Communicatio In Sacris Facts, Definition, Catholic, Vatican II, Divine Law

Communicatio In Sacris Definition and Meaning

  1. Communicatio in Sacris - Latin for, Communion in the Sacred, or more properly, Communion in Sacred things.

  2. Communicatio in Sacris cum acatholicus - Latin for, Worship (or Communion) in Sacred things with non-Catholics.

  3. Communicatio in Divinis - Latin for Communion in the Divine.

Communicatio In Sacris, or Communion In Sacred things with Heretics

The traditional Catholic Church's teaching which forbids a man to receive the Catholic sacraments of The Holy Eucharist, Penance, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Matrimony and Holy Orders from all heretical priests—as well as Her teaching that all sacramental communion with known heretics, schismatics or apostates, whether they be priests or laymen, is sinful—is based directly on the Holy Bible derived from the divine law, and was preached from the very start of the Church by the Holy Apostles.

Titus 3:10-11 “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”

If we find out that someone is a heretic, Holy Scripture makes it crystal clear that we must avoid him, except for the purpose of converting him to the true Faith. Douay Rheims Bible Commentary explains that the words “By his own judgment” means that “Other offenders are judged, and cast out of the church, by the sentence of the pastors of the same church. Heretics, more unhappy, run out of the church of their own accord, and by doing so, give judgment and sentence against their own souls.” Therefore, “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house nor say to him: "God speed you." For, he who says to him "God speed you" communicates with his wicked works.” (2nd John 1:10-11) This verse of St. John the Apostle also makes it clear that everyone, whether priest or layman, have a right and indeed a duty, to judge between whether a man is a heretic or not.

Contrary to what many claim today, we see that the Holy Bible not only tells us to not commune sacramentally with heretics, but that we “communicates with his wicked works” if we would dare to enter into religious communion with him, or receive the sacraments from them. Thus, if we would like to receive the sacraments, we are obligated to know that the priest we receive them from is a Catholic, seeing that otherwise we “communicates with his wicked works”. So important was this doctrine of separation from the ungodly that the Holy Bible over and over repeats this truth.

2nd Thessalonians 3:6 “We charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition received from us. And, if any man does not obey, note that man, and do not keep company with him.”

From the very start of the Church, various heretics and heretical sects tried to lure people away from the true Faith, and because of this, Our Lord Jesus Christ also inspired the authors of the Bible to repeatedly write about the importance of this doctrine.

Romans 16:17:20 “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

St. Paul here gives some good reasons why Catholics must avoid non-Catholics. Following the devil's temptations as well as their own pride, all heretics fool themselves into believing that they have found out the “true” meaning of the Christian Faith long after the Church was founded and begun by Apostolic Succession after the resurrection of Our Lord. Heresy as a crime is mainly a sin of pride, and as a result, these people will also cause “dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned [from the Apostles]” which could harm an untold number of souls. “For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.”

The greatest reason why the Church have always condemned receiving the sacraments from heretics or being in communion with them is that in very many cases, the heretic will corrupt the life and faith of the Christian. St. Paul speaks at length of this in his letters in the Holy Bible: “Be not seduced: Evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake, ye just, and sin not. For some have not the knowledge of God, I speak it to your shame. (1st Corinthians 15:33-34) If we want to save our own soul from the eternal hellfire, we cannot allow human friendships and family to corrupt our faith. If we receive the sacraments from or commune with heretics, the result is very often that we will become like them: “He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them.” (Proverbs 13:20)

Another great reason why the Church condemns sacramental communion with heretics or schismatics is that we, by this act, shows externally to them that they are fine where they are, thus confirming them in their mortal sin. Because heretics and schismatics would conclude that a Catholic who worshipped with them approved of their errors or rebellion, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith warned in 1729:

“When they see Catholics go to their [heretical and schismatical] churches, assist at their rites, and participate in their sacraments, should not one believe (or at least fear) that from this fact alone they would be more greatly confirmed in their errors, and also be persuaded by this example that they are walking the straight path to salvation?

“From this it follows that it is most difficult to avoid the danger of pernicious scandal to heretics and schismatics themselves. Wherefore, a Catholic cannot be safe in his conscience if he worships together with them this way.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)

Reason itself dictates that this may never be done. “Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; Proving what is well pleasing to God: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of. But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light. Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee. See therefore, brethren, how you walk circumspectly: not as unwise...” (Ephesians 5:6-15)

Thus, contrary to the many heretics who nowadays teach that one may be in communion with heretics, St. Paul tells us through the power of the Holy Spirit that we are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” We must thus do all in our power to reprove them, and must abstain from every act that could be taken by others to mean that we are in communion with heretics. “I will not communicate with the choicest of them... Depart from me, ye malignant ones!” (Psalm 140:4; 118:115)

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

From the very beginning of the Church's councils, the biblical truth that true Christians (that is, Catholics) could not partake in the “holy” rites of heretics, Jews or infidels, nor receive the sacraments from them (even though their sacraments are valid) has always been affirmed.

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681:If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Here we see that the Church teaches that not only are we forbidden to commune sacramentally with a heretic or a Jew, but that we may not even go into their houses “to join in prayer with them”. A man or even a “bishop or priest or deacon” who disobeyed this biblical truth was to be immediately excommunicated from the Church according to the Church's infallible teaching.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

Pope Vigilius makes it clear that Catholics may not even communicate sacramentally with undeclared heretics, since all heretics are automatically excommunicated. This means that we may never enter the “Churches” of heretics, worship with them, or receive the sacraments from them. A Catholic who receives the Holy Eucharist and Penance from any heretic thus sins mortally, for he disobeys the Law of the Church and God while doing so, and it does not matter whether the heretic is declared or undeclared, formally excommunicated or automatically excommunicated as a heretic as we can see from the infallible teaching of Pope Vigilius in the Second Council of Constantinople.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”

A Catholic actively assists at a traditional Mass by his presence when it is celebrated. This is a true form of active assistance or participation, and according to Catholic teaching constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”

As explained by Rev. Szal in his book Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, on Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. To fulfill your Sunday obligation or obtain sacramental graces at Mass requires active assistance or participation. This is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either actively assist or you don’t.

Participation in Heretical and Schismatic Worship in General

In order to adequately address this topic, we must first consider the question of engaging in schismatic and heretical worship in general. We can then consider questions of participation in schismatic and heretical worship in particular. The discussion of participation in schismatic and heretical worship is rather detailed in the documents of the Holy Office from the period of the seventeenth century onwards. The Holy Office addresses schismatic and heretical worship by the term of communicatio in divinis, which later is changed into the phrase communicatio in sacris. The terms historically meant that those who worship together communicate in divine things, hence communicatio in divinis or in sacred things, whence communicatio in sacris. As for communicatio in divinis with schismatics and heretics, the Holy Office states that it is "constantly and uniformly forbidden." (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907), vol. I, p. 99, n. 311 (1729) and Col., vol. I, p. 293, n. 455 (1764). Henceforth, the Collectanea will be referred to as: Col., volume, page, number (date))

The Holy Office was principally dealing with questions sent by those working in mission territories where there may not be Catholic priests or where the non-Catholics tended to dominate demographically. Yet, the Holy Office declared that even if one cannot find a Catholic priest, one cannot participate in schismatic worship, (Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267 (1704)) even if it is a Catholic rite. (Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267 (1704)) Here the question, as far as the Holy Office was concerned, is not whether the worship is Catholic, but whether one can join with schismatics or not. Historically there have been occasions where Catholics find themselves in locations where there was no Catholic priest, but the schismatics who were present offered the same ritual as was offered by the Greek Catholics and now today by the Roman Catholics. The Holy Office went on to say that Greek Rite Catholics, when they do not have their own church, cannot go to the Greek rites said by heretics and schismatics, but they should go to the Latin rite. (Col., vol. I, p. 231, n. 389, ad 2 (1753)) Therefore, if the rite to which a Catholic belongs is not offered in his area, he is to assist at a different rite said by a Catholic priest. If there is no Catholic Mass available [a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest], one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. One cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass. (Col., vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668)) In connection to this discussion, the Holy Office stated that Catholics were forbidden to approach schismatic churches, when there is no Catholic Mass, in order to hear Mass, even if there is nothing contrary to the Faith. (Col., vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668) and Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267, 1 (1704)) When there is no Catholic priest available, they are not held to the precept of hearing Mass. In relation to Greek Catholics, the Holy Office was wont to observe that they should attend a Latin rite Church, if available, and the same would apply to Latins. This would follow since Catholics must avoid all communicatio in sacris with schismatics and heretics. (See Col., vol. II, p. 233, n. 1696, 7 (1888)) Catholics were forbidden to give alms at a Mass offered by a schismatic priest, (Col., vol. I, p. 371, n. 600, 2 (1789)) since this would be a form of support of false worship and confirming the schismatic priest in his error by financial support.

Furthermore, one cannot participate in schismatic prayer, even if there is nothing contrary to the Faith. (Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267 (1704)) Again, the Holy Office said that it is not so much a matter of whether the prayer contains anything objectionable to the Faith, but the very fact that one participates with schismatics. For this reason the Holy Office said that by participating [in schismatic and heretical worship], Catholics give exterior signs of segregation [from] and disapproval (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)) [of the Catholic Church] by unifying themselves with those who disapprove or segregate themselves from the Catholic Church, since participation in liturgical actions constitutes a sign of unity. (Col., vol. I, p. 642, n. 1176 (1859)) By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, one does so with perverse[*] schismatic and heretical ministers. (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)) In effect, the Holy Office was saying that it is by the very coming together with those who reject the Faith and joining one's prayer and worship to them that one is participating in worship which is done by those who reject the Catholic Church. To participate with those who reject the faith is therefore forbidden.

[*] Here, the term perverse does not necessarily refer to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as it tends to in modern English parlance. Rather, it is a broader nomination.

With heretics, there are errors pertaining to matters of the Faith, (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)) and given the aforementioned considerations regarding schismatic worship, the Holy Office stated that participation in schismatic and heretical worship is forbidden for the following reasons. First, there is a danger of perversion of the Catholic Faith, (Col., vol. I, p. 99, n. 311 (1729) and Col., vol. I, p. 642, n. 1176 (1859) i.e. there is a danger of the loss of Catholic Faith. (The CIC/17 (can. 2316) also observes that those who participate in schismatic and heretical worship are suspect of heresy.) This indicates the implicit obligation to protect one's faith. Second, there is the very danger of participating in a heretical or schismatic rite, (Col., vol. I, p. 99, n. 311 (1729)) for the above mentioned reasons, i.e. the very participation manifests a sign of disunity from the Church by being united in worship with those not united to the Church. Third, participation in heretical or schismatic worship is a danger and occasion of scandal. (Col., vol. I, p. 99, n. 311 (1729); Col., vol. I, p. 231, n. 389 (1753) and Col., vol. I, p. 642, n. 1176 (1859)) By scandal, the Holy Office meant that participation in schismatic and heretical worship can affect the Faith of others who see Catholics involved in such worship. Fourth, in schismatic churches there is the commemoration of some schismatics who are venerated as holy; there are images, cult of relics or feasts that are celebrated of those who died in schism as well as the commemoration of living patriarchs or schismatic bishops and heretics. (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)) Fifth, by participating in their worship, one confirms schismatics and heretics in their errors. (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729))

The Holy Office therefore observed that the Council of Carthage forbade praying and singing (psallendum) with heretics. (Col., vol. I, p. 642, n. 1176 (1859)) The Supreme Congregation stated that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[from which] no one has the power to dispense ...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses." (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)) Those who so participate must seek absolution in the sacrament of penance. (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729))

Una Cum Masses Exposed In The Te Igitur Prayer Controversy Explained

Una Cum masses refers to masses in which the priest would mention the name of a person he considers to be his leader, such as John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis, in the first prayer of the Canon.

These Masses are sometimes referred to as “una cum Masses,” because the Latin phrase into which the name of a reigning pope is inserted reads: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. (together with Thy servant N., our Pope)

The Te Igitur prayer of the Mass is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered: “...which in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope, N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” In Latin the phrase together with is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis and the New Vatican II Church. If he thinks that John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isn’t he the Pope?

Now, those of us who have arrived at a correct understanding of the actual situation in the Church — so-called “sedevacantists” (see sedevacantism) — affirm that Bergoglio/Francis is a heretic and an apostate and therefore no true pope. So, on the face of it, it makes no sense whatsoever for us to participate in a Mass where, a few moments before the consecration, the priest proclaims that Bergoglio is Papa nostro — “our pope.”

See: Anti Pope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World

In many parts of the world, however, the only traditional Latin Mass available may be one offered by a priest (Motu Proprio, FSSP, Society of St. Pius X or independent) who puts the false pope’s name in the Canon. Faced with choosing this or nothing, a sedevacantist layman is sometimes tempted to assist at the Mass anyway. Why could he not simply overlook the name, and “just go for the Mass”?

To answer this question, we must turn to the writings of pre-Vatican II liturgists, canonists and theologians, as well as to various papal pronouncements and decrees. This is where we priests or laymen are supposed to look for answers, rather than just relying on gut or personal opinion.

To answer the question: No, you can’t just “overlook” a false pope’s name in the Canon of a traditional Mass if you are a sedevacantist. His name there affirms that he is a true pope, and by actively assisting at such a Mass, you participate in that false affirmation. Since you know he’s not the pope, this is sinful. For the same reason, neither can you assist at Mass or receive the sacraments from any other heretical priest or society. Since you know the priest is not Catholic, and that the “Church” or society is a non-Catholic sect, this is clearly sinful and against the teaching of the Church.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10), January 6, 1928: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Read more: About Receiving the Sacraments From Heretics and Prayer in Communion With Heretics

Recently, the supposedly “traditional” Ratzinger has been replaced by Bergoglio, and his crazy antics have started to make the previously unthinkable thought of sedevacantism quite thinkable for a lot of people. I thought it would be a good idea to provide the evidence in a short article here, in order to help these Catholics reason out the practical conclusions that flow from an understanding that the post-Vatican II popes are no true popes at all.

Warning: As a side note of caution to the reader, just because a man or group holds the sedevacantist position does not mean they are Catholic. If they hold or practice any heresy then they are not Catholic. Many of those who hold the sedevacantist position are not Catholic and are the pre-Vatican II heretics that led to the Great Apostasy. Many are also ambitious rebellious heretics, who have taken advantage of the vacant sees.

Most people who hold that no one may attend any “una cum” Masses believe that you may attend the Masses of other heretical sedevacantist priests. But I would ask them: “Why do you believe that you may go to a priest who is himself a heretic, as long as he doesn’t pray for a heretic (Benedict XVI, or Francis)?” In order to help people answer this question truthfully, the following catechism question will be provided: “How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism)

If you have believed in heresy or schism, have you publicly abjured in writing? If you have been in communion with public heretics or schismatics, have you abjured your association with them? If you have been in communion with those who are in communion with public heretics or schismatics (the Society of St. Pius X, and the independent chapels who pray one with (una cum) Antipope John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis) or any other heretics, have you removed yourself from them and abjured? If not, then why have you not? Did you know that the denial of one dogma would place you outside the Catholic Church and in damnation?

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject othersBut he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Did you know that the committing of one mortal sin of immorality, if un-confessed, would send your soul to hell if you did not have perfect contrition with a desire for confession? If you have committed these mortal sins, against either the Catholic faith or morals the Church demands that you take specific actions to get back into a state of grace. Have you sincerely attempted to take the appropriate steps that the Holy Catholic Church requires to get back into a state of grace?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 3: “… the sacramental power of Penance consists in a sanctification pronounced by the minister, so that if a man confess to a layman, although he fulfills his own part of the sacramental confession, he does not receive sacramental absolution. Wherefore his confession avails him somewhat, as to the lessening of his punishment, owing to the merit derived from his confession and to his repentance, but he does not receive that diminution of his punishment which results from the power of the keys; and consequently he must confess again to a priest [whenever he can do so].”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 5: “If, however, he were bound to confess again, his first confession would not be useless, because the more priests one confesses to, the more is the punishment remitted, both by reason of the shame in confessing, which is reckoned as a satisfactory punishment, and by reason of the power of the keys: so that one might confess so often as to be delivered from all punishment.”

Consequences of Attending “Una Cum” Masses

What Does the “Una Cum” Prayer Mean?

There are two ways of looking at this phrase: its linguistic meaning (What do the grammar, terms and context mean?) and its theological meaning (What doctrines does it express?).

(a) Linguistically. From this perspective, putting Bergoglio’s name into the una cum in the Canon affirms that he is a true pope (“our pope”). Obviously, sedevacantists reject that.

Recognition of the Head of the Church. In a Bull addressed to Eastern Rite Catholics, this was one of the meanings that Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) assigned to the mention of the pope’s name in the Sacred Liturgy:

Benedict XIV, Ex Quo (# 12), March 1, 1756: “It suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for [the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter…”

Profession of Communion with the Pope. This was yet another meaning that Pope Benedict XIV attached to the practice of mentioning the name of the pope in the Mass.

Benedict XIV, Ex Quo (# 12), March 1, 1756: “[This commemoration of the pope is, moreover] the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: ‘This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion’….”

It also affirms that Bergoglio is a member of the true Church, because his name is mentioned in the prayer for the Church.

Profession of Communion with the True Church. This is the conclusion one draws from the teaching of Pope Pelagius I (556–61) in a letter of rebuke to schismatics:

How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?” (Epistola 5, PL 69:398)

And further, according to the commentary on the Mass by Canon Croegaert:

To pray for the Pope is to give witness that you live in communion with the Head of the true Church.” (Les Rites et les Priéres du Saint Sacrifice de la Messe, 2:106)

The very basis of sedevacantists’ position is the teaching of canonists and theologians that loss of membership in the Church effects the automatic loss of the pontificate in a heretical pope. Heresy in a pope puts him outside the Church and thus out of office.

See: The Catholic Church teaches that a Heretic Would cease to be Pope, And that a Heretic couldn’t be Validly Elected Pope

(b) Theologically (Doctrinally). When we plug Bergoglio’s name into the prayer and apply these meanings to that phrase, here is what results:

  • The heretic/false pope Bergoglio is “the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter.”

  • The acknowledgment of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon is “the chief and most glorious form of communion” with him, “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.”

  • The inclusion of the name of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon specifies him as “the principle of unity.”

  • Mentioning the name of the heretic/false pope Bergoglio in the Canon is a sign that you “are not separated from communion with the universal church.”

  • The mention of the name of the heretic/false Pope Bergoglio in the Canon “is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”

  • The heretic/false pope Bergoglio is the “ruling Pontiff, the visible pastor and the authorized intermediary with almighty God for the various members of his flock.”

Since we sedevacantists are logical about the situation in the Church — that Bergoglio is a heretic and no pope — these propositions are ridiculous.

Yet they are what results when a priest professes in the Canon that he offers the traditional Mass una cumtogether with Thy servant Francis, our Pope.

Participation in a Sin. More than that, Maurice de la Taille S.J. (1872-1933), French priest and theologian, maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin:

“Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” (De la Taille 2:318.)

The pope [Gelasius] made every effort to urge the Latin-speaking bishops of Illyria to erase the hated name of Acacius from their diptychs.” (Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 211.) As we can see, it was very important for bishops, etc. to remove the names of heretics and schismatics from their diptychs (the ancient equivalent of the Te Igitur prayer).

Recognition of a Usurper. In prohibiting common worship with heretics and schismatics, one of the Church’s motives was to deny recognition to those who had usurped or intruded themselves into Church offices. Thus in 1791, after the revolutionary government of France established a schismatic Constitutional Church and appointed to diocesan sees and parishes bishops and priests of its choosing, Pope Pius VI forbade Catholics to assist at services conducted by these intruders:

Pius VI, Charitas (# 29), April 13, 1791: “Keep as far from you as possible all intrusion and schism.… Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders..… Keep away from all intruders… do not hold communion with them, especially in divine worship.”

In 1753, when the Holy Office issued a prohibition against common worship with Greek heretics and schismatics, the first reason given was “especially because they commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople.” (Holy Office, Decree Mission. Tenos In Peloponneseo (10 May 1753), Fontes 4:804.)

In addition to the other dangers to the faith posed by worshipping with heretics and schismatics,

Archbishop Francis Kenrick (Archbishop of Baltimore, 1851–1863) likewise pointed to the recognition of a usurper as another reason for avoiding such services:

“It is not allowed to communicate in divinis with heretics or schismatics:…all admit it is wrong whenever it carries with it… the recognition of a usurped office.” (F. Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, 2:366)

By the fact that he assists at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist recognizes as pope someone he would

otherwise say is a usurper.

Sin of Scandal. The Church legislation that forbade Catholics to participate actively in worship with heretics and schismatics invariably mentioned scandal as one of the reasons for the prohibition. Heretics and schismatics would conclude that a Catholic who worshipped with them approved of their errors or rebellion. Thus the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith warned in 1729:

“When they see Catholics go to their [heretical and schismatical] churches, assist at their rites, and participate in their sacraments, should not one believe (or at least fear) that from this fact alone they would be more greatly confirmed in their errors, and also be persuaded by this example that they are walking the straight path to salvation?

“From this it follows that it is most difficult to avoid the danger of pernicious scandal to heretics and schismatics themselves. Wherefore, a Catholic cannot be safe in his conscience if he worships together with them this way.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)

In the case at hand, when a sedevacantist who is known as such attends an una cum Mass (or any other traditional Mass presided over by a heretical priest), those present will assume either that he (1) consents to naming Francis as a true pope, (2) or that he regards the practice of doing so as morally indifferent, (3) or that he agrees with the priest’s schism or heresy. They can then draw the general conclusion that the identity of the Roman Pontiff (Is Francis a true pope or not?) or (in the case of SSPX) actual subjection to him is a matter of no practical consequence to a Catholic. They could then therefore rightly say of such a person: “Not even a sedevacantist acts as if it meant anything!” Such, obviously, is an occasion of “spiritual ruin.”

Can’t I “Withhold My Consent”?

The priest at an una cum Mass, of course, is the one who utters the objectionable phrase. Couldn’t the sedevacantist in the pew who objects to it simply “withhold his consent” from that part of the Canon, but still assist at the Mass otherwise with heretics in order to fulfill his obligation or obtain sacramental graces?

Well, no. As explained by Rev. Szal in his book Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, on Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. To fulfill your Sunday obligation or obtain sacramental graces at Mass requires active assistance or participation. This is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either actively assist or you don’t.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”

A Catholic actively assists at a traditional Mass by his presence when it is celebrated. This is a true form of active assistance or participation, and according to Catholic teaching constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”

The laity who assist actively at Mass, in so doing, manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the sacrifice. Indeed, moral unity with the priest is required to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Furthermore, the Fathers of the Church, Pope Innocent III, and indeed Pope Pius XII himself in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites, even though they do not vocally recite these prayers themselves.

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, 3.6: “Not only do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.”

In Mediator Dei, his great encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Pius XII treats at great length the role that the laity play in offering the Holy Sacrifice.

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 93), November 20, 1947: “The people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and the same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 84), November 20, 1947: “Moreover, the rites and prayers of the Eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the offering of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: ‘Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;’ but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same.”

Thus there is no way for the sedevacantist to avoid it. The same active assistance at Mass required for fulfilling your Sunday obligation also inextricably joins you to the action of a priest at the altar. So, when the priest proclaims during the Canon that he offers the sacrifice together with Thy servant Francis, our Pope — the arch-heretic and false pope Bergoglio, the priest’s prayer is your prayer.

What is Wrong with Participating?

If you have become a sedevacantist — concluded that Bergoglio is not a true pope — but actively assist at an una cum Mass nevertheless, this means that you:

  1. Tell a pernicious lie.

  2. Profess communion with heretics.

  3. Recognize as legitimate the Ecumenical, Vatican II One-World Church.

  4. Implicitly profess a false religion.

  5. Condone a violation of Church law.

  6. Participate in a sin.

  7. Offer Mass in union with the heretic/false pope Bergoglio.

  8. Recognize the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.

  9. Offer an occasion for scandal.

  10. In the case of Masses offered by “resistance” clergy (SSPX, its affiliates, and many independent clergy) participate in gravely illicit Masses and condone the sin of schism.

Such acts are not ones you want to have on your conscience.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin [that is, only if they didn’t know it was heretics they approached or that it was wrong to approach them.]

And of course, those people who have been made aware of these facts can of course never claim ignorance or excuse themselves, because “whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: “Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.”

Truly, one is bound to know the Catholic Faith well enough to be able to spot heresy when it is presented. So then – in accordance with the Angelic Doctor – if we know that our priest, bishop, etc. is heretical or schismatical, but we adhere to him anyway, then we indeed share in his sin of heresy or schism, whereby we would then be labouring OUTSIDE the true religion. Invincible ignorance on the other hand – ignorance that is not able to be overcome by any well ordered human effort – is a different matter, and is totally excusable, unless we are speaking about the essential mysteries (the Trinity and the Incarnation), and the natural law, which must be known explicitly by everyone above the age of reason in order to have salvation. When people break the natural law it is always a sin, and cannot be excused, since this law is written by God on every man’s heart. Ignorance of the Trinity and the Incarnation, however, is not a sin in itself, but God withholds this knowledge of the essential mysteries from many people since He foreknew that they would reject His offer of salvation.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Communion with Heretics In the Una Cum Masses and the Te Igitur Prayer

The greatest problem with the una cum declaration is that it is a sin against the profession of the Faith.

As much as it is necessary for the Catholic priest to mention the name of the reigning pontiff as a sign of his communion with him and the Catholic Church as a whole, it is equally necessary for him to avoid mentioning the name of anyone who is not in communion with the Catholic Church. When schismatics were reconciled to the Catholic Church, they had to omit, as part of their sign of adherence, the names of their schismatic Patriarchs from the canon of the Mass. In his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris cites the case of a schismatic bishop who was reconciled to Rome. The papal legates reassure the pope that, during the course of the Mass, no name was mentioned which was odious to the Catholic Faith:

Finally the legates of [Pope] Hormisda recount to the Pope with these words what happened to them during the reconciliation of the bishop of the city of Troili Scampina: We confess, they said, that it would be hard to find in another people so much devotion to you Holiness, so much praise to God, so many tears and so much joy. Nearly all the people received us into the city, both the men and the women with candles, and the soldiers with crosses. Masses were celebrated, and no name which is loathsome to religion was mentioned but only that of Your Holiness.”

He also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:

The priest should be warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, quæst. 3,] that he can correctly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.” (op. cit., p. 51)

Benedict XIV (March 1675 – 3 May 1758) himself ordered the Italo-Greeks to mention the name of the Pope and local bishop, lest there be any suspicion of schism among them, and furthermore forbade from mentioning the name of a schismatic Patriarch:

The second part of the same warning follows in which, as was noted above, the Greek priest is enjoined, during the Mass, after he has prayed for the Roman Pontiff, to pray also for his own bishop, and for his Patriarch, provided that they be Catholic; for if one or the other or both were a schismatic or a heretic, he would not be permitted to make a mention of them.” (Ex Quo, § 18)

Pope Benedict, in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic:

...but let him carefully avoid making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.”

