A Last Word

With our final defense of Bishop Rhoades completed (here), it is time to bring this blog to a close.

When we began publicly opposing Robert Sungenis’s Jewish writings and postings, we did so because Bob had rejected private correction (opting instead to intensify his rhetorical attacks on the Jewish people) and also because we possessed important, inside knowledge that no one else possessed about these matters. Additionally, we were deeply troubled by the fact that some Catholics (including two or three well-known traditionalist publications) seemed to be giving increasing credence and coverage to Sungenis’s anti-Jewish “research,” apparently not realizing that his writings were too often unattributed re-presentations of a few books and articles written by extremely problematic and negatively biased sources (white supremacists, Nazis, other anti-Semites and extremists) and that Sungenis himself had done little or no original research on these topics (link 1, link 2)

Before continuing, however, we want to state unequivocally that we do not hate Bob, as his most prominent supporter has falsely accused us. We have been baffled, saddened, shocked and/or deeply troubled by the things he has posted and continues to post about various Jewish issues under the Catholic mantle. Additionally, we have never intended to “destroy” him and certainly never stated that we wanted him brought down “to nothing”, as the same individual has falsely accused us. We have consistently stated that our intention is to defend those unjustly attacked, to help insure that innocent people do not adopt the inflammatory and scandalous views of the Jewish people that Bob has advocated, to make clear that Bob’s views of the Jewish people are not those of the Catholic Church and that Catholics care enough to speak out vigorously against such views. Along with those intentions we continue to hope and pray that Bob eventually abandons his continuing commitment to this unfortunate path and returns full-time to those areas in which he has much to offer. That being said, to whatever extent that our individual limitations and faults may have undermined those aims, we sincerely apologize.

We also want to reiterate that we have agreed with Bob on some important theological points regarding the Jewish people and Judaism. For instance, we agree that the dual covenant theory is erroneous and that it undermines the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. In fact, some time ago we wrote an article about this issue in Lay Witness magazine (link). We also just recently read and recommend an article written about this issue by Fr. Harrison in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (June 2009). However, even in those areas in which Bob has made positive theological contributions involving Jewish issues, he seems unable to refrain from eventually adopting a hostile tone, using problematic sources and/or degenerating into inappropriate, offensive and false accusations. As such, he has caused harm even when he is correct or partially correct on Jewish issues.

An example of this is what occurred when Religion News Service and The Washington Post plastered Bob’s picture and name all over an article commenting upon the removal of a sentence on page 131 of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) that tended to give the impression that Jews have their own path to salvation through the Mosaic covenant (link 1, link 2). While Bob made a legitimate criticism of this sentence in the USCCA, unfortunately, he also launched into a vitriolic campaign filled with scandalous (and unjustified) accusations against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and his own bishop in particular. According to Bob, they were “attempting to propagate” heresy to “unsuspecting Catholics,” his bishop had greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith and His Excellency was having a “war…with Catholic doctrine.”

After the U.S. bishops made a very helpful change to the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, Bob was still not satisfied, publicly airing additional suspicions and floating an erroneous conspiracy theory. On the opposite side, those who favor the dual covenant theory were also plainly unhappy with the change because the original version was more amenable to their views. And it seems evident that they made an effort to discredit the change in the USCCA by closely associating it with Bob and his anti-Jewish prejudice (his name appeared 11 times in the original RNS article). For his part, Bob jumped in to take the credit they wanted to give him, apparently unaware or unconcerned that he was likely being used to undermine the Church – and perhaps most ironically – the very issue he indicated that he was so deeply concerned about, in the process. Readers of this blog may remember that we warned Sungenis' supporters of precisely this danger in By Sungenis Alone:

Sungenis has made some good points about the dual covenant error. But as much as Sungenis supporters might try, it is simply impossible to divorce him from all of his ugly baggage...These serious problems...make it extremely imprudent to publicly enlist Sungenis' aid in this legitimate cause. His presence only serves to discredit and undermine it. (By Sungenis Alone, March 29, 2008)

Unfortunately, Bob has used the respect and credibility he legitimately earned in other areas of scholarship and inquiry for the purpose of promoting his personal, anti-Jewish views. In the process he improperly appropriated the name “Catholic” and enlisted “Catholic” theology in the cause (here). By stating this, our intention here is not to inflame or insult, rather, it is to explain why we felt we had a moral obligation to vigorously defend the Church and those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by his writings and postings over the last 7 years. It is not a matter of any one statement or posting but rather, a long-standing pattern. There are certainly others on the internet who have written and posted worse things about Jews than Bob, but these individuals are not Catholics who have earned people's respect and trust in other areas. And so, it is not as likely that average Catholics will uncritically accept what they have to say.

