MHFM & www.vaticancatholic.com review & Youtube exposed

MHFM which stands for "Most Holy Family Monastery" and their websites www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com and www.vaticancatholic.com is a heretical sedevacantist enterprise who teaches that one may commune sacramentally with both apostate priests and apostate laymen as well as with the eastern "orthodox" sect, the Novus Ordo sect, as well as with many other heretical sects as we will prove.

MHFM and vaticancatholic.com teaches 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.

COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION AND THAT THEIR CONFESSIONS ARE INVALID

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 invalid. ... 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].”

Is it an article of divine and Catholic faith that forbids praying in communion with heretics and receiving the sacraments from them?

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001): “Council of Laodicea, 365: "No one shall pray in common with heretics." The Council of Laodicea is a regional council, not an ecumenical one; thus, it doesn’t even represent Church discipline solemnly promulgated by a Pope, let alone a "truth of divine and Catholic faith" (dogma)... Council of Carthage, stating basically the same thing as the Council of Laodicea... Carthage, like the one from Laodicea, is not "an article of divine and Catholic faith." It is a disciplinary decree... III Council of Constantinople. "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses 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." (Sacrorum Conciliorium, XI:635) This is also not an article of divine and Catholic faith, but another disciplinary decree, like Laodicea and Carthage. ... Therefore... I [do not] deny a truth of divine and Catholic faith... 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...”

Peter Dimond could not be more wrong when he said “It is a disciplinary decree... not an article of divine and Catholic faith” to avoid heretics in the sacraments, for it is a dogmatic and certain fact (and of divine and Catholic faith) – and not only a disciplinary law – that Catholics can only be in religious communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with or receive the sacraments from people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels (as we will see). Hence that it is the divine and dogmatic law that bans Catholics from religious communion with known heretics and schismatics or from entering their churches.

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.”

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 heretical “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).”

Here we see Pope Leo XIII explicitly teaching that “the unity of the faith” and the “UNITY OF COMMUNION, IS NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE LAW)” and that this “is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful,” thus proving to anyone of good will that religious communion in the sacraments is not only a disciplinary law but of divine and catholic 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.”

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 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.”

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 [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

However, Peter has also admitted that religious communion is of divine and Catholic faith 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.”

So Peter do agree with the above quotations and statements (that this is of Divine and Catholic Faith) but only insofar as it suits his own purpose, since he claims it’s only of divine law when heretics receive the sacraments from Catholics, but not likewise of divine law when Catholics – or pretended Catholics – receive the sacraments from heretics.

However, there are two exceptions to this doctrine of receiving the sacraments from heretics, and that is baptism, and marriage (with the direct approval of the Church). This specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church, the Natural Law or Tradition will always make it clear when there is an exception to a dogma.

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 specific statement from Peter deals with the sacrament of marriage:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In the debate with Eli, I brought up the fact that the Church has permitted mixed marriages. While the Church does not recommend mixed marriages – it actively discourages them – it’s a fact that marriages between Catholics and heretics have been approved by popes on certain occasions. … 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. 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.”

In Matrimony, as Peter also pointed out, the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, and the priest acts only as a witness of the sacrament taking place between the contracting parties.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “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).”

Now, if there ever were such a teaching that would allow for Catholics to receive any other sacrament besides the sacrament of baptism – in case of a necessity – from a heretical or schismatical minister, be sure that it would have been dogmatically defined by the Church or used by Peter Dimond in his debates and articles. However, this has not been defined by the Church and no such quote has ever been brought forth by Peter Dimond on his website, because it has never and will never be allowed for Catholics to knowingly approach a heretical or schismatical minister to hear his mass or receive his invalidly and illicitly consecrated sacraments, except for the sacrament of baptism in case of a necessity. (remember, marriage is not received from a minister but is exchanged between the contracting parties themselves).

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 [without sin] consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 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.”

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, such as heretics or schismatics] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

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.”

Pope Leo XIII also points out that a kind of sacrament of marriage (but not the full Christian sacrament of marriage between baptized individuals) existed from the beginning of the world, both amongst the faithful and even amongst the unbelievers.

Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum #19, Feb 10, 1880: “Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.”

All people, even the heretics and the unbelievers since the beginning of time have exchanged a kind of sacrament of marriage between each other both validly and licitly, because, as Pope Leo XIII points out, “Marriage has God for its Author,” and obviously, there can never be a sin in doing what God has approved of to take place—unless of course one knowingly acts in direct opposition to the Church’s laws. 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)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; "Mixed Marriage" (1910): “As to a mixed marriage contracted before a non-Catholic minister, Pope Pius IX issued an instruction, 17 Feb., 1864. He declared that in places where the heretical preacher occupied the position of a civil magistrate and the laws of the country required marriages to be entered into before him in order that certain legal effects may follow, it is permitted to the Catholic party to appear before him either before or after the marriage has taken place in presence of the [Catholic] parish priest. If, however, the heretical minister is held to be discharging a religious duty [like confecting the Eucharist] in such witnessing of a marriage, then it is unlawful for a Catholic to renew consent before him as this would be a communion in sacred things and an implicit yielding to heresy.”