Nor is he [the Greek priest] generally prohibited, in the often cited Monitum, from making mention of the Patriarch, but only in the case where the Metropolitans or Patriarchs should be schismatics or heretics...” (ibid., § 22)

The general prohibition against naming heretics and schismatics is repeated in the 1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV already cited above:

Benedict XIV, Ex Quo (# 9), March 1, 1756: “…‘Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”

He then cites three cases in which priests were specifically forbidden by the Holy Office to mention the name of schismatic prelates, in 1673, 1674 and 1732 respectively. The one in 1673 is of special interest, since the priest’s motive in mentioning the name of the schismatic was to attract the schismatics to the Catholic Church. The answer was it is absolutely forbidden.

Pope Benedict XIV states that the reason for this prohibition is that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates: “The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates... And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...” (ibid., § 23) He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: “One can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are offered for the members of the Church.” (In 4 Sent. dist. 18. quæst. 2. art. 1)

HOLY OFFICE DECREES THAT UPHOLD THE DOGMA THAT COMMUNICATING IN SACRED THINGS WITH HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS IS FORBIDDEN AND BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH

First Rev. Szal begins with questions asked the Holy Office concerning the attendance at the Masses of schismatics. On Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus [hereafter Col.]. Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907. Vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668))

Another reply from the Holy Office on April 10, 1704 concerning active participation in schismatic rites brought the following response from the Holy See:

Pope Clement XI (1700-1721) decreed that it was not licit on the principal feasts of the year for converts, in order to avoid persecution, to go to the churches of schismatics, especially during divine services…” (Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

On August 7, 1704, The Holy Office also stated that:

The decree which prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics APPLIED ALSO IN THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE WERE NO CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH PRAYERS AS CONTAINED NOTHING CONTRARY TO FAITH AND THE CATHOLIC RITE.” (Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

This means that the Holy See again decreed that when there is no Catholic priest to offer Mass Catholics are forbidden to approach schismatic churches in order to hear Mass even if there is nothing contrary to the Faith, and that when there is no Catholic priest available, they are not held to the precept of hearing Mass. (Col., vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668); Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267, 1 (1704))

In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:

“… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)

By actively assisting at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist participates in this sin — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar.

Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” (De la Taille 2:318.)

On two other occasions, May 10, 1753, and April 17, 1758, the Holy See again forbade Catholics to participate in the masses of schismatics.

Continuing his assay of Holy Office pronouncements, Szal lists further decisions concerning Holy Communion. On June 17, 1839, The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith forbade the reception of Holy Communion from an heretical priest. A general prohibition against receiving any sacraments from schismatics was issued by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also forbade the use of the services given by schismatics for the conferring of the sacraments. Rev. Szal gives this stunning summary of these decisions as follows:

From the nature of the response which the Holy Office gave to questions concerning the reception of absolution and Extreme Unction from schismatics on the part of persons who are in danger of death, IT SEEMS TO BE THE MIND OF THE CHURCH THAT VIATICUM SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVED FROM SCHISMATICS UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.” (Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

In 1729 the Holy Office decreed that it is perverse to come together with schismatic and heretical ministers in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship. (Col., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729))

In 1729 and 1764 the Holy Office decreed that communicatio in divinis [communicating in divine things] with schismatics and heretics is constantly and uniformly forbidden. (Col., vol. I, p. 99, n. 311 (1729); Col., vol. I, p. 293, n. 455 (1764))

In 1669 the Holy See forbade a deacon to sing out the names of heretics in the liturgy. (SO Decree Mesopotamia, 28 August 1669, Fontes 4:740.)

In 1673 the Holy See forbade a priest to name the Patriarch of the Armenians (both a heretic and a schismatic) in the prayers of the Mass. (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, Pp. 182–183.)

On June 22, 1859, the Holy Office declared the following:

Communication with heretics can be either in a condemned doctrine, or in rites and other signs indicative of adherence to a false [non-Catholic] sect, with the accompanying scandal of the faithful, to whom the Church therefore forbids this communion, lest the faith be lost or endangered. Whence St. John the Evangelist strictly commands: ‘if anyone comes to you and does not bring this (i.e., the Catholic) doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is sharer in his evil works.’ II John 20. These words evidently imply that everything is forbidden that is expressed by a welcome, in so far as it constitutes liturgical actions instituted to signify ecclesiastical unity. Wherefore we read that a law was enacted by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage ‘against praying or singing with heretics’ as is cited by Benedict XIV. It is therefore illicit to invite heretics to a choir during sacred services, to sing alternately with them, to give them peace or sacred ashes and other such tokens of external worship [with or in front of them], which are rightly and reasonably regarded as signs of interior bond and agreement. This is to be done neither in the active sense, namely by giving them such things, or in the passive sense, by accepting from them [such as receiving the sacraments from them] in their sacred services.” (SO Instruction Communicatio, 22 June 1859, in Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide 1:1176.)

In 1864 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics cannot contribute to the building of heretical churches and that heretics cannot sing in our churches nor serve at the altar at Mass. (Col., vol. I, p. 692, n. 1257 (1864))

In 1817 the Holy Office decreed that it is not licit to receive the nuptial blessing from a non-Catholic minister. (Col., vol. I, p. 420, n. 717 (1817))

In 1841 the Holy Office decreed that a Catholic bishop is forbidden to go to a schismatic Greek church to chant the doxology. (Col., vol. I, p. 519, n. 921 (1841))

In 1789, 1803, and 1864 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics are forbidden to be godparents at the baptisms of schismatics and heretics. (Col., vol. I, p. 371, n. 600, 1 (1789); Col., vol. I, p. 405, n. 672, 2 (1803); Col., vol. I, p. 692, n. 1257, 1 and 4 (1864))

In 1789 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics are forbidden to give stipends for a Mass offered by a schismatic priest since this would be a form of support of false worship and confirming the schismatic priest in his error by financial support. (Col., vol. I, p. 371, n. 600, 2 (1789))

In 1753 the Holy Office decreed that Greek Rite Catholics, when they do not have their own church, cannot go to the Greek rites said by heretics and schismatics. (Col., vol. I, p. 231, n. 389, ad 2 (1753))

In 1636 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed that Catholics are not only banned from singing an acclamation for the schismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople but added that since the Patriarchs were also heretics they deserved to be cursed instead. The Sacred Congregation instructed the bishop to repel from his church the Greeks who sang these acclamations, if indeed he could effectively do so, for the Patriarchs of Constantinople are deserving rather of imprecation. (Rev. Szal, Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Canon Law Studies 264, Washington, CUA 1948, p. 182.)

The Holy Office also decreed that Catholic missionaries are forbidden under pain of suspensio a divinis ipso facto [automatic suspension in divine things] to invite schismatic government officials, offer them blessed water when they enter, and to exhibit any kind of honor when some feast is celebrated. (Col., vol. I, p. 230, n. 388, 5 (1753))

And the Holy Office decreed that Catholic priests are entirely forbidden to offer Holy Mass in the private houses of and in places frequented by schismatics and heretics. (Col., vol. I, p. 230, n. 388, 1 and 2 (1753))

Finally, in 1888 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics must avoid all communicatio in sacris [communion in sacred things] with schismatics and heretics. (Col., vol. II, p. 233, n. 1696, 7 (1888))

NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

It is also of divine law and not only a disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a “church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal hell-fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear, for “It is impossible for us [Catholics] to hold communion after their death with those [heretics, schismatics and excommunicated] who have not been in communion with us during their life.” (Pope Innocent III, chapter xii, de sepulturis, lib. III, tit. xxviii):

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “For this reason Jerome addresses Damasus thus: “My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross… I communicate with none save your Blessedness, that is with [Catholics in communion with] the chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the Church is built.” (Ep. xv., ad Damasum, n. 2).”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: “If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes.”

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, #26, Nov. 21, 1873: “Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted.”

The above quote is very relevant to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under this very same condemnation. First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves 'Old Catholics' signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."

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 factionthis 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.”

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new church” also would fall under the same condemnation as Joseph Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as the heretics and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for example, receive the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them.

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.” (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic.”

CONCLUSION

It is evident, therefore, that the mention of Francis’ name in the Canon (a) is an explicit declaration of ecclesial communion with a heresiarch; (b) is an explicit declaration of the identity of the Roman Catholic Church with the Novus Ordo Church, for where Peter is, there is the Church; (c) causes intrinsic and insoluble problems — ecclesiological nightmares — for the traditional priest, since it places himself and his Mass outside the Church and makes it schismatic, since he is setting up altar against altar.

Since the una cum phrase is a statement of communion, the following things are true:

• The una cum Mass is therefore the equivalent of having Antipopes John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis in your sanctuary during the Mass, and of showing him the external signs of being the Pope, such as incensations, genuflections, etc. Of course you would have to give him Holy Communion, for if the priest saying the una cum mass is in communion with the Pope, this means he must commune sacramentally with him if possible. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

• The una cum Mass is the equivalent of singing the Oremus pro Pontifice, a hymn sung to pray for the Pope: Let us pray for our Holy Father John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis. May God preserve him, and give him length of days, and make him blessed upon earth, and not deliver him into the hands of his enemies.

• The una cum Mass identifies John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis and the local Novus Ordo bishop with all the orthodox and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. This is absurd. It is a lie. To lie in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be pleasing to God.

And if they are the orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then, by God, let us be with them and not against them. But if they are not the orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then, by God, let us be against them, and not with them.

Where Peter is, there is the Church:

where the Church is, there is eternal life.

ABOUT RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM HERETICS AND PRAYER IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Download as:

(For our most recent article refuting Peter and Michael Dimond’s lies and dishonesties on receiving sacraments from heretics in the debate with us, and on their website, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate” – The Important Quotes, CLICK HERE.)

(Also see the unanimous consent of the Fathers condemns being in religious communion with heretics and forbids receiving the sacraments from them.)

PREFACE

This article will not refute the concept of whether validly ordained (but heretical or schismatical priests) consecrate the sacraments validly – for they do – but will rather deal with whether one may approach such priests for the sacraments. Some people claim that one may approach heretical (but validly ordained) priests for the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession licitly and without sin. This concept however is totally false and will be thoroughly refuted in this article. (It must also be pointed out that while the validly ordained but heretical priests can consecrate most of the sacraments validly, they nevertheless cannot validly administer the sacraments of confession (Penance, Extreme Unction etc.) since they cannot give an absolution in these sacraments since they are lacking jurisdiction, which is required for the validity of these sacraments, and which they have not since they are heretics and outside the Church. See COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION; and ST. THOMAS TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION.)

Important to understand here is that a heretical or schismatical priest consecrate these other sacraments validly – but illicitly – and sins mortally every time he confect these sacraments. Also everyone that knowingly approach a heretical or schismatical priest for the sacraments, receives them illicitly and sins mortally every time he approach these sacraments (unless ignorance excuse him).

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin [that is, only if they didn’t know it was heretics they approached or that it was wrong to approach them.]”

The priest consecrates validly because of his valid ordination to the priesthood; he consecrates illicitly because of his heresy or schism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Only bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism solemnly. It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical "Arcanum", 10 Febr., 1880). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Only bishops can confer Sacred Orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give Confirmation. The priestly Order is required for the valid administration of Penance and Extreme Unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly Orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

It should be stressed, of course, that all ordinations which has taken place in antipope Paul VI’s new rite of “Holy Orders” of bishops, priests and deacons are invalid, since they have deviated from the traditional formula of consecration. This means that all ordinations which have occurred after 1968 in Paul VI’s new rite of “Holy” Orders are invalid. This means that almost all the priests in the new Vatican II religion are invalidly ordained and never consecrate the sacraments either validly or licitly. Priests in the New Vatican II religion, however, who was ordained before 1968 and Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, are still valid priests and consecrates these sacraments validly (but illicitly) if they use the traditional formula (correct wording) of confecting these Sacraments. Some argue that even these heretical or apostate priests may be approached for the sacraments licitly. This, however, is completely false and will be thoroughly refuted in this article. (If you want to learn more about the invalidity of Vatican II, the New Mass, and Paul VI’s new rite of ordination, consult this page: http://www.sanctussanctus.info/the-new-mass/)

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR AVOIDING HERETICS

Now, the doctrine that people can never pray in communion with heretics, receive the sacraments from heretics or enter their churches, are taught from the beginning of the Church, and its foundation is of course from the Bible.

Titus 3:10:- “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

The infallible word of God commands us to avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition.

2 John 1:9-10:- “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics, “communicateth with his wicked works.” This means that those who have dealings with heretics have a part of and share in their sins.

However, there is one exception to this doctrine of receiving the Sacraments from heretics. This specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church will always make it clear when there is an exception to a doctrine.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

This exception on baptism is really necessary since no man can ever be saved or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the Church without the sacrament of baptism. This, of course, is another proof of the explicit necessity for all to be baptized in order to be saved.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The Church made this specific exception in regard to heretics since everyone - young as well as old - must receive the water of regeneration to be saved. However, the words of Pope Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence, do not allow a person to receive the sacrament of Baptism from heretics in all cases, but only in an extreme necessity. One example would be when the danger of death is imminent, and the person in question might risk dying without the sacrament of baptism. (This exception would also of course be valid if you don’t know any Catholics in your area and need baptism. If you have no Catholic friends or family members and need baptism you may be baptized by a heretic as fast as possible. See Baptism; the Steps to Convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith; the Steps for Those Leaving the New Mass; and Conditional Baptism). In such a situation, as described above, however, “not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” And so, it is clear why God made this exception through the Pope. Again, when there are exceptions, it will always be mentioned and made clear.

The point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regard to heretics or schismatics. According to the teachings of the Church, heretics and schismatics must be avoided under pain of mortal sin. You may thus not have friendly relations with them, e.g., playing sports together, or doing other activities like this, or even meet with them as one would meet with a real Catholic friend. The only exception to this would be if you’re trying to convert a heretic or an unbeliever. In such a case you can meet with him, play sports with him and talk with him. However, if your intention is wrong and you know that you keep contact with atheists or heretics for the wrong reasons, and not for the purpose of really converting them (or even if your intention is right but the sinner, heretic or schismatic is obstinate and non-convertible and refuses to listen), as all too often happens with heretical family members, then you must cease all contact with them. For doing otherwise might be the cause of your eternal destruction. How many people have not forfeited God to please other men more? How many have not lost God because they spent too much time trying to help others whilst overlooking themselves? "Beware of men", Jesus Christ warns (Matthew 10:17). Catholics must realize that few are Saved; most adult Catholics are damned. Not even Jesus Christ, who is God, could convert all the hardened Jews.

AGAINST HERETICS AND PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with heretics or receive the sacraments from them as Pope Leo X and the following dogmatic Councils makes clear. These quotations, of course, also condemn the Vatican II sect’s false ecumenism, as well as their false prayer meetings or gatherings with the false religions of the world.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

“…All false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith, of whatever race or nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful and expelled from any position, especially from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty…”

The Pope just said infallibly that all heretics should be avoided in every way. Note that you can only know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question. Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way, and may not approach him for the sacraments. This same authoritative language can be seen in Pope Vigilius ex cathedra decree from the Second Council of Constantinople.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical parents, even though I’ve tried to convert them?

Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite yourself with heretics purposely (outside of what the Church approves of), or be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them. That’s what’s condemned here. The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live with a heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the Church has approved of it), who buys food or do business with heretics, or who work under a heretic or take orders from him, etc.

Moving on:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

The Third Council of Constantinople just defined infallibly that any person who prays in communion with heretics are to be excommunicated and refused communion for praying with other heretics. Now let’s look at some other quotes:

Council of Laodicea, 4th century, (#Canon 6): "No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy, is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

For people then to claim (in spite of all the quotations above saying otherwise) that one may pray at heretical churches or receive the sacraments from them or that an assembly presided over by heretics or an assembly that prays in communion with other heretics, to somehow be the Church of God or the Church of Catholics, is simply to deny God’s revealed infallible truth.

ST. THOMAS AGAINST COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Now, let’s look at what St. Thomas has to say about heretics.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Question 82, Art. 9: "I answer that, As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin."

First, I want to make clear that the second part of this quotation from St. Thomas (which is taken out of context by certain individuals) will be dealt with shortly in the major objections section. However, St. Thomas is clearly teaching (in agreement with the Popes) that the people who knowingly attend the churches of heretics, schismatics, or even sinful (excommunicated) priests, become a sharer in their sin. And although one may approach a sinful priest licitly until the Church has made Her sentence on him, one may nevertheless not approach a priest who is a notorious or known heretic or schismatic, even if he’s undeclared, since he is not a Catholic.

One example of a known, notorious priest that must be avoided is the following: even if a priest’s heresy or schism was concealed to most people, and you perhaps was the only one who knew about it after talking to him and you thus knew him to be a heretic, then you must avoid him as a heretic and may not approach him for the sacraments. If, however, you would culpably or knowingly choose to go to such a heretical priest, then you are actually helping in this priest’s wicked and sinful deeds since you, by receiving the sacraments from him, are helping him to commit mortal sins and sacrileges against our Lord; and since you, by showing external communion with him, profess to everyone present that you have the same faith as he do. (And by the way, most if not all heretical priests today are not merely occult heretics but are in fact known as heretics to the people who uphold all (or most) dogmas, i.e., no baptism of desire, no salvation outside the Church at all). A priest who is a heretic or schismatic sins mortally when using the sacraments, and thus draws down on his own head and those he deceive an eternal flame of fire that will never be extinguished. So then, by entering the "Churches" of heretics you are clearly showing to everyone present that you are in communion with this person and that you agree with his heresies. That should be absolutely clear to any honest person.

IMPOSING OR NOT

Some will object to this by saying: “I can go to a heretical (but validly ordained) priest licitly for the mass and the sacraments as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresy or preach heresy from the pulpit.”

Answer: It does not matter whether the priest is imposing about his heresy or whether he preaches it from the pulpit, as some deceived people believe. For tell me, dear reader. Is someone who is a heretic a member of the Church even if he does not preach his heresy from the pulpit or are imposing about it? What about a "Pope" who was to become a heretic, but wasn’t imposing about his heresies; would you consider him as the Pope or go to him for the sacraments? According to these people, this heretical "pope" must be a valid pope, or at least a person that one can approach licitly for the sacraments, as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresies… But is this really so? Who would ever claim such nonsense? No, in truth, you would answer that he would not be a member of the Church, since all heretics are separated from the Church, and that he thus would consecrate the sacraments illicitly. Thus, the same logic then follows here with heretical priests, whether they are imposing or not, or whether they preach heresy from the pulpit or not. They are all to be avoided as odious heretics that undermine the Catholic Faith. (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra)

And if you don’t agree with this, then why don’t you go to the apostate Benedict XVI and receive the sacraments from him? He’s not any better than any of the other heretical priests you approach for the sacraments! In fact, they are just as bad as he is, they even hold to the same heresies as he do, and most of them even accept him as the pope and as head of the Catholic Church! We are not allowed to choose which heretics we can approach, as if some heretics should be tolerated. This is totally unscriptural, and contradicts numerous Catholic teachings.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

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."

IMPOSING – A TERM INVENTED BY HERETICS

Imposing is a term some people have invented for themselves to justify their going to different priests (that they know are heretics) for the sacraments and to hear mass from them. Well, the problem with this thinking isn’t that they are unaware of the fact that the priest is a heretic... but that they in fact are fully aware of this, yet make up excuses to go to him. But has there ever been a dogma that declares anything even close to this? Can anything even be cited to give such an indication? Of course not! You will not find any Church teaching that says so! To invent one’s own doctrines to justify one’s own mortal sin in receiving the sacraments illicitly, and then to teach others to do the same, is really outrageous and scandalous to say the least! These people have no shame! Whether a priest is imposing his heresies on other people or not has nothing to do with whether the priest becomes a notorious heretic, as St. Robert Bellarmine clearly shows:

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: 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, and condemn him as a heretic.”

The point is: what Catholic dogma says that one may knowingly approach a heretical priest for the sacraments (except for the sacrament of baptism in case of necessity)? Not a single dogma have been given thus far that have indicated this; (the Fourth Lateran Council, taken out of context, will be dealt with shortly). We would gladly change our position if someone proved to us with Catholic dogma that their position was true. However, this is not the case and no such dogmatic proof has ever been presented. Only fallible saints (taken out of context) and fallible theologians can be quoted, which then reveals that their position is weak and wavering and that it is lacking a good Catholic foundation. Is this what we are to build our Faith on; namely, saints and theologians, and in view of all the dogmas and reasoning, deny what has been put before our eyes? Isn’t this exactly what the believers in baptism of blood/desire do as well? Do they not obstinately cling to fallible saints and theologians instead of the infallible dogmas? And are they not condemned for this exact behavior, maybe even from you? Why then do you act precisely in the same way here? If you can’t prove your case with Catholic dogma, then you should not obstinately defend it or hold to it as true!

Besides, how can a person claim to believe in the Lord Jesus when he without compromise - even knowingly and willfully - approach a priest whom he knows reject the necessity of believing in Him, or any of His words? Do you really love Jesus and believe in Him, or do you just say you do? Are mass attendance and illicit sacraments more important to you than Jesus Christ and the Faith itself? For by the external deed you show to other people and to Our Lord that you have no problem to approach a priest who rejects Him! Apostates, heretics, and schismatics, crucify Our Lord a second time when they presume to consecrate these sacraments, and you are helping in this deed by going to them!

Neither can you preserve your faith or please God if you approach heretical priests, as Pope Pius IX makes clear: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God.”

And you become a sharer in the heretical priest's sin as St Thomas says: “As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.”

NOTORIOUS OR NOT

Some people also falsely claim that one factor which determines if a priest is to become a heretic that must be avoided for communion is determined by the fact of his notoriety, or how many other people actually are aware of the priest’s heretical position, or if his heresies or sins (of which they are not always so clear to define what constitutes notorious heresy, and which they determine for themselves when it suits their purpose) are notorious. They claim this by asserting that only certain heresies can be classified as notorious (of which denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation [or obstinate denial of almost any other dogma] is not included in this category, according to them! which essentially means that no priest can ever be considered as notorious (isn’t that an amazingly convenient position that they have come up with?) and that notoriety is determined by the fact if it is well known, and that if only a few people are aware of the priest’s heretical position, then the priest must not be a notoriously heretical priest that thus one may approach for the Sacraments.

Thus they reason, for according to them, only a notorious heretic must be avoided; and if the priest isn’t obviously known to ‘everyone’ (or most people)—or if his heresy doesn’t fit their virtually non-existent category of notoriety—he must therefore not be a notorious heretic and can thus be approached for the sacraments. However, they fail to realize that the priest in question may already have revealed his heresy and obstinacy and bad will to anyone who have made the true position known to him.

What determines if a priest must be avoided for communion is not decided by the fact how many others are actually aware of him being a heretic or if he is only guilty of certain specific heresies. This is so since the priest by being a heretic, whatever heresy he may hold, have already severed himself from the Church and communion, and because the whole of Heaven (The Holy Trinity, The Blessed Virgin and all the Angels and the Saints) also have pronounced judgment on him. Are we then (in spite of these facts), to profess external communion with him who have severed himself from the Church, and whom God already have condemned? (If the priest converts, of course, the condemnation turns into mercy.)

Obviously then, the factor which determines if someone is to be avoided for communion is what you can know about the said person in question. It is not determined by what others decide or understand about him or by the fact of how many others actually are aware of him being a heretic. You will not be judged to hell for what others knew or did not know about. You will, however, be judged to hell for what you knew about; what you did not care to know about, and what you failed to do when you had obtained this knowledge!

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: 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, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

And if you don’t agree with this, then you must hold to the opinion that one could have approached the ultra-heretical antipope from hell, Paul VI, for the sacraments, even if we knew him to be a heretical antipope and even if we had obtained knowledge beforehand on what he would (try) do to the Church (according to the logic of the heretics) if only a few people were aware of him being a heretic and if only a few people knew about his evil intentions, or if his heresies would not be considered as notorious. Yes, according to this false position, (the illogical position of the heretics), one could even have approached him for the sacraments when he had started to put all these heresies into practice.

So when Paul VI was undermining and trying to destroy the faith in the hearts of the people as much as a heretic could possibly have done in a lifetime, i.e., by approving and putting into practice all the heresies of the Second Vatican Council; by changing the Traditional Mass into a New invalid Mass; by changing the Rites of Holy Orders (thus making all Vatican II priests and bishops invalidly ordained); by abolishing the index of forbidden books (which reveals his true intention, to spread heresy and lies); and by allowing contraception or NFP, etc, etc… then, in spite of all these facts, if only few people knew him to be a heretic or if he was not considered notorious, one could have approached him for the Sacraments… This is the inescapable and illogical conclusion of the heretics’ reasoning, but none, however, would ever dare admit to it!

But if your position is the true Catholic position: namely, that one couldn’t have approached Paul VI or any other heretic like him for the Sacraments, then you must also hold the position that one cannot approach other heretical priests for the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist, that one personally knows are heretical. You cannot pick and choose what heretics to go to. All heretics are outside the Church. Therefore, all heretics must be avoided.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

POPE PIUS IX AGAINST HERETICS

Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4): "You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice."

Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction…” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM”

Further commenting on the absolute, undeniable words of Pope Pius IX above isn’t really necessary for an honest soul.

But why must heretics be totally avoided, you may ask? Pope Pius IX answers this too: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God...” Pope Pius IX says that your faith will be destroyed by going to heretics and that you cannot please God by doing this. How clear does it have to get? Thus, you may never approach your apostate or heretical Novus Ordo priest or your heretical and schismatical traditional “Catholic” priest, or any other heretical or schismatical priest of that sort for Confession or the Eucharist. For almost all of them, without exception, deny the necessity of believing in our Lord Jesus Christ by granting salvation to people who do not even believe in Him. Most of them also obstinately deny various dogmas of the Church when it is presented to them!

FALLIBLE VS INFALLIBLE

Heretics simply refuse to follow the teachings of the Church on these matters, but rather follow wrong and fallible statements of certain theologians or saints. Many of these saints and theologians do not even agree with their position. Yet, these heretics twist their words to fit their own heretical belief system (more on this later).

The point is: If we were to decide what constitutes the Catholic faith based on fallible saints or theologians, then we could as well deny the immaculate conception of Mary, we could believe that all unbaptized Children who die before the age of reason burns in the fires of hell, we could believe in the theory of baptism of desire and blood, etc. All these opinions, in fact, seems convincing and true in view of the respected saints and theologians, who have held these positions and taught it (which is the cause of so many believing in it), in spite of Catholic dogma saying otherwise.

However, be it the opinion of a theologian or a saint (or even both), it really holds no weight at all in comparison with infallible Catholic dogma. Real Catholics (not fake Catholics) base their Faith on infallible Catholic dogma, and not on the opinions of saints or theologians. That should be clear to anyone. When people stop believing in the infallible Magisterium of the Church and instead choose to base their faith solely on the theories of saints and theologians (or even on themselves and what they deem to be of the faith), then one knows that their case is doomed, and that their position is not the Catholic one.

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."

As we see above, it’s an infallible dogma (that one are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin) that all heretics are outside the Church and thus outside the bounds of licitly administering the sacraments. Therefore, you can never knowingly receive the sacraments from a heretical priest (licitly) without sinning mortally [unless ignorance excuse, such as if you didn’t know it was heretics you approached or that it was wrong to approach them]. You could, however, receive them licitly from a heretic, if you were unaware of him being a heretic. This is the only exception, but this exception doesn’t work if you know the priest to be a heretic or if you know the Church forbids religious communion with them.

