Re: Robert Sungenis

by **Admin** Fri May 10, 2013 9:42 am

Send him the text from Lumen Gentium, 51:

51. This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession."(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Since the Council of Florence declared in Cantate Domino that everyone must end their lives in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church", there can be no exceptions, visible or otherwise.

by Lionel A Fri May 10, 2013 1:05 pm

Could you phone him?

by **Admin** Fri May 10, 2013 1:19 pm

If I had his number, I would not call him. What would be the point? He can read, and if he wants to visit this forum, he can. Since he has responded to you, I suggest that you ask him about LG, 51.

by Lionel A Sat May 11, 2013 3:46 am

and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*)

He agree with this but he still thinks there are exceptions to the dogma.We have to wait until he thinks this one through.

by **Admin** Sat May 11, 2013 9:26 am

Well, if that is the case, then Bob is wrong. So sad. However, a trillion lies do not change one immutable truth:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Even the 1949 Holy Office letter acknowledged this:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Perhaps in the End only the brothers and sisters of the Saint Benedict Centers will be the remnant who profess the One True Faith. I count myself privileged to be numbered among that small group of true Catholic believers.

As for you and Bob, I think that you are spending too much time trying to split "theological hairs." One can never know (at least in this life) if one were truly "invincibly ignorant" or not, as was declared at the First Vatican Council:

13. So it comes about that, like a standard lifted up for the nations, she both invites to herself those who have not yet believed, and likewise assures her sons and daughters that the faith they profess rests on the firmest of foundations.

14. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

Such applies to Protestants and the Orthodox who are baptized in their infancies. They are in a state of grace, and upon reaching the Age of Reason, they are all, without exception, given the graces to enter formally and canonically into the One True Church. Many of them do not, of course, do this, but some do, which is proof of the Holy Spirit's guidance manifesting itself visibly in our World. But, let's consider LG 16 again:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

How could you, Bob, me, or anyone else ever know that what some non-Catholic does not know was due to "no fault of his/her own", especially, given the decree of the First Vatican Council of the Holy Spirit's "effective help of power from on high"? It seems that the "divine light and grace" which Pope Pius IX spoke of in Quanto conficiamur is, in fact, the grace to become fully Catholic! Regardless, however, the fact that the Second Vatican Council acknowledged "the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent" means that all human beings, without exception, must end their lives "in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" if they wish to "have a share in life eternal".

We leave it to the Righteous Judge to sort the "wheat from the chaff"; until that Day, we will continue to proclaim "from the housetops":

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Those who will listen will listen; those who don't, well, will not.

by Lionel A Tue May 21, 2013 6:11 am

May 20, 2013
Robert Sungenis responds : but still without any apologetics.

I have received this response from the apologist Robert Sungenis. I am posting it unedited.

Lionel,
Here is my response. You can post this, and this only.
To whom it may concern: Lionel Andrades, in my opinion, is dishonest and I want nothing to do with him. When he contacted me by email several weeks ago and began corresponding with me about the Church's doctrine of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus [EENS], I told him that my dialogue with him was private and that I did not give him permission to post any of it, or even his opinions about it. Mr. Andrades ignored my request, and continues to do so even though I have reminded him of his sin, which includes detraction, false accusations, and slander. In my opinion, Mr. Andrades has not only distorted my teachings and beliefs on the Church's doctrine of EENS, he is also ignorant of the Church's true teaching. Having appointed himself as the sole arbiter of the Church's teaching, Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet, using his own views as the standard of judgment, and condemns and publicizes the condemnation of anyone who deviates from his own views. I must say that, in examining Mr. Andrades' blog, many other people have seen his sin of detraction for what it really is, and no one seems interested in what he has to say, since, the last time I looked, he has received no responses to his diatribes. The only response that will be listed (if Mr. Andrades wants to have the least semblance of honesty) is the one I am writing presently. In my opinion, it is quite ironic that Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet questioning everyone's salvation, yet it appears that he has a log in his own eye that he has never removed. Hence, it is he who should be examining whether he himself is still saved, since the sins of dishonesty and detraction are mortal. I would implore everyone who reads this to pray for the soul of Lionel Andrades.
Robert Sungenis
May 19, 2013
Copy to Fr. Brian Harrison

____________________________________________

Lionel:
Before I posted the original report about Sungenis on the First Saturday of this month I e-mailed him and asked him to make any clarification he wanted.He did not respond.So I went ahead and posted the report on my blog.
In earlier correspondence with me he mentioned that I should consult him before posting any thing. So he knew that the correspondence was not private. I also mentioned in our correspondence that I had asked him questions ( to which he did not respond) with the intention of quoting him. I have done this in the past too but the reports about him in the past were positive.This one was not.I have sent him the e-mail copies of what I mention here i.e (1)informing him asking him for clarifications, (2) his mentioning that before quoting him I should consult him and (3) my mentioning that I want to quote.