It is our sincere hope and prayer that the information at this blog continues to help those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by Bob’s Jewish writings and postings. But it is time to bring it to a close. By now, with all the documentation we and others have provided at other blogs and websites, we believe it should be amply clear to any objective observer that his negative views of the Jewish people are solely his own and do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or the general Catholic populace. And those who have been unjustly attacked have been adequately defended.

We have been touched by the many expressions of appreciation we have received (for example – scroll to the bottom of Breaking the Silence, here). We have been particularly gratified by the many individuals who have found and used information posted at this blog while researching similar errors made by others – we’ve found that there is a great deal of “cross-pollination” among those with such negative views of the Jewish people. For instance: the fraudulent quote of Einstein about anti-Semitism that we documented (see a link to our work here); the misquote of David Brooks regarding Jews and “neo-cons”; the ethnicity of Robin Williams (he’s not Jewish - see here and here); the cause of the Titanic disaster (yes, some people really believe the Jews were behind that one, too); the Holy Father’s statements about the six million Jews killed in the Shoah; the Patristic, Magisterial and Scriptural evidence for the “conversion of the Jews" and other topics.

Unfortunately, Bob has maintained his course on Jewish issues despite promises to cease addressing anything of a non-theological nature involving Jews. For example, he recently decided to provide “evidence” that only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed in the Shoah and that the Jews themselves were largely to blame for what they suffered. In so doing, he cited evidence that has even been debunked and denounced by one of his colleagues – Christopher Ferrara (here). Ferrara has described views such as those espoused by Sungenis as “nonsense,” further stating that those who make such claims evidence “what appears to be a lack of even cursory research” and that “anyone with even a superficial knowledge” of the facts should know better. He then went on to make the following impassioned plea and statement:

Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement.

We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

(Some information about the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust and a rebuttal of alleged "proof" from Red Cross records about a relatively small number of Jews being killed in the Shoah may be found here, here, here, here and here. Bob also strongly suspects there was a conspiracy hatched to propagate the figure of “six million” Jews killed in the Shoah, before WWII had even ended, based on supposed “evidence” in a 1943 issue of Reader’s Digest. Based on history [read here], it seems safe to assume that he did not track down an actual copy of this magazine, read it and come to his conclusion independently. If one does a simple Google search on terms like “Reader’s Digest 1943 Holocaust Hoax Hecht”, one will find many of the kinds of extremely problematic sources upon which Sungenis has previously relied [note: you may have to turn off your internet filter in order to view all the results]. It seems most likely that Bob once again sought out sources that would confirm his pre-existing opinions and repeated them publicly rather than attempting any real search of the evidence. An easily accessible article by Andrew E. Mathis at Holocaust Controversies that convincingly rebuts the claim Bob publicly repeated about the Reader's Digest article may be found here.)

In his most recent statement on "the Jews", Bob quotes extensively from Benjamin Freedman. In doing so, it seems Bob has sought out “cover” for his views by noting that Freedman was a Jew, thus presumably giving him greater credibility as a witness against "the Jews". He has attempted to find such cover in the past by “quoting” Jews like Albert Einstein and David Brooks. Unfortunately, in those instances, the “quotes” he reproduced (and the implications he subsequently drew from them) were fraudulent. (link1 and link2).

Of course, on its own, Freedman's status as a Jew (or, more accurately, an ex-Jew) does not automatically establish him as a trustworthy critic of Jews and Judaism, any more than Bart Brewer's status as an ex-priest established him as a trustworthy critic of Catholicism; indeed, many ex-Catholics are the most vociferous and venomous anti-Catholics. And it certainly appears that Freedman came to deeply disdain and reject his Jewish heritage.

For instance, Sungenis seems unaware that Freedman was a proponent of the extremist belief that Jesus Christ was not even a Jew. Freedman also subscribed to the same kinds of discredited, extremist views (for example: modern Jews are not actually Jews at all, they are mere ethnic imposters: see here and here) that another Sungenis source subscribes to: Holocaust “revisionist,” Michael Hoffman. Perhaps unsurprisingly, certain extremely “problematic” groups are big fans of Freedman (here and here), just as they are of some of Bob's anti-Jewish work (here). However, more directly to the issue of Sungenis' extensive quotation of Freedman, is the issue of Freedman's fundamental credibility. The following easily accessible article contains pointed rebuttal to the Freedman speech that Sungenis quoted at length: here. It makes a cogent case that Freedman made numerous errors of fact in the course of that speech. Has Sungenis read it? Did he make any effort to find counter-arguments against Freedman? Apparently not.