However, if we were to say, (for the sake of argument) that it were true that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments without sin (which it isn’t); but let's theorize that it is so that we can refute this position further. If there were any such teaching by a saint or theologian that allowed such a thing, namely, that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments; and even if they held such a position, (which they don't) they were still not talking about approaching the kind of heretical priests that exists in our day, in the Great Apostasy. Examples of this would be a priest who rejects the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ or who believes in salvation for people who even reject Christ, such as pagans, Jews and Muslims. Would anyone dare to say that this is what the theologians and saints actually believed if they had theorized that one could go to a heretical priest for the mass and the sacraments? Absolutely not! Then don’t try to make it look as if they do!

Nevertheless, this is the exact same straw man argument the baptism of desire/blood advocates use. Don’t these people just love to stress (lying through their teeth) that "all the saints and theologians believed in baptism of desire and blood; so it must be true", and by it trying to imply that they (the saints and theologians) also believed in salvation for pagans, Muslims and Jews; (even though, in truth, their version of baptism of desire/blood only applied to people who already believed in Jesus Christ and who were catechumens, and not pagans, Muslims and Jews). See the difference?

Why then do some people try to make it look like as though the theologians had as opinion that one could go to the worst kind of abominable, apostate or heretical priests that may ever have existed, for the sacraments? They who hold this position even make it appear as though one are perfectly free to go to a heretic even after one have found out about his Christ rejecting heresy. It must also be pointed out that the only saints and theologians these people even try to quote to defend their position (of receiving the sacraments from heretics), do not even agree with their heretical position (except for one theologian); however, except for this one theologian (John de Lugo), the rest actually refutes their sacrilegious position (as we will show).

But according to these sad heretics, one can freely go to a priest who believes in universal salvation for everyone, and to a priest who obstinately defends, supports and accepts as "Pope" the most vile and abominable heretics to have ever lived in the history of the world! Yes, according to their view, one could even go to that priest after one have presented him with the proof about the Novus Ordo Church, Benedict XVI and Vatican II, that proves them to be heretical. Yes, one could go to him even after that priest obstinately rejected that undeniable proof you presented to him (according to their heretical logic), just as long as he isn’t preaching his heresies from the pulpit or are imposing about them! Such are their words, then you can go to him. Anything goes it seems for these people, anything but Catholic sense and Catholic dogma! The bad will of these people are truly remarkable and sad.

So then, what are we to do when we have presented our priest with the information about Benedict XVI and Vatican II, and he yet obstinately adheres to Benedict XVI as the pope and the Novus Ordo church as the true Church? Are we then to avoid him as the heretic he has manifestly shown himself to be? The answer to this question is of course yes!

Titus 3:10: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: 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, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Therefore, it’s both a dogmatic and biblical fact that you cannot approach any heretical priests for the mass or the sacraments.

GOD WANTS OBEDIENCE RATHER THAN SACRIFICE

God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

If a person rejects God’s truth, he cannot please Him. To hold that one may licitly receive the sacraments from heretics, in light of all the facts, is simply to deny God.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

It is also of divine law and not only a disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a “church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896:“For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: "If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes."

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, #26, Nov. 21, 1873:"Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted."

The above quote is very relevant to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under this very same condemnation. First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves 'Old Catholics' signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."

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 factionthis 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."

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new church” also would fall under the same condemnation as Joseph Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as the heretics and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for example, receive the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them.

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." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

CAN HERETICS HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

What are the requirements for a licit reception of the sacraments? This is a very important question to understand since many claim one can receive them licitly not only from heretics, but from apostate priests as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. "Sacraments." (1912) Conditions for the licit reception: (b) "For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers."

Sadly, we have come to a point in the history of the Church where even heretics are considered by some to consecrate the Eucharist licitly in the Church; which means, somehow, that heretics are given authority in the Church. But this is of course impossible. For to give or receive the sacraments licitly, means to give or receive them by the authority and permission of the Church. Do heretics have this authority in the Catholic Church (except for the sacrament of baptism)? Do heretics confect the sacrament of Confession and the Eucharist validly or licitly with the permission and the authority of the Catholic Church? Of course not! They do not have this authority either to consecrate the Eucharist licitly, or to absolve from sins validly or licitly, as we have shown! Please look at the following dogmas of the Church carefully, and see how heretics are outside the Church of Christ.

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"

Here we can see that all Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church. Here are some other testimonies from the Magisterium which affirm this fact.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

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."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 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."

This last solemn profession of faith by Pope Innocent III in Eius exemplo, demonstrates how foreign to Catholic belief - that is to say, how heretical - is the idea that a heretic can be inside the Church. Nevertheless, this is exactly the idea proposed by individuals who assert that heretics – somehow – have authority to licitly administer the sacraments. And since it is a dogma that a heretic cannot be inside the Church, it is a dogmatic fact (a fact which if it were not true would render a dogma false) that a heretic cannot have any authority in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."

Therefore, it is most certain that a heretic cannot consecrate the Eucharist licitly or administer the sacrament of Confession validly or licitly, because it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside can command in the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

MAJOR HERETICAL OBJECTIONS

FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL

FIRST OBJECTION: "Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council, teaches that heretics must first be pointed out before one is bound to stop going to them for religious purposes. So there."

ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION: The perverted, out of context quote with perverted out of context commentary, as presented by the deceiving heretics:

"Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics […] If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”"

Notice the smoke and mirrors […] where they whip out the Latin and say: "Look at this part here! Focus in on this only because if you read the whole thing you'll see we are perverting what the pope decreed when we claimed this was referring to heretics!" But now let us see the whole paragraph and let us examine what it REALLY says:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council (Tanner Edition): "Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics."

Alright, the pope just said that those believers (not heretics) who receive defend or support heretics are to be excommunicated…

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: "We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated,"

Keep in mind that we are still talking about non-heretical believers who have been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: "We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…"

"If he be a cleric," a cleric who is NON-heretical and has been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic. Do you see how clearly they have perverted the meaning of this council? The heretics want it to speak about heretics, since it suits their purpose of going to other heretics for the sacraments, but anyone but a liar can see that it is not speaking about a heretic, but a believer "who receive, defend or support heretics."

There are two points to look at here. The first point is that these actions of supporting, defending or receiving heretics aren’t evil in themselves, but rather charitable if done rightly. The second point is that a believer can be in good faith regarding heretics. Helping a heretic doesn’t necessarily mean that the person agreed with the heretic or that he himself was a heretic or that he even knew he was helping a heretic. That’s why the council declares these people as “believers,” who “receive, defend or support heretics...” And since there are many ways of defending, supporting and receiving heretics that doesn’t necessarily involve heresy or schism, one cannot conclude (as heretics do), that one can go to undeclared (excommunicated) heretical or schismatical priests for the sacraments, that one know are heretics or schismatics, until the Church has made Her sentence on them, as their excuse is.

There are many examples one could give to show that a believer who receives, defends or even supports heretics isn’t heretical himself:

  1. For can a believer receive a heretic into his home for the purpose of converting him? Of course he can!

  2. Can the same believer in good faith and charity have compassion on a heretic who doesn’t have the means to financially support himself or his family? Absolutely! (The believer should of course, if he is aware of this person's heresy, wish to use this charity or support as a carrot or incentive in order to bring the heretic, schismatic or apostate into the Church again.)

  3. And can a believer be in material heresy regarding a doctrine of the Church and unknowingly, defend the heretical position of a heretic? Absolutely!

As we have seen, these actions by the believer were neither heretical nor schismatical but charitable (if done in good faith). A believer can thus do well towards others without understanding that he actually might do harm or give greater scandal. That is why, according to the said council, they (the supporters) are to be avoided only after they have been pointed out by the Church, and their true intention have been revealed. For just as a person can do these things unknowingly and in good faith, so too can a person do these things out of compassion - not only for the heretic - but for the heresy held by him as well. A person who thus have compassion with a heresy held by a heretic - rather than compassion for the heretical person - is himself also a heretic, since he agrees with his heretical position and supports it. And if a believer was to become aware that a supporter of a heretic was agreeing with his heresy or supporting it, then he are to avoid him as a heretic since there is no need then to await the Church’s declaration to reveal the ‘supporters’ inner intentions. This is the reason why the Church doesn’t automatically declare these people who "receive, defend or support heretics" – as heretics – that absolutely must be avoided "until they have been pointed out by the Church."

That’s why it’s extremely dishonest for people to use the Fourth Lateran Council or St. Thomas Aquinas (next objection) as an argument for receiving communion or confession from an obstinately heretical priest (whom you know to be a heretic) for the Council clearly doesn’t teach that. In fact, it is a mortally sinful distortion of the truth taught in it!

Furthermore, it's very dishonest to pronounce the sentence of the Church as a basis of avoiding heretics in these times, when the Church and Her hierarchy no longer is visible or accessible for Catholics. Even those instances (like with sinful priests) where the Church would have judged normally, are today abrogated by the law or principle of epikeia, since there are no valid or non-heretical hierarchy in existence in the Church today. Epieikeia or Epikeia, meaning “equity,” is the name for the canonical principle that merely Church laws, a.k.a. ecclesiastical laws or disciplinary laws, can cease to bind in particular cases which were not envisioned by the lawgiver. This term can be found in any book dealing with these subjects. This principle does not apply to dogmatic teachings of faith or morals, but laws instituted by the Church for the governance of its members. That is why we today are even forced to make these judgments about sinful priests by our own judgment and by our own authority since there are no valid Church hierarchy. Thus, when WE see someone hold a heretical belief, we must by our own judgment and reason, judge him to be a heretic, and avoid him as such. Again, if we have the knowledge and reason to know or spot heresy, then we are to use that knowledge; for doing otherwise would be a sin against the Faith.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

It’s perfectly understandable if a person lacks knowledge to detect finer or more specific heresies that people can be material "heretics" about and which doesn't entail rejecting the natural law or the essential mysteries that all must know about. However, if you know your priest to be a heretic, then you must avoid him as such. If you don’t know that your priest is a heretic and you haven’t put much effort in finding out if he is, then find out if he is; and if he isn’t a heretic, then you can go to him (as long as he isn’t professing external communion with other heretics, as most priests do, who holds the notorious arch heretic Benedict XVI as the "Pope"). Such a priest is to be assumed to be a heretic (even though he doesn’t seem to hold to any other heresy), for the fact of him professing external communion with a notorious heretic. We assume that priest to be a heretic in the very same way we would assume as a heretic a person who enters a protestant church (who then is to be assumed to be a protestant heretic) for being in communion with other protestant heretics (even if there is a slight possibility of him being only a material heretic). Yes, there is a possibility that your priest is unaware of all the heresies that are promoted by Benedict XVI and Vatican II. In fact, there is a slight possibility that anyone who has been baptized - whatever "Christian" church building he may enter – may be a material heretic (as long as he doesn't contradict the natural law or the essential mysteries), although this scenario is very unlikely.

However, if you would have pointed out the true position regarding Vatican II and Benedict XVI to (for example) an independent priest who seem to hold to no heresy (at least outwardly), and who are not in communion with any other heretical society, and the priest, after having been presented with the evidence, yet obstinately continued to accept Benedict XVI as the "Pope" or Vatican II and the Novus Ordo “Church” as the true Catholic Church, then his heresy would have become manifested and you would be forced to avoid him. Thus, we must both avoid the priest whom we find out to be a heretic, and the priest whom we see profess external communion with other manifest heretics. This is a truth of faith that is further taught by St. Robert Bellarmine:

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: 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, and condemn him as a heretic.”

We do not sin by assuming someone to be a heretic (even if absolute proof is absent) if he by his external works reveals this possibility to be true. For when we make an assumption, we do not judge anything in a conclusive way. This method of thinking is not to be applied with other happenings that may occur to man through life (or even with material heresy in regards to faithful Catholics who can and may be erring on certain finer points of Faith). We are not to assume or judge on those things without clear irrefutable evidence, since most happenings in life are neither heretical nor sinful. But notorious or external signs of heresy or schism on graver points on the other hand, are mortally sinful and separates a soul from God. Heresy kills souls!

However, to judge someone as a definitive heretic for believing in baptism of desire (for example) - would be to go too far and to judge falsely, if you first failed to ask him what he thought or knew about it. For it could very well be that he is a material heretic (if his version of baptism of desire only concerns people or catechumens who already believe in Christ) and not as the heretics believe, who applies it to everyone, including pagans and people who reject Christ. A person becomes a heretic or schismatic by obstinately refusing to accept a position he knows the Church teaches. Thus, if he has been presented false or non-infallible evidence against baptism of desire, and he still is uncertain, it is possible that he is a material "heretic" (as long as he does not deny the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation.) He may not have fully understood what the Church teaches on this matter, and if he is uncertain and not obstinate, he may still be a material heretic.

A priest, however, who rejects Christ, by believing in universal salvation for everyone, including pagans and people that hate or even reject Christ such as the Jews or the Muslims - such a case would of course be an obvious one - for it is of divine law that every Christian must hold the belief in Jesus Christ as essential for Salvation. The same goes for the doctrine concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation. The number of these so called priests of Satan, who holds the belief in Jesus Christ and his Church as meaningless, are almost innumerable these days. All these so called priests must of course be totally avoided and condemned, even if, perhaps, your very good "friend" tells you otherwise. For you know very well in your heart that this is true.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. – But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

And really, do the heretics think that the Catholic Church can contradict itself? They must hold to this, or be totally illogical.

WHY PEOPLE OF BAD WILL AND PRIDE ARE LEFT IN DARKNESS

Many people also don’t understand why so many “good” people are left in heresy or schism, faithlessness and darkness, or why so many “good” people have never even heard of Jesus Christ - and why these “good” people would be condemned and go to Hell if they died in that state, when they are not yet heretics or schismatics (for they cannot reject what they do not yet know about)?

The answer to these questions is that God beforehand knew of these peoples rejection of the true faith even though it was never presented to them. For even though a person has never heard of the Catholic Church or Her teachings on the Eucharist, Confession, Baptism, Faith and Works unto Salvation etc, during his whole life, but that person - while reading his Bible - rejects words which clearly indicates these teachings, i.e. "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have, you have no life in you", or "receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;" then, if he read such and like words, but simply refused to believe that Jesus really could mean what he was saying, and that it was impossible that his personal interpretation was wrong, and if he was obstinate about his position, then he would be a mortal sinner and prideful, for he have already made up his mind that his personal interpretation is right. Thus, if ever the true position would have been presented to him, he would simply have refused to believe in it, and would then have become a heretic. I think many people who have talked with protestant heretics are aware of these facts. These protestant heretics often express opinions such as: “I simply refuse to believe such a teaching to be true”, or “I simply refuse to believe the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, etc…”

A humble soul will always think that it is possible that he or she has understood some things wrong, and thus will always conform herself immediately to the true faith when it is presented to her. A person who always thinks he’s right or who cannot accept advice from other people or who always have a high esteem of his own mind, he cannot, in truth, be in good disposition of ever receiving the true Catholic Faith. He would just simply refuse to believe if the true faith ever was presented to him. It’s truly a most sad and abominable pride and presumption to believe that it is not possible that one has understood some things wrong, and that one could not be corrected by other people. All heretics, without exception, have fallen in this trap of pride and presumption. The same must be said about all people who die as heretics, schismatics, pagans, infidels, Jews or Muslims, etc. A humble soul will not reject God’s words because he can’t understand it, but will rather seek to understand it, in that he prays to God for help and guidance (in knowing the truth). The mere thought or reflection of a humble soul that he or she might be in error, and her humble prayers to God coupled with abstinence from mortal sins, fervently pleading for His enlightenment concerning a specific issue, is often enough for a soul to come out of a heresy. For humility is the perfect way to Heaven, and none but the humble will enter therein.

"Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives."
-St. Augustine

The first sin that every single heretic falls for before falling into heresy is always one or many of the seven mortal sins; namely, pride, lust, gluttony, envy, greed, sloth, and wrath. By reason of their mortal sins, the devil gains the possession of their conscience by justice, and is able to influence them into believing heresies. This is the sad truth behind heresy. A person who avoids mortal sins and follows the natural law, and also tries as much as he is able to avoid venial sins, will never fall into heresy, since holy angels guard him when he is in the state of grace.

We can never accept even the smallest venial sin. St. Teresa of Avila said, “For the love of God, take care never to grow careless about venial sin, however small … There is nothing small if it goes against so great a sovereign.” Deliberate venial sin weakens the spiritual powers, reduces our resistance to evil, and causes us to wander in our journey to the Cross. It is an illness of the soul, but not its supernatural death.

1 John 5:16 “There is sin which is mortal … All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

When a venial sin is enacted with full consent, the devil gets a hold over the person’s soul, where he is able to influence the soul more, and in a little while, he leads the soul into countless of mortal sins from this seemingly small venial sin, unless penance and amendment is made in reparation to God’s justice. A soul that continues in venial sin without quitting his sinful occasions deserve to fall into mortal sin since he rejected God’s commandments. If the soul continues committing venial sin, it will always end in mortal sin, so it’s very important to guard against mortal and venial sins at all times. Billions of poor souls are now suffering in the fires of hell, cursing their habitual venial sins that led them into committing mortal sins. If you wish to avoid joining them in the fires of hell, avoid every occasion of sin as if it were true poison.

Can you imagine the horror of standing before the Judge and hearing the sentence of death and eternal condemnation pronounced against you? Probably not. But you have felt the driving guilt and fear when God’s Word stabs you with this sentence: “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). Why do we fear and feel guilt? Because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).

All heretics, and all the other people who die outside the Church and Salvation, does not sincerely seek after the truth nor prays to God with sincerity to enlighten them about the truth. These people rather refuse to believe, or only believe in what they think is of the true Faith, rejecting everything else. This is the heresy or mortal sin all the Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox,” etc, fall under, who in truth (many of them) do not fully understand what the Church teaches (yet obstinately refuses to believe in it whenever it is presented to them) or would refuse to believe in it if it ever were presented to them.

This is the exact reason why many people are left in darkness and faithlessness, since God beforehand knew of their bad will and their refusal to accept the true Catholic Faith. This is a truth of Faith that is taught by many of the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754: “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.

However, we should not think we are good in any way for having the Faith or think that we are special in anyway for being brought into the Faith. This is a trap which one easily could fall for. And it is a very dangerous trap, for if a person thinks himself to be special in anyway, then he is probably already lost. Pride (in my opinion) leads most souls to Hell. It is the beginning and end of damnation. (You may of course think or consider yourself to be specially evil or sinful, such as: “that you are the worst person on earth” or “the greatest sinner on earth” etc, which is good to think about oneself. This is the way one should consider oneself: as the greatest sinner in the world and totally unworthy to receive any grace from God.) In truth, personally, I do not understand why I have been brought to the Faith, and why so many pagans, Jews or Muslims, who are better than me, have not. What did I do to deserve this grace of Faith, and what did they fail to do? Why are they in darkness, while I have found the true light of the Gospel? Why, I often ask myself, without understanding why.

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

SECOND OBJECTION: "St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that one may go to a heretic for the sacraments until the Church have pointed him out."

ANSWER TO THE SECOND OBJECTION: Sadly, the heretics have perverted St. Thomas' teaching here too, by saying that he was talking about heretical priests when he was actually talking about sinful priests. It must be understood that it would not matter if St. Thomas had said what the heretics want him to say, since St. Thomas would then be in contradiction with the infallible dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s why Catholics (real Catholics) don’t go by the definitions of Saints or theologians when deciding what constitutes the Catholic Faith, but by infallible Catholic dogma proclaimed by the Popes from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra). Here is the full quote from St. Thomas as it is presented by the heretics:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp. Part, Q. 82, A. 9: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

Let's examine this teaching of St. Thomas closely. When he says "But not all who are SINNERS," it is clear that he excludes some of the people from being "debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power" that he speaks about above, that is, "heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates." When he mentions "sinners," one can only assume that he is not speaking about heretics or schismatics since he would have stated this if this were so. Also notice how St. Thomas said that those who receive the sacraments from a heretic commits sin: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin.” He then goes on to speak about the last category of priests, that is, sinful priests: “But not all who are sinners...” and says that some of the sinners (not heretics) must first be formally excommunicated before one must avoid them for the sacraments.

As people should know already, heretics and schismatics have no need for a declaration since they are already automatically excommunicated (from simply falling into heresy) and put outside the Catholic Church and Her Communion by the Divine law (de fide). SINNERS, on the other hand, are not generally excommunicated automatically, unless through notoriety by committing grave crimes like concubinage.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): ‘LET NO ONE HEAR THE MASS OF A PRIEST WHOM HE KNOWS WITHOUT DOUBT TO HAVE A CONCUBINE.’”

So St. Thomas is clearly dividing the priests into four different categories when he mentions “heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests” and then concludes that “not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power”. It’s clear that he’s here trying to distinguish between sins that debars people automatically from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite, such as concubinage, with the other sins that do not, referring to the lesser crimes Catholic priests can commit without being automatically suspended or excommunicated as a consequence of their sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 2: “He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church [a Catholic priest], not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church [remember, heretics are not ministers of the Church]. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him [Catholic sinful priest], does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, HE THAT RECEIVES A SACRAMENT FROM HIM SINS, BECAUSE HE COMMUNICATES IN HIS SIN.”

Notice that this quotation is essentially identical to the other we saw above. But the difference in this quote from the former is that he here did not mention anything about heretical or schismatical priests, thus helping people to avoid any possible confusion and what St. Thomas could have meant.

In the above quotation it is self evident that St. Thomas did not intend to include heretics in his other statement or that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from them because St. Thomas said that we “receives it [the sacrament] from a minister of the Church... as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry”. However heretics are not tolerated by the Church nor ministers of Her, hence that St. Thomas couldn’t have referred to heretics as the heretics claim.

Therefore, when St. Thomas mentioned that it was “lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass” until the Church’s sentence has been pronounced, he was not referring to heretics or schismatics, but specifically to tolerated sinful, undeclared Catholic priests. That should be absolutely obvious to any honest person of good will reading this document.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside [he who is a heretic] can command in the Church [have jurisdiction].”

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.”

It is obvious that St. Thomas was in agreement with the constant and infallible tradition of the Church which explicitly orders people to stay away from the churches of heretics, (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8.) But it would not matter anyway since Catholics decide these things by infallible Catholic dogma, and not on fallible Saints. But just to prove the point further we will look at what St. Robert Bellarmine has to say:

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' [by that very fact] 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."

Let’s look again at what St. Bellarmine just said: "sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication"…"but the heretics exile themselves."

So it’s absolutely clear, as just proved by St. Robert Bellarmine, who quoted from St. Jerome, that St. Thomas was actually talking about how sinful priests are not “debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite”. Unless, of course, one would like to be a total liar. And so, St. Thomas is clearly speaking about how a priest with private or public mortal sins is not suspended by the Church's sentence (not formally) from performing the Eucharistic rite, even if he sins every time he confects the sacraments on account of the Divine suspension. We may thus approach sinful priests (and not heretical priests, as liars try to make it say) for the sacraments, until the Church's sentence is pronounced.

Catholics, however have no obligation to approach notoriously sinful priests for the sacraments and can stay home, but neither are they forbidden to go if they desire these sacraments. This is so because heresy automatically excommunicates every person guilty of it and puts him outside the Church; a person's own mortal sins, however, does not.

The Church further teaches that one may approach such a priest for the sacraments (who have been excommunicated for other reasons than heresy, schism or apostasy), only in grave circumstances, if no other reasonable option is available (more on this in the Fourth objection). For sin and heresy is not the same, and to be excommunicated for sin or to be excommunicated for heresy is not the same (although both cases lead the excommunicated soul to Hell). The Pope, even if he is a public mortal sinner, still remains Pope and has the same authority as any other Pope however sinful he may be. If, however, he was to become a heretic, schismatic or apostate, he would automatically cease to be the Pope and head of the Church, and would lose all his authority and ecclesiastical power.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

And really, when people use fallible quotes from fallible Saints and theologians to try to prove their position, you can know that they have lost track of the distinction between fallible and infallible words.

For other St. Thomas Aquinas objections usually presented by the heretics to support their heresies, please consult the following section in our new article: DOES ST. THOMAS REALLY TEACH THAT WE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS FROM EXCOMMUNICATED “UNDECLARED” HERETICAL PRIESTS?

CARDINAL JOHN DE LUGO

THIRD OBJECTION: "Cardinal John de Lugo, who was a respected theologian, and who was counted by St. Alphonsus himself as second only after St. Thomas Aquinas, and who was called "a light of the Church" by Pope Benedict XIV, said that one could go to a heretical priest whom you know to be a heretic for the mass and the sacraments."

ANSWER TO THE THIRD OBJECTION: Cardinal John de Lugo was simply wrong. He was also confused about certain points on which he taught (as we will show). This made him come up with a belief system of his own. This fact was even admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Cardinal John de Lugo," Vol. 9, (1910): “All his writings (Lugo), whether on dogmatic or moral theology, exhibit two main qualities: A penetrating, critical mind, sometimes indulging a little too much in subtleties, and a sound judgmentIn several problems he formed a system of his own, as for instance about faith, the Eucharist, the hypostatic union, etc.”

John de Lugo even argued that the words, "This is My Blood", (or a similar short form), to be a complete sacramental form for the wine-consecration. De Lugo argued that the very existence of such (erroneous) liturgies in ancient times (based on non-approved and spurious documents) proved that those few words are enough for validity, and that ipso facto the additional words of the form, although used universally in the Church, are not essential. He thus argued (at his own time) as the Vatican II “Church” does today. This proposition by John de Lugo was of course condemned (the theory) as false (Salmanticenses 30-32, Disp. IX, dub. 3). The heretics however, would have us believe that a short form consecration would be a true and valid one, for why else would he (Lugo) have said so? But who amongst these heretics would ever admit to such a thing? Our guess is that none or very few ever would. This striking fact then reveals these people to in fact be bad willed heretics, since heretics only reject those articles of faith that do not fit them, or only believe in those they deem to be from the deposit of faith. Both of these terms is what makes up a heretic! This then should further prove these peoples absolute hypocrisy and bad will.

Now, Cardinal de Lugo was certainly not infallible, and he was even wrong on major theological subjects (such as regarding the mass and the form of consecration). In fact, the changes proposed by Cardinal de Lugo would have rendered the act of consecration (transubstantiation) invalid, as Pope St. Pius V makes clear:

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."

This, yet again, shows us why real Catholics build their Faith, (not on saints or theologians) but on the infallible magisterium of the Church. This quote by Pope St. Pius V also proves the invalidity of the Novus Ordo mass (Vatican II mass) where the words of consecration have been changed.

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS

“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

First, the words THE MYSTERY OF FAITH have been abolished in the form of consecration in the new mass which in itself renders it highly doubtful. However, what absolutely renders the new mass invalid without a doubt are the following: The original form of consecration does not use the words “for all so that sins may be forgiven” but uses the words “for many so that sins may be forgiven”. The Vatican II sect uses the words for all, since they publicly and notoriously hold and teach and believe in the heresy of universal salvation or salvation for people in false religions. Thus, they have changed the wording from many (which indicates that not all are saved) to for all, which then fits their heretical belief system. The words for MANY, was used by Jesus Christ himself, and not even a Pope can change the words instituted by our Lord, as Pope Pius XII makes clear:

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."

