Robert Sungenis Vs. Dimond Bros
Sedevacantism
Robert Sungenis responds
R. Sungenis: 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.” This means that the Dimond Brothers do not believe the Catholic Church exists any longer, except in people who believe like them. In the face of Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, the Dimond Brothers dare make their claims. This phenomenon, of course, is not the first time in history that various disgruntled Catholics have arrogated to themselves the authority to condemn the Magisterium. Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk) and John Calvin (aspiring Catholic priest) did the same over 500 years ago, and they brought untold damage to the Church. The Dimond Brothers are doing the same thing. Like Luther and Calvin, they claim to be following the Fathers and Tradition. As we will see, however, the Dimond Brothers, by their own methodology, show themselves to be woefully incompetent in understanding both the Catholic Church and her tradition. They are on the way to perdition and they are leading countless souls in the same direction.
Yesterday someone sent me an essay the Dimond Brothers wrote. The focus of the essay is about me. In order to answer their charges, I have reproduced their essay below and have added my opposing critique.
Dimond Brothers: 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.”
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);
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous, yes, but no error here, because GES is not saying how each man is united with Christ. He is certainly not united in the sense that Christ is going to save each man, but He is united in the sense that He gives each man the grace to repent of his sins. If Christ were not “united” with man in this way, then there would be no possibility of anyone repenting and becoming saved. This is just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see.
Dimond Brothers: 2. Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)
R. Sungenis:No error here, because God can use anything to bring man to salvation. He can use the cosmos (Romans 1:18-20; 10:16-18); he can use the law written on man’s heart (Romans 2:14-15). He can use anything He wishes. So he can certainly use religions that profess the name of Christ and regard him as the Savior, even though their conception of Christ is partially in error. This is just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see. They fixate on a certain definition for the word “means” (that it refers to an absolute effectiveness) but have no means of proving their contention.
Dimond Brothers: 3. Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion (Orientalium ecclesiarum, 27)
R. Sungenis: No error here, because the stipulation, according to Canon Law, is only in cases of extremity (e.g., death). The Church has the authority to make such exceptions. This is just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see.
Dimond Brothers: 4. Muslims and Catholics together worship the one true God (Lumen Gentium, 16)
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous, yes, but no error here, because LG’s context shows that this is only true in regard to the category of monotheism. LG does not say that the Muslims can or will be saved by such worship. This is just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see.
Dimond Brothers: 5. The Catholic Church is united with those who don’t accept the faith or the Papacy (Lumen Gentium, 15)
R. Sungenis: Ambiguous, yes, but no error here because LG 15 is not using the same definition of “united” as are the Dimond brothers. This is just another instance of the Dimond brothers ‘reading into’ the documents what they want to see. The Dimond Brothers will invariably adopt the most restrictive definition of words, since a more general and accepted definition will not allow they to levy their accusations against Vatican II.
Dimond Brothers: 6. The College of Bishops is the subject of full and supreme power over the universal Church (Lumen Gentium, 22)
R. Sungenis: No error here. In fact, this is a real laugher. It shows the clear incompetence of the Dimond brothers. Here is the full sentence in LG22:
“Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Romans Pontiff. The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the holder of the keys of the Church.”
Obviously, the “supreme authority” is conditioned by the fact that they are under the pope and can only do what he agrees to. This alone ought to convince people that the Dimond brothers don’t know what they are doing.
Dimond Brothers: 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)
R. Sungenis: LG16 doesn’t mention an “age of reason” or “atheists.” But it does speak about preaching the Gospel to all peoples for their salvation. This again shows the incompetence of the Dimond brothers.
Dimond Brothers: 8. The State exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious activity (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)
R. Sungenis: No error here. 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.
Dimond Brothers: 9. In Buddhism men reach the highest illumination (Nostra Aetate, 2)
R. Sungenis: NA2 doesn’t say that. Perhaps if the Dimond brothers would quote the text for what it says instead of trying to twist things to their viewpoint, we might be able to have an intellectual discussion, but they are too far gone down the road of error to expect any such effort. If one reads the text of NA2 in context, it is merely stating what the Buddhist religion does, that is, it “It proposes…a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.” NA2 neither condones this “proposal” nor encourages it. It only says it exists. Time for the Dimond brothers to go back to the drawing board.
