under the condemnations which apply to those who
embrace errors condemned in the Syllabus.
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. (Denz. 1777)
Here
we see that the idea that the State cannot exclude other religions and their
right to perform religious acts is condemned.
Bob Sungenis obstinately promotes the very thing denounced here in the
Syllabus of Errors. He is a heretic
against Catholic teaching.
And
even though he is an obstinate rejecter of Catholic teaching and doesn’t know
what he’s talking about, since he speaks with confidence about what he says
(even though it’s completely wrong), a few actually regard this dangerously
ignorant heretic as a reputable Catholic apologist. It’s
fascinating that, at the end of the debate I’ve been discussing in this
article, the moderator, Thomas Droleskey, stated:
“We owe both Mr. [x] and Dr. Sungenis a hearty
round of applause for participating in this debate… both are sons of the Catholic Church.”
He
used the phrase “sons of the Catholic Church” to describe Sungenis and his
opponent. Well, it was Pope Pius IX who
infallibly commanded that all the “sons of the Catholic Church” hold the heresy
of religious liberty as reprobated and condemned.
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 SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED
AND CONDEMNED.” (Denz. 1690;1699)
Sungenis
holds the very heresy of religious liberty which Pius IX condemned. Thus, he is definitely NOT A SON OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH! To say that he is, in
light of these facts, is to contradict the teaching of Pope Pius IX.
Bob Sungenis
holds that Protestants who attack the Catholic Faith are not heretics, but that
we are
Some
time after his “conversion,” in a debate with the viciously anti-Catholic
Protestant heretic Robert Zins and his partner, Bob Sungenis was asked by
Robert Zins and his partner whether they (the anti-Catholic Protestants) were
heretics. These Protestants were begging him to call them heretics, and they even
quoted the Council of
“R. Sungenis: That’s because, unlike the Dimond
Bros who think they have taken the place of the Catholic Magisterium, I reserve to the Catholic Church the
prerogative of calling someone a formal heretic. As far as the Church is
concerned, I’m just another peon with an opinion. “
This
proves that Sungenis still holds that Robert Zins (an anti-Catholic heretic)
could be considered to be not a heretic.
And this man dares to call himself a “Catholic apologist.” Does one really need to say more to expose
Bob Sungenis for the non-Catholic heretic that he is? And he says that we are heretics, thus
condemning himself out of his own mouth.
R. Sungenis: “As
for the Dimond brothers, they are heretics. Stay away from them.” (July
2004)
Oh,
I see…. anti-Catholic Protestant heretics who deny, attack and attempt to
refute the Council of Trent, the Papacy, the defined dogmas on Our Lady, etc.
aren’t heretics. Men who say that we
shouldn’t convert Protestants and that that Jews don’t need to believe in
Christ (Benedict XVI) aren’t heretics, but sedevacantists are supposedly
heretics. You hypocrite, how will you
flee from the judgment of Hell!
Matthew 23:31,33: “Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves…You serpents,
generations of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Hell?”
Bob Sungenis
defends the Vatican II sect’s teaching on non-Catholics receiving Holy
Communion by lying in his response
Notice
that in the following response Sungenis changes his position in mid-paragraph.
R. Sungenis: “Obviously, the Dimond Bros want to be the
judge, jury and executioner. Perhaps
when they find the words “non-Catholic” in the text they can advance an
argument. Until then, this is just another case of them building a
straw man so they can knock it down. Moreover, CCC 1401 says “grave necessity,”
which, interpreted by Canon 844.4 is referring to the danger of death. Note
also that CCC 1401 says they recipient must have “evidence of holding the
Catholic faith regarding these sacrament and possess the required
dispositions.” These are clear restrictive conditions for these cases, and the Church has the right to make such
exceptions. The Dimond Bros don’t have any authority, although they
pretend to have it. “
Does
anyone not see the lie that is being perpetrated here? Mr. Sungenis is blatantly contradicting
himself. He argues that the Vatican II
sect doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive Communion. (He even says that “Perhaps when they find
the words “non-Catholic” in the text they can advance an argument,” clearly indicating that, according to
him, the Vatican II sect doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive
Communion.) He then changes his position in the same paragraph and admits that it
does allow non-Catholics to receive Communion in danger of death. What more does one have to say? This man, ladies and gentlemen, is simply a
raving liar who doesn’t even know what he is saying. He is stating two contradictory things in the
same paragraph: 1) we are wrong and reading into the text by asserting that it
teaches that non-Catholics can receive Communion; and 2) non-Catholics can
receive Communion because the Church can make such exceptions. Hopefully all can see that this man is
lying.
Bob
Sungenis is an unbeliever who rejects Catholic teaching. He left the Catholic Church as a young man to
join Protestantism, and then (even though still an unbeliever) he was ushered
back into “Catholic” circles by the Devil in order to mislead people, attack
the truth and defend the post-Vatican II apostasy.
R. Sungenis: “Whoever
says
R. Sungenis: “No,
only those who reject
He
will attempt to explain away any fact against or any heresy in Vatican II –
even the undeniable heresy in Nostra
Aetate #4 that Jews are not to be considered rejected by God, directly
contrary to Denz. 705 – because that’s the mission he has from the Devil.
Bob Sungenis, Debate on Sedevacantism: “I have yet
to meet anyone who can prove to me that there was a defect in the faith or
morals of Vatican II… oh yes, there are all kinds of accusations… they can all be explained, I can assure
you.”