It would neither make much a difference if they ever changed back to the traditional formula, since almost all of the Vatican II priests left in the world are invalidly ordained anyway and never consecrates the Eucharist. The hosts in the Vatican II churches are thus just a piece of bread. (If you want to learn more about the invalidity of the new mass, please read this article or watch this video.)

Therefore, in view of all these theological errors by Cardinal John de Lugo - especially concerning the mass - one can only conclude (when he was talking about approaching a heretical priest for the mass and the sacraments) that he also here, “in several problems… formed a system of his own, as for instance about faith, the Eucharist, the hypostatic union, etc.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia) and not that of the Church… Not that his opinion has any significance anyway, since real Catholics first and foremost follow the infallible magisterial teaching of the Church (and not first or foremost the fallible opinions of theologians).

We will now look at the following quotes by Cardinal de Lugo regarding the reception of the Church’s sacraments from heretics:

Cardinal John de Lugo: “The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.

Notice that Cardinal de Lugo distinguishes between attending a heretical rite (which is never permitted) and attending a Catholic Mass or rite celebrated by an “undeclared heretic,” which is also never permitted, if one is aware of the priest being a heretic (e.g. a priest of the SSPX who celebrates the Catholic rite and claims to be Catholic but is actually a heretic who professes external communion with other heretics, e.g. Vatican II.)

Cardinal de Lugo: “But the opposite view is general and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.”

Notice that Cardinal de Lugo bases much of his conclusion on other theologians instead of on papal authority. This is the way error or heresy is begun. He also seems to have confused people who are guilty of an automatic excommunication (heretics, schismatics and apostates) with sinners (excommunicati tolerate) who are specifically excommunicated by the Church.

John de Lugo: “So as these heretics are not declared [formal?] excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their [automatic?] excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (Cardinal John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio.)

First, what he says here is simply wrong and one cannot follow his fallible opinion here since it is contradicted by many Popes. Thus, one cannot use the fallible and erroneous opinions of Cardinal John de Lugo, or any other theologian or saint for that matter as some kind of proof for receiving the sacraments from heretics when the Church teaching on this matter clearly speaks against it. This should be clear to any honest person, but the heretics simply can’t get this fact through their obstinate heads.

Second, it is also clear from the the words: "So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric" that he was here referring to Pope Martin V’s bull Ad Evitanda Scandala, as his source, and which he, by the way, also interpreted wrongly! Ad Evitanda Scandala (which you can read about here) never refers to excommunicated heretics in Catholic communion, but refers specifically to excommunicated tolerated sinners (Catholics) or people otherwise notoriously guilty of striking a cleric!

So with these facts in mind, and considering the fact that John de Lugo didn’t even understand the very bull that he was citing when he came up with his position of receiving sacraments from heretics, should one even consider his opinion as having any worth whatsoever? No, I think not! To even consider his opinion in light of these facts would be ridiculous.

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."

All apostates, heretics, or schismatics are outside Catholic communion and must be shunned, as the following dogmatic Council makes perfectly clear:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

It’s a dogma that all heretics are outside the Church (de fide). Thus, no heretical priest can ever licitly administer the sacraments (unless we are speaking about baptism) and people who knowingly approach illicit sacraments, sins mortally. Thus, Cardinal John de Lugo’s private opinions are not something to even be considered in light of all these dogmatic facts.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."

Heretics or schismatics are true spiritual murderers (which is far worse than physical murderers), and to give other people the impression that they (heretics and schismatics) are true Catholics, is truly abominable and shameful. However, the heretics, who brings forth every excuse possible that they can find, would love to stress just that (that heretics and schismatics are Catholics). And so, the only reason these heretics spend so much time and effort in proclaiming the fallible opinions of saints and theologians (as though it were the true and Catholic one) is because they know they have nothing else to back up their sacrilegious position with. These people’s conscience must be weighing down hard on them since all know one should not profess or show a friendship or communion with people who are spiritual murderers and enemies of Jesus Christ. That’s why these people must choose to overlook the dogmas which condemn their heresy of praying in communion with heretics and receiving the sacraments from them.

What you must do (instead of looking for excuses to go to them) is to denounce these murderers of souls (heretics and schismatics) before other people. And what you mustn’t do, is to profess communion with them. It’s really easy if you are honest with yourself. Unless you oppose heretics and schismatics, you will be condemned to an eternal hellfire, as the following quotes makes perfectly clear:

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them."

James 4:17To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.”

Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”

All non-Catholic religious services are crimes against the true God, the Catholic God, in the highest degree possible!

THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW

FOURTH OBJECTION: "The 1917 Code of Canon law teaches that one may attend the religious services of heretics or schismatics and receive the sacraments from them. Canon 2261.2-3, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: “… the faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2)… But from an excommunicated vitandus [to be shunned] or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).”"

ANSWER TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION: First, let's note that the 1917 Code of Canon law does not speak about heretics or schismatics. It explicitly speaks about excommunicated people. This canon is obviously excluding heretics, schismatics and apostates since it’s the Divine Law that forbids them from receiving or consecrating a sacrament. But even if this canon were speaking about heretics and schismatics (which it isn't), it would still hold no weight against the infallible declarations made by the Catholic Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is also not infallible, as will be proved further down.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

Second, also notice how (as usual) the very quotation that the heretics use to prove their position, refutes them:

Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may ONLY IN DANGER OF DEATH ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).”

So even if this canon was referring to heretical priests (the vitandus or shunned), which it is not, it would still mean that they could only be approached in danger of death! But the heretics doesn’t teach that heretics may only be approached for the Eucharist or Confession in danger of death, for they teach that they may be approached every time as long as they are not notorious.

Third, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: "Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19."

Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc. These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church. Therefore, a Catholic who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a Catholic because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a Catholic who receives an excommunication for something else is still a Catholic, though in a state of grave sin. Thus, it is clear that the 1917 Code of Canon Law is speaking about sinners and disobedient Catholics of different kinds, and not about heretics.

MORE ON THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW

The 1917 Code was definitely not an ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement because it does not bind the whole Church, but only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as stipulated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”

A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility…

The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was the main author and compiler of the canons. Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.”

This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. It should also be remembered that it is of divine law that only the Popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter.) Thus, this proves that Pius XII was speaking about the infallible statements from the chair of Peter. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility. This is further proven by the following canons.

1) THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW TEACHES THAT CHRISTIAN BURIAL CAN BE GIVEN TO UNBAPTIZED CATECHUMENS

The 1917 Code teaches in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial. This contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.

Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.”

Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhereThe practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”

This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.’”

2) THE 1917 CODE TEACHES THAT HERETICS CAN BE IN GOOD FAITH

Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”

A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:"... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."

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…”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

A person in good faith who is erring innocently about a dogma (loosely and improperly called a material heretic in theological discussions) is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring in good faith. So the statement in the 1917 Code about heretics and schismatics in good faith is definitely theologically erroneous and it proves that it was not protected by infallibility.

Objection: "A heretic can be in good faith about certain theological issues. A heretic may also be in good faith in some ways since, how else could a heretic turn from his errors and become a Catholic!"

Answer to the objection: No, a heretic cannot be of good Faith as long as he remains a heretic, and as long as he obstinately rejects God’s grace of conversion to the true Catholic Faith. The moment a heretic cease to be heretical, he is of good faith. Important to understand (for otherwise this might cause confusion) is that a heretic or a schismatic is a baptized person above the age of reason who have knowledge of and affirms a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, (the essential mysteries) but who rejects the full teaching of Christ and of His Church. A heretic is thus not a material heretic (a term used to describe a Catholic erring in good Faith), for a heretic is by definition a person who knowingly and obstinately rejects parts of the true Faith. A person can only reject what he have read, or heard about, and understood (unless we are speaking about the Trinity and the Incarnation and the natural law which all are bound to know explicitly without exception to be saved.) Thus, a heretic is by definition always of bad faith and will continue to be this as long as he remains in his heresy. That a heretic may desire the true faith is true, but that does not mean that he holds the true faith (until he actually has been converted).

This is further proven by an example. For if you were to say to an obstinate murderer and rapist: "You should cease to murder and rape people (remember that heresy murder souls)!" And the murderer would answer: "I am considering it since I see that it is wrong. I desire to change. Yet, I will continue to murder and rape for a bit more (he will continue to spread heresies and lies a bit more)." Would anyone be so mad as to say that he is in good faith even though he desires to cease doing evil? Of course not. Likewise, heretics are like murderers since they murder their own and other people’s souls eternally. In fact, they are worse than murderers and rapists. And as long as they are obstinate in their heresy, they are of bad faith and continue to murder souls.

The heretics are also not able to be in good faith about some parts of the faith, since the faith must be taken as a whole, or rejected as a whole, as Pope Leo XIII teaches:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following points to say about heresy:

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. "Heresy", the gravity of the sin (1910): “Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: "All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (infidelitas) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity." And he adds: "Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised." It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei [deposit of faith] are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority [The Popes] to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.”

3) THE 1917 CODE TEACHES THAT CATHOLICS MAY BE PRESENT AT NON-CATHOLIC FORMS OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING NON-CATHOLIC WEDDINGS AND NON-CATHOLIC FUNERALS!

Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of scandal is absent.”

Note: this canon is talking about non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend a Jewish Synagogue or a Hindu Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc., etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively participate! This is ridiculous, for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person involved in it) is a scandal in itself. It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the Church. A Catholic can neither take part actively in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. To have a passive presence at non-Catholic services, is actually to honor the devil and the demons, since Psalms 95:5 says that “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils.” To show to others that you are attending their religious houses, is to show formal consent to their religion and it is mortally sinful, and completely inexcusable. And as always, heretics must either state that the Church can contradict itself on a matter that is tied to the faith or be totally illogical. Here is the true infallible faith again:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

"Should be avoided in every way," is just not "clear" enough for the heretics. Hence, this canon also proves that this code is not infallible.

4) THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW TEACHES BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Again, a pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t; thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in desire” for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. The 1917 Code contradicts the immemorial Tradition of the Church on ecclesiastical burial for catechumens (unbaptized persons) and it holds no weight for a moment against the infallible declaration of the Chair of St. Peter (binding the entire Church) that no one can enter heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

For numerous other objections and arguments (not covered in this article) commonly used by the heretics in favour of receiving sacraments from heretical ministers, please see our latest article: THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED

AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

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.”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”

The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be obvious to a Catholic.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… 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, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC. 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.”

As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a heretic is automatically excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or govern the Church, since he is not a member of it. To state that Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE NECESSITY AND OBLIGATION FOR ALL TO JUDGE AND CONDEMN HERESY OR SCHISM

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." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Here we clearly see that Pope Pius IX gives every man and woman the authority to condemn and judge people who have separated themselves from the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. This is a command, and not something which people can choose to do. You must defend the true faith whenever your behavior, silence or omission would imply that you deny the faith or agree with heresy. Every evasion you’ll make from denouncing heresy or heretics will torment you for all eternity in the fires of hell, as the Catholic Church have always taught.

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them."

Here is another quote from the Council of Trent which proves that one can and must decide what is and what is not of the Catholic Faith, by one's own judgment.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

This proves that everyone are allowed to decide when someone have fallen in heresy or not, since the canon would never have said: “so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors,” without actually permitting people to judge what is a heresy, or who is a heretic. Without this truth, people are forced to profess communion with everyone: Protestants, Muslims, Devil-worshipers and so on. If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church, then you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.

MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY EXPOSED

The heresies, contradictions and lies of brother Peter and Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery Exposed.

PREFACE

In this article, we will expose some of the errors and heresies of Michael and Peter Dimond of “Most Holy Family Monastery” (MHFM). For our most recent article refuting Peter and Michael Dimond’s lies and dishonesties on receiving sacraments from heretics in the debate and on their website “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate” – The Important Quotes, CLICK HERE. For our other article refuting their (and other people’s) heretical position of knowingly approaching heretical or even apostate priests for the sacraments, CLICK HERE. This article will show you things that the Dimonds want to hide from you. Most of the information on this page will be unclear to most people unless you first read this article.

So, since the Dimonds are obstinate in their position of knowingly approaching heretical or apostate priests for mass and the sacraments, and since they have refused to change position, and because they publicly teach this heresy on their site and to the people who asks them about it (where to go to mass), we have now been forced to publicly expose their heretical position, for the help and enlightenment of those whom they may have deceived. In the past, they had rejected several debate offers from us, and had also refused to even address any of our arguments. However, while they have refused to answer any of our arguments directed at exposing them and their position, they have nevertheless had time to attack and slander us in e-mail exchanges between us and them, dealing on different subjects, as we will see below:

MHFM: “You are a wicked, lying heretic. YOU ARE LIAR AND A FRAUD... STOP WASTING OUR TIME YOU DISGRACEFUL HERETIC, HEADED FOR EVERLASTING DAMNATION IN THE BOWELS OF HELL... WE ARE SICK OF YOU.... YOU LYING HYPOCRITE PHONY... SERVANT OF SATAN...”

To just make an e-mail filled with curses without even trying to answer one single argument is disgraceful beyond words! Here follows another unpleasant e-mail from Peter Dimond. After I received this last e-mail from him, he blocked me:

Peter Dimond: “You'd be demolished in a debate... You know nothing about the Catholic faith... You are too stupid and uncreative to produce anything... That's why you have to steal everything from us and others, you non-Catholic, headed for Hell criminal... The only reason we wouldn't debate you is because you only want to do it to promote your criminal operation... You want to use us to promote your criminal outfit and websites... and we don't let plagiarizers use our forum to spread their stolen material...

You don't even put your name, but we know your address... Don't waste our time anymore, you schismatic, clueless, demonic, loser headed for Hell...

By the way, you wouldn't call me a sissy to my face, you punk...”

-Bro. Peter Dimond

(Peter finally agreed to a debate with us. Please read this article exposing his lies and dishonesties: THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED

There's only one word for such infantile behavior: disgraceful. He would demolish me in a debate, yet refuse to debate with me? Of course, he never uses this tone in his own e-mail exchange, wonder why? Also notice how Peter Dimond numerous times judged us and called us for thieves. And for what reason did he call us thieves? He called us thieves because we were using and promoting their own material; their films and their articles, and all for the salvation of souls! and because we have “copied” it, which he calls “stealing”! These people are thus claiming ownership of God’s truth (in the things which they do teach rightly) which is truly an abominable thing to do since no one can claim particular ownership of God’s revealed truths. Also notice how he numerous times judged our intentions (which he possibly cannot have any knowledge of) to be purely evil and of bad motives only (as if spreading their material would be a crime according to the Dimonds). This is a clear mortal sin for the Dimonds to presume to know why we do something. When a person loves his own opinions or interpretations too much, there’s really not much one could say to him that would make him change his position. We have told them many times that our intention when using their material is to help souls in knowing the truth about Vatican II, and of course, to save souls. However, they have refused to accept this explanation from us and still claims and obstinately holds as opinion (as if it were the truth) that our only intention is theft, plagiarizing, propagating stolen material and promoting our criminal outfit and websites. O Lord God, help us to overcome such pride! We still want to spread their material (the material which contains no error and which have been corrected by us) for the salvation of souls. They may continue to judge us falsely and call us for thieves, as long as God will have patience with such utter and despicable pride and bad will, but the truth is, and God knows it, that our intentions are good.

The Dimonds also rightly criticize people who use fallible sources to try to prove their position. However, the Dimonds themselves have built their whole case and argument (of receiving the sacraments from heretics) - not on the infallible Magisterium of the Church - but largely on the fallible theories and speculations of saints or theologians. However, even these few saints and theologians that they try to quote to prove their erroneous position, doesn't even agree with their heretical position (except perhaps for John de Lugo). The Dimonds also knowingly twist their words out of context to support their sacrilegious position. See St. Thomas Aquinas, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc., etc

Peter and Michael Dimond also knowingly misquote and pervert the Fourth Lateran Council by cutting out the relevant parts that when taken in context, actually refutes their heretical position. And then they have the stomach to claim the Council refers to heretics even though it never spoke about heretical individuals! They make this totally mortally sinful distortion in this despicable and desperate manner since their heretical position might seem to hold more weight to others if at least one Council seemed to agree with their heretical position. However, the truth is that no Pope or no Council ever agrees with them or supports them. These facts alone should prove to any honest person that Peter and Michael Dimond in fact are not Catholic - but sad heretics - who knowingly misquote, pervert and distort saints, theologians and even councils to try to prove their false, evil, and heretical position.

Peter and Michael Dimond also falsely argues that the Council of Constance’s decree Ad Evitanda Scandala gives credence to their sacrilegious position of receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics and schismatics. But the Dimonds are dishonest about this decree because the decree doesn’t even speak about heretics or even mentions the word heresy anywhere. As has been proven here, Ad Evitanda Scandala is not referring to any heretics at all but refers specifically to sinners and Catholics of various kinds. Hence that this decree is about Catholics and not about automatically excommunicated non-Catholics or heretics. But the Dimonds (who are of bad will) just refuse to understand such simple logic (even after correction) that many others (who are not of bad will) immediately understand. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine also commented on the Council of Constance’s decree Ad Evitanda Scandala, but he never included the heretics as the Dimonds do, and St. Robert Bellarmine even refuted those who claimed it referred to the heretics! (click the blue link and scroll down a bit if you want to see his quote and commentary on the council).

But what is worse still and even more treacherous and evil from the Dimond brothers’ side is that they teach their lies and distortions to other people – as if it actually were the true and Catholic position – when it clearly is not! Greater abomination or evil can hardly be imagined! For the Dimonds are leading countless of people back into the jaws of heretics and schismatics, and making them to profess communion WITH THE GATES OF HELL, with these heretical and schismatical evil priests that are enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church! “Most Holy Family Monastery” are thus fooling people back to the devil and his apostate church! They do this by telling their followers that they are not really in communion with these heretics and schismatics even though they pray in communion with them and receives the sacraments from them at their own mass!

That people actually fall for this is really sad to think about. But if a person doesn’t know about the Faith well enough, then that person is inclined to put his trust in other people that seem more trustworthy and more knowledgeable than himself. And Peter and Michael Dimond indeed seem to have authority and to be trustworthy in that they seem to teach almost everything right. However, the truth is that they sadly have heresies mixed with all these truths. That is what makes them so extremely deadly and dangerous since most of their followers would believe them in whatever they would say or teach (that would seem reasonable). That is why most of them without question (at the Dimond brother’s advice) enter the churches of heretics to receive the sacraments from them.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house [at meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitium (#9): “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.”

Other errors, mortally sinful distortions, heresies and major heretical objections from Most Holy Family Monastery (and from others like them who also knowingly approach the churches of heretics and prays in communion with them and receives the sacraments from them), have been dealt with thoroughly, and are exposed in this (general) and this (specifically against the Dimonds) article; all for the hope of these peoples eternal conversion. However, they will also be exposed briefly in detail in this article, which will deal more specifically on the Dimonds, and their contradictions and their lies.

Brief Against the Dimonds

They pray in communion with heretics

Michael and Peter Dimond are heretics for denying the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

The Dimonds knowingly attend Mass at “meetinghouses (churches) of the heretics” and thus knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics. They attend Mass at an Eastern Rite church that is under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II Church. They admit that the priests and most of the people in the church where they attend Mass (and in other churches where they tell their followers they can attend Mass) are notorious heretics:

Peter and Michael Dimond, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Issue #5, Final Remarks, p. 65: “The sad reality of this situation—which Antipope John Paul II [now Benedict XVI] and his cohorts have created—means that those who accept him, follow him, or defend him, while disregarding the facts presented in this magazine and the other available evidence which exposes him as an Antipope (and even the Antichrist himself), will lose their souls and be tortured in Hell for all eternity.”

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversation: “The priest where we go to Mass knows what we believe, and the people who go there have had the information made available to them.”

By Peter’s own admission, then, these priests and laymen at the church where he attends Mass have no excuse for invincible ignorance because Peter presented them with the evidence of the heresies and the dogmas that condemn the heresies. Therefore, those who had not believed the truth are notorious heretics, as Peter admits elsewhere:

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversation: “Catholics may only attend Mass at Catholic churches. We have never taught or believed anything else. The churches that we say that Catholics can attend Mass at and receive the sacraments from (e.g., the SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Eastern Rite churches, independent priests, etc.) are Catholic churches, even though the priests and certainly a number of the people who go there are heretics.”

Therefore, by Peter’s own admission, he knowingly prays in communion with notorious heretics and tells others they can do the same. But he illogically and heretically refers to these churches as Catholic churches in spite of the fact that, as he admits, the priests and many of the people in these churches are notorious heretics. One wonders what Peter thinks it takes to make a Catholic church a non-Catholic church.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: "Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed."

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Although Peter implies that these churches are Catholic churches, yet, in another hypocritical twist, Peter implies that these churches are not Catholic churches, but are indeed meetinghouses of the heretics because he teaches that no one can give these churches financial support without committing mortal sin:

Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “This is why we have taken pains to strenuously point out to those who attend the Masses of the SSPV (or the C.M.R.I., Society of St. Pius X, Byzantine churches, and almost all independent ‘traditional’ priests, etc. who believe the same way) that they cannot give them any financial support under pain of mortal sin, for this would actually constitute a denial of the faith by donating to a heretical organization.”

Peter’s teaching, that financial support must not be given to these churches or to any of the churches under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II Church, can only be true if these churches are not Catholic churches, because it is a mortal sin for Catholics not to financially support their local Catholic churches. Indeed, the Catholic Church decrees that Catholics are forbidden to give financial support to heretical or non-Catholic churches:

A Practical Commentary, on Canon 1258, vol. I, p. 65: “It has been declared that a Catholic may not contribute money towards the building of an heretical church, or give his work gratis.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

By teaching that one cannot financially support these churches, Peter implies that they are heretical, non-Catholic churches. Elsewhere Peter explicitly admits this:

Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation: “God allowed the Catholic Buildings, Seminaries and Schools to be taken away and confiscated by a counterfeit non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect), with apostate priests, perverts, a phony “Mass” (the New Mass) and an apostate antipope…”

By Peter’s own admission, and speaking out of one side of his mouth, he teaches that these churches where he and others attend Mass are indeed heretical, non-Catholic churches, and thus the meetinghouses of heretics. He also admits that the priests and most of the people in these churches are heretics. Yet, speaking out of the other side of his mouth, Peter says that he does not go into the meetinghouses of the heretics to pray in communion with them:

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversation: “Let it be known, however, that we don’t pray in common with heretics. I don’t join my prayer with any heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to do so, but only true Catholics. … I repeat that I don't pray or sing psalms with heretics. …Moreover, as I said before, I don't go into the meeting houses of heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to.”

Praying in Communion with Heretics and SSPX Priests

Although the Dimonds like to argue that they’re not praying in communion with heretics or schismatics or assisting at their mass (by their presence of acknowledgment) in the heretical church they attend, they are nevertheless forced to admit this fact publicly at their site:

Questions and Answers: ―Question 39 – Can one serve the altar at the SSPX?

Dear Brothers Dimond, Since it is okay to attend an SSPX [Mass] to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic, what about altar serving or assisting in the choir?”

MHFM: “One definitely should not serve the altar at the SSPX. This is because in serving the altar one is directly assisting the priest who is praying in union with Antipope John Paul II [now Benedict XVI] and the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop.”

1) In their above statement, the Dimonds rightly imply that it is a mortal sin against the faith to assist a heretic in false religious services or to knowingly pray in communion with heretics. They say, “One definitely should not serve the altar at the SSPX. …in serving the altar one is directly assisting the priest who is praying in union with Antipope John Paul II and the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop.” How then, do the Dimonds escape the same guilt? They also knowingly attend Mass at a non-Catholic church and assist the heretical priest and laymen at that church with their presence of approval and by praying in communion with the heretical priest and laymen who in turn prays in communion with the Vatican II antipope and its local bishop. The Dimonds attempt to evade guilt by teaching that during the Mass the laymen do not assist or pray in communion with the priest who prays in communion with the Antipope—only the altar boys do.

When and where does the Church teach that the altar boys and not the laymen assist or pray in communion with the priest and the pope and the local bishop? One wonders if the Dimonds think the altar rail blocks the prayers of the laymen from reaching the priest so that the laymen are not assisting the priest by their praying in communion with him who in turn prays in communion with the Antipope! What, then, becomes of the prayers of the priest offered for the laymen present at his Mass (a mass which the Dimonds even knowingly attend). Does the altar rail block the priest’s prayers also? Again the Dimonds have made up their own faith to accommodate their heresies and other errors.

Council of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 363-364): “The members of the Church are not allowed to meet... any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”

One falls deeper and deeper and becomes more illogical when, because of pride, he does not admit he is wrong. We challenge the Dimonds to produce a Church teaching which says that during Mass either the laymen do not assist or pray in communion with the priest or only the altar boys assist or pray in communion with the priest. If the Dimonds were to admit that the laymen do pray in communion with the priest during Mass, then the Dimonds would also have to admit that they themselves pray in communion with heretics because, by their own admission, they attend Mass at a non-Catholic Vatican II church (a meetinghouse of heretics) in which the priest is a heretic who prays in communion with the apostate antipope and local bishop. The Dimonds attend Mass at an Eastern Rite church that is in communion with Vatican II and Benedict XVI: St. Josaphat’s, in Rochester, New York.

Council of Laodicea, Canon 33 (A.D. 364): “No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.”

Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 45: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon [or layman], who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.”

Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 65: “If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.”

Only if a person unknowingly entered a church building of the heretics or schismatics would his prayer not be in communion with them. The same must be said in a fully Catholic Church where some attendants might be occult heretics; his prayers would neither be in communion with them. Another example would be if a person were forced against his will to enter a church of heretics or schismatics. If he prayed to God in that church, his prayer would not be in communion with these heretics or schismatics since it was against his will to even enter their heretical building to begin with. Another example would be if a person entered a heretical church – but not to hear mass or receive the sacraments from them – but for the reason of converting them to the true Catholic faith. His prayers would neither be in communion with these heretics. But this same cannot be said when a person culpably and willingly enters the churches of the heretics or schismatics for the sole motive of receiving the sacraments from them, i.e., to participate in communion with them.

2) The Dimonds also heretically believe that some SSPX priests (who are heretical priests) in these latter days of the Great Apostasy may not be considered notorious heretical priests that must be avoided for communion. Most if not all of the SSPX priests are heretics on several counts. I will only list two counts:

a) The SSPX priests are notorious heretics because their sect denies the Salvation Dogma; hence all SSPX priests must be presumed to deny the dogma. Indeed, every SSPX priest I have spoken with denies the Salvation Dogma. If they did not deny this dogma, they would be kicked out of the SSPX. If they did not deny the dogma but kept their belief secret so as to remain in the SSPX, then this would also make them guilty of heresy because Catholics must not only believe a dogma in their heart but also profess it when the situation demands it. That is why the early Christians who denied the faith when tortured fell outside the Catholic Church. Although they believed in Christ in their hearts, they outwardly denied Him under torture and thus became guilty of apostasy with the added mortal sins of hypocrisy and scandal. These apostates were known as lapsed Christians (lapsi) and had to abjure to re-enter the Catholic Church. It is true that there might be a priest that is a material heretic somewhere in these churches, but it is also true that even protestant churches might have people that are material heretics (as long as they do not reject the essential mysteries or the natural law (which one cannot be ignorant about)), but these scenarios are very unlikely. However, we must judge on what we see, not on anything else.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: “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, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Please consult the following sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:

http://www.sanctussanctus.info/catholic-dogma/#material-heresy

http://www.sanctussanctus.info/catholic-dogma/#the-natural-law

b) The SSPX sect does not condemn the manifest heresies and other crimes of the Vatican II Church and does not properly denounce its notorious heretical antipope, bishops, and priests. The SSPX has no excuse for not fulfilling these Catholic obligations because the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its members are manifest to all in these latter days of the Great Apostasy. Therefore by sins of omission and association, all the members of the SSPX who agrees with their heresies and all those who know about SSPX heresies and willingly attend Mass at an SSPX church share in the guilt of the crimes of the SSPX sect and thus in the guilt of the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its antipopes and bishops.

