This section contains telephone conversations we’ve had about the Catholic faith, as well as other miscellaneous audio programs. The audio programs in this section are posted for those who are looking for more information or for more to listen to on these topics. (We always get permission from the other party before recording a telephone conversation. We also reserve right to edit those parts of conversations we deem irrelevant.) For the most important audio programs we have, see:
Telephone Conversations and Debates
Justification Debate with a Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) – video This is an extremely important and interesting debate. It covers a great deal of vital information. It completely refutes the Reformed Protestant view of justification by faith alone and eternal security. It also covers water baptism and many other topics.
Vatican II Debate – Dimond vs. Robert Sungenis – on Nostra Aetate #3 and the Muslims [Debate – Aug. 2, 2011, 1 hr. 5 min.] The resolution for the debate is: “Vatican II’s teaching on the Muslims in Nostra Aetate #3 is false, heretical, and contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.” Bro. Peter Dimond takes the affirmative: that Vatican II’s teaching is false and heretical. Robert Sungenis takes the negative: that Vatican II’s teaching is not false and heretical. In addition to being refuted on the main points of the debate, including from his own ‘authorities’ about what Vatican II’s text means, Sungenis is also forced to correct himself on the central point of whether ‘Islam’ is mentioned in the text under discussion. After Bro. Peter refutes him on that, Sungenis quietly admits he was wrong about that central point of the debate.
Bro. Peter Dimond vs. “Fr.” James Gordon (FSSP) This conversation was interesting and covered many issues: judging heresy, papal infallibility, the authority of Vatican II (whether it would have to be considered infallible if Paul VI were the pope), the visibility of the Church, the heresy of non-Catholics receiving Communion, the false position of FSSP compared with that of the SSPX, and more. Some of the most interesting parts are near the beginning and throughout, but it’s interesting to note that near the end, he throws out one objection after another in favor of “baptism of desire” (which are answered); but, when he listens long enough to address only one dogmatic argument against “baptism of desire,” he has no answer whatsoever, he helplessly cries “St. Emerentiana,” and then has to go.
Bro. Peter Dimond vs. William Albrecht- Debate: Are the post-Vatican II claimants to the Papacy true popes? (Sept. 2009) William Albrecht is an apologist who works with a number of mainstream, “conservative” apologetics organizations within the Vatican II Church. He also works with one well-known, semi-“traditionalist” apologetics organization that has a wide outreach. He has been promoted and endorsed by Steve Ray. He has also engaged in many debates with Protestants, including Protestant apologists from some of the largest Protestant groups in the country (e.g., a.o.m.). Albrecht said that he thoroughly studied our information and material. He claimed to have read our huge book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, four times. He did a series attempting to refute our arguments for the sedevacantist position and our position against the New Mass. He also claimed that he could refute every single argument we make. He challenged us to a debate. This debate is very interesting. It covers many different areas. It’s interesting how when you debate different people many different things come up. This debate gets even more interesting as it goes along. Part 2 might be the most interesting. There is also a rapid-fire, 2 minutes back and forth format that we agreed to adopt after about the first hour. In this debate we see that one side is clearly Catholic and accepts Church teaching while the other side does not. We see, once again, that the other side has no answer whatsoever to the facts and truth presented.
Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics – Debate [1hr. 55 min.] Windows Media Audio; YouTube Video; MP3 File (March 2011) Related Article with Quotes about the Debate This debate refutes all of the radical schismatics because they all hold similar views and make the very same arguments.
Debate: Was Pope Honorius a Heretic? [25 min. – Feb. 2011] Debate on the Papacy: does the Bible teach the Office of the Pope [Nov. 2009, description here] New Sedevacantism Debate with Vin L. New Sedevacantism Debate with William A. [link to description and audios] File of Recent Audio Debates on “Baptism of Desire” Debate: Is the New Mass Valid? [Jan. 2010] Mini-Debate with supporter of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)[28 min. audio – June 23, 2008] File of relevant quotes on SSPX [article] Debate: does Vatican II teach that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion? [39 min. audio – June 2, 2008] File of relevant quotes [PDF]. Debate with Vatican II apologist [47 min. audio – May 21, 2008] [A guy who wrote in defending Vatican II, and called us “loons,” agreed to debate/discuss these issues on a recorded phone call. He turns out to be an apologist for the Archdiocese of Chicago (that’s what he claims). This audio is revealing. It covers Vatican II, salvation issues, dogma and more…] Discussion about the “una cum” issue, where one may receive sacraments, refuting radical schismatic views [44 min. audio] File of relevant quotes Conversation with German non-Catholic about Bible, etc. [18 min. audio – June 30, 2008] Catholicism and Babylonian religion? and other heretics [18 min. audio – June 20, 2008] Talk with Episcopalian [37 min. audio – June 13, 2008] Conversation with woman who followed John Paul II into religious indifferentism but is open to the truth [22 min. audio – June, 2008] Conversation with man formerly from Jordan about heresy against salvation dogma [7 min. audio – June, 2008] Potential convert calls [9 min. audio] Nice woman who is not yet convinced [30 min. audio] – This is an audio of a telephone conversation one of us recently had with a very nice woman who is on the fence about leaving the New Mass. We feel that this conversation does capture how some people are laboring in a spiritual fog, which causes them to be unable to grasp the main points and act upon them, even when they admit points which should lead them to no other conclusion. Part 1- Introduction and quick background on these radical schismatics [9 min audio.] Part 