Dimond Brothers: 10. All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown (Gaudium et Spes, 12)
R. Sungenis: Perhaps if they would read things in context instead of taking little snippets out here and there to support their agenda, we might get some place, but we can’t expect agitators of the Dimond brothers’ mentality to do such respectable things. GES is simply making a statement of fact concerning a common denominator believers and unbelievers have, that is, that man is the center of God’s creation. God didn’t make animals the center, or the cosmos, or anything else. All was created for man. THAT is what GES is talking about. GES adds that the proper conception of man is that he is made “in the image of God,” and quotes many other Scriptures to this effect.
Now, mind you, this was the golden opportunity for the Dimond brothers to show that Vatican II contains error, and this is the best they can do?? Here are two men who scour Church documents like people scour the newspaper to see if they won the lottery, and yet they can’t come up with one indisputable, bone fide error. All they have are statements taken out of context (which they are very apt at doing) and they make their hateful and biased conclusions of those single statements.
But it is obvious to anyone with a semblance of ecclesial protocol that the Dimond brothers haven’t the slightest clue what they are doing. They are the Pharisees of the modern age, condemning everyone according to their misguided ‘letter of the law’ interpretation, and as Jesus said, when they are done with their converts they make them “two-fold the child of hell” than they were before (Mt 23:15). They are an utter disgrace.
Dimond Brothers: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 statements 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.”Dimond Brothers: 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 first begins by arguing that Canon 844.4 is not referring to non-Catholics. This is obviously absurd; 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: This is just another case of the Dimond Bros reading what they want to see. Canon 844.4 says nothing about “non-Catholics.” It clearly says “Eastern Churches" or others "in the same condition in regard to sacraments as these Eastern Churches.” It is giving no blank check to non-Catholics. It clearly makes the criterion for reception only those who have the same “condition” as the Eastern Churches. Most Protestant churches don’t have such a “condition,” and thus they would not be eligible.
Dimond Brothers: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 thus, that it is never lawful to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic.
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.
Dimond Brothers: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.
R. Sungenis: The Dimond Bros constantly abuse this passage from Eugene IV, but that is no surprise. In context, Eugene IV is referring to those who refuse to enter the Catholic Church, since they insist that they can be saved in their own religions and don’t need the Catholic Church. The Jews were especially guilty of this in this period of history, since they were becoming wealthy and socially acceptable and had many Catholics in their employ. They began to promote their own Judaistic religion as their preferred means of salvation. Eugene IV and Boniface VIII clamped down hard on that error, and that is why we see the above wording in Eugene’s decree.
Dimond Brothers: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.’”
R. Sungenis: As usual, the Dimond Bros are trying to capitalize on an ambiguous statement. Yes, it is true that those who receive the Lamb outside the Church will perish, but Canon Law 844.4 and CCC 1401 says that it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH which brings the Lamb to these various people “in danger of death,” not some other church. The Dimond Bros, assuming authority they don’t have, claim that the Catholic Church can’t make such exceptions. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to show that the Dimond Bros have no authority. All they have are big egos and a lot of pride. There is no better tool of the devil.
Dimond Brothers: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. Bob Sungenis denies it, in a desperate attempt to defend Vatican II and Antipope John Paul II, and is therefore a heretic. He is so desperate to defend Antipope John Paul II’s official pronouncements, in fact, that he switched his argument on what the canon was actually saying in just a matter of a few paragraphs.
R. Sungenis: No argument was “switched.” The Dimond Bros just forgot to read what the text actually said and decided to put in their own words, as they usually do.
Dimond Brothers:MR. SUNGENIS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW MASSMR. 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’ whole argument.
R. Sungenis: The way the Dimond Bros twist Scripture, they are much worse than Martin Luther and John Calvin put together. No biblical scholar would ever say that, in every case, “all” can replace “many,” especially in instances like Mt 7:13. But, of course, the Dimond Bros purposely pick a passage that won’t allow “all” to replace “many,” and as far as they are concerned the case is closed. This is typical of the shoddy exegesis they give both to Scripture and Church documents.