Also, anyone who contemplates attending Mass at an SSPX church obviously has access to the SSPX priest. Therefore before attending his Mass, all one has to do is ask the priest what he believes regarding the above two points. His answer will confirm that he is a notorious heretic. Thus the following statement, which the Dimonds condone, in Question 39 is illogical and heretical: “Since it is okay to attend an SSPX [Mass] to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic…” It is illogical because the person who asked the question has easy access to the priest and thus can easily find out what the priest believes. All he has to do is open the mouth God has given him and ask the priest what he believes, point by point. From the priest’s answer, he will receive confirmation that the priest is a notorious heretic that then must be avoided. The statement is also heretical because by not asking the priest what he believes, this person sins by omission by omitting to perform the spiritual acts of mercy of instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners and by omitting the Catholic obligation to profess the faith (which is an implicit denial of the Catholic faith):

1917 Code of Canon Law: ―1325§1 –Obligation to Profess the Faith– “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”

Pope St. Felix III (483-492): “Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

Catechism Question: “In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another’s sin?” Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: …6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence.”

The Dimonds, indeed, are digging a deeper pit for themselves and for all those who follow them. They are the blind leading the blind into the pit (Mt. 15:14). By God’s grace and aid, it is our hope and prayer to wake up the people from spiritual death who are in religious communion with the Dimonds or who agree with any of their other heretical and mortally sinful errors. Of course, by God’s grace and aid, it is also our hope and prayer to wake up the Dimonds from spiritual death. They will have no hope of being saved until they wake up and abjure their errors and enter the Catholic Church.

The Dimonds donation hypocrisy and avoidance of dogmas

Peter Dimond, The Heresies of the Society of St. Pius X, 2006 version: “ Thus, no one can give any financial support to the Society of St. Pius X under pain of mortal sin. Those who continue to do so obstinately – while being aware of this information – will not save their souls. [But...] One could attend the SSPX’s Masses and receive sacraments from them, provided one does not agree with them or support them at all, and if the SSPX priest does not notoriously preach or impose the SSPX’s heresies at the chapel.”

Peter Dimond correctly points out that a person will lose his soul for knowingly giving financial support to a heretic, but then he illogically and falsely concludes that this does not apply when receiving the sacraments from them or praying in communion with them or even when entering their churches. In this we see how the Dimonds have placed carnal things (worthless money) over spiritual things (the state of the soul), because in their opinion a person could receive the sacraments from heretics, pray in communion with heretics and even enter their churches without losing his soul. But if one were to give heretics a donation, then one would definitely lose his soul. This is utter hypocrisy, bad will and willful blindness from the Dimond brothers’ side! It is a certain fact that you will lose your soul for doing both of these things culpably or knowingly in direct opposition to the Church laws, however much the Dimonds wish to avoid this truth. Only good faith and ignorance would excuse a person from sin regarding this, namely, if he were unaware of the fact that he was entering or attending houses of heretics, or if he were unaware of the fact that he were donating money to a heretical organization, or if he were ignorant of what the Church teaches in regards to donating to or aiding heretics, however worthy their cause may be. (We are not saying that food, water, medicines, etc. shouldn’t be provided for such people who are in need of them, but one should not give unconditional aid or donations to people who will, almost certainly, continue their pagan and/or heretical lifestyles in rejection of the true God. One of course should hope and pray for their conversion.) Good faith would also excuse a believer who was donating to a heretical person for the sake of his or hers conversion to the true Catholic Faith, or if he donated out of charity (if for example, the heretic didn’t have the means to financially support himself), since donating money in itself is a charitable act and can be a means of drawing heretics back into the Church. The donation could not in anyway support the heretical person's propagation of heresy of course, but this should go without saying. But to culpably donate to support the cause of a heretical ministry, or to donate to a heretical person because you agreed with his heresy or schism, would be the equivalent of helping in the act of spreading heresy.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics.”

However, the above quote by Peter Dimond on the SSPX absolutely proves that the Dimonds do not believe that these churches they themselves attend or tell others to attend are Catholic churches and that these priests are Catholic priests. If the Dimonds believed that these churches are Catholic churches and that these priests are Catholic priests they would be committing a mortal sin for telling Catholics that they must not support the “Catholic” church where they attend Mass and the “Catholic” priest who offers them his ministrations. Hence, from this teaching alone it is absolutely clear: the Dimonds are admitting that Catholics are allowed to knowingly attend Mass at non-Catholic churches (at meeting houses of heretics or schismatics) and hence knowingly pray in communion with non-Catholic priests and laymen (obstinate heretics), a practice which the Catholic Church has always and infallibly condemned:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy, is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

However, to emphasize their correct teaching that Catholics are not allowed to give financial support to non-Catholic churches and non-Catholic priests, the Dimonds compare the SSPX sect to the Greek schismatic sect:

Peter Dimond, Questions, Answers and Comments, Question 2: “The bottom-line is that one cannot donate money to any organization that propagates heresies and leads souls to hell, as the SSPX does. It is true that they do some good things which can benefit people, but so do the Greek Orthodox. If one can donate to the SSPX, then one can donate to the Greek Orthodox or any schismatic group or the Indult priests which have valid sacraments…”

Peter Dimond correctly points out that these heretics lead souls to Hell by spiritual murder. Yet, as he admits to this horrifying fact, he simultaneously and out of the other side of his mouth tells his readers that they are perfectly free to go to them and to attend the masses of these heretics that murder souls! Thus, by Peters own admission, then, he is admitting that the people whom they deceive into attending the churches of heretics are being put in danger of eternal damnation – since these heretical priests and laymen are known to deceive people and murder souls! How many of the people that have actually gone to these heretical churches (at the Dimond brothers advice) have later embraced their heresies? Only God know. Yet, “Most Holy Family Monastery” does not seem to be concerned about that. Their only concern seems to be to get these people a “traditional” mass presided over by a heretical priest so that they can receive sacrilegious, illicit and invalid sacraments from him and become a sharer in his sin!

All the people whom the Dimonds deceive into entering the churches of heretics and schismatics are also fully aware of the fact that the priest and most laymen attending that same church are heretics and that they in fact murder other peoples souls by their obstinate, bad willed heresies. The people who go there are thus fully aware of that most if not all people in that church are headed for hell, but yet they go there but not to inform them or to convert them, but to partake in the sacraments with them! The priest and the people in that house of heretics where they attend mass are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His Church and are sadly headed for Hell, since they spit upon and reject the Church’s dogmas; and they are murdering their own and other people’s souls. They are murdering themselves and the souls which Jesus Christ redeemed and died for, yet, they continue to go there, avoiding their obligation to denounce heresy and save souls, instead perversely showing to all present that they are in communion with the same heretics. If they really did try to convert the heretics, they would not be allowed to go there and would be thrown out.

The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.” (1917 Code of Canon Law: ―1325§1 –Obligation to Profess the Faith)

These people are truly despicable and abominable to say the least! We can understand that people have been deceived since all people are inclined to be deceived, but yet if one thinks about it carefully, there’s really no excuse for such behavior.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated – formally or automatically,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

However, Peter did not say that “If one is forbidden to attend Mass at Greek schismatic churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from Greek schismatic priests, then one is likewise forbidden to attend Mass at SSPX schismatic churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from SSPX schismatic priests.” Peter conveniently left out the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teachings that Catholics are also forbidden to knowingly give spiritual support to Greek schismatic churches by attending their Masses and praying in communion with Greek schismatics:

Council of Laodicea, 4th Century: “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”

The 1917 Code of Canon Law states: that: "It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." [Canon 1258]

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., 1948: ―Article I—Active Participation (Canon 1258, §1): “If the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church. [Hence] active religious participation with schismatics is always intrinsically illicit. The reasons for this absolute prohibition of canon 1258, §1, have their origin in the natural and positive divine law. These reasons are: 1) The Church is the only de jure [by law] existing true religious society in which it is licit to render to God the worship that is due Him; 2) the giving of scandal through one’s quasi-approval of a false sect must be avoided; and 3) the danger of perversion from the true faith must remain effectively neutralized.” (pp. 42-48)

The Dimonds on notorious heretics

But what does Peter do to get around the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from notorious heretics or schismatics, while not seeming to deny it? He denies the Church’s definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic. Peter believes that a priest who is an undeclared heretic cannot also be a notorious heretic unless the priest publicly teaches his heresy to his parishioners and also imposes his heretical beliefs upon them as a condition for attending his Masses and receiving the sacraments from him. The underlining is Peter’s:

Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “When priests make public announcements that are heretical, which impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then a Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from such a priest. …This is not the case with a heretical independent, C.M.R.I. or SSPX priest who has not made an announcement such as this; in fact, most of the C.M.R.I, independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests (who hold to the same heresy as the SSPV) are silent about their heresies (and therefore they are not notorious heretics), and they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith. But the SSPV has placed itself in another category - the category of notorious heretics who impose their heresy upon the people attending their Masses - which puts their Masses and their sacraments off limits.”

You will find no good or bad theologian who teaches that an undeclared heretic must also impose his heresy on others to become a notorious heretic. Furthermore, notoriety is not determined by the fact how many people actually are aware of a priest being a heretic or schismatic or by the fact if he is preaching his heresies from the pulpit or not – but is rather determined from what you can know or understand about the heretical person in question. This is the exact teaching of the very 1917 Code itself, which Peter Dimond purports to quote to give credence to his heresy:

1917 Code of Canon Law: ―Canon 2197, §3. “An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law (i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known).”

According to the above Canon: a priest’s heresy or crime becomes notorious and public the moment it has been made known to others.

But how can one be excused? Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “Now if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not excommunicated [but is excused from excommunication because of the circumstances]. … This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.”

So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” that Peter usually mentions as excuses. Both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but heretics like Peter throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.

Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do with how many other people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or if the priest imposes his heresies on others during mass. Thus, the Canon law of the Church clearly teaches that a heresy of a heretic becomes public and notorious the moment it has been made known to others. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and the Popes of the Catholic Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… 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, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

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.”

Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into receiving the sacraments from them—directly contrary to the decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived! Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering these souls (who are fully aware of what they are doing) inflicting mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe to you, apostate children, saith the Lord, that you would take counsel, and not of me: and would begin a web, and not by my spirit, that you might add sin upon sin:” (Isa. 30:1)

Here follows some interesting quotes from the fathers, popes, saints, councils, catechisms, the bible etc. that all condemns the idea of being in religious communion with heretics or schismatics or enter their churches.

St. John Damascene: “With all our strength, therefore, let us never receive communion from or grant it to heretics; ‘Give not that which is holy unto dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,’ (Matt. 7:6); lest we become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation.” (Patrologia Graeca, vol. 94, col. 1149, 1152, 1153; Also De Fide Orthodoxa (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith), Book IV, Chapter XIII).

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”

Origen: “If you eat the words of God in the Church, and also eat them in the synagogue of the Jews, you transgress the commandment which says: “In one House shall it be eaten.” (Exodus 12:46).”

St. Cyril of Alexandria, On Leviticus 17:3: “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite oneself to their communion.”

St. Athanasius the Great: “We are bound to refrain from communing with those whose opinions we abhor.” (Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXVI, col. 1188B (“To Those Who Practice the Solitary Life and Who Are Established in Faith in God”)

St. Theodore the Studite (759-826 A.D.): “If anyone should not number with the other heresies the heresy which... say that communion with heretics is a matter of indifference, he is a heretic.” (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XCIX, col. 352B ("First Refutation of the Iconclasts," s. 20)

St. Martin of Tours: “I grieve for having been, if only for an hour, in communion with guilty men.” (The Life of Martin, by Sulpitius Severus)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art 2: “An excommunicated person [such as a heretic] is banished from communion. Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the Church [commits schism]: and hence he seems to be excommunicated.”

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter 9, On The Eucharist (c. 60-100 A.D.): “Now concerning the Eucharist... But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord [and shares the same faith]; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs" (Matthew 7:6).” (The Didache, The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, Early Christian Treatise)

Council of Laodicea, Canon 9: “Those who are members of the Church are not to be permitted to go into the cemeteries of any of the heretics for the purpose of prayer or veneration. If they do, they are to be excommunicated.” Another version says: “The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”

Council of Laodicea, Canon 33: “No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.”

Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 65: “If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.”

How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism)

It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1)

You help the ungodly, and you are joined in friendship with those who hate the Lord; and therefore you did indeed deserve the wrath of the Lord.” (II Paralipomenon 19:2)

I will not communicate with the choicest of them... Depart from me, ye malignant ones!” (Psalm 140:4; 118:115)

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Titus 3:10-11)

Are heretics and schismatics excommunicated? Yes; they have no part in the Communion of the Saints.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Catechism of the Summa)

St. Anthony the Abbot would not speak to a heretic, except to exhort him to the true faith; and he drove all heretics from his mountain, calling them venomous serpents.” (St. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit)

Saint Peter and Paul have loathed heretics, and in their Epistles have warned us to avoid them.” (St. Cyprian)

I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I say “Amen” to your prayers, nor shall you to mine!” (Blessed Margaret Clitherow)

From the Life of St. John the Almsgiver - Admonition against taking communion from heretics: “Another thing the blessed man taught and insisted upon with all was never on any occasion whatsoever to associate with heretics and, above all, never to take the Holy Communion with them, ‘even if’, the blessed man said:

You remain without communicating all your life, if through stress of circumstances you cannot find a community of the Catholic Church. For if, having legally married a wife in this world of the flesh, we are forbidden by God and by the laws to desert her and be united to another woman, even though we have to spend a long time separated from her in a distant country, and shall incur punishment if we violate our vows, how then shall we, who have been joined to God through the orthodox faith and the Catholic Church–as the apostle says: 'I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ' (2 Cor. 11:2) -- how shall we escape from sharing in that punishment which in the world to come awaits heretics, if we defile the orthodox and holy faith by adulterous communion with heretics?” For ‘communion’, he said, “has been so called because he who has 'communion' has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has 'communion'. Therefore I implore you earnestly, children, never to go near the oratories of the heretics in order to communicate there.” (Three Byzantine Saints, “The Life of Saint John the Almsgiver”, Translators: Elizabeth Dawes & Norman H. Baynes, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood: 1977; p. 251)

Many other saints could be quoted as well, including the famous letters of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, "to his flock;" and "to the Solitaries," Second letter to Monks.

For Saint Athanasius letters condemning communion with heretics, see THIS SECTION.

For many other quotes from Popes and Councils, CLICK HERE.

They shun their duty to profess the faith

The Dimonds are also heretics because they implicitly deny the Catholic faith by evading their obligation to properly profess the Catholic faith to those with whom they pray in communion. They are also heretics for making themselves partner in their sin:

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

James 4:17 “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.”

1917 Code of Canon Law: “1325.1 Obligation to Profess the Faith - The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to their neighbor.”

The Dimond brothers thus deny the Catholic Faith, give offense to God and give scandal to his neighbor by entering the houses of heretics and schismatics, thereby publicly professing to all present that they share the same faith with those heretics. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees them entering a church where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume they agree with his heresy or schism. If they would stand up and denounce those who adhere to the phony Vatican II ‘church’, as a Catholic is bound to do, then they would immediately be thrown out of there. The Dimonds make a mockery of the unity of faith!

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

For knowingly attending Mass at non-Catholic churches and praying in communion with notorious heretics, the Dimonds commit other mortal sins such as sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion.

THE DIMOND BROTHERS
&
THEIR BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS

We have exposed many of the beliefs of the Dimonds and contrasted them with those of Catholicism, and we see that the Dimonds have set about defining their own religion and presumed to call it Catholic. Here is more evidence that shows they are nothing other than roaming wolves and getting caught in their own snares:

Receiving the Sacraments

Observe how the brothers play both sides of the fence. How many times have we all heard from Novus Ordo people and other heretics that we don't have the right to judge who is a heretic? That a heretic has to be formally declared by the Church? Of course we all know that's not true and it seems the Dimond brothers would agree with us. Well, sometimes that is. You see, they sadly like to have their cake and eat it too. They play both sides of the fence. Below are some quotes from the Dimond brothers articles and email-exchanges on various issues, which are (or were at the time) publicly available on their website:

MHFM: “Heretics lose all membership and authority in the Catholic Church automatically.”

MHFM: “Catholics have an obligation to judge and denounce heretics when they manifest their rejection of Catholic truth by their words and actions.”

MHFM: “That’s absolutely right. The notion that a Catholic does not have the authority to recognize and denounce a heretic is modernist nonsense. Only a person who is completely faithless would assert that a Catholic does not have the authority and ability to recognize and denounce a heretic.”

MHFM: “No, a Catholic doesn’t need any special authority to recognize that manifest heretics do not possess (but have lost) authority in the Church. Manifest heretics lose authority in the Church automatically and without declaration, whether they claim to be popes, bishops, cardinals or priests. That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

Notice the word "manifest" heretics. According to the brothers own definition by their quote above, a heretic would become manifest when he "manifests" his rejection of Catholic truth by his words or actions.

I wonder if this includes the Byzantine priest they go to whom when presented with all the information and heresies of the false Second Vatican council and Benedict XVI, obstinately refused to adhere to the truth and continues to accept the Council and claim communion with the antipope. After all, wouldn't these actions of his (accepting the Second Vatican Council and subjecting himself to antipope Benedict XVI) be a rejection of Catholic truth? Isn't he then a manifest heretic?

Sadly, here is where the brothers contradict themselves. You see out of one side of their mouth they say that Catholics have the obligation to judge and denounce heretics, and that heretics lose authority in the church WITHOUT DECLARATION. Then out of the other side of their double tongued mouth they say that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from a heretic so long as he is an "undeclared" heretic, meaning that he has not officially been declared a heretic by the Church. Now can anyone please tell me how they are going to be officially declared a heretic when the see of St. Peter is vacant?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time...”

An automatic excommunication is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the excommunicated individual, as Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem fidei makes perfectly clear:

Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ [by that very fact; automatically] have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.” (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, #47, Aug. 28, 1794)

Likewise, here’s an interesting quote from Anne Catherine Emmerich demonstrating this fact further:

I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are [ipso facto, by that very fact] excommunicated whenever they cooperate to enterprises, enter into associations [with heretics or other evil people such as Freemasons], and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, p. 69)

Precisely because God’s Laws and Judgments are always present and in force, so too, then, are our obligations which accompany those laws, valid, and in force, even when the see of St. Peter is vacant.

Indeed, Peter and his followers could hardly show any more lack of concern for God’s laws when they claim that some heretics must be “declared” before being avoided (as if God did not ratify His own laws or put them into effect automatically independent of any declaration). It is truly to mock the whole Papacy and Jesus Christ to claim the declaration of the Church authorities as a requirement for avoiding certain heretics when the Church hierarchy is not even available or accessible for anyone today! And this is particularly more true today when – even according to the Dimonds – THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN MAKE THIS JUDGMENT!

Now, the brothers most used source to back up receiving sacrilegious and blasphemous sacraments from the hands of a heretical priest is St. Thomas, the Fourth Lateran Council, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, whose words or meanings they actually twist out of context to support their sacrilegious position (as we have clearly proved). So while the brothers claim that St. Thomas allows for their sacrilegious communions, they are quite wrong and are simply lying through their teeth. They have also been corrected and notified by us (and others) but they have still not changed their position.

Besides, can someone please explain to me how a priest who has seen all the evidence against Benedict XVI and the Vatican II church, yet still remains in communion with them, is a Catholic? Call the monastery or write them an e-mail mhfm1@aol.com. Ask the brothers if they have ever presented the priest where they attend Church with their material. They will tell you yes (if they even have the guts to talk about it anymore.) They have presented it to him, more than once. "Michael" has even personally talked to him several times. So what excuse is there for such a person? Well, none, as the Dimonds admit!

In fact, let's see what the brothers would say about such a person in their own words.

MHFM: “Any person who could look at these files [the Dimond brothers files] and still maintain that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not heretics is simply a liar and of bad will.”

Let’s look at some other major contradictions from the Dimond brothers side.

Dimond brothers on attending non-Catholic churches

MHFM: “YOU CANNOT GO TO NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES.

MHFM: “It deals with the question of whether people may go into non-Catholic churches for funerals or weddings as long as they don’t “participate.” Many “traditionalists” wrongly believe it’s okay to do that. The truth is that a Catholic may not go to a non-Catholic church at all, even if it is just “passivelyfor a wedding, etc.”

Behold the major contradiction from the Dimond brothers! I will repeat what he just said: “The truth is that a Catholic may not go to a non-Catholic church at all, even if it is just passively.” But isn't this exactly what the Dimond brothers do? Don’t they "passively" sneak into a heretical church for the mass and the sacraments, while claiming they are not actively participating in a heretical priest's mortally sinful and illicit consecration of the mass or that they are praying in communion with these heretics or receiving the sacraments illicitly and invalidly from the hands of the heretics where they attend mass? Yes, the Dimonds must hold to the opinion that they are passively active (a real contradiction) at the heretical church they go to, since otherwise they would have to admit that they are actively participating in non-Catholic worship ceremonies; and actively participating at non-Catholic masses; and actively participating in non-Catholic prayer meetings with the same heretics they attend mass with. Ask them if you are unsure about what they really believe. Be very careful though, Peter doesn't like anyone knowing his business, he might get angry. Especially if you point out that there is nothing "passive" about kneeling before a heretic and receiving the fruits of his sin. That's right, heretics sin mortally when they confect the Eucharist, as we will see here. Also, another reader of our website asked him a few questions about these things, and their answer seemed pretty similar to the sad e-mails we received from them – just insults and railings without even a single word or answer on anything of which he wrote them about.

But this brings up an important question. What kind of church do the Dimond brothers attend? Is it a Catholic Church - or a non Catholic Church? Why don't they financially support the Church they go (as they claim) to if it is a Catholic Church? Because it is a non-Catholic Church, which they admit one must never go to or ever give financial support to! The brothers blatantly contradict themselves, because we can see by their quotes above (in which instance they are correct) that no one may attend a non-Catholic Church for any reason.

Troubling isn't it? Are you following the Dimonds? Do you follow their instructions on “where to receive the sacraments”? Have you talked to them about where they receive theirs? Do you not wonder why such a public outfit as MHFM would not be more forthcoming with people who ask them about this?

Further, what’s so contradictory about the brothers position, is that they often point out to other people that it is more important to keep the faith whole and inviolate instead of attending mass and receiving the sacraments.

MHFM: “You must never go to the invalid New Mass again. You must also keep in mind that spiritual works or time spent without a pure intention or a submission to His faith lose all merit. God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.”

But one could wonder, then, why don’t they follow their own advice? However, instead of following their own advice, they sadly make up more and more excuses on why a person should be allowed to receive the sacraments from heretics. What’s amazing and sad is that the brothers even teach that one can approach the Greek “Orthodox” schismatics for the sacrament of Confession in danger of death:

MHFM: “A heretic can also absolve from sins in certain situations, which is why a Pope and Saints have taught that a Catholic could even go to a Greek Orthodox in danger of death. Someone has clearly misled you in this area.” (Questions, Answers and Comments, Some Q &A’s from Summer 2004)

Yes, Dimonds, someone has clearly misled you in this area! But what about putting the faith before the mass or the sacraments, Dimonds? They even say that a Pope and Saints have taught this. Well, we sent them this question:

"Hello. You said one can go to the Greek orthodox for confession? What Pope said so, and what Saints have said so?

Another question. Why can one go (according to you) to a heretical or schismatical (but validly ordained) Vatican II or "traditional" priest for the sacraments, when one may not go to the Eastern “Orthodox”, (except maybe for confession, according to you?)"

The Dimonds, as usual, did not care to show us what source they did get this novel teaching from, nor did they care to answer us at all! If a Pope and Saints really did teach this (as they say), then one would think they wouldn’t have had any problem to cite their sources. Yet, strangely, without giving any source or answering our e-mail, they continue to claim this as an article of faith (that one may go to an heretical, schismatical Greek “Orthodox” for confession) on their site as if it were true. Amazingly, though, in another of their e-mail exchanges, they once again give an answer to their own heretical and schismatical position, thus blatantly contradicting themselves:

MHFM’s answer: "No, the Eastern “Orthodox” are not Catholic. You cannot go to non-Catholic churches. The “Orthodox” are unfortunately heretics and schismatics..."

Dimond brothers on the term imposing

Well, there's more. You see the brothers have taken it upon themselves to define what kind of heretic you may receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from! Now if you are familiar with the brothers you will often hear Peter Dimond say something along these lines: “To our knowledge, we are the first people to ever use this quote,” or “to my knowledge, no one else has ever made this point.” Peter Dimond can finally, accurately state that he and Michael are the first that we know of in the history of the Catholic Church, to use the word "imposing" as a requirement for a heretic to be avoided in the reception of the sacraments.

Here they are:

MHFM: "They are so vigorous about their heresy against the salvation dogma that they impose their heretical beliefs upon the people who approach them for the sacraments. Therefore, no one should go to them for any sacraments at all."

MHFM: "We carefully point out that you may only go to an undeclared heretic who professes to be Catholic and is not notorious about his heresy (or less obvious, as some like to say.)"

MHFM: "The “traditionalist” priest whom a Catholic can approach for Communion today must be validly ordained and cannot be notorious or imposing about his heretical position and you cannot support him."

MHFM: “Thanks for the interest. No, you should not go to the SSPV for anything, not even for confession. They are notorious and imposing heretics.”

MHFM: “If one believed in and/or taught heresy against that dogma (bod/bob), then he could say: I ask forgiveness for denying the Catholic Church’s teaching on the necessity of the Catholic faith and Baptism for salvation. There are a good number of priests who would listen to that and simply give you absolution without necessarily getting into their heretical beliefs on the issue.”

Don’t you see how evil this is?

I will quote his blatant contradiction again: “There are a good number of priests who would listen to that and simply give you absolution without necessarily getting into their heretical beliefs on the issue.” Oh, okay. So you know the priest is an evil, bad willed heretic, and God, and all of Heaven knows that he is a bad willed heretic, but so long as he doesn't "impose" his heresies, or is "less obvious" about them, then you're safe? If you can't see how evil this is, then you are blind. You commune with enemies of Jesus Christ so that you can continue to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance to your own damnation. This is not the Catholic approach! This is the approach of cowards and heretics who put the sacraments before the faith!

If anyone can provide the Catholic Church teaching that uses the word "imposing" in the way the brothers use it, please let us know.