Following a long-standing pattern, it seems that Sungenis has once again reflexively believed and publicly propagated negatively prejudiced and/or inflammatory material about Jews without making any real effort to ascertain its credibility and veracity. Unfortunately, Bob has also recently recommenced making false accusations against his bishop. Other examples of Bob’s continuing anti-Jewish course may be found here, here and here. We have documented these problematic patterns at great length. And therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary for us to continue; we believe that what we have documented is sufficient for any person of good will.

While we reject the notion that Bob would ever have sanctioned anything like the Shoah, we believe it is a grave mistake to think that such an atrocity could never occur again. The German people were not intrinsically monstrous. Even Hitler did not start out with the repulsive views and ideas that he later developed about the Jewish people. We have stated that “we certainly agree…that Bob Sungenis is not the kind of person who desecrates Jewish graves, massacres Jews and bombs Israel. He is, however, the kind of person who often foments paranoia about and hatred against Jews" (here). The language that Sungenis often employs and the accusations he levels are often dangerous and irresponsible. His bishop has described his postings on Jews and Judaism as “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian.” In fact, Sungenis himself recently acknowledged that the fears expressed by Roy Schoeman in this regard are legitimate:

“Schoeman balks at the suggestion that the Jews are to blame for the world’s troubles. Simply put, if the world believes the Jews are the cause of the trouble, the world will react by turning against the Jews (as they have done in the past); and since the Jews are outnumbered by 500 to 1, it doesn’t bode well for them. This is a legitimate fear…” (Is the SSPX Anti-Semitic? by R. Sungenis)

Considering that Bob acknowledges this serious concern, we are baffled that he so often stokes the flames of paranoia about and animus against the Jewish people with his rhetoric and various postings. Does he understand that when he publicly accuses Jews of being slave masters, of trying to take over the Church, of being morally degenerate, of being godless racists, of controlling and listening in on our phone lines, of sending in secret agents to seduce and bring down a president they disliked, of assassinating another president, of believing that Gentiles are not created in the image and likeness of God, that Gentiles were put on the earth to serve Jews because Gentiles are “akin to animals” and that “goyim,” the word Jews use for Gentiles, is actually the Hebrew word for “cattle,” (see Bob’s recent article here) – that he is actively fomenting resentment against, contempt for and paranoia about the Jewish people?

According to multiple reports around the world, including a statement by the Pope himself, anti-Semitic incidents and sentiments are on the rise (for example: here, here and here). A financial collapse here, a terrorist bombing in retaliation against support for the “Zionist State” there, and Jews can rather quickly become a convenient scapegoat again. And of course, this does not even contemplate the obvious damage such statements do to evangelistic outreach. What Jew would want to join a Church that views the Jewish people in such contemptuous ways?

We have seen first-hand how Catholics have been attacked – sometimes unfairly – for doing too little to stand against what happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Should another such tragedy unfold in our day, how could we legitimately defend ourselves against similar charges if we refuse to stand against the kind of inflammatory and hostile rhetoric and material that one of our own brothers has often published against Jews?

In closing, we hope that our decision to bring this blog to a close may help Bob in some way to reflect on matters and to eventually reconsider his course in regard to the Jewish people. We would also like to affirm our esteem and appreciation for the commendable work he has produced in other areas and reiterate our strong preference to remove the material currently at this blog, for the sake of the Church and everyone else involved – including Bob himself. To that end we will repeat the offer we have previously made to him:

If Bob will simply and forthrightly retract and apologize for the statements we have listed here (without then stating that he still personally maintains that they are true, as he did previously: here) – including his accusations against Bishop Rhoades (our new – and final – defense of Bishop Rhoades may be found here), adhere to his promises to refrain from posting such statements and articles in the future (including removing the similarly problematic material currently at his website) – then we will gladly remove everything currently at this blog and at the RSATJ website. If Bob takes this step, then it will no longer be necessary (or helpful) to leave up our articles. In fact, we would even go so far as to write to the Diocese of Harrisburg on his behalf to inform them of such a positive development.

Additionally, while we have made every effort to be accurate in our documentation, we remain open to correction - retracting and apologizing for any errors we may have made. Irrespective of our offer to remove the material on this blog, we invite Bob to provide documentation of any such possible errors. However, to date, neither Bob nor his supporters have provided us with any specific examples of inaccurate quotes, etc.