Whether or not the words can be exchanged depends on the context of the passage, the intent of the author, and various other factors. But here’s the main point. If in certain instances Scripture allows the replacement of “all” with “many” or “many” with “all,” then no one can prove that the Church documents that use “all” and “many” taken from the text of Scripture will not allow such replacement! If there is even only one instance that “all” replaces “many” in Scripture, then the argument of the Dimond Bros falls flat on its face. As it stands, Scripture has many such places. Note the following:
No Council or Pope ever taught or defined that the use of “many” in the consecration formula is tied to, or reflective of, the number, identity or even the potentiality of those who receive salvation. The word “many” is used simply because it is Scriptural wording. Second, since the word “many” is derived from Scripture (Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 read “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,” while Luke 22:20 reads “which is poured out for you” without either the addition of ‘many’ or ‘forgiveness of sins,’ and thus the consecration liturgy “...for you and for many...” combines the Matthean and Lucan texts), then we are obliged to investigate and accept the meaning Scripture applies to the word “many,” as well as its counterpart “all,” in order to have a proper understanding of both Jesus’ words and the intent of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Here is what we discover: In key soteriological texts, Scripture often interchanges the meaning of “many” with “all,” and neither always intends “many” to exclude all, nor always intends “all” to include all. For example, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 state that Christ gave his life as a “ransom for many” (Greek: pollon), yet 1 Timothy 2:6 states that Christ “gave his life a ransom for all men” (Greek: panton), which is further substantiated in 1 Timothy 2:4 by the statement “God desires all men (Greek: pantas anthropos) to be saved.” Similarly, 1 John 2:2 states that Christ is the propitiation for “our sins” (the Church), yet continues with “not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (Greek: olou tou kosmou). Luke 3:6 states that “all mankind will see God’s salvation”(Greek: pasa sarx); and John 6:51 states: “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (Greek: kosmou), yet Hebrews 9:28 states that Christ came to “take away the sins of many people” (Greek: pollon).
Such interchanges also occur when “many” stands for, or is equivalent to, “all” (e.g., Luke 2:34-35; Romans 4:17; 5:15-19; 12:4), as well as instances in which “all” could easily refer to “many” or “much” (Luke 2:1; 1 Corinthians 1:5). At some points, “all” is both inclusive and exclusive (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:22 – “as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”). At other points, “many” refers only to those who have the potential of salvation, yet “few” are those who actually receive it (Matthew 22:14).
Hence, based on the Scriptural usage, the replacement of “many” with “all” does not represent a material change in the consecration formula, and thus does not invalidate the Novus Ordo Missae, for both “many” and “all” can be either inclusive or exclusive. Whether the inclusive or exclusive meaning is intended in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 is neither specified by Scripture nor taught in any papal or conciliar dogma. Yet we must add that even in its most inclusive sense, the Scriptural usage of “all” does not mean that every person in the world will be saved, but only that every person has the opportunity to be saved.
Dimond Brothers: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, thus totally refuting MR. Sungenis’ claim!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 says, 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. That the word “all” cannot be used in the consecration of the Mass is proven not only by the Catechism of Trent, but by the actual words of consecration themselves.
R. Sungenis: Unfortunately, this argument won’t fly, for the simple reason that, if the Dimond Bros call into question the 1992 Catholic Catechism, they have no basis for quoting the 1556 Catholic Catechism as the ultimate authority. The 1556 Catechism claims no infallibility, least of all over a subsequent Catechism issued by the same Magisterium. If a dogmatic council or a papal decree had said that “all” cannot replace “many,” then the Dimond Bros would have an argument, but not even the Council of Trent made such a proposition.
Moreover, no pope or council ever stated that the word “many” is referring to the actual reception of salvation. The fact is that Christ shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins (as Matthew says “which is to be shed…for the forgiveness of sins”), and since each man is a sinner, the blood is applicable to all of them, whether actually or potentially. The very reason one can become a Catholic is that his sins are forgiven. Moreover, whether the pagan accepts the mercy of not, the fact still remains that Christ shed his blood for that pagan, unless, of course, we all want to become believers in Limited Atonement, like John Calvin and Martin Luther.
Dimond Brothers: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."
