From a Google Ngram search in 5.2 million books published between 1500 and 2008, the phrase "Is the Pope Catholic?" only appears beginning in 1967:

Fascinating.

And this: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... g=0&share=

No mention before 1980.

1967 is when the "experimental" Novus Ordo was performed in the Sistine Chapel…
What's also interesting is the peak at Assisi I (1986).

Who coined that term, anyways?

I'm sorry, but I find Robert Sungenis to be particularly and
extremely annoying, and will have as little to do with him
as possible. Ever since I watched and listened to the debate
between him and John Lane in Spokane, Washington, I have
had just about zero respect for the man.

He's definitely the best apologist of the Conciliar Church out there, and
he seems to be moving closer toward sedevacantism.

Dear Alan,



That's a bad thing to be though, isn't it?

James

What ever happened to that? It was taken off YouTube. Maybe it's better that way.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit: I and my wife had driven up to
Spokane (about 80 miles) to both visit with John and to watch
the debate. We then had to drive back home after it. It takes
about an hour and 45 minutes to make the trip. I was so angry
at the way Sungenis "managed" the debate and at the things he
said, many of which were singularly protestant, that it took until
2:00 AM for me to settle down enough to go to sleep. I also had
a roaring headache.

As I said, I have absolutely zero respect for the man.

If this is the debate that was moderated by Mr. Droleskey, then
I have the CD of the debate from the Fatima Conference.

The problem I had with the Mr. Sungenis was that he did not seem
to understand the topic of the debate. He didn't answer the objections
of Mr. Lane and he kept bringing up issues that had nothing to do
with the topic of sedevacantism.

That was my impression of him. After that, I stopped visiting his
website because he seemed unable to actually make a real argument
and seemed completely ignorant about a topic on which he had agreed
to debate. He no longer seemed trustworthy. Sort of like what
happened with Mr. Droleskey when he made disgusting charges against
a traditional bishop that I knew to be false from my personal experience.

I thought it was strange that Sungenis threatened to leave the
debate. I wonder why Sungenis didn't admit to having not read
Franzelin et al.; he could've made a case that what Franzelin et
al. say is irrelevant to the sedeplenism vs. sedevacantism debate.

Wasn't the topic of debate changed at the last minute, or was a
different debate?

If it was, I had never heard that. Mr. Lane? Was the topic of debate you had with
Mr. Sungenis changed at the last minute?

No, the topic wasn't changed. I can understand somebody thinking that it had
been, however. Sungenis was prepared for a debate with a title like, "The New
Mass is invalid, therefore there is no pope." But that was the wrong title.

I and my wife attended the debate: the title was never changed.