We sincerely hope and pray that God gives Bob the grace to understand the harmfulness of his statements and actions in regard to the Jewish people and to alter his course - for the sake of the Church, all those who have been harmed and for his own sake.

Michael Forrest, David Palm and Jacob Michael

Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory

While it is our intention to bring this blog to a close, we believe it is important to end by removing any possible remaining confusion caused by the false and slanderous accusations Robert Sungenis continues to level against his bishop, the Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, in regard to the dual covenant error.

At the beginning of July, 2009, Lay Witness magazine published an article written by us entitled, “All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God,” (available on-line here).

In this article, we made the following statements directly rejecting the dual covenant error:

“The New Covenant in Christ has superseded the Mosaic (or “Old”) covenant. The term ‘supersession,’ which was first used by an Anglican minister, has subsequently been used by some Catholics to describe this truth. It appears in no magisterial texts; yet, as originally used, it does accurately describe Catholic teaching.”

“While the Church continues to grapple with certain nuances in the relationship among Jews, Christians, and God, she has never taught the dual covenant theory…”

“the dual covenant theory…fundamentally compromises the Church’s Great Commission, given by Christ (cf. Mt. 28:18–20). Additionally, the public advocacy of this theory has created an unwarranted expectation among our Jewish brethren that in turn leads to their understandable frustration each time the Church reaffirms that the Gospel and the Church are for all men.”

“the dual covenant theory holds…that [the Jewish people] have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).”

“The Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Magisterium consistently testify that the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Church is for all men—Jew and Gentile alike.”

“God has given man one sure path to salvation, and that path is through the definitive and universal covenant in Jesus Christ by means of His Church. It is a serious error to direct anyone away from that sure path, regardless of the intention.”

In fact, Sungenis himself agreed that we rejected the dual covenant error, even commending us for it:

R. Sungenis: "Well, at least Forrest and Palm are not teaching the...heresy that Jews don't need Jesus Christ to be saved, as was Cardinal Keeler in the 2002 Reflections on Covenant and Missions document and the 2006 Catholic Catechism for Adults...for that Forrest and Palm are to be commended." (See here).

The problem for Sungenis is that Bishop Rhoades wrote a letter to Lay Witness (Sept/Oct 2009) in which he explicitly endorsed our criticism of the dual covenant error - stating that it was "right on the mark." In that endorsement, he also stated that he fully supported the U.S. bishops' "note" criticizing and correcting Reflections on Covenant and Mission (also available on-line here):

Dear Michael and David,

Thank you very much for your article All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God. I appreciate your good scholarship and your fidelity to the teachings of the Church. Your reflections bring much needed clarity to a complex topic. I believe your critique of both the dual covenant theory and extreme supersessionism is right on the mark.

I was also happy to support the Note on Ambiguities in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" recently issued by the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The conclusion of that Note states: "With Saint Paul, we acknowledge that God does not regret, repent of, or change his mind about the "gifts and the call" that he has given to the Jewish people (Romans 11:29). At the same time, we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God's promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ. By God's grace, the right to hear this Good News belongs to every generation. Fulfilling the mandate given her by the Lord, the Church, respecting human freedom, proclaims the truths of the Gospel in love."

Thank you for proclaiming the truths of the Gospel in love!

Gratefully yours in Christ,

+Kevin C. Rhoades

Bishop of Harrisburg

As we reported over a year ago (see here), Bishop Rhoades also fully supported and voted for the change to the problematic sentence on page 131 of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults. Bob has ignored this fact as well.

As such, while we have previously provided more than ample evidence of the orthodoxy of Bishop Rhoades’ beliefs and teaching in regard to the covenant issue and have illustrated that Bob’s proposed evidence wasn’t the evidence he thought it to be (here, here, here and here), His Excellency's letter to Lay Witness makes completely clear that – contrary to Bob’s public accusations:

1) Bishop Rhoades is not a proponent of Cardinal Keeler's problematic Reflections on Covenant and Mission document,

2) Bishop Rhoades is not a proponent of the dual covenant error,

3) Bishop Rhoades is not promoting a "hybrid" wherein the Old Covenant is salvific as long as it is "not apart from Christ."

4) Bishop Rhoades is not attempting to propagate “heresy” to “unsuspecting Catholics.”