For proof that the Dimonds are distorting Catholic teachings to support their depravity, please read the following section:

Heretics will drag you to Hell, “Imposing” or Not

Dimond brothers on faith before mass

MHFM: "we must utterly reject others in any matter that touches upon their rejection of God or the true faith. One must offer a complete and total rejection of the ungodly in any matter implicating their impiety, or else God will reject such a one."

MHFM: "Stop going just by externals, and start to care about and believe in the Catholic faith and the dogmas. It really is disgusting that people like you do not care at all about the issues of the faith, but only about the Mass and whether a group has churches, etc.!”

AGREED! THANK YOU DIMOND BROTHERS. IT IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING! NOW WHY DON'T YOU TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE?

MHFM: “Thus, the presumption when he celebrates the Latin Mass is that it is valid, although he is obviously sinning mortally in doing it as a heretic; and no one should go to his Latin Mass because he is a notorious heretic.”

Yes! That's right! When a heretical priest celebrates the Mass, even if it is valid, he sins MORTALLY. Thank you brothers! So wouldn't common sense and Catholic teaching tell us we participate and become guilty of this mortal sin, both by taking part in it (which you do when you receive those sacraments) and by our silence?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [such as with a heretic,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

So you sin mortally every time you receive that sacrilegious communion and invalid absolution.

MHFM: "But one should not watch the invalid New Mass or other programs that would be a danger to one’s faith."

Truly lamentable, you can't watch the invalid Mass but you can take part in the sacrilegious one, Dimonds?

MHFM: "Thanks for the e-mail and the interest. We believe that you should not pray the Rosary with them, since they still accept Vatican II.”

Again, so you can't pray the rosary with those who accept Vatican II but you partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord with them? Besides, how does their statement above make any sense to their own contradictory mass attendance at a Vatican II church? How does their prayers at that heretical Vatican II church where they attend mass at make any sense to their statements? It's truly a contradiction from beginning to end!

MHFM: “Thanks for the comment. We would just point out that one shouldn’t call Benedict XVI the pope.”

Unless, it’s your Byzantine priest you attend mass at and then it's okay, right? Yes, that’s right, they attend mass at the house of a priest who accept Benedict XVI as the pope!

MHFM: "You cannot follow the Lamb wherever he goes if you maintain a communion of “faith” with a manifest heretic who rejects Vatican I, the Council of Trent and accepts false religions."

Unless, it’s your Byzantine priest and then it's okay? So according to the contradictory logic of the Dimonds, a person can maintain his faith and salvation even if he is in public communion with other manifest heretics and even if he enters their churches to hear mass from them and to receive the sacrament from them. But didn’t he just say above that this wasn’t possible to do? Let’s see in his own words again: "You cannot follow the Lamb wherever he goes if you maintain a communion of “faith” with a manifest heretic who rejects Vatican I, the Council of Trent and accepts false religions."

Okay, so this, along with the articles linked to above that show how the brothers distort St. Thomas and the Fourth Lateran Council, should be enough for anyone to see that they are bad willed, double talking heretics that are leading souls to hell!

In closing, we are going to take the brothers’ own words to one of their readers and offer it as advice to them.

MHFM: “There’s really not much that we can say to you, other than that you need to convert. That will only come about when you humble yourself and stop imposing your own views of reality on God’s truth and rather conform your views to God’s truth. Some people would consider your position to be compassionate and tolerant and charitable. The truth is that it’s inestimably arrogant and prideful, to think that you know how things should be more than the God you claim to believe. Recognize that God is the One who reveals and that you must be the one who accepts. The problem comes when people attempt to please people and not God alone. It comes when they start to conform or hide the truth because they are afraid of losing people. There are too many out there who purport to teach the traditional Catholic faith but don’t really believe or are not serving God with a pure intention. Instead, they wind up serving Satan. They need to stop serving Satan.”

We will continue to pray for the conversion of the Dimond brothers.

Brief against heretics

2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics, “communicateth with his wicked works.” This means that those who have dealings with heretics have a part of and share in their sins.

Pope Leo X against heretics

Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious or known heretics or receive the sacraments from them as Pope Leo X makes perfectly clear:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra: "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith."

So, the Pope just said infallibly that all heretics should be avoided in every way (that has to do with religious communion and other unnecessary dealings with them). Note that you can only know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question. Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way, and may not approach him for the sacraments.

Paul IV and Pope Paul V against heretics

Pope Paul V (1552-1621), repeating his predecessors' interdict [of Pope Paul IV (1476-1559)]: “Great has been the grief of our mind for the tribulations and calamities ye have constantly undergone for your adherence to the Catholic faith; and as we understand that these trials are become more severe at present, our affliction is increased exceedingly. For we are informed that ye are compelled, under the most grievous penalties, to go to the churches of heretics, to frequent their meetings, and be present at their sermons. Indeed we are fully persuaded that ye who, with so much fortitude and constancy, have hither-to undergone almost infinite miseries, that ye might walk without stain in the law of the Lord, will never consent to be defiled by communicating with those who have forsaken the Divine law. Nevertheless, urged by the zeal of our pastoral duty, and from paternal solicitude with which we daily labour for the salvation of your souls, we are forced to admonish and conjure you, that ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.” (Quoted in Bp. George Hay's, "The Sincere Christian". [Pope Paul V repeated his predecessors' interdict of Pope Paul IV, on September 22nd, 1606 A.D. in his brief Romani Pontificis, contra juramentum Fidelitatis – The Roman Pontiff, against the Alligence.])

DID YOU HEAR THAT? “ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.”

Pope Pius IX against heretics

Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4): "You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice."

Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction…” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM”

This evidence should be enough for anyone who is not suffering from the mortal illness of bad will and pride. If you have fallen for this heresy, we pray with tears that God may lead you out of this outrageous and scandalous position which has forced you to profess external communion with the most abominable, apostate, heretical or schismatical priests and laymen that may ever have lived!

Please read this section on Catholics who had no access to Catholic priests and avoided non-Catholic priests (link to section);

Please read this article on the question of receiving forgiveness of one's sins without an absolution from a priest in today's apostasy (link to section);

Please read our main article against receiving the sacraments from heretics and prayer in communion with heretics (link to section);

Please also read the article THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED (link to section)

THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND OF MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY CAUGHT ON TAPE AND WRITING EXPOSED

Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics - Debate Analysis

The following article serves to examine and refute claims made primarily by Peter Dimond, which he purports to be a pretense for communicating in the sacraments with heretics. But after listening to the debate and reviewing their articles, I can say with equal certainty as before that his arguments are nothing more than the classic distortions, by which the Dimonds habitually deceive their followers.

To give just one example of many, some readers might be aware of the fact that the Dimonds constantly claim that St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with their position on receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics. Well, they have probably never shown you this quotation (among many others, which will be covered in this article) before from him:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3: “ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWER OF JURISDICTION... DOES NOT REMAIN IN HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS; AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY NEITHER ABSOLVE NOR EXCOMMUNICATE, NOR GRANT INDULGENCE, NOR DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND, AND IF THEY DO, IT IS INVALID.”

As we can see here, St. Thomas Aquinas teaching is not only in contradiction to the Dimonds position, but also in perfect accordance with the Council of Trent (see COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION); namely, that heretics lose their jurisdiction independently of any declaration and that they lose it from simply being in heresy. This is also the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, Pope St. Nicholas I (and probably many others), and, as we saw above, St. Thomas Aquinas. So this if anything should be the final nail in the coffin on the myth that St. Thomas is agreeing with the Dimonds or that he teaches that we may lawfully receive the sacraments from certain “undeclared” heretical ministers. And all of this is without even considering that the Council of Trent and the Fathers teaches the same thing! We wonder if Peter will accept this information, or simply ignore it as usual.

Analysis of the Debate Between the Heretic and Liar Peter Dimond of MHFM and Markus Eli(as) Talani of Prophecy Film

Peter

He states that as long as a heretic clergyman is 1) undeclared as such by the lawful authority of the Church, 2) uses a traditional liturgy, 3) is either subtle enough or secretive enough, or 4) deceptively perverts canon laws to support his heresy or schism, then one may lawfully attend his masses and receive sacraments from him - even if you know for certain that he is a heretic (or schismatic).

The logical conclusion of this position, as we will see, is that the Church’s prohibition of communing with heretics is not absolute, and we may ask a man to commit a mortal sin and sacrilege of confecting the sacraments in direct opposition to the Church’s laws in order to “benefit” ourselves.

Elias

He believes that if one knows that a clergyman is a heretic, it is forbidden to ask the sacraments from him. This is the true position.

PETER LIES ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

Around 3:20 in the debate

Elias starts his argument by quoting the Council of Carthage against Peter’s position.

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

However, Peter denies that this council applies to him or the heretical sects that he and his followers goes to for hearing mass and receiving the sacraments.

He claims the Council does not apply to him by quoting from the First Council of Constantinople around 5:00 min.

First Council of Constantinople (381), Canon 6: “And by heretics we mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom we ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in opposition [to them].”

The following is Peter’s commentary on the above decree:

Peter Dimond, 5:21-5:45 in the debate: “In other words, it’s defining what they mean by heretics as those who are declared by them or those who have set up Churches in direct opposition to the true bishops; the equivalent of the Eastern “Orthodox” or the protestants, people who are notorious in fact; who make no bones about their rejection of the Catholic Church. They don’t conceal it, they’re notoriously heretical sects.”

But how does this quotation in any way say what Peter supposedly claims it says? How does this quote from the First Council of Constantinople “prove” or say that the Council of Carthage does not apply to him or the heretical priests and churches he goes to? The First Council of Constantinople clearly stated that “by heretics we mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom we ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in opposition [to them].”

Little does Peter understand because the above quotation that he used against us actually crushes his own position! For we assume Peter would agree with us when we say that every Novus Ordo church or schismatic priest that he goes to have indeed “set up conventicles in opposition” to the true faith and bishops since they are violently attacking, denying and even opposing the true Catholic faith by their heretical and outrageous teachings. Therefore, even according to Peter Dimond’s own standard, he cannot approach them for mass or receive the sacraments from them since they are notorious heretics who acts “in opposition” to the true Church and her Teachings. But as we all know, Peter do approach these priests for the sacraments in direct contradiction of his own principles.

If you don’t believe us, call their monastery and ask him if his priest that he has unsuccessfully tried to convert many times is an obstinate heretic or not.

Peter knows that the priests he and his followers goes to are heretics and that they reject and oppose the true Catholic faith whenever it is presented to them and that they are apostates for denying and opposing the Christian faith by granting salvation to people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. In fact, Peter expressly admits this fact on his website:

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “The problem is that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the (correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions. Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/“invincible ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every single “traditionalist” priest today. No priest who... believes that souls can be saved without baptism or the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire” or “invincible ignorance”) can be supported... That means that almost every “traditionalist” priest today cannot be supported, since he is holding a position at variance with Catholic teaching.”

Not once has Peter or any of his followers said (or ever made such information publicly known at their website) that they know of any priest that is not an obstinate heretic. That says quite a bit about the situation. So Peter must either be lying or be completely delusional when he says that the Council of Carthage does not apply to him.

By his own admission, then, he is admitting right here that the heretical priests he tells others to go to have indeed “set up conventicles in opposition” to the true faith and the faithful Catholics since they are violently attacking the true Church and Faith by their obstinate, bad willed heresies.

Further, if the above quotation from the First Council of Constantinople (which is also taken out of context, as we will see shortly) is all that Peter really can come up with to somehow “prove” that all the various councils, popes, and saints that could be quoted against him are not referring to all heretics, but only to certain heretics and schismatics like the Eastern “Orthodox” (5:33 min) etc., as he claims, then he has nothing!

Even a child can understand that the two following Councils does not only apply to certain heretics and schismatics like the Eastern “Orthodox” or the protestants but that they apply to all known heretics and schismatics, declared or undeclared.

III Council of Constantinople

Council of Carthage

Peter Dimond

“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]...”

“One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

In other words, it’s defining what they mean by heretics as those who are declared by them or those who have set up Churches in direct opposition to the true bishops; the equivalent of the Eastern “Orthodox” or the protestants, people who are notorious in fact; who make no bones about their rejection of the Catholic Church. They don’t conceal it, they’re notoriously heretical sects.”

So, as can be seen clearly from his words above, Peter Dimond rejects the true meaning of both Councils (and all the other quotes and councils as well, as we will see as we move along in this article) and holds that heretics can be approached for the sacraments. In a desperate attempt to defend his heretical version of Receiving Sacraments From Heretics, Peter Dimond must change the understanding of the formula proclaimed by the popes and the councils. He tells us that the “true” meaning of the council is that only those who are “notorious in fact”, the equivalent of the Eastern “Orthodox” or the protestants, is what it’s defining (thus conveniently excluding the heretics he himself goes to). Oh really? Where was that qualification ever mentioned in the dogmatic definitions on this topic? Nowhere! Peter is simply lying through his teeth here since he knows this council (and others) goes against him!

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

PETER’S PATHETIC ARGUMENT ON THE TERM “CUT OFF” CRUSHED

Numerous times in the debate; and on his website

One of Peter’s main argument in the debate was, that whenever St. Thomas (or someone else) is using the words “cut off”, he is necessarily referring to a declared excommunication being passed.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Now, notice that in the quote above St. Thomas says that a person who communicates in the sacraments with a heretic “who is cut off” from the Church necessarily sins. Remember, those who have been “cut off” are those who have been officially pronounced against. There is no doubt, therefore, that he is teaching that the absolute obligation not to communicate in the sacraments with a heretic applies to heretics who have been declared against: those who have been officially “cut off.””

Peter is completely wrong when he claims that this necessarily refers to “those who have been officially pronounced against.” Peter doesn’t seem to understand (or does not want to understand, since it contradicts his position) that the words “cut off” simply has two meanings 1) an automatic excommunication; or 2) a declared excommunication — and that St. Thomas (or anyone else) could have been referring to either of these in the above and similar passages.

For proof of this, we will quote Pope Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. … St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unityif any one holds to one single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

So Pope Leo XIII, who was quoting from St. Augustine, just referred to the term “cut off” as an automatic excommunication: “St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity.

This buries Peter’s argument, that the term “cut off” necessarily means a formal excommunication. Remember this, for many quotes that condemns being in religious communion with excommunicated persons simply use the words “cut off” or “excommunication” in order to denote their automatic excommunication.

To further expose Peter Dimond’s distortion on the First Council of Constantinople, we will now examine the council and its context so that we can see whether he was being truthful or not when quoting it.

PETER LIES ABOUT THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Around 5:00-7:16 in the debate; and on his website

Peter tries to argue that the First Council of Constantinople’s canon 6 gives credence to his sacrilegious position of receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics and schismatics.

Let us now examine Canon 6 to see if this is true.

First Council of Constantinople (381), Canon 6: “There are many who are bent on confusing and overturning the good order of the Church and so fabricate, out of hatred and a wish to slander, certain accusations against orthodox bishops in charge of churches. Their intention is none other than to blacken priests’ reputations and to stir up trouble among peace-loving laity.”

Okay, the beginning of canon 6 speak of evil minded men who are bent on bringing false accusations against orthodox Bishops in charge of Churches. This canon has thus nothing to do with whether one may approach heretics for the sacraments. The context of the canon is important. Remember it. The canon continues:

“For this reason the sacred synod of bishops assembled at Constantinople has decided not to admit accusers without prior examination, and not to allow everyone to bring accusations against church administrators -- but without excluding everyone. So if someone brings a private (that is a personal) complaint against the bishop on the grounds that he has been defrauded or in some other way unjustly dealt with by him, in the case of this kind of accusation neither the character nor the religion of the accuser will be subject to examination. It is wholly essential both that the bishop should have a clear conscience and that the one who alleges that he has been wronged, whatever his religion may be, should get justice.

But if the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishops in matters of an ecclesiastical kind.”

So Peter completely omitted the bolded and underlined portions of the above canon.

Now, what exactly did the Council define? It defined that heretics would be denied to bring ecclesiastical accusations against orthodox bishops, which is why they ordered an EXAMINATION of the person bringing an accusation.

“But if the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishopsin matters of an ecclesiastical kind.”

So contrary to Peter, the above Council actually orders Catholics to examine people bringing accusations against orthodox bishops (or accusations against the Church) so that we may be able to expose them and find out whether they are trustworthy or not as witnesses. Obviously, it did not teach that we could communicate in the sacraments with heretics.

Next, the Council defines whom the known heretics are that would be denied to bring ecclesiastical accusations against orthodox bishops. This is the only section of the whole canon Peter cited.

“(We define ‘heretics’ as those who have been previously banned from the church and also those later anathematised by ourselves: and in addition those who claim to confess a faith that is sound, but who have seceded and hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with us.)”

So all of these different kinds of heretics described above would be denied to bring ecclesiastical accusations against orthodox bishops. That is what the Council was defining. It never spoke about what kind heretics we could have been in religious communion with or taken the sacraments from. Already we can deduce that Peter was lying and taking this canon out of context in order to build up his delusional and sacrilegious position. We will sadly see him use this tactic many times in the debate. It is of course a clear cut mortal sin to knowingly take words out of context and change their meaning, but Peter sadly seems to have no problem doing this in order to bolster his false teachings.

It is also worth noting that self professed Catholics who adhere to the heretical antipopes perfectly fit the definition of heretics given above, in that they “claim to confess a faith that is sound” and “hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with” the true Pontiffs. For example, did Benedict XVI himself not say that Vatican II was a “counter-syllabus”, that is to say a RIVALRY against the salutary condemnations given against modern errors by Pope Pius IX? Yes he did. Publicly and openly. And yet, despite being aware of this information, Peter still claims and obstinately asserts that one may approach even a Vatican II or traditionalist priest for the sacraments (that is in communion with Benedict XVI) as long as he is validly ordained and as long as he uses the correct wording. He claims this even though he knows that the priest is in full communion with antipope Benedict XVI, who publicly and openly “hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with” the true Pontiffs. Thus, Peter doesn’t even believe in or follow the very Council that he is citing!

The canon continues:

“In the second place, persons previously condemned and expelled from the Church for whatever reason, or those excommunicated either from the clerical or lay rank, are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they have first purged their own crime.”

Most importantly, the context of this canon is disciplinary and has to do with preventing heretics from accusing bishops. It has nothing to do with the reception of sacraments, and Dimond is grasping at straws. However, this is an example of how the Dimonds trick people and lie to them without any shame. They present portions of quotes to their opponents which superficially sound like they support their argument, but when taken in context, either do not support it at all or even contradict it.

ADDENDUM

Peter Dimond, An email (07/09/12), Objection to the First Council of Constantinople: “The quote did not have to deal with receiving sacraments. It was a quote about how the Church looked upon assemblies or conventicles of heretics, meetinghouses of heretics, etc... It doesn’t have to refer to receiving sacraments, you demonic dope. It proves the point anyway. And yet you say it’s a lie, which is a mortal sin. This one example shows why you are a waste of time.”

In response to Peter’s dishonest objection: It was a quote about how they looked upon the assemblies of heretics in context of accusations against the Church, and, how they would act with the heretics in this instance. The context is important. Yet Peter ignores the context, which has nothing to do with religious communion with heretics or anything else of what he claims.

Peter’s inconsistency here is that, while he admits that the Church uses the term “heretic” in different ways throughout the Ecumenical Councils, he ignores this principle and attempts to argue his point about reception of sacraments with the above quote, which has nothing to do with reception of sacraments. The Council clearly states “by heretics we mean...” and the definition is purely given for the purposes of the immediate issue being discussed in that canon, i.e. such heretics accusing bishops of ecclesiastical crimes.

So the Dimonds have attempted to make an analogy which is simply not applicable, indeed from a quote incompatible to the issue at hand.

Peter said: “It proves that when the Church did issue laws about the meetinghouses of heretics, it legislated with the same sense as the First Council of Constantinople. The quote proves the point about what the Church meant when it promulgated laws on “assemblies of heretics.””

It’s totally obvious to any honest person that Peter Dimond is a complete liar who lies about and perverts quotes and councils that are clearly talking about entirely different subjects than what he claims! Only a complete liar or delusional person could claim that the quotation from the First Council of Constantinople somehow justifies or gives credence to his position of receiving sacraments from heretics.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

According to Peter’s heresy: this decree from Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (and numerous others that could be quoted) didn’t mean what it actually said, and only referred to certain heretics and schismatics such as the Eastern “Orthodox” and the Protestants even though there’s not a single word or statement anywhere that supports this conclusion... In truth, all liars and those who pervert and deny the infallible dogmas like the Dimonds and MHFM do will soon have their part in the lake of fire of burning sulfur that burns forever and ever day and night (cf. Revelation 21:8).

Either way, whichever way one looks at it, the council condemns his position, for even if (for the sake of argument) his interpretation is right (which it isn’t), it still condemns his position since the heretics he goes to have “set up conventicles in opposition” to the true Church and Bishops. Thus, the very heretics Peter himself goes to falls under the precise same condemnation of the council he is promoting to support his heresy! So Peter is completely wrong and he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Therefore, all the other quotes and councils (which the Dimonds explain away with this one council) condemns them as well, as do the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Peter knows that the unanimous consent of the Fathers condemns being in religious communion with heretics and forbids receiving the sacraments from them (we have pointed this out to him numerous times), and that not a single saint can be cited to ever having received the sacraments from a heretical priest—but he just couldn’t care.

PETER LIES ABOUT THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

The following information about the above ex cathedra decree was taken from Peter Dimond’s article “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes, and can be found publicly at his site.

Peter Dimond: “They argue that this [quote] proves you must absolutely avoid – have nothing whatsoever to do with – a heretic who has been automatically condemned by the divine law (i.e., an undeclared heretic), even if he hasn’t been declared by the Church. This argument is easily refuted, and it would not last 30 seconds in a debate. In an e-mail to a radical schismatic who cited this passage, I responded by saying: Does that quote from Constantinople II mean, in your view, that you must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage? Does it mean that a Catholic could never marry a heretic? Answer.

“Understandably, he didn’t answer the question, even though he wrote back on other matters. That’s because he can’t provide an answer to the question that is consistent with his argument. In answering the question, he would refute his argument. The answer to the question is no: the passage doesn’t prove that a Catholic must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage. It doesn’t mean a Catholic couldn’t marry a heretic; for, as we saw above, Catholics did marry heretics on occasion with the approval of the Church. It doesn’t prove that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with an undeclared heretic. So, what does the quote prove for their argument? Nothing.

“It’s simply a re-statement of Titus 3:10, and it means that heretics must be rejected as outside your communion and alien to your Church and faith, once it’s clear that they’ve incurred the divine automatic excommunication. We of course agree: anyone you know is a heretic must be considered condemned. He must not be endorsed, supported, or regarded as within your communion. However, it does not address or pertain to the precise question of whether it is absolutely necessary to avoid an undeclared heretic in every case, especially a necessity. In fact, the context of the decree quoted above wasn’t addressing that issue at all. It dealt with rejecting heretics as damned and separated from God. As we saw already in the Church’s decrees that do address the issue of avoiding heretics in every case, the absolute obligation to avoid people in every case kicks in with the Church’s declaration, or when he is so notorious that it cannot be concealed in law.” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

Let us now examine his lies and refute them thoroughly.

Peter Dimond’s first statement:

Understandably, he didn’t answer the question, even though he wrote back on other matters.”

We don’t know for certain that Peter was referring to Elias here since he might have had this exact same conversation with another person. However if Peter did refer to Elias here then he lied because Elias did respond to Peter’s question, but Peter just didn’t like his answer. Elias refuted his argument by telling him the truth, namely: that the Church has allowed for mixed marriages in certain citations—and that only with the approval of the Church. Obviously, there can be no sin in what the Church has approved of to take place. So while the Church has approved of marriages between Catholics and heretics in certain situations, they have nevertheless never allowed for the reception of the sacraments of the Eucharist or Confession from a known heretical priest.

Likewise, the Church has never taught anything else but that a heretic always commit a mortal sin while he is celebrating mass or consecrating or administering the sacraments (excluding baptism, in case of a necessity). The Dimonds also admit this fact on their website.

MHFM, E-Exchanges: “This is true even in the case of evil heretics, such as Benedict XVI. Thus, the presumption when he celebrates the Latin Mass is that it is valid, although he is obviously sinning mortally in doing it as a heretic; and no one should go to his Latin Mass because he is a notorious heretic.”

When neither the receiver of a sacrament nor the giver of it commits any sin, then the Church doesn’t prohibit it to take place but even sanctions it in a necessity. But whenever a priest gives out a sacrament to people against the Church’s prohibition, then both commit mortal sin (unless ignorance excuse the receiver) and the statement of Pope Vigilius in the Second Council of Constantinople, applies to them both. Even Peter agrees with this, for he is admitting on his website that the “sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

Peter, in his dishonesty, actually dares to compare a lawful situation where a person partakes of the sacrament of marriage in full accordance with Church laws and without any sin committed by any person, to a situation where the Church has always forbidden and condemned all heretics, schismatics or apostates from either consecrating or receiving the other sacraments. To compare the mortal sin of receiving a forbidden and illicit sacrament (which the Church never approves of) with marriage (which is fully approved of by the Church and which has no sin in itself), is not only demonic, but a direct proof that we are dealing with a dark and loathsome individual who sees no difference between lawful and unlawful, between mortal and non-mortal sin. How blind must one not be to see the priest consecrate the host and know that he commits a mortal sin of sacrilege at that very moment, and yet continue to go to him, receiving the fruit of his sacrileges, mortal sins and profanations of our Lord? Peter confesses that he understands that the heretical priest commits a mortal sin when he confects the sacraments, as we saw above, yet he couldn’t care less about the mortal sins of sacrilege and profanation of our Lord that are enacted in front of him.

When we now have seen Peter admitting to the fact that heretics sin and commits sacrileges and profanations of our Lord when they are presuming to consecrate the sacraments, let’s now look at his second (or first) lie:

It doesn’t mean a Catholic couldn’t marry a heretic; for, as we saw above, Catholics did marry heretics on occasion with the approval of the Church. It doesn’t prove that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with an undeclared heretic. SO, WHAT DOES THE QUOTE PROVE FOR THEIR ARGUMENT? NOTHING.”

What does it prove, Peter? It proves that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with a heretic except for what the Church has approved of or allowed in certain situations — and that is marriage, and baptism.

Never has any pope or council ever approved of receiving or exchanging any other sacraments with/from a heretic, except for the sacraments of baptism and marriage.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

Therefore, since baptism is the only exception that one may receive from a heretical minister, it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from them.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house [at meetinghouses of heretics] 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 [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.’”

So the Church clearly condemns Peter for eating the Lamb outside of this house (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics.

Peter has also admitted that it’s a mortal sin for heretics to receive the Catholic Sacraments in a debate with a Novus Ordite (a defender of Vatican II). They were discussing whether non-Catholics could receive the Eucharist lawfully (without sin) at a Catholic Church.

Peter Dimond, A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic Apologist”: “And it wouldn’t even matter if Vatican II only mentioned “danger of death,” as Canon 844.4 of the New Code does (but not Canon 844.3, the New Catechism #1401 or Vatican II’s Decree), since people who reject the Catholic Faith can never receive Holy Communion lawfully in danger of death. People who reject the Catholic Faith (or any dogma) are in a position of rejecting God (the author of the dogmas), and therefore cannot receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist worthily. The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II attempted to change.”