Furthermore, a Catholic is only allowed to marry a heretic under the strictest of circumstances, and that only with the approval of the Church. The contracting parties must also have agreed upon to raise and educate the children in the Catholic religion. So Peter is absolutely right when he says that the sin of communication in the sacraments with heretics is triggered when you do so despite the Church’s prohibition. The Church prohibits receiving the other sacraments from heretical ministers, therefore, it is a mortal sin to presume to receive these 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 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 [i.e, whoever eats the Lamb in the houses of heretics is unholy].’”

So the Church clearly condemns anyone who obstinately defends eating the Lamb “outside of this house” (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics, for “It is impossible for us [Catholics] to hold communion after their death with those [heretics] who have not been in communion with us during their life.” (Pope Innocent III, chapter xii, de sepulturis, lib. III, tit. xxviii)

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, p 91: “On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to themUnder no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” In a question presented to the same Congregation in 1839, the following reply was made: “Ethiopian converts were not to receive the sacrament of Penance from an heretical priest.” When the Congregation was asked about whether such a practice could be tolerated in a case of necessity, “the Congregation furnished the ironical if not indignant reply, ‘Nihil esse respondendum.’” Rev. Szal comments: “The answer to the question appeared so manifest that to raise the question at all branded the questioner’s action as foolhardy, and consequently as deserving no reply.” Szal notes that, “It is gravely illicit to request or receive the sacrament of Penance from a schismatic minister… The ordinary necessity which a person senses when he is in the state of mortal sin is not sufficient to allow him to confess to a schismatic priest and receive absolution... Such a person would be obliged to make a Perfect Act of Contrition as best he could…”

Now, this exception on baptism, even from the hands of a heretical minister, is really necessary since no man can ever be saved (or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the Catholic 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 point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regards to heretical or schismatical ministers.

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, the Holy Bible, and Second Council of Constantinople makes perfectly 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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.” (Sacrorum Conciliorum, XI:635)

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.” (Patrologiae Cursus Completus 56:486)

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.”

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)

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:

  • For can a believer receive a heretic into his home for the purpose of converting him? Of course he can!
  • 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.)
  • 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 on our website: 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…

    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, 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.”

    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).”

    More on Peter Dimond’s illogical and heretical teachings on notorious-in-fact heretics

    What follows is more evidence of the Dimonds’ illogical and heretical teaching regarding who is a notorious-in-fact heretic. They present evidence which proves that Bishop Mark Pivarunus and the priests of his heretical CMRI sect are undeclared obstinate heretics for denying the Salvation Dogma; yet, Peter teaches that Catholics are allowed to attend Mass at CMRI churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from CMRI priests.

    Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “The priests of the CMRI are one of the only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today… However, we have pointed out in our newsletters and magazines the unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests of the CMRI are heretics (as will be shown below). The priests of the CMRI are heretics first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.’ The article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching. In fact, the title of the article ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church’ is a word for word denial of the Catholic dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” It is equivalent to publishing an article entitled: ‘The Original Sin of Mary.’”

    Every CMRI priest that Peter spoke to denied the Salvation Dogma:

    Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “This heresy was so blatant that I called the headquarters of the CMRI in Washington and spoke to one of the priests about the article. He told me that he had ‘no problem with it.’ A priest from the CMRI’s seminary in Nebraska and a nun from the CMRI convent in Washington told me (when I questioned them over the telephone) that non-Catholics who die in their false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith. This has been the response of every priest of the CMRI that I have questioned about this issue.”

    Notice that Peter clearly denounces the CMRI priests as obstinate (meaning formal) heretics but nevertheless teaches that “their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today.” Therefore, while Peter believes the CMRI priests are undeclared obstinate heretics, he also believes they are not undeclared notorious heretics because if they were he would not say Catholics are allowed to attend their Masses because he correctly believes Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with notorious heretics. Hence Peter denies the very definition of an undeclared notorious heretic. An obstinate undeclared heretic whose heresy is in the public domain is a notorious heretic, by the very definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic.

    According to the Dimonds, no matter how much and how certain the public evidence is against the CMRI priests for teaching heresy, these priests cannot be notorious heretics unless they also impose their heresy on others. That is why the Dimonds teach that Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of CMRI priests in spite of the fact that the Dimonds have denounced them as obstinate heretics. Peter says that “The priests of the CMRI are one of the only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today… However… the priests of the CMRI are heretics first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.” Again, although Peter teaches that these priests are obstinate heretics, he does not believe they are notorious heretics.

    Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003: “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.”

    Peter says the CMRI priests are silent about their heresies! If so, then how does he know they teach heresy so that he could denounce them as obstinate heretics? If they were truly silent about their heresies, then they would be occult heretics; and hence no mere man on earth, and that