5) Bishop Rhoades is not trying to convince or force anyone to adhere to the dual covenant error, and

6) Bishop Rhoades is not trying to silence anyone for merely criticizing the dual covenant error – in fact, His Excellency appreciates charitable and responsible efforts to address it.

Therefore, Bob’s public accusations against Bishop Rhoades are "slanderous and erroneous," exactly as His Excellency stated in February, 2008 (here).

While Bob would like everyone to believe that his personal war against Bishop Rhoades is about doctrinal purity, the facts prove that it has actually been about Bob's self-promotion. Some time ago, Bob and one of his most ardent followers accidentally exposed the real reason why he turned on Bishop Rhoades after first praising His Excellent profusely, pledging filial obedience to him and even assuring his followers that his bishop's teaching on Jewish issues was trustworthy. Anyone who wants to understand Bob's actual intentions and motivations, according to his own words, really needs to read this: click here.

Unfortunately, regardless of how many times he has been corrected, Bob continues to publicly level false and slanderous accusations of heresy against his bishop and remains unwilling to admit that he has done so based upon "evidence" that doesn’t begin to meet his own previously stated standards and criteria. Below are the standards and criteria Sungenis himself established while publicly defending the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#121) against the charge of heresy – specifically in regard to its teaching that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked” (here):

It's ambiguous, but it's not heresy. . . . I'll grant you that your reasoning COULD be a possible interpretation, but the point is that you don't know it IS the interpretation, at least not well enough to levy the charge of heresy. Heresy does not deal with ambiguities. It sanctions direct and provable statements of error. . . . I really don't have to prove anything. George is the one who has to prove something, since he is the one charging the CCC with heresy. . . . Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma. . . . I simply would not use the word "heresy" at all, . . . "Proximate to heresy" is a juridical term, and when you get into canonical jurisprudence, then you're required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction. If you can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. ~ R. Sungenis

Below are the criteria Sungenis established when defending "prelates of the Church" from accusations of heresy (Q and A #42):

When we are dealing with prelates of the Church, the best place to go to define heresy is canon law, and the previous decisions made by the Church upon its formal heretics. As such, the Church has always weighed all the evidence before it makes a judgment on whether something is heretical, or whether a person is a heretic. In canonical terminology, "heresy" requires two things: (1) that the doctrine being denied has been defined by the Church at the highest levels of her authority (e.g., de fide, de fide Catholica, de fide devina et Catholica, or de fide ecclesiastica definita, or de fide divina). (2) The person would have to recognize the teaching at this level, and would have to give a specific denial of it for it to be canonically called "heresy" and for him to be classed as a "heretic." Even then, the Church gives room for the suspected heretic to recant or modify his views when probed by the Church, which is also a canonical process. If he persists, then he is treated accordingly.

In addition, when the person who is being accused is the pope, even much more caution has to be added to the procedure. If someone doesn't like something that the pope said, he can raise his objections in the spirit of humility and he has a right to be heard. But he does not have the right to call the pope's statement a "heresy," since that is a term reserved to canonical courts who alone have the right and authority to judge the issue.

Moreover, in my own personal experience, at least in half the cases I've seen concerning complaints about either Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI, it is the accuser whose theology is a bit askew or extreme, and it is the accuser in many of the other cases who is much too quick to set himself up as the judge and jury, and with little room for giving his victim the benefit of the doubt. ~ R. Sungenis

These are reasonable and charitable standards, but to date, Bob has steadfastly refused to apply them to his own bishop:

1. Where has the Church ever defined, or even used, the terms "supersessionism" or "antisupersessionsm" at all - let alone "at the highest levels of her authority"? Nowhere. Then how could Bishop Rhoades or Fr. King "recognize the teaching"?
2. Where has Bishop Rhoades ever given a "specific denial of it"? Nowhere.
3. Did Sungenis raise his objections "in the spirit of humility"? No. By his own account, he accused Bishop Rhoades of holding to heresy and threatened to try to "expose" him to the Vatican.
4. Did Sungenis have the right to call Fr. King's statement a heresy? No. By his own standards, that is reserved to canonical courts "who alone have the right and authority to judge the issue."
   
5. Has Sungenis been "much too quick to set himself up as the judge and jury, and with little room for giving his victim the benefit of the doubt"? Yes.
6. Sungenis has never even spoken to the bishop about his views on the Old Covenant. The evidence for his accusations is entirely speculative, requiring one to draw negative inferences from circumstantial evidence that are unwarranted and unjustified. Therefore, by his own stated standards (noted above), his accusations are groundless and they should never have been made.