2 – In depth refutation of their false arguments regarding the Council of Basel and the salvation dogma [50 min. audio] Part 3 – Refutation of the Argument that Canonizations are not infallible by virtue of the teaching of Vatican I [20 min. audio] Part 4 – Exposing the demonic and shocking statements of the schismatic RI – the source for many strains of “traditionalist” schism [16 min. audio] Baptism, Heresy, Schism – Telephone Debate- Part 1 [1 hr.4 min. audio – May 2008] Baptism, Heresy, Schism – Telephone Debate – Part 2 [27 min. audio – May 2008] [Note: this conversation concerns a finer point, which might not be relevant for those new to this information. It is posted primarily to refute the schismatic errors which have been embraced by a small number of radical “traditionalists.”] More on the Baptism, Heresy, Schism debate (from above) MHFM: The two audio files above concern a recent telephone conversation/debate one of us had with a person who has to be considered a radical “traditionalist” schismatic. (This person and his family had converted from the Novus Ordo through our website.) The two parts together are over 1 hr. and 30 minutes in length. This person holds the sedevacantist position and the necessity of water baptism, but he has fallen into certain schismatic positions. This conversation/debate concerns the theological question of when the baptized infants of heretics/schismatics (the infants are made Catholics at baptism) become schismatics and/or heretics themselves. The issue of the infallibility of canonizations also comes up in this conversation. Many are falling into disastrous errors and schismatic positions as a result of a failure to understand and accept the Church’s teaching on what constitutes heresy, schism, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc. This conversation/debate concerns, for example, the baptized children of Protestant heretics or the baptized children of Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics. It also concerns the baptized children of those who profess to be Catholics, but aren’t. Examples of this would include false traditionalist heretics/schismatics who obstinately agree with the heresies of the Society of St. Pius X and other false traditionalists who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Their children, who are baptized as infants, are Catholics. So at what point do the children of these heretics become schismatics and/or heretics? We point out that any person baptized as an infant would cease to be part of the Church when the baptized person obstinately rejects a Catholic teaching (heresy) or obstinately separates from the Catholic hierarchy or the true pope (schism) or true Catholics. This radical schismatic and others like him say that our position is actually heretical. They say that these people become schismatics as soon as they hit the age of reason and/or go to a building which would be deemed out of communion with the Church. (These schismatics don’t like to make it clear whether they hold that these baptized infants become schismatics and/or heretics at the age of reason or whether it’s when they go to a building out of communion with the Church. This is because their position is false and contradictory, as the conversation shows.) The tone of this conversation is at times intense and heated. This is because this person was not simply inquiring about our position or trying to learn more about the topic. He had already concluded that our position is heretical, after having had certain information available to him. This conversation is another example of how people are dishonest at heart and are liars. After contradicting himself repeatedly in this conversation, as well as changing his position and even admitting our position numerous times, this person remained obstinate in his schismatic position. This also shows how, not just liberal heresies, but also radical schismatic positions are ensnaring souls, separating them from the Church and leading them to Hell. The reason that this issue becomes very relevant is because these schismatics believe that every church building where the leading pastor is out of communion with the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic church building. They further argue that, since it’s a non-Catholic church building, every person above reason at that church building becomes a schismatic at the age of reason. So they hold, for example, that every person above reason who goes to the SSPX churches is a schismatic. They would also have to apply this to every church building which recognized the post-Vatican II antipopes as true popes. Some of them stay faithful to their schismatic position in this regard. They conclude that Fr. Feeney (who died in 1978), Padre Pio (who died in 1968), etc. were all schismatics and/or heretics, as well as every person who thought that Paul VI was the pope – essentially every person who professed to be Catholic since 1965. Others abandon their schismatic position when the issue of the post-Vatican II buildings come up, thus demonstrating their hypocrisy. The point is that none of these schismatics understand the issue, and they are all schismatic for calling our correct position heretical. One of the main errors of these schismatics is their argument that one doesn’t have to be obstinate to be a schismatic. That is wrong, as we see here.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)
Another one of their primary errors is their argument that since people become heretics by denying the Trinity, even if they don’t know the Catholic Church condemns their heresy, that proves that heretics don’t need to be obstinate. They fail to understand that false opinions on the Trinity and the Incarnation, which destroy essential faith in them, always entail heresy. However, false opinions on other matters do not necessarily entail heresy unless obstinacy is present. This is pointed out in the conversation. This quote of St. Thomas is very interesting because it expresses exactly the position we hold and what was told to this schismatic in the conversation. It refutes the position of the schismatics.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 32, A. 4: “Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning [these other] such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy is shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest. So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.”
This is a file which contains some quotes which are relevant to the teaching of the Church on these matters: