Heresy of the Week, Week of 7/9/04
By Bro. Peter Dimond
For more see: Heresies of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons
“Dear Mr. Sungenis, Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae held that the form of the Anglican ordination rites were invalid because the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop were deleted from the rites. Pope Paul VI also deleted the priestly and episcopal powers in the post-Vatican II ordination rites. Why is the form of the new ordination rites not also invalid? How do the new ordination rites compare with Eastern and more ancient Western ordination rites? Thank you, and God bless. Sincerely, Charles Martin”
R. Sungenis: “Charles, you're mixing apples and oranges. Pope Leo based his decision on the fact that the Anglicans broke off and were thus excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The absence of the sacramental powers are based on the excommunication from the Catholic Church, not on the form of the sacrament in which the Anglicans partake. Paul VI's actions have nothing to do with what happened to the Anglicans.” (Question 22, July 2004)
Comment: This is completely wrong. The invalidity of Anglican Orders has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are excommunicated. The Eastern Orthodox are also excommunicated, yet they have valid priests. Anyone who possesses even a cursory knowledge of sacramental theology knows that excommunication has nothing to do with the validity of priestly orders, and that the form, matter, minister, intention (as well as the signification given to those things by the surrounding ceremonies) have everything to do with the validity of priestly orders. As Pope Leo XIII says in Apostolicae Curae, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders:
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”
Bishops who are excommunicated still have valid orders and still can confer priestly ordination validly, provided they employ a valid rite. Their actions are illicit and sinful, but valid – as long as they use a valid rite. Those who deny this, such as Mr. Sungenis, demonstrate that they don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Throughout Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII says again and again, in terms that couldn’t be more clear, that the reason Anglican Orders are invalid is due to defects in the Rite (not excommunication), defects arising from what has been deleted from the ritual, exactly the opposite of what Sungenis tries to tell us.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [the true sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”
One would love to have a chance to debate Bob Sungenis; for he doesn’t even seem to possess a basic understanding of these issues. He should stick to reading scripture and creation science. But, unfortunately, what we are dealing with in Bob Sungenis is an obstinate, blinded, bad willed, dangerous heretic, whom the devil uses as a voice to defend the Conciliar sect of Antipope John Paul II. The devil uses him to try to convince people that the apostate sect of Antipope John Paul II, which believes: that all religions are true; that we shouldn’t convert Jews and Eastern Schismatics; that the Council of Trent no longer applies; that there is salvation outside the Church; that sacraments may be given to non-Catholics, etc., is the Catholic Church. He is used by Satan to convince people that the New Mass is okay, and that the invalid new rites of ordination are valid, when he doesn’t know the fundamental aspects surrounding the issue.
In recent weeks, here is what Mr. Sungenis has posted about us on his website:
R. Sungenis: “John, that formal debate with the Dimond brothers never materialized… As far as I'm concerned, they are working for the devil, and have made themselves their own magisterium. They are Protestants with a Catholic name.” (June 2004)
R. Sungenis: “stop listening to the Dimond Brothers. They are heretics on their way to hell.” (July 2004)
R. Sungenis: “As for the Dimond brothers, they are heretics. Stay away from them.” (July 2004)
One can see why he wants people to stay away from us – he definitely doesn’t want them to see his ridiculous, ignorant and heretical defenses of the Conciliar sect of John Paul II exposed and refuted. It is also interesting that he recently began to call us heretics. It’s obvious that he has been frustrated by the factual refutations of him that we have posted, to which he has no response. One wonders if this hypocrite would call Antipope John Paul II a heretic, when John Paul II spouts heresies basically every week! Probably not, and thus he shows his bad will. Would he call “Cardinal” Keeler of Baltimore – who says we shouldn’t convert Jews to Christ – a heretic who is not a Catholic? Probably not. Would he call “Cardinal” Cassidy – who signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which says that man is justified by faith alone – a heretic? Probably not. Ye hypocrite, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
We hope for the conversion of Mr. Sungenis, but it won’t happen until he stops attacking the truth and ceases defending the Vatican II sect of Antipope John Paul II.
Another defense of the invalid New Rite of Ordination has recently been posted by someone. We will be responding to it on our website soon.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.