Notice the phrase, shed for you and for MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. As we’ve pointed out before, if you focus in on the words “UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” the whole “many vs. all” debate becomes clear; it is so simple: Christ did not shed His Blood for all UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. That is precisely why, in the Novus Ordo “Mass,” the words UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS were removed and changed to: “SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN”!
New Mass Consecration: “For this is my body. 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 for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The authors of the New Mass in English recognized that they had to change the last words (“UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS”) to “SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.” They recognized what Bob Sungenis does not; namely, that if they left the phrase “UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” after the word “ALL,” they would be indicating that all men have the remission of sins. Hence, they changed the ending to “SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN” to conform to the changed meaning signified by the new word “all.” All of this (no pun intended) clearly shows that “ALL” in the New Mass changes the signification of the formula of consecration and does not mean the same thing as “many,” otherwise the authors of the New Mass wouldn’t have felt compelled to change the ending. 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.
R. Sungenis: They wish. As Jesus said, “they shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, but they themselves do not enter…” (Mt 23:13). The Dimond Bros are so intent on making themselves the only recipients of salvation, and that is the surest sign of a devilish cult.
As for their above argument, it is fallacious. How do they know what the Novus Ordo prelates were thinking? They don’t. “Unto the remission of sins,” is just an old English way of saying that the purpose of the shed blood is to remit sins. The Greek in Mt 26:28 upon which the Latin is based says simply “for the forgiveness of sins,” and that is the same meaning as when translated “so that sins may be forgiven,” since the Greek word “eis” is a preposition of purpose which merely points out the reason the blood is shed, that is, in order to forgive sins. The Dimond Bros simply don’t know what they are talking about.
Dimond Brothers:MR. SUNGENIS ON NO ONE JUDGING THE APOSTATE ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL IIMR. 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."
R. Sungenis: First of all, the Dimond Bros again show their incompetence since they don’t know proper ecclesial protocol. Even if what Robert Bellarmine were saying is true, Robert Bellarmine is not the pope nor a dogmatic council. What he says is merely his opinion. I’ll deal with Robert Bellarmine’s further answer a little later. Suffice it to say, it is quite opposed to what the Dimond Brothers are advocating.
Dimond Brothers: 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? In fact, 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 proved to Mr. Sungenis from the Council of Trent that, according to Trent’s teaching, he [Zins] is a heretic!
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.
Dimond Brothers: 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.
R. Sungenis: The Dimond Bros don’t know the meaning of the word “heretic.” There is a big difference between knowing that someone holds heretical ideas (like the Dimond Bros do) as opposed to categorizing that person as a formal heretic. Only the Church has that authority, because only she has been given the keys to bind and loose, not the Dimond Bros. But, of course, this would not be the first time in history that two brothers arrogate to themselves authority that only belongs to another.
Dimond Brothers: 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.
R. Sungenis: Gee, I can hardly wait.
Dimond Brothers: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 talking about 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.”But 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 totally 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!
R. Sungenis: Well, I won’t use CAPITAL letters, but I will silence the fallacious argumentation of the Dimond Bros, nevertheless. If pope Liberius was to be deposed, it was initiated by the proper collegiate authorities who examined him and made their appropriate decision. If push came to shove, there would have been a canonical trial set up to indict Liberius, and there it would have been determined whether Liberius was truly a formal heretic, did not wish to repent of it, and whether or not he deserved to be deposed. This is not something that is decided in the court of public opinion (such as the “Most Holy Family Monastery,” whatever that is). We can all have our opinions, but in reality they amount to a hill of beans. It is only what those in authority decide that carries any weight whatsoever, and I can assure you that the “Most Holy Family Monastery” has no such authority. They are like Uzza of 2 Samuel 6 who touched the ark and was struck down dead by God, because Uzza simply had no authority to touch it. Angels even fear to tread where the Dimond Bros trample with their prideful boots.
Dimond Brothers: Ironically, St. Robert Bellarmine is the patron Saint of MR. Sungenis’ apostolate!
R. Sungenis: That’s because Robert Bellarmine would despise everything about the Dimond Brothers. If Robert Bellarmine thought he was serving a heretical pope, he would have organized a canonical court to take care of the matter, not sell video tapes declaring the pope to be an “anti-pope” and making thousands of dollars from it.
Dimond Brothers: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 all religions are great; 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."
R. Sungenis: This is a little off the beaten path, but I find it interesting how the Dimond Bros quote Pius IX for support of their beliefs, for Pius IX said something that the Dimond Bros consider heretical, so how could Pius IX be a true pope for them? Earlier the Dimond Bros said “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)” was an error in Vatican II. But this idea of “through no fault of their own” originated from Pius IX. Here is what he said:
"It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invicible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can,by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will be no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.""For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
"Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." (Denzinger 1647).
Now, let’s see how the Dimond Bros wiggle out of this one.
Dimond Brothers: 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.
R. Sungenis: Then I guess under this criterion we would have to reject the Dimond Brothers, since they reject Catholic dogma by arrogating to themselves authority which they do not have.
Dimond Brothers: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.”
R. Sungenis: Perhaps if the Dimond Bros would pay attention to the operative words “authoritative magisterium,” then we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
Dimond Brothers: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: that 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, blasphemy and apostasy, 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.
R. Sungenis: Just another case of the myopic vision of the Dimond Bros. Unfortunately for them, the world is much more complicated than their black-and-white version. As I noted earlier, it depends on the context in which the statement concerning Muslims is made. In the context of MONOTHEISM (and that is the context of CCC 841), it can be said that Muslims worship the same God, just as it can be said that Protestants worship the same God. Logic tells us that, if there is only one God, then there is no other god to worship. Granted, when we change the context and get down to the finer points of religion (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, etc), then it can be concluded that Muslims (and Protestants) have an erroneous understanding of the nature of God, but CCC 841 isn’t getting into that specific area of discussion. Some may rightly fault the Catechism for failure to make this clear (as I do myself), but that doesn’t mean the Catechism is in error regarding the context it choose for itself. The Catechism’s point is that Muslims are closer to understanding Catholic theology because of their belief in Monotheism.
Dimond Brothers:MR. SUNGENIS ON INTERPRETATIONBob 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.
R. Sungenis: Confusion is the Dimond Brothers’ weapon. Here is what is meant: that those without the authority to act upon those judgments should stop acting as if they have authority. It is one thing to make personal judgments about faith and morals (which judgments, according to conscience’s sake, lead to protecting oneself from what one regards as dangerous to one’s faith and moral), but it is quite another to act on that judgment by making oneself an authority to declare the pope a formal heretic and depose him of his office when one has no such authority.
Dimond Brothers:MR. SUNGENIS IN DEFENSE OF VATICAN II’S HERETICAL TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTYBob 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. In fact, he is an expert on 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.
R. Sungenis: This just shows the incompetence of the Dimond Brothers, always taking little snippets out of context to prove their biased viewpoint. Pius IX isn’t addressing the issue of civil versus moral categories.
Dimond Brothers: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.
R. Sungenis: Again, the Dimond Brothers fail to look at the context. Pius IX is speaking only about “regions of Catholic name,” which in his day the world had a few such countries. There are none today, and thus Pius IX’s stipulation does not apply. Moreover, it doesn’t apply to Dignitatis Humanae because Pius IX was speaking about Catholics not the civil government at large.
Dimond Brothers: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.
R. Sungenis: Still true. Vatican II’s wish is that the whole world should seek the Catholic Church. The first paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae makes that quite clear. The fact is, that wish is not the reality we face. And in that instance, the civil government, since it has no divine authority in regards to religion, cannot make the decision as to who stays and who goes. It is still the Church’s exclusive domain, and she accomplishes Pius IX’s words by preaching the Gospel and encouraging people to leave their native religions for the religion of Catholicism.
Dimond Brothers: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.
R. Sungenis: No, Vatican II teaches that the state does not have control over religion, period. Vatican II does not teach that it is morally acceptable for people to choose a religion that is not the Catholic religion. But, of course, we wouldn’t expect the Dimond Brothers to make such crucial distinctions, since they aren’t in this to defend the Church but to destroy it by making it contradict itself.
Dimond Brothers: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.”
R. Sungenis: This is precisely the argument of Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, but I wouldn’t expect the Dimond Brothers to be able to see it. Gregory is simply saying that the civil government has no right to make decisions regarding religion.
