By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
“For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Rom. 1:22)
R. Sungenis: “Whoever says Vatican II is evil is evil himself.” (Nov. 2006)
R. Sungenis: “No, only those who reject Vatican II are the abomination.” (Nov. 2006, Q. 67)
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 Vatican I). He also accused his opponent of “demagoguery.” He also said that his opponent “can’t put his faith in Jesus Christ…”
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 TRENT
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 Trent to which he referred. Here’s how Sungenis responded when asked to produce proof for what he said:
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 Trent itself. (In case Sungenis isn’t aware, there is a difference between the Catechism of Trent and the Council of Trent.) Thus, in a public debate he contradicted himself on one of his major points of argumentation.
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 Vatican to the 2002 Assisi event of apostasy was described by Benedict XVI as “a symbol of our pilgrimage in history… the reconciliation of peoples and religions, a great inspiration…” (Zenit.org, Zenit news report, Feb. 21, 2002.) That’s where you’re headed; there’s no stopping the train of Antipope Benedict XVI, Bob Sungenis, the pagans and the Protestants on its way to one-world-Assisi-apostasy.
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 Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
+ 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 North Korea firing nuclear missiles. The following statement illustrates the frankly demonic hatred and dishonesty that typifies Sungenis’s attack:
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 Trent to prove that they are (according to Trent) anathematized heretics on the road to hell for spurning its teaching. If Mr. Sungenis had any whiff of the Catholic Faith whatsoever, he would have denounced these Protestant heretics and correctly informed them (in true charity) that they are anathematized for obstinately rejecting Catholic dogma and even attacking it. If anyone on Earth is a heretic, it is Robert Zins who has made a career of attacking Catholic dogma and its holiest teachings. But no, still a Protestant, Mr. Sungenis refused to even call these arch-heretics “heretics,” but rather told them that they had “invincible ignorance” – scandalizing the entire audience in addition to making a mockery of Catholic dogma. In an article about us, Mr. Sungenis revealed that he still holds the same position.
“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 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 Vatican II is evil is evil himself.” (Nov. 2006)
R. Sungenis: “No, only those who reject Vatican II are the abomination.” (Nov. 2006, Q. 67)
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.
comments powered by Disqus
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.”