He had no response apologetically to the initial copy and neither does he have any now, after so many reports are written, with his apologetics being the subject.-L.A

by **Admin** Tue May 21, 2013 9:56 pm

Lionel,

Listen to Bob. If he wanted his dialogue with you to be private, well, dammit Lionel, you should have kept it private!!! Period!!!! End of story.

by Lionel A Wed May 22, 2013 3:45 am

Don't fall for his private story.
Notice he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers.
He is careful not to get into apologetics since he doesn't know how to handle this one.
What can he say to the comment, 'we cannot see the dead' ?.

by Lionel A Wed May 22, 2013 3:48 am

May 22, 2013
Notice, he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers
Notice he is careful not to get into apologetics, since he doesn't know how to handle this one.
What can he say to the comment 'we cannot see the dead?'.Nothing! There is no apologetics.
I told Robert Sungenis in our correspondence, which was not private, that I am no authority on this issue ( and neither is any one else with their common place error) but of one thing I am dead- sure, it is, we cannot see dead.
That we cannot see the dead is not a personal view it is a universal understanding.
So how can he respond if the issue is not theology.It is a mistaken ' fact' which influences his theology.
When he admits we cannot see the dead his theology will be rational.
If Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis were asked if they can see the dead they would respond, "No".
Then the follow up question for them is : how can they say that being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation?
Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are dead for us.They cannot be seen.
Then Fr.Harrison and Sungenis would say/imply that the Church made a mistake ( this is what the Church teaches!).
But where is the text in which the Church says that the dead are visible for us ?
This has to be implied-wrongly!
I would say that he has no apologetics and is calling for prayers.Appropriately.-Lionel Andrades

by Lionel A Wed May 22, 2013 5:14 am

Don,
We have got to help them.
We just can't leave them in their ignorance.
You and I understand the mistake they are making.
Gradually it will ' sink in' with them. We have to work at it patiently.
Since what we are saying is not a new theology or theory or a personal view.It is observing that we all share a universal understanding, that in general, the dead cannot be seen with the visible eye.
Many people have realized this now and did not know this before.
I think of the small group of Mother Teresa Sisters in Rome who confronted the professors at the Gregorian University, Rome on this issue.They will have helped those Catholic professors think about this.
Similarly it is not the fault of Bob to think the way he does about the exceptions to the dogma. I made the same mistake once upon a time and now I have corrected myself.

by **Admin** Wed May 22, 2013 7:51 am

NO, LIONEL, WE DO NOT HAVE TO HELP THEM. THEY NEED TO HELP THEMSELVES!!

Lionel,

I want you to pledge to me that you are going to, immediately, stop contacting Bob Sungenis, Father Harrison, John Salza, the Dimonds (unless, they are responding to you), and everyone else (who refuses correspondence with you); otherwise, as an act of mercy towards you, I must ban you from this board. I realize, of course, that doing so will only leave me as an active member; however, this board will at least serve as an archive of EENS dogma and discussion.

Okay?! In addition, I think that you need to reorganize your blog. Create a permanent post, perhaps on your Welcome page, and include the clear Magisterial statements from the Fourth Lateran Council, Unam Sanctam, the Council of Florence, and the Fifth Lateran Council. All the modern "Catholic" apologists of our day and their superficial musings will pale in comparison to what the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught us.

by Lionel A Wed May 22, 2013 8:53 am

I want you to pledge to me that you are going to, immediately, stop

contacting Bob Sungenis, Father Harrison, John Salza, the Dimonds (unless, they are responding to you),

I am not in correspondence with them. I have nothing new to say.

(unless, they are responding to you),

To those who are interested I respond .

however, this board will at least serve as an archive of EENS dogma and discussion.

This is important. So the reports will show up on a Google search.

by **Admin** Wed May 22, 2013 10:02 am

Good Lionel,

Now, relax, and enjoy life a little! Work out your own salvation "with fear and trembling." If Bob Sungenis, Father Harrison, John Salza, and the entire staff of ETWN all end-up in eternal Hell, do not join them there!! With respect to EENS, I like to tell people, "It's not so much about you as it is me."

by Lionel A Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:22 am

Vatican II, which was led by the Holy Spirit just as the twenty councils before it, was divinely permitted to contain ambiguities

Where is the ambiguity in Vatican Council II with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

by **Admin** Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:09 am

In the minds of certain individuals!

LG 15, 16 must be read in light of LG 51.

by Lionel A Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:00 am

LG 15, 16 must be read in light of LG 51..

Even when they read LG 16 they assume that these cases are visible to us and so contradict LG 51 (Council of Florence etc)

Then they assume that there is ambiguity in Vatican Council II and that the Council contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You at least cannot find any such ambiguity?

by **Admin** Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:15 am

These cases cannot possibly be visible to us. Consider LG, 16:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

How could you, I, or anyone else ever know that which someone else does not know was through no fault of that person? It seems silly even to ask such a question, considering what the First Vatican Council stated:

To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

To say that any non-Catholic is truly in a state of "invincible ignorance," which is, in and of itself, not salvific, but add to that, that such an "invincibly ignorant" person is in a state of grace is to "play God". It is to claim to be omnipotent, which is not only absurd but blasphemous as well.

by Lionel A Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:21 am

So there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

With Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on salvation?

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -AG 7

by **Admin** Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:55 am

Agreed.

by Sponsored content