Dimond Brothers: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.”
R. Sungenis: That’s because the civil government should have no control over religion, so says Dignitatis Humanae.
Dimond Brothers: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.
R. Sungenis: That’s because they are able to make the proper distinctions; and in this complicated world, making the right distinctions is paramount. Unfortunately, the Dimond Brothers seem to have no training to make the crucial distinctions, at least, not when it goes against their preconceived ideas. Vatican II is only reiterating the truth that all men have free will to decide whether they want to worship God or not. If they choose not to, we cannot force them. The only time the civil government can intrude is when one’s religion causes violence in the society, and this is covered under Dignitatis Humanae’s “within due limits” clause.
Dimond Brothers: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!
R. Sungenis: Hardly. DH teaches they have the civil right to speak. But DH also says that, even though they may have the civil right to speak, they don’t have the moral right to promote another religion other than the Catholic religion.
Dimond Brothers: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…”
R. Sungenis: Still true, but that has little to do with what Dignitatis Humanae is dealing with. Vatican II hopes and prays for a world in which Catholicism permeates every corner, and for people who make their civil laws based on Catholic truth. But the sad fact is, we don’t live in that kind of world right now, so the Church must then address the current distinctions that exist between civil society and religious society. Vatican II deals with reality, whereas the Dimond Brothers think they still live in the Garden of Eden.
Dimond Brothers: Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty despises God and repudiates the Catholic Faith; those who defend it obstinately simply blaspheme. The whole document of Vatican II on religious liberty is intended to show how the State must recognize all religions equally, how the Church and the State should be separate.
R. Sungenis: No, that is precisely what DH says it is not doing. DH never says all religions are equal, and it never says that anyone has the moral right to practice another religion. It is only concerned with civil rights, and, by logical extension, prohibiting the State from intruding into the Catholic Church and telling her how to preach the Gospel.
Dimond Brothers: 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.
R. Sungenis: Do you see how the Dimond Brothers falsely accuse and confuse the issue? I never said I supported the separation of Church and state. That is only their straw man.
Dimond Brothers: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.”
R. Sungenis: Again, this just shows the incompetence of the Dimond Brothers. Pius IX is talking about godless people in civil government who wish to rid society of religion altogether. That’s in the paragraph the Dimond Brothers didn’t quote. In that paragraph Pius IX says:
“…at this time not a few are found who, applying the impious and absurd principles of naturalism, as they call it ,to civil society, dare to teach that ‘the best plan for public society, and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist…”
It is in that context only that Pius IX says the next paragraph, quoted above by the Dimond Brothers.
And here is the part of the paragraph that the Dimond Brothers left out (which fits in the ellipsis they created between “CONSTITUTED SOCIETY” and “But while they rashly affirm.”) Here it is:
“that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority…”
Notice that these atheistic naturalists don’t even want the Church (i.e., “ecclesiastical…authority”) to say what people should believe and not believe. In other words, they want to deny the Catholic Church the right to tell people what to believe. THAT is what Pius IX is condemning, and that is what Dignitatis Humanae is condemning. But how would we expect the Dimond Brothers to see this when they take out the most important part of Pius IX’s declaration?!
Dimond Brothers: 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.
R. Sungenis: What Vatican II teaches and what some prelates do with it are two entirely different things.
Dimond Brothers:MR. SUNGENIS PROMOTES SCHISM AND ENCOURAGES CATHOLICS TO DENY THE PAPACYAs 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.
R. Sungenis: The Dimond Brothers are self-appointed judges and are incompetent to judge these issues. They make the mistake that novices to the Catholic faith make. It is like dealing with children. Whether John Paul’s decision to lift the excommunication is good, bad or indifferent, the fact is, according to Vatican I, he is the supreme authority in disciplinary matters, and his decisions cannot be contravened. I suggest the Dimond Brothers go back and read Vatican I (Denzinger 1830-1831). The Dimond Brothers are contravening it, so that puts them in violation of Vatican I’s decree.