Bob's false accusations that Bishop Rhoades adheres to the dual covenant error have rested on two pieces of "evidence":

1. Perfectly orthodox answers His Excellency provided to a series of questions posed by Michael Forrest that Bob personally found to be suspicious or evasive. Bob completely ignored the fact that the bishop unequivocally and explicitly affirmed the Church’s missionary mandate to the Jewish people – something that is flatly rejected by adherents to the dual covenant theory. He also completely ignored the language that Bishop Rhoades employed from Dominus Iesus that affirms there is one economy of salvation – not two – and that economy of salvation is through Jesus Christ by means of His Church (here). Again, Bob also seems unaware that Bishop Rhoades fully supported and voted for the change to the problematic sentence on page 131 of the USCCA – although we reported this over a years ago (here).
2. Alleged statements made by Fr. King, the Vicar General – not Bishop Rhoades – that were negative in regard to “supersessionism.” Previously at this blog (here) and also in All in the Family (here), we pointed out that the term “supersessionism” is not even of Catholic origin. While used by some Catholics, it appears in no Catholic magisterial texts and has no precise, Catholic definition. Not unlike the term “proselytism,” it can and does carry very different connotations, implications and nuances (here). As such, it is completely inappropriate for Bob or anyone to utilize this word as a sort of absolute litmus test for orthodoxy (for an important discussion of Bob's misuse of the term "supersessionism," click here and here).

As we also stated in a previous piece at this blog, if Fr. King understands the term “supersessionism” in one of the “extreme” or “crude” senses (as Avery Cardinal Dulles phrased it and as Bob himself uses it: see here), then he has a perfectly legitimate reason for not accepting it. It is therefore unjustifiable to level a public charge of heresy against Fr. King based on his alleged rejection this informal and ill-defined term – let alone to publicly charge Bishop Rhoades with heresy because his vicar general rejects the word.

Additionally, we have documented that Bob has been more than satisfied with – and has even highly praised – far less explicit statements made by John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the USCCB, Cardinal Kasper and Leon Suprenant as proof that these men had rejected the dual covenant error (here). Yet, he has adopted a drastically different standard with his own bishop. Bob has even gone to the absurd extreme of requiring Bishop Rhoades to sign off on three statements that he personally composed in order to be acquitted of his trumped up charges (here and here).

Be that as it may, Bishop Rhoades’ letter (above) proves conclusively that there is no legitimate basis on which to even question His Excellency’s beliefs and teachings in regard to the dual covenant error at all, let alone to publicly charge him with having a "war...with Catholic doctrine" and “attempting to propagate” heresy to “unsuspecting Catholics” because he has greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith (as Bob has done). Bob's accusations against Bishop Rhoades have essentially been a two-pronged effort to get the focus off of his own atrocious behavior and errors and to convince people that he's actually a hero crusading for doctrinal purity against nefarious pro-Jewish forces (click here for more on that).

We hope that Bob doesn't choose to change the field of play again by altering his original accusations and finding new reasons to level public accusations against Bishop Rhoades. However, based on his previous articles about the Jewish people and God, we anticipate that he may object to the assertion that the Jewish people retain a special (although non-salvific) relationship with God. But we invite Bob and his supporters to review the following evidence we previously provided that his own theology already implicitly acknowledges that the Jewish people retain a special relationship with God:

By Sungenis Alone: Internal Contradictions in Sungenis' Theology

The Theology of Prejudice

Regardless, even if Bob rejects the evidence that the Jewish people still retain a special relationship with God (something even the Holy Father believes), this disagreement is of a completely different essence and magnitude than whether or not the Jewish people need Christ and the Church like everyone else in the world.

Contrary to Bob's story, Bishop Rhoades did not direct him to cease writing about Jews and Judaism because of Bob’s opposition to the dual covenant error (click here). Rather, His Excellency directed him to cease writing about Jews and Judaism for the reasons that he plainly stated – Bob's writings and postings on Jewish issues have been and too often continue to be “hostile, uncharitable and unchristian,” including even those that are largely theological in nature (for more on that, click here, here, here and here).

We continue to sincerely hope and pray that Bob moves toward mending his relationship with Bishop Rhoades by retracting and apologizing for his false and slanderous accusations and by following His Excellency’s sound and reasonable direction in regard to Jewish issues.

Note: We recommend reading A Defense of Bishop Rhoades from More False Accusations by Robert Sungenis (click here), which illustrates that Bob has repeatedly changed his story and contradicted himself in regard to his accusations against Bishop Rhoades.