Precisely because it’s a divine law that heretics cannot receive the sacraments without committing a mortal sin, Pope Pius IX teaches that heretics profane the sacrament while receiving it as non-Catholics:

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

Therefore, the Catholic Church likewise condemns Peter for his outward approval of the sacrilegious receptions of the sacraments by the heretics at the heretical Church where he attends.

Even though Peter understand that non-Catholics sin mortally whenever they are receiving, administering or consecrating the sacraments, he has no problem with receiving the fruits of their sin. He is thus complicit in all the mortal sins that are committed in front of him, both for culpably being present at mass when non-Catholics receive the sacraments unlawfully despite the prohibition of the Church, and for approving heretics to consecrate the sacraments to him unlawfully, blasphemously, and in state of mortal sin despite the prohibition of the Church.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, AD 1245: “...to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity...”

Pope St. Felix III (483-492): “Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325§1, Obligation to Profess the Faith: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”

Catechism Question: “In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another’s sin?” Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: …6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence.”

Peter acts just like the man who sees another man commit pedophilia in front of him, but does nothing about it. The priest murders Christ anew by crucifying Him through his heresies and sins – him that Christ died and suffered grievously for – and yet the Dimonds do nothing to hinder it! Instead of helping or advising the priest to cease committing mortal sin and sacrilege, the Dimonds and their followers actually encourage, approve and increase the priest’s mortal sin, guilt and eternal punishment when they culpably receive the illicit, sacrilegious sacrament from him—thus being a part of his sin! This is a kind of evil that is breathtaking to behold!

Now we shall look at a truth that Peter said but which he sadly do not follow.

It’s simply a re-statement of Titus 3:10, and it means that heretics must be rejected as outside your communion and alien to your Church and faith, once it’s clear that they’ve incurred the divine automatic excommunication. We of course agree: anyone you know is a heretic must be considered condemned. He must not be endorsed, supported, or regarded as within your communion.”

His countless heresies and many mortally sinful receptions of illicit, blasphemous, sacrilegious sacraments from the hands of known heretical, schismatical apostate priests has sadly blinded him. That’s why he cannot see that he is contradicting himself. Even though Peter claims that he agrees with the bolded portions above, the fact is that he does not!

Now we shall look at Peter’s third (or second) lie:

The debate concerned whether it’s lawful to receive sacraments from certain undeclared heretics during this crisis and apostasy... It should also be emphasized that while we are pointing out that Catholics may receive sacraments from some priests who are undeclared heretics in this time, no Catholic may agree with or support such a priest in any way... HOWEVER, IT [POPE VIGILIUS’ DECREE] DOES NOT ADDRESS OR PERTAIN TO THE PRECISE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO AVOID AN UNDECLARED HERETIC [PRIEST] IN EVERY CASE, ESPECIALLY A NECESSITY... In an e-mail to a radical schismatic who cited this passage, I responded by saying: Does that quote from Constantinople II mean, in your view, that you must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage? Does it mean that a Catholic could never marry a heretic? Answer.”

First, Peter lies when he says Pope Vigilius’ decree does not pertain to the precise question of whether it is absolutely necessary to avoid a known obstinate heretic for the sacraments.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual... after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

As all can see for themselves, the Pope infallibly and explicitly defined that we must have “nothing more to do with him [the heretic],” in direct contradiction of Peter’s statement. This obviously includes religious communion with them.

But to prove that the Dimonds are liars from their own words, we will look at three quotations from their website.

First quote:

Peter and Michael Dimond, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “But with some other “traditionalist” [heretical] priests, you can go to them for CONFESSION and Communion if they are validly ordained and NOT NOTORIOUS or imposing about their false positions and if one doesn’t support them.”

Note: Their position in the first quote is that we may receive the sacraments from heretical priests as long as they are not notorious.

Second quote:

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “The problem is that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the (correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions. Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/”invincible ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every single “traditionalist” priest today. … BUT MAY ONE GO TO SUCH A PRIEST FOR COMMUNION, IF THE PRIEST IS VALIDLY ORDAINED IN THE TRADITIONAL RITE OF ORDINATION AND IF ONE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIM? YES, ONE MAY GO SOME OF THESE “TRADITIONALIST” PRIESTS IF THEY MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS.”

Note: Their position in the second quote is that we may go to a notoriously heretical priest that has admitted or made known his heresy of denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation as long as one doesn’t support him. (The Dimonds actually argues that this priest is not a notorious heretic even though he has admitted to his heresy and is obstinate in it!)

Third Quote:

Michael Dimond, Can Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today: “While we would say that the notoriously heretical priest may not be approached for Holy Communion, we believe that those priests who are notoriously heretical because they like ecumenism and praying with and respecting other religions may be approached for confession, if you cannot find any better options for confession within a reasonable distance. If he is a notoriously heretical priest who doesn’t think you are a Catholic because of what you believe, WE WOULD SAY YOU MAY ONLY GO TO HIM FOR CONFESSION IN DANGER OF DEATH.”

Note: Their position in the third quote is that we may go to them even if they are notoriously heretical. (By the way, the Dimonds only claim that the priests they deem notorious are notorious! Every other priest, like the priest mentioned above that denied the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation, according to them, is not notorious.)

So, according to the Dimonds, one can go to them for the sacraments if they are not notorious and one can go to them for the sacraments if they are notorious and have admitted to their heresies. Which one is it, Dimonds, can we or can we not go to them if they are notorious, known heretics?

While they like to claim (or rather only appear outwardly as if they have as opinion) that one may not approach a notoriously heretical priest at all for the sacraments, yet, as we could see above, they don’t really believe that this is true – at least not in regards to confession or any other of the heresies they are excluding from the notorious category – and in so doing they are refuting themselves, showing themselves to be complete liars by their own words.

But one may wonder then, why is Peter even claiming that one must avoid “all notorious heretics absolutely,” when he doesn’t even believe that this is true?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The “heretics” and clearly non-Catholic “meetinghouses of heretics,” WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED ABSOLUTELY, are: 1) those that have been declared or 2) THOSE THAT NOTORIOUSLY REJECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [OR FAITH] WITHOUT “CONCEALMENT” – NOTORIOUS IN LAW OR NOTORIOUS IN FACT.”

Do they contradict themselves? Of course they do. All heretics contradict themselves and are confused, and the Dimonds are no exception.

In charity, please point out to the Dimonds their embarrassing contradiction. Perhaps they will be converted from your email? Here is their email address: mhfm1@aol.com

Second, Peter’s entire article, debate and arguments are about proving how we can receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from the hands of a heretical minister in a necessity. He is not trying to prove that we can receive (or exchange) certain lawful sacraments, such as the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of marriage with/from a heretic. Therefore, when Peter mentions the sacrament of marriage (who by the way is not received from a priest but is exchanged between the contracting parties themselves) and he compares this to the other sacraments (which is received from a minister), know that it is only a smoke screen to deceive his readers and listeners who might not understand this distinction.

Peter of course knows about this distinction and that it’s forbidden to approach a heretical priest for marriage, yet has no problem with using this argument in favor of receiving the other sacraments from them.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In the debate, Eli switched the topic and argued that the Church never approved going to a heretical minister for marriage. THAT OF COURSE IS TRUE but completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the point. We agree that the Church hasn’t approved going into a non-Catholic church or seeking out a non-Catholic minister to witness the marriage.”

He continues:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The point is that in marriage the two people EXCHANGE THE SACRAMENT AMONG THEMSELVES, and therefore, in a mixed marriage, the Catholic is exchanging the sacrament with a heretic.”

However, if a Catholic couple cannot even exchange the sacrament of marriage between themselves in front of a heretical minister without committing mortal sin, how much more then must not the Catholic commit a mortal sin if he actually were to receive a forbidden sacrament from the heretical priest’s own hand?

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this question for us:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 5, Reply to Objection 3: “We might also reply that by ‘members of the Dove’ he [St. Augustine] means all who are not cut off from the Church, for those who receive the sacraments from them, receive grace, WHEREAS THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS FROM THOSE WHO [THEY KNOW] ARE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH [whether automatically or formally], do not receive grace, BECAUSE THEY SIN IN SO DOING, except in the case of Baptism, which, in cases of necessity, may be received even from one who is excommunicate.”

So even though Peter admits that in marriage the Catholic is not receiving the sacrament from the hands of a heretical minister, but rather receiving it from the other contracting party, he still uses this very argument (of receiving a sacrament from a layman!) in order to “prove” his position on receiving the other sacraments from a heretical schismatical minister! even though this argument doesn’t support this notion.

Pope Pius XI: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

In this way, Peter manages to deceive his readers who are inclined to put the sacraments before the faith into believing that receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist or Penance from a heretical minister is similar to the individual couple who are exchanging the sacrament of marriage between themselves! This is how his black magic works and how he deceives people.

Besides, a Catholic cannot even marry a heretic unless with the explicit approval of the Church, yet Peter compares this situation with the other sacraments, where no approval has ever been given. The Church has taken time to make clear that we may receive the sacrament of baptism from heretical ministers in a necessity, but they have never made any mention of the other sacraments. Why? Because these other sacraments are not necessary for salvation in the same way as baptism is. When no non-heretical priest is available then one can be saved without the other sacraments, but one cannot be saved without baptism.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 6: “However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, he would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments, which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on (65, 3,4; 62, 3).”

PETER RESORTS TO THE FALSE “IMPOSING OR NOT/DECLARATION” ARGUMENT

Around 9:30-10:23 in the debate

Peter Dimond: “And what we’ve pointed out on our website, we’ve not said that unless someone’s imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No what we’ve said is, that without a declaration, for there to be a positive absolute obligation to avoid an undeclared heretic, he would either have to be an imposing heretic, impose his false views on you, or be so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused in anyway in law.”

Peter said that you can acknowledge someone as a heretic without a declaration, but he thinks there is no obligation to them without a declaration. He argues that canons such as Ad Evitanda Scandala, from Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance means that a heretic, who one knows is a heretic, may nevertheless be communed with if he has not been declared against so long as he can “conceal” or “excuse” his heresy in law, etc. But what does infallible Catholic dogma say?

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Note: To have “nothing more to do” with a known, obstinate heretic obviously includes religious communion with him.

Also notice how the Pope mentioned heretics that “has not [yet] been condemned formally by any individual” (has not yet been declared against) but that they still must be avoided, unless for the purpose of admonishing them once or twice.

Pope Vigilius’ clearly stated that it depends on what you can know about the heretical person in question if he has to be avoided, and not about what others know or does not know about him, or if he is notorious or public about his heresy to many people, or if he conceals it, etc., as is the Dimonds’ position. For if a person only had to avoid a heretic based on notoriety to many people, or if he is imposing his heresies on others, then the above declaration would literally make no sense because it’s talking about avoiding all heretics, and not just the “imposing” or “notorious” ones as the Dimonds claim.

St. Thomas Aquinas of course teaches in full agreement with the Church’s infallible declarations when he tells us to avoid heretics based on what we can know or understand about them.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 2: “Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly [Latin: manifeste, i.e. manifestly, obviously or clearly] cut off from the Church [automatically or formally]; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.”

It is truly sad that we didn’t know about these quotations condemning Peter’s false position first until after the debate. Not that Elias didn’t quote other infallible dogmas against Peter’s position in the debate, however, but Peter dishonestly tried to explain them away.

There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical parents, even though I’ve tried to convert them?

Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite yourself with heretics purposely (outside of what the Church approves of), or be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them. That’s what’s condemned here.

The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live with a heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the Church has approved of it), or who work under a heretic, etc.

PETER LIES ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE (AD EVITANDA)

Around 10:33-12:17 in the debate; and on his website

Peter tries to argue that the Council of Constance’s decree Ad Evitanda Scandala gives credence to his sacrilegious position of receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics and schismatics. But Peter is dishonest about this decree because the decree doesn’t even speak about heretics or even mentions the word heresy anywhere. Thus, Ad Evitanda Scandala is not referring to heretics, but specifically to sinners of various kinds. Hence that this decree are about Catholics and not about automatically excommunicated non-Catholics or heretics.

Pope Martin V, Ad Evitanda Scandala, (1418): “To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ’s faithful that henceforth no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place. Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary, save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence. For we will abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical sanctions, even though he be not denounced.” (Fontes I, 45.)

The following is Peter’s commentary on Council of Constance (Ad Evitanda):

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In this decree we see that one has to avoid: 1) those who have been declared (notorious in law) or 2) those who have not been declared, but struck a cleric and the evidence for this cannot be “concealed by any tergiversation.” Tergiversation means “equivocation” or “falsehood.” In other words, it must be so clear that it cannot be hidden even by dishonest argumentation. This is another example of the point made above concerning the Eastern “Orthodox,” who do not and cannot conceal their rejection of the Papacy.”

First, to strike a cleric doesn’t even place a person outside the church like the heretic, schismatic or apostate. But according to Peter’s perversion of the Church’s laws, striking a priest becomes a graver sin with heavier penalties attached to it than becoming a soul slaying heretic, because according to Peter, the non-Catholic heretic can remain inside the Church’s communion and administer the sacraments, while the priest hitting sinner (who is still a Catholic) can not! All who are not complete liars in their hearts will recognize that if the Church forbids mere notorious sinners (who have not even been formally excommunicated by name) from receiving or administering the sacraments, the Church likewise forbids all heretics, schismatics and apostates to do the same!

So the above decree has absolutely nothing to do with heretics or sacramental communion with heretics.

Second. Just because Ad Evitanda didn’t specify whether it was Catholics or heretics it was referring to, one cannot conclude (as Peter do) that it was including or referring to heretics or that it’s lawful to commune with them. Peter said: “This is another example of the point made above concerning the Eastern “Orthodox,” who do not and cannot conceal their rejection of the Papacy.” Decrees doesn’t have to specify whether they are referring to Catholics or heretics in every case, and Peter normally agrees with this.

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to conclude that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII was including or referring to heretics in the two following statements, since they made no distinctions.

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

But I wonder if Peter ever would dare to admit to such an outrageously heretical teaching. In fact, he does not, thus proving his dishonesty.

Peter Dimond, John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: “Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE LAW. PIUS XII’S LEGISLATION DOESN’T APPLY TO HERESY... Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN’T MENTION HERETICS.”

So Peter’s own answer that he gave to John Salza actually crushes his own position on Ad Evitanda. Peter simply doesn’t want to grasp his own logic here since it refutes and condemns his own position and argumentation. But whenever the same argumentation is used against him, then he is quick to point out that a decree doesn’t have to make a distinction between Catholics and heretics and that it doesn’t have to mention the word “heresy” or “heretics” to exclude heretics and that they are simply excluded anyway, as he says, “by the DIVINE LAW.” So this is a perfect example of how the word “any excommunication” can be used without actually referring to or including heretics, and Peter agrees with this, as we have seen.

Third. When Peter said at 12:06- “so they attempt to conceal their heresy in law and it renders them less notorious”, he perverted the meaning of the decree Ad Evitanda, which said:

“...save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence.”

Now think about the decree. What does it say? It says that there is no obligation to avoid such people if they cannot be pinned to the crime for which they would be excommunicated (especially that of striking a cleric) because they are cleverly evasive, OR if their action was excusable in law.

How can one be excused from excommunication for striking a cleric? Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “Now if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not excommunicated. [...] This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.”

Again, Ad Evitanda Scandala is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope” (11:57!), or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” (12:00!) that Peter mentioned. Peter KNOWS that both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but he throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.

Arius claimed that he had an “excuse in law” to believe and teach that Jesus Christ was not God. So is it lawful to commune with them because they can pervert and distort the decrees to suit their heresy? No. The law NEVER permits heresy. Period. Therefore Arius does not have a legal defense for his ravings, and so a canon like Ad Evitanda has NO RELATION to communing with heretics in the sacraments.

Fourth. Peter says a good example of heretics who are out front and open about their heresies would be the Eastern “Orthodox”. The fact is that any sect that teaches heresy in their public literature, or publicly claims communion with the antipopes would qualify as “out front and open.”

Peter says at 11:40 that there is a distinction between heretics who are under Benedict XVI and the Eastern “Orthodox”, as though the Vatican II religion is somehow any less blasphemous than the Eastern “Orthodox”. The fact is that the Vatican II religion is (if it were possible) MORE blasphemous! I have not yet heard of an “Orthodox” teaching that they share the same God with Muslims, have you?

So Peter’s argument that there is a difference in the level of “up front and openness” about their heresy fails dramatically.

Fifth. Even if the decree Ad Evitanda was referring to heretics (which it isn’t), that would still only mean that the decree would first have come into effect in the year 1418, since that was the year when the pope first promulgated it and made it mandatory to avoid those only who had been condemned formally by name. This would then mean, that before 1418, it would have been forbidden for Catholics to talk to or have any religious communion with any excommunicated person (declared or undeclared) whenever they were known as such. The Catholic Encyclopedia expressly refers to this fact:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, "Excommunication", (1909): “All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters. This distinction dates from the aforesaid Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala", published by Martin V at the Council of Constance in 1418; until then one had to avoid communion with all the excommunicated, once they were known as such.”

So this is a good point, and it totally demolishes Peter’s main two arguments in the debate, namely: 1) that a declaratory sentence is always necessary for avoiding certain “undeclared” heretics; and 2) that this has always been the position held by the Church.

Peter Dimond, 10:12-10:23 in the debate: “that’s in fact the language we see throughout Church history in the ecclesiastical decrees that govern the obligation of Catholics to avoid undeclared heretics.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “That means that the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case comes: 1) if he has been declared; or, short of such a declaration, 2) if he is so notorious that he cannot conceal or excuse his crime in law. We find this distinction throughout Church history.”

Peter is either 1) lying on purpose, or 2) doesn’t know what he is talking about. Let us now examine at the Church history that Peter refers to so much so we can see whether it agrees with him or not.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are by ipso facto (by that very fact) deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”... St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. … “St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance [Ad Evitanda], they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated [Catholics], that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

It’s quite strange however because Peter often cites several quotes from the very same book (from the very same page!) that the above quotations was taken from. We do hope Peter was simply ignorant about this, and about St. Thomas (which he so often quotes from), and that he did not simply disregard this evidence against himself. For how could any man with good conscience read such statements as above and still claim or obstinately assert that Ad Evitanda, St. Thomas Aquinas or the Church tradition agrees with him? Only in the valley of Josaphat at the day of judgment will we truly know if Peter were ignorant about these quotations that so clearly refutes his position.

So not only did St. Robert Bellarmine refute Peter’s pathetic argument on the Council of Constance, but he even affirms the point we’ve been trying to make clear in this article, namely, that the heretics “have been cut off [automatically] from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

Truly, one has to ask the question: If Catholics had to avoid an undeclared heretic for religious purposes before 1418, whenever he was known as such, why then would the Church make a law that says contrary afterwards? It wouldn’t! The only answer to this question is that the Church hasn’t made any such dangerous or ridiculous laws as Peter would have us believe, and neither would it make any sense if it had, because the Church would then be in contradiction with its own infallible decrees that teaches us to stay away from heretics and schismatics, and especially their communion.

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

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.”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

As we can see here, the truth of avoiding known heretics and schismatics and their religious communion, was taught long before and long after Ad Evitanda was ever promulgated, thus proving to any person of good will that Ad Evitanda never dealt with heresy or heretics in regards to Catholic communion.

A divine law can never be changed so a Pope could never make a law that would contradict or change an infallible Catholic dogma, like the dogma that bans heretics from Catholic communion, and so allow devils and demons (heretics and schismatics) to be in religious communion with the faithful on earth and in heaven.

The divine law says that all heretics are outside the Church of God and that they don’t need to be excommunicated formally to be expelled from Her. Sinners, on the other hand, often need a formal excommunication (an ecclesiastical sentence) in order to be expelled, shunned and avoided. Ecclesiastical laws can be changed in order for the Church to better deal with different problems that may arise in future situations. But the divine law which God has established from eternity, can never be revoked, changed or replaced.

Peter Dimond: “The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II attempted to change.” (A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic Apologist”)

Sixth, even if Peter’s false interpretation of Ad Evitanda was correct (which it isn’t), it would still mean that it would have been abrogated by Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9) that was just cited above, and the following infallible Fifth Lateran Council. Thus, whichever way you look at it, Peter’s position is totally refuted.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, will be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

“…All false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith, of whatever race or nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful and expelled from any position, especially from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty…”

And really, do the heretics think that the Catholic Church can contradict itself? They must hold to this, or be totally illogical.

COUNCIL OF BASEL, SESSION 20

Around 10:50 in the debate; and from his article

Just seventeen years after Ad Evitanda in 1435, the Council of Basel ended any confusion that may have existed because of certain theologians who attempted to apply the poorly worded Ad Evitanda to undeclared heretics.

Council of Basel, Session 20, 22 January 1435: “To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, OR IF IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMEONE HAS INCURRED A SENTENCE OF EXCOMMUNICATION WITH SUCH NOTORIETY that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. FOR THE SYNOD WISHES SUCH PERSONS TO BE AVOIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CANONICAL SANCTIONS. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.”

The following is Peter’s commentary on Council of Basel:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In this decree we also see that those who must be avoided are: 1) those who have been declared (notorious in law) or 2) those who, without a declaration, have so notoriously incurred excommunication that it cannot be “concealed” or “excused” in law (notorious in fact). Notice that there is a distinction between one’s ability to conceal a crime and one’s ability to excuse it. … Thus, we can see that the councils of the Middle Ages contain the same teaching as the First Council of Constantinople, canon 6, on the assemblies of heretics.”

First, we must keep in mind that this decree never referred to heresy or heretics. So where does Peter get from that this gives credence to his sacrilegious notion of communicating with obstinate heretics that attempt to “conceal” their heresy in law? To reject or contradict even a single article of the Catholic faith, with no successful attempt to hide the rejection or contradiction, makes one a notorious heretic according to Dimond’s own admission. And this is the crux of the issue, and it has been from the beginning. If you know the priest is a heretic because he publicly contradicts the catholic faith in some way, then you must avoid him under pain of schism, because his crime is not concealed! He is notorious in fact! If his crime were concealed you would not know that he holds a heretical position! Therefore if a priest publicly professes even one heresy, even if it is one that is contrary to less well known dogmas, it is still enough to bind all who see it to admonish him, and then avoid communion with him.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject othersBut he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Indeed, Peter’s novel heresy of accepting some heretics or heresies while rejecting others is truly alien to the teachings of the Church and totally absurd, as we could see above.

Second, the Council of Basel decrees that all notorious excommunicates (declared or undeclared) are banned from any kind of religious communion with Catholics whenever they are known as such (like after talking with the priest and finding out about his heresy). The Council of Basel’s revision of the poorly worded Ad Evitanda by adding the words “or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law” and “For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions is more proof that it was not Pope Martin’s intent that Ad Evitanda should apply to undeclared heretical excommunicates because the Council of Basel decreed that all known notorious excommunicates must be avoided, including the heretics, since they are automatically excommunicated.

COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION

The following information will be quite devastating to the Dimonds’ heretical position on receiving the sacrament of Penance from heretical ministers. Even though the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and many others (as we will see) clearly teaches that heretics cannot give an absolution in confession or have any jurisdiction whatsoever, Peter still has refused to accept this position. Wonder why?

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases: “Wherefore, since the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects, the Church of God has always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor delegated jurisdiction ought to be counted as of no effect... But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance priests have no power in reserved cases, let them strive to persuade penitents to do this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.”

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word “Catholic” and that it explicitly mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the heretics. True, the Council never mentioned the word “Catholic,” but it doesn’t have to for three reasons.

First, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that “the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects. Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical or schismatical priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not! This fact is of course also backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church: “For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge them that are within? (1 Corinthians 5:12). So, then, it’s perfectly clear that those who are outside do not command on the inside, for “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

There are three parts contained in the sacrament of Penance, that is 1) Contrition, 2) Confession, and 3) Satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3). Every time the priest tells a person what kind of satisfaction he must make in order to be absolved from his sins, the priest makes a sentence (or command) over him that requires a satisfaction (or penance) on the part of the penitent. However, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that “the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects”, and Pope Leo XIII “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Now if a Catholic had been an eastern schismatic and confessed his former heresy or schism to an eastern schismatic priest, the priest would tell him that he did no sin at all when he was an eastern schismatic and that he would get no absolution unless he repented of his sin of separating from the eastern schismatic church. And that is why no non-Catholic priest can absolve a Catholic because the Catholic Church could never allow a non-Catholic priest to make a sentence or judgment on other Catholics when he cannot even judge right from wrong himself. That is not to say that heretics cannot know right from wrong in many cases, for they do. It rather means that as long as they remain outside the Church of Christ and lack the Catholic faith, they cannot have jurisdiction over Catholics or command them to do something that has to do with them receiving forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Penance.

    Second, the Council of Trent ordered the Priests (who was among ALL THE PRIESTS MENTIONED) that if they did not have this necessity “in danger of death” for granting a valid absolution in confession, they then must strive “to persuade penitents to do this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution. But I ask you, since when does the Catholic Church endorse heretical or schismatical priests, their superiors or their churches? Never! Therefore, this statement cannot have referred to heretical ministers, obviously.

Third. The Council of Trent affirmed that this teaching of jurisdiction has always been upheld and maintained in “the Church of God”, and “this council confirms it as most true”, thus proving to everyone that it’s not simply dealing with ecclesiastical laws that can be changed, but specifically with dogmatic laws that can never be changed.

Conclusion

These three points, then, totally excludes all heretics, schismatics, and apostates from ever being able to grant a valid absolution in confession or from ever being able to receive supplied jurisdiction in case of a necessity since they are outside the Church and Her jurisdiction (de fide).

ST. THOMAS TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “A few schismatics will quote St. Thomas in Summa Theologica, Supplemental Pt., Q. 38, A. 2, Obj. 1, in which the objection (not necessarily St. Thomas) says that a heretic cannot absolve. However, the schismatics don’t quote St. Thomas’ reply to the objection, in which he states that he’s referring to those who are “cut off.” Heretics who have been officially “cut off” or “suspended in regard to others” by a declaration cannot have jurisdiction, and thus cannot absolve.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2, Reply to Objection 1: “The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.”

To refute Peter’s argument, we will simply quote from another passage of St. Thomas that he simply cannot explain away or deny.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3: “ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWER OF JURISDICTION... DOES NOT REMAIN IN HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS; AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY NEITHER ABSOLVE NOR EXCOMMUNICATE, NOR GRANT INDULGENCE, NOR DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND, AND IF THEY DO, IT IS INVALID.”

As we can see here, St. Thomas clearly teaches that heretics lose their jurisdiction independently of any declaration and that they lose it from simply being in heresy. This if anything should be the final nail in the coffin on the myth that St. Thomas is agreeing with the Dimonds or that he teaches that we may receive the sacraments from certain “undeclared” heretical ministers. We wonder if Peter will accept this information, or simply ignore it as usual.

As an aside note, Peter do agree with the above statement, at least in regards to excommunication, for Peter admits on his website that heretics and schismatics cannot excommunicate and that their excommunication would be worthless, invalid, and of no effect (excommunication requires jurisdiction too)! Nonetheless, even though he claims they cannot excommunicate, he nevertheless argues that they can absolve. His position is truly a contradiction from beginning to end.