Dimond Brothers: 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 Protestant from his acceptance of the heresy of faith alone to a condemnation of the heresy of faith alone [since Antipope John Paul II, with whom you profess communion, accepts the heresy of faith alone]. It is impossible for you to say that a Catholic must believe in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent on Justification [since Antipope John Paul II, with whom you profess communion, does not believe in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent]. It is impossible for you to say to the Protestant you are trying to convert that he must reject as heresy the propositions set forth in the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, since Antipope John Paul II, with whom you profess communion, accepts the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. It finally strikes you that it is impossible for you to give an accurate and coherent presentation of the Catholic faith to a non-Catholic, since you are in communion with those who have repudiated the very faith you are presenting. As long as you acknowledge John Paul II as a Catholic Pope, you are defending a Church that has repudiated the Council of Trent, a “Church” that is, by definition, a non-Catholic Church – a Church of heretics.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess THE ONE CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”You realize that the same judgment by which you determined that this non-denominational Protestant was a heretic and outside the Catholic Church – a judgment you made upon meeting him and finding out what he believed and how he repudiated the Council of Trent – is the same exact judgment that you absolutely are forced to make about John Paul II. It hits you in a striking and illuminating way that you are not guilty of judging the Holy See or a Pope when you correctly judge that John Paul II is a non-Catholic; rather, you are identifying a non-Catholic for what he is, just as you correctly identified the non-denominational Protestant you met as a non-Catholic, as well as any Calvinist, Methodist or Episcopalian. You are making an absolutely necessary judgment about who is in communion with the true Church and who is not, based upon their open religious profession and their open acceptance or rejection of Catholic doctrine. To fail to make this judgment, you now recognize, is to fail to differentiate between the Catholic Church and heretical sects, and the members of the Catholic Church and the members of heretical sects. It is to be unable to distinguish between the true Church and a faceless blob of baptized heretics.
You now realize that to say that you don’t feel you have the authority to judge John Paul II is to say that you don’t have the authority to judge the non-denominational Protestant you encountered as a heretic. THIS, IN TURN, MEANS THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH, or to declare publicly that the Catholic Church is different from belief in a Lutheran creed of Justification by faith alone.
You realize that you must reject John Paul II as a non-Catholic Antipope who has no authority and is outside the Catholic Church. You realize that this must be the conclusion of all Catholics. Those who understand these facts and still maintain that John Paul II is a Pope (and therefore a Catholic) are rejecting the Catholic faith
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.”No, MR. Sungenis, we are out to defend the teachings of the Papacy and the Chair of St. Peter. You are out to keep Catholics in communion with heretics and apostates. You are out to give people “hope” in the counterfeit, non-Catholic, apostate Vatican II sect and the abominable New Mass. You are out to tell us that manifest heretics who reject the Council of Trent, reject the Papacy as a binding dogma, reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation, and reject the conversion of the Jews, are not actually heretics, but our fellow Catholics with whom we must share Faith and hold communion.
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."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.”
R. Sungenis: In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.
The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and unfortunately for them, the Catholic religion is all about making the proper distinctions. So many people in history have fallen by the wayside by what appears to be contradictory teaching from the Church, but that is a trap that the devil sets for them.
The Dimond Brothers hold that Vatican II contradicts previous Church teaching, but that is only because they neither understand previous teaching nor understand Vatican II. We saw this quite easily in the Dimond Brothers’ opening remarks in which they attempted to list 10 heresies of Vatican II, their best shot at proving their point, but they utterly failed. The best that can be concluded is that Vatican II has some ambiguous statements, but that is far from being in formal heresy.
The truth is that the Dimond Brothers are promoting heresy, and they are seeking to separate people from the Catholic Church by appearing as if they are supporting the Catholic Church. Ultimately, the Dimond Brothers have repudiated Jesus Christ, for it was He who said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against the Church, but the Dimond Brothers believe that hell has, indeed, prevailed, for we are headless, without a leader, and have been for the last 47 years, the very opposite of what Jesus promised. Not only is it incorrect, it is absurd.