Question: But what then does St. Thomas mean when he is referring to them as “cut off”?

Answer: When St. Thomas is referring to heretics or schismatics as “cut off”, he is simply referring to them as automatically excommunicated. For as we could see above, St. Thomas does not consider heretics to have any jurisdiction, independently of any formal excommunication. St. Thomas thus based his conclusion on the Divine Law, and not on any formal excommunication, as explained by St. Robert Bellarmine:

THE HOLY FATHERS AND SAINTS TEACH UNANIMOUSLY THAT HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS ARE IPSO FACTO [BY THAT VERY FACT] DEPRIVED OF ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY

“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto [by that very fact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”... St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

“St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

“… those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. … while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

So while Peter teaches to his followers that they are right in seeking an absolution from a heretical minister, St. Thomas teaches that we sin if we knowingly seek an absolution from them.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 6, Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys?: “On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the ‘charity of the Church forgives sins.’ Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members. Since therefore the above are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of the keys in remitting sins. Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the above, for he disobeys the Church in so doing. THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED BY THEM: and so the same conclusion follows.”

Therefore, when St. Thomas refers to heretics or schismatics as “cut off”, “excommunicated” or “separated” etc. in context of receiving an illicit sacrament, he is not referring to them for any other purpose than to denote their automatic excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7: “Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY HERESY, SCHISM, or excommunication. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY HERESY, SCHISM, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.”

PETER’S MAIN ERROR ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE: HE GRANTS IT TO THE HERETICS!

That jurisdiction is required for the valid absolution in confession has inevitably given to the Dimonds some theological problems in justifying their heretical doctrine. But what is their solution to this question? Well, the simple answer is that they just give it to them automatically!

Peter Dimond, Facts which Demolish the “No independent priest today has Jurisdiction” Position: “Now we will see that a priest who doesn’t have jurisdiction for confessions somehow gets it to absolve someone in danger of death. Let’s quote the 1917 Code of Canon Law (the most recent collection of ecclesiastical laws) to prove the point.

Canon 872, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires, besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent.”

Canon 879.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “To hear confessions validly jurisdiction must be granted expressly, either orally or in writing.”

Peter Dimond: “Here we see that the Code of Canon Law states that jurisdiction is necessary for absolution, and that jurisdiction (if not had as part of an office) is only delegated orally or in writing. But wait a second… look at this:

Canon 882, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious…”

Peter Dimond: “We see that canon 882 teaches that priests who were never approved for confessions (i.e. never given jurisdiction in the normal channel) can validly absolve anyone in danger of death.”

It is entirely correct that CATHOLIC PRIESTS are granted supplied jurisdiction in case of a necessity to give an absolution (as infallibly defined by the Council of Trent.) But how then has it happened that Peter grants jurisdiction to heretics, schismatics, and apostate priests as well?

Not surprisingly, Peter interpret the fallible 1917 Code of Canon Law to support his heretical doctrine. According to Peter, if the 1917 Code of Canon Law does not make a distinction and clearly state if it was referring to Catholics or heretics, then it was referring to both.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “This canon [Canon 2261.2-3] also refutes the position of the radical schismatics. It clearly teaches that the faithful may receive sacraments from excommunicated persons, especially if there is no one else to give them the sacraments. In response, the schismatics are forced to arbitrarily exclude HERETICS from “excommunicated persons,” even though there’s nothing to support such exclusion.”

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to conclude that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII as well was including heretics in their statements, since they made no distinctions. But as we have already seen, Peter doesn’t teach that they were including heretics!

Peter Dimond, John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: “Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE LAW. PIUS XII’S LEGISLATION DOESN’T APPLY TO HERESY... Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN’T MENTION HERETICS.”

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

It should be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is clearly to be interpreted in agreement with the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other infallible proclamations, and not with the heretical teachings of Peter Dimond!

Neither can Peter evoke Epikeia in favor of the heretics. However, we do agree that Epikeia would give all the Catholic priests supplied jurisdiction in today’s situation. But to apply this to the heretical priests, as Peter do, is gratuitous folly and heretical (Council of Trent).

If Peter would bring up the St. Vincent Ferrer argument to prove his heretical position, then I would tell him that it is illogical. It is illogical, because St. Vincent Ferrer was never a heretic or a schismatic. And St. Vincent Ferrer (as was Moses) was also chosen by God, and, may very well have received jurisdiction directly from God himself so as to hear confession and to preach.

Peter Dimond, Facts which Demolish the “No independent priest today has Jurisdiction” Position: “So, in order to completely destroy the NJP, we must examine if there is any proof that an independent priest, who has not been approved for confessions, or even had his ordination approved by a true ecclesiastical authority, can have jurisdiction to hear confessions and carry on an apostolate blessed by God from day to day and NOT MERELY FOR SOULS IN DANGER OF DEATH? If we can demonstrate this, then there is nothing more that an advocate of the NJP could reasonably require to see that his position has been torpedoed, completely destroyed, and left sunk at the bottom of the ocean. The case of the great St. Vincent Ferrer gives us just this proof.”

Peter’s argument is truly pathetic. One could wonder why he even brings up the St. Vincent Ferrer argument so as to prove his heretical position when he KNOWS AND EVEN ADMITS that St. Vincent Ferrer was never a heretic or a schismatic!

According to Peter, one of the greatest saints that has ever lived and that was blessed by God should be accounted in the same way as a bad willed heretic or schismatic who is accursed and hated by God. According to Peter’s reasoning, both must be granted jurisdiction. But this is of course impossible, because, as we have seen, only Catholic priests can have jurisdiction in the Church of God (De Fide, Council of Trent). So this means that even if Peter doesn’t believe in or teach expressly to others that heretics are inside the Church of God, he is still arguing that they are, since he is giving them jurisdiction, which only Catholic priests can have!

But even if St. Vincent Ferrer did not receive jurisdiction from God or from the Church so as to hear confessions and give absolutions, it would make no difference because the absolution from a priest is not necessary for obtaining forgiveness without the sacrament of Confession (if no validly ordained non-heretical priest is available, of course) since perfect contrition absolves a person from his sins anyway. And God will of course always see to it that a person who is of good and sincere will will receive forgiveness and contrition before his death.

This then means that every person who did confess to St. Vincent Ferrer – even if he did not have jurisdiction – are forgiven their sins as long as they had genuine sorrow for their sins. God himself will forgive the sins of a sinner if he did not manage to receive a valid absolution from a priest—and that is true regardless of whether St. Vincent Ferrer had jurisdiction or not.

Conclusion

All non-Catholic priests (Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Eastern Rite churches, independent priests, etc.) who have been appointed in accordance with schismatical and heretical decrees, must be considered by us as schismatics and heretics that are lacking all ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the guidance of souls, and their absolution must be counted as invalid, or as of “no effect” (cf. Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7) and “heretics and schismatics... neither absolve... nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3).

Question: Why can heretics validly (although illicitly) perform the other sacraments, such as Baptism and the Eucharistic rite, but not the sacraments of Penance (Extreme Unction and Penance)?

Answer: Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas why:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 2: “I answer that, The other sacraments [such as the Eucharist] do not consist in an action of the recipient, but only in his receiving something, as is evident with regard to Baptism and so forth. Though the action of the recipient is required as removing an obstacle, i.e. insincerity, in order that he may receive the benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the use of his free-will. On the other hand, the action of the man who approaches the sacrament of Penance is essential to the sacrament, SINCE CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION, WHICH ARE ACTS OF THE PENITENT, ARE PARTS OF PENANCE. Now our actions, since they have their origin in us, cannot be dispensed by others, except through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser of this sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be done. Now a man is not competent to command another UNLESS HE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIM. Consequently it is essential to this sacrament, not only for the minister to be in orders, as in the case of the other sacraments, but also for him to have jurisdiction: WHEREFORE HE THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION CANNOT ADMINISTER THIS SACRAMENT ANY MORE THAN ONE WHO IS NOT A PRIEST. Therefore confession should be made not only to a priest, but to one’s own priest; for since a priest does not absolve a man except by binding him to do something, he alone can absolve, who, by his command, can bind the penitent to do something [heretics, of course, cannot lawfully bind anyone to do anything with regard to religious duties].”

The sacrament of Penance consist of three things: contrition, confession and satisfaction. All three of these conditions (whenever a priest is available) must be fulfilled before one is able to receive a valid absolution, in the Sacrament of Penance.

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, The parts and fruits of this sacrament: “The (quasi) matter of this sacrament [Penance] consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. THESE, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE BY GOD’S INSTITUTION REQUIRED IN THE PENITENT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN, ARE FOR THIS REASON CALLED PARTS OF PENANCE.”

When the Priest commands the Penitent to do something (like what kind of satisfaction he must do in order to be absolved from his sins), the Priest exercises his jurisdiction over him. Only a Catholic can command another Catholic to do something in the Church of God that has to do with his salvation. Only a Catholic can be under the spiritual authority of another Catholic; hence that “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside [he who is a heretic] can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

Question: Does this mean that all my former confessions to heretical priests were invalid? And must I re-confess all my mortal sins to a new non-heretical priest whenever one is available?

Answer: Yes, your former confessions were indeed invalid and must be remade whenever a fully Catholic priest becomes available to you. However, even though your former confessions were invalid, they were not useless, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 5: “If, however, he were bound to confess again, his first confession would not be useless, because the more priests one confesses to, the more is the punishment remitted, both by reason of the shame in confessing, which is reckoned as a satisfactory punishment, and by reason of the power of the keys: so that one might confess so often as to be delivered from all punishment.”

And so do not despair, for as long as you are truly sorry for your sins and have a desire for confession, your sins will be forgiven.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2: “...confession and absolution... in whom contrition, together with the purpose of confessing and the desire of absolution, suffices to deliver them from everlasting death..”

Absolution is not a magic formula that removes a mortal sin from you if you have not even been sorry for having offended God. If you have made an act of perfect contrition and been truly sorry for your sin (even if your heart feels hardened) then you are forgiven! That is something you must believe (that God will forgive you) because God promises to forgive us our trespasses whenever we wish to amend ourselves by not sinning anymore. And if a person doesn’t have this will to stop sinning, then confession and contrition will be of no avail because God does not forgive the sin of a sinner who does not even wish to stop sinning and offending God. This is not to be confused with falling back into former sins again which all people can do. A truly repentant soul however will not fall back into former sins again (at least not mortal sins), but if a person do fall back over and over again to the sin of impurity, for example, this is an indication that he is living a bad life and that he is not consistent in his spiritual life. (Read this file for help regarding those issues: Spiritual Information You Must Know to be Saved.) If we do not trust in God’s forgiveness or that He will forgive us, then we have no Faith in Him! If we let ourselves act in this faithless way, then we show to God by our way of acting that we do not trust in Him, and that is a very wicked thing to do. So don’t let yourself fall into this trap of mistrust and despair but have full faith in God and in His loving mercy and believe firmly that he will forgive you — and move on.

Question: What do I do if I cannot find a non-heretical priest to confess to? Can I confess my sins to a Catholic layman as a penance for my sin, although he cannot give me an absolution?

Answer: Yes. In lack of priests to confess to, you can always choose to confess to a trustworthy and non-heretical layman. (If you know of no Catholics in your area, then you may confess to whomsoever you desire.) This too will benefit you for salvation, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 3: “… the sacramental power of Penance consists in a sanctification pronounced by the minister, so that if a man confess to a layman, although he fulfills his own part of the sacramental confession, he does not receive sacramental absolution. Wherefore his confession avails him somewhat, as to the lessening of his punishment, owing to the merit derived from his confession and to his repentance, but he does not receive that diminution of his punishment which results from the power of the keys; and consequently he must confess again to a priest [whenever he can do so].”

ADDENDUM - ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND CONTRITION AND ABOUT RECEIVING FORGIVENESS WITHOUT AN ABSOLUTION

Question: The problem is all the priests are heretics. So if they cannot give an absolution, is everyone damned? Suppose the following scenario: I did not have perfect contrition without an absolution, I only had attrition, I felt bad and stuff but not perfect contrition, so would you say I was forgiven?

Answer: One of the most common reasons for that so many people choose to deny the overwhelming evidence against communicating with heretics is because they don’t believe that God will forgive them their sins without an absolution, or when it is not available. Many people obviously have many misconceptions about the Sacrament of Confession, Penance, Absolution and Contrition and what actually is necessary for obtaining salvation. The fact of the matter however, is that The Council of Trent’s decree on Justification and the Sacrament of Penance never say that perfect contrition is “so hard” or “impossible” to receive from God (for those who desire it) as many other false and fallible statements make it out to be. It also never actually said anything about that one can be saved with only imperfect contrition with an absolution. Rather, all it said is that this attrition (imperfect contrition) helps to dispose a man to receive forgiveness (perfect contrition) in the Sacrament of Confession.

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment [but not for God], It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted PREPARES a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) [imperfect contrition] cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, CONDUCT [OR LEAD] the sinner to justification, yet does it DISPOSE HIM TO OBTAIN THE GRACE OF GOD IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.”

As we can see, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that attrition or imperfect contrition disposes the penitent to obtain the grace of God (perfect contrition or the forgiveness of his sins) in the Sacrament of Penancewhereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.” It never actually said that it forgives a person without perfect contrition in the Sacrament of Penance, as is clear from the above words.

To further illustrate the point that attrition only disposes the penitent to receive something, suppose we changed this sentence and added the word “satisfaction” instead of the word “attrition”. Now the sentence would go like this:

“And although this (satisfaction) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance.”

Would this sentence now mean that all one need to do in order to receive forgiveness of one’s sins in the sacrament of Penance is to perform an act of “satisfaction”? Of course not. All the quotation is saying is that it disposes the penitent to receive forgiveness in the sacrament, not what actually is needed to receive forgiveness.

According to the Council of Trent, the sacrament of Penance consists of three parts – “contrition, confession and satisfaction”and all who want to receive forgiveness of their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements – at least in desire – in order to attain justification. Even those who misinterpret this passage to say that all one need to receive the sacrament is attrition, admits that one must perform an act of confession and satisfaction as well as that one must receive an absolution from the priest – in addition to being properly disposedin order to attain justification, which shows us how they themselves prove that their false understanding of this sentence means that one needs more than just attrition to receive the sacrament of Penance.

The Council of Trent teaches that Penance, that is, “contrition, confession, and satisfaction” are inseparable parts of the Sacrament and that they are even “REQUIRED FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN”! This means that for the imperfect who are not yet justified, they may become justified by performing penance, good works and prayers in order to achieve this end – such as by making satisfaction for their sins. This is explained by The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, in the following way:

“The (quasi) matter of this sacrament [of Penance] consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. THESE, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE BY GOD’S INSTITUTION REQUIRED IN THE PENITENT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN, ARE FOR THIS REASON CALLED PARTS OF PENANCE.” (Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, On the Parts and Fruits of This Sacrament)

So by doing penance for one’s sins, by confessing to the priest in shame, by feeling sorrow and shame before God (whom the priest represents) and for having offended God, and by praying the act of contrition, etc., — all of these things will make an unjustified man justified – provided he is of good will – and give him perfect remission of his sins from God, — the remission of his sins, which is a grace of God (obtained by obeying Him and His commandments).

But we also know that one must be rightly disposed and of good will in order to be forgiven one’s sins in the sacrament since not all absolutions, even if the priests pronounces it upon the penitent, is valid or has an effect, and deliberate unconfessed mortal sins is even a sacrilege in the Sacrament of Penance; and the priest can also refuse an absolution if he perceives that the penitent is insincere or unrepentant.

“He breathed upon His disciples, saying Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained [John 20:23].” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 1)

Hence that this absolutely proves that forgiveness is not always obtained in the Sacrament – or when one receives an absolution (if the penitent was not rightly disposed) – since a proper disposition is absolutely required in order to be forgiven and saved, and if this be lacking, one cannot be truly reconciled with God, whom one has grievously offended.

So to answer your question: No, you are not forgiven without perfect contrition, which is a sorrow that arises because it offends God who is all-loving and all-good and who do not deserve to be offended against, rather than only feeling contrition for your own sake or for the fear of punishments – as infallibly defined by Council of Trent (as we will see below).

In fact, Pope Leo X and Pope Innocent XI even directly condemned the heretical idea that says that one can be forgiven and saved with only attrition or imperfect contrition, and the interesting thing about these condemnations is that they do not say it referred only to those people who have not yet received an absolution, as if those who had received an absolution could be saved with only attrition (this false and heretical theory that many have fallen into namely says that one can be saved with only attrition with an absolution but not without an absolution).

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 57), March 4, 1679: “It is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins suffices.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Notice that the above proposition which asserted that “imperfect sorrow for sins suffices” was condemned.

Likewise, in the year 1520, Pope Leo X condemned the following proposition which asserted that “imperfect charity” is enough in order for a person to attain salvation by first going though purgatory.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 4), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

The same Pope also condemned another statement of Luther commonly made by so many people today, which is the heresy that says that being contrite or sorry for one’s sins is an impossibility. In fact, certain people we have talked to concerning forgiveness without receiving an absolution have even explicitly told us that if heretics cannot give an absolution in confession: this means that every one is damned in that case. But why do they say this? Because they don’t believe they can be truly sorry for their sins, just as if God would be unable or unwilling to grant them this grace – if they would just ask for it in faith or strive for it with their whole heart.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 12), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite... if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

So this statement directly condemns the idea that contrition is an impossibility. Indeed, only a faithless heretic would say that it’s “hard” or even “impossible” to feel sorry for God’s sake rather than for punishment’s sake or that one is damned without receiving an absolution, just as if loving God was an impossibility to achieve for a willing soul! Have not all the Saints as well as all the other saved people loved God and felt sorrow for having offended the all good God rather than only fearing Hell or punishments? Of course they have. Thus, it is not impossible, and it is a heresy to say it is.

God has complete and perfect knowledge of the past, present, and future, and He knew before the creation of the world that there would be times and places where Sacramental Confession would not be available. Since God is infinitely just He would not say that you must perform an act of Sacramental Confession to get to Heaven, while at the same time knowing that there will be times and places when Sacramental Confession would not be available.

Whenever you can’t go to confession for whatever the reason may be, you are to make an Act of Contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition, and have a desire to receive the sacrament as soon as a fully Catholic priest becomes available in order to be saved, because even in times when Sacramental Confession is not available, the desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance is still required for salvation, because the Dogma that allows one to return to a state of grace without actually going to Confession with a priest requires that one must still have the desire for Sacramental Confession for his sins to be remitted.

The sacrament of Penance includes three parts – 1) contrition 2) confession and 3) satisfaction – and all who want to receive forgiveness for their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements. When a penitent makes an Act of Contrition, saying the prayer and act of contrition to the priest, this prayer must include an act of perfect contrition. If one says this prayer, but does not mean it, one is speaking falsely.

The commonly used traditional Act of Contrition prayer that one can make either to a priest or directly to God in the case a priest is not available contains both an act of imperfect and perfect contrition:

“O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell [imperfect contrition or attrition]; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love [perfect contrition]. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

So long as one is truly sorry for God’s sake when one makes this Act of Contrition, then the act is termed perfect. To also fear God or punishment does not take away the fact that one can be sorry for God’s sake. And that is why all saints have also feared God.

So contrary to what some may believe, imperfect contrition is also beneficial for the soul, even though it is not possible to be saved without perfect contrition, and that is why attrition is a part of contrition, as well as a part of the Act of Contrition prayer. The Council of Trent teaches that attrition is effected “either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment”, and this in turn shows us that attrition is wholly beneficial for the soul, and that it does not negate or take away anything from the soul:

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.”

God Himself taught three times at the Council of Trent, once in the Fourteenth Session and twice in the Sixth Session, of what we are to do when confession is not available:

Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4, on Contrition, A.D. 1551, ex cathedra: “It sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins... but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season...”

Trent thus directly teaches that one can receive forgiveness by performing an act of perfect contrition even when the Sacrament of Confession is not available; but contrary to many misconceptions and fallible statements, the council never said this act is “hard” or “impossible” to perform. So returning your soul to a state of grace when Sacramental Confession is not available requires that one makes an act of contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition. And perfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because they offend God while imperfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven, and the pains of Hell.

Considering this definition of what perfect and imperfect contrition is, if one truly feels sorrow for having offended God and have a true sorrow for God’s sake rather than only feeling sorry because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell and punishments, etc., THEN THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERFECT CONTRITION ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT!

So is this grace really so “hard” to receive from God if one actually cares about God? that is, to feel sorry for your sins because they offend God rather than only feeling sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell? No, not at all, but in reality, most people don’t care about God enough nor about avoiding sin (even the smallest sin); hence that almost all people are damned and do not receive this grace from God (since they do not love Him). That almost all people are damned (Catholic or not) is a biblical fact and is confirmed by all the saints who have spoken on this topic. Hence, the issue is not about absolution, rather, the issue is about people living bad lives and that they don’t love God enough – that makes it impossible for them to be saved.

That of course means that one must do all in one’s power to avoid not only mortal sin, but also venial sin. It also means to in fact never even have a will to commit even the slightest sin that one knows to be a sin culpably or with full consent against the all good God — and now we may deduce already why most people in fact are damned. The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”

That one must avoid the proximate occasion of sin in order to be Saved and receive Forgiveness of one’s sins from God is a certain fact of the Natural and Divine law that has always been taught by the Church and Her Saints. For instance, Blessed Pope Innocent XI during his papacy, condemned three propositions that denied this truth:

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

For instance, in order to help people avoid occasions of falling into sin, we often tell them about the absolute need to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock (which means that they can’t see images at all when surfing various websites or any internet ads) so as to avoid innumerable occasions of falling into sin, not only venial sins, but also mortal sins of impurity.

Now, many people claiming to be Catholic and worshiping God and desiring forgiveness of their sins and enter Heaven strangely don’t care anything about this advice, and even chose to ignore it because of their perverse and evil will and attachment to images. Now if they really wanted forgiveness for their sins and cared anything about God, and to please Him, and not to offend Him, they obviously would not surf the internet with images on and thus expose themselves to innumerable bad images of sensual women or men tempting them everyday to fall into occasions of sin against the all good God.

It should go without saying, but when images is necessary or needed for what one is doing, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long time as it is necessary — provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Only at a particular time or occasion, such as for a work, or when reading some article, but other than that we have no reason or necessity to have them on, and therefore, they must be off.

And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.

“Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

(Please see this section for some more quotes on the issue and on the help and steps on how to block images in your web-browser and surf the internet with an adblock: http://www.sanctussanctus.info/the-natural-law/#How-to-control-your-eyes)

Those people who choose to ignore this advice despite being told not to do so, infallibly prove the point (i.e., the above explanation of why most people are damned).

Most people just don’t care about God enough nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love – which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin.

Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole hearttrust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.

The above information only covers the basics on whether one can be saved without an absolution; that Perfect Contrition is required also in Confession; and that Imperfect Contrition only dispose a man to receive forgiveness in the Sacrament; and that the sacrament consists not only of an absolution or confession, but also of contrition and satisfaction. — And there are much more points and quotes to be considered on this issue. To learn more about the Sacrament of Penance, Imperfect and Perfect Contrition and what is needed in order to be saved, please consult the following article that deals more in depth with this issue: http://www.sanctussanctus.info/contrition-and-the-sacrament-of-penance/

PETER LIES ABOUT THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Around 16:12-16:41 in the debate; and on his website

III Council of Constantinople: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

The following is Peter’s incredible commentary on the Third Council of Constantinople:

Peter Dimond, 16:12-16:41 in the debate: “That again is talking about churches which are notorious in law, those which have been declared by name, or those which are notorious in fact. Those which are so obvious like the Eastern “Orthodox”. That’s what it’s talking about [that those must be avoided]. It is not talking about undeclared individuals who profess to be catholic who happen to be heretics but are not so notorious. So it’s all beside the point.”

Now, can anyone please explain to us where the third Council of Constantinople mentioned that it was only referring to those groups of people that Peter just mentioned? Peter is simply lying through his teeth here since he know this dogma goes against him! If Peter did not argue as he does he would have to confess that this and similar decrees condemns him and his heretical position of going to “THE MEETINGHOUSES OF THE HERETICS!” (Third Council of Constantinople).

By the way, Peter has even admitted that his own notoriously heretical priest that he receives the sacraments from have rejected the evidence (MHFM’s material) when it was presented to him. Peter has even tried to convert his priest many times, but he has refused to listen. So what excuse is there for his priest? None. The priest is a notorious heretic even according to the Dimonds own standards. Yet Peter and Michael Dimond still presumably continues to go to this priest for mass and the sacraments.

According to Peter, it doesn’t matter how often or how many times his priest rejects the evidence or the dogmas of the Church or even how many times he excuses the heresies of the Vatican II “Church” and its antipopes. For so long as the priest stays less “notorious” or heretical, then, according to the Dimonds’ own made up and heretical standard, the priest can be approached and the Dimonds can avoid being condemned by their own standards or by the condemnation of the Third Council of Constantinople.

However, as anyone of good will can see for themselves, the Third Council of Constantinople never made any distinctions between declared or undeclared heretics, between less notorious or more notorious heretics, between more obvious or less obvious heretical persons, etc., as Peter actually have the boldness to claim, and so the only way to interpret this dogma is to interpret it for what it really says, and that would be to include all the known heretics, declared or undeclared, less notorious or more notorious, less obvious or more obvious about their heresies etc. For so long as we can know for a certain fact that a specific person is an obstinate heretic, then we must condemn him as such and avoid him and may not approach him for religious purposes just as the Third Council of Constantinople and similar decrees clearly state.

There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

When Peter obstinately evade papal decrees, canons, councils and dogmas that are already so clear and easy to understand that no further explanation is needed or necessary to understand them, then he is acting dishonestly. Not all dogmas are as clear or easy to understand as others, of course, hence that some saints have misunderstood, for example, the Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, believing baptism of desire is true. And other dogmas might be easier to understand in view of other dogmas, etc. But whenever a dogma clearly forbids Catholics to have any religious communion with known heretics and schismatics, then no further explanation is necessary or anything more needed to be added to understand the meaning of the dogma, because it’s already abundantly clear from the words itself that all known, obstinate heretics must be avoided, as we have seen. (These dogmas of course only condemns association with heretics in direct opposition to the Church laws and not every kind of association like buying food from them etc.)

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.”

(This article will be updated in the future with more points, objections and refuted arguments. Please contact us if you have any questions or wonder about any argument not yet covered in this article.)

WHAT WE’VE PROVEN: A LIE, AN ERROR, A HERESY OR A STAGGERING CONTRADICTION CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE AFTER PAGE OF MHFM’S AND THE DIMONDS’ DEBATE AND ARTICLES CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT

You’ve just read an exposé of the Dimonds’ debate and some of their articles on this subject. We’ve refuted every major objection of their articles and proved that there are lies, errors, heresies and staggering contradictions. Not only were their statements proven wrong, but they were proven wrong with their own words! It should be clear by now that the Dimonds are sadly proven liars, dark heretics and spiritual deceivers. Here’s a rapid summary of what we’ve seen in this article. But first we will post the contents of our other article concerning their embarrassing contradictions.

Related articles:
www.sanctussanctus.info
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!