The main problem, of course, is that the Dimond Brothers have not learned to distinguish between judging faith and morals for the sake of their own conscience and the far different position of judging the Magisterium. At will, the Dimond Brothers declare the whole Magisterium heretical and non-Catholic, yet, as we have seen, they barely have the capability to read a document for what it actually says, and have less capability to understand the context, or synthesize apparent contradictions into a unified whole. That is because they are bent on destroying the Catholic Church and declaring themselves the true holders of the faith. Didn’t we go through this once before with Martin Luther and John Calvin? Apparently, the Dimond Brothers haven’t learned from history, but that is no surprise, for when pride and arrogance get in the way, history means nothing to the egomaniac.
The Dimond Brothers have gone back to the error of Balaam and the error of Korah (Jude 1:11), cases in which mere underlings tried to usurp authority from the rightful magisterium. God simply has no mercy upon those who arrogate authority to themselves, regardless whether the authority in charge is good, bad or indifferent.
As far as the Church is concerned, we have the right to register our objections and disagreements with the Magisterium (Canon Law 212, 2-3) but that is as far as our prerogatives go. Other than that, we are mere peons with an opinion. We can register our opinions, we can write letters to our bishop and pope, but that is as far as our authority goes. We certainly have no right to declare a pope a heretic and unilaterally depose him from office, and insist that others do the same under threat of eternal damnation. That is the devil’s gospel, and I’m sorry to say, that is the gospel being propagated by the Dimond Brothers.
Not judging the Magisterium relieves us of being judged by God. God alone is the judge of the Magisterium, not you, not me, not the Dimond Brothers. Of course, the Magisterium better toe the line, for they will face a much harsher punishment from God than you and I if they faulter. None of us want to be in that position, believe me. It is not a light thing to be a prelate in God’s Magisterium.
The Dimond Brothers are on the road to perdition, and anyone who follows them is putting their soul on the precipice of hell. Run, don’t walk, away from them as fast as you possibly can.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D. (cd)President: Catholic Apologetics International
August 1, 2005
Comments
Dimond Brothers: 8. The State exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious activity (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)
R. Sungenis: No error here. 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.
My reply: The State does have the authority to forbid all forms of non-Catholic worship. And if State were to forbid false worship, it has the further right to "prevent" it.
Add comment
- video
- Video 2
- Video 3
- Video 4
- Video
- Video 6
- Video 7
- Video 8
- Vid 9
- Vid 10
- Vid 11
- Vid 12
- VID 13
- VID 14
- VID 15
- VID 16
- VID 17
- VID 18
- VID 19
- VID 20
- News
- Opinion
- Extra
- Poll
The Gospel According to John Cathlolic Apologetic Study Bible, Volume 6 On Sale Now. The Gospel According to St. John is the sixth in the series of... Read more |
Are Evangelical Christians War By Chuck Baldwin September 15, 2011 Archived column: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3971 R. Sungenis: This soberi... Read more |
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: The Source by Charles E Carlson The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America when he traveled here in th... Read more |
Eucharistic Miracles of the Wo THE REAL PRESENCE CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST The Eucharistic Miracles of the Worl... Read more |
Can the Big Bang be Merged wit Can the Big Bang be Merged with Genesis 1? Vincent: Not sure how anything in the Big Bang contradicts Scripture. &nb... Read more |
Popular Articles
Latest comments
- Scott Hahn and God's Covenant ...
Nathan, one more thing. The idea that the Mosaic c...
22.05.12 13:44 - Scott Hahn and God's Covenant ...
Nathan, I've never heard Dr. Hahn make that distin...
22.05.12 13:28 - Scott Hahn and God's Covenant ...
Dr. Sungenis, it is my understanding that Dr. Hahn...
22.05.12 08:08 - Sinclair Declares He Had Sex a...
Paul, we just report the news from the sources tha...
21.05.12 13:49 - John Salza Introduces New Book...
The book will be available for sale from this webs...
21.05.12 13:46 - Scott Hahn and God's Covenant ...
Chesterton said it, there is no greater falsehood ...
21.05.12 07:54 - John Salza Introduces New Book...
Will the book be available as a PDF?
20.05.12 15:43 - John Salza Introduces New Book...
Where is the book info?
19.05.12 15:51 - Scott Hahn and God's Covenant ...
Thanks for pointing this issue out. Sheesh. One mo...
19.05.12 15:47 - John Salza Introduces New Book...
info on new book by Salza & Sungenis
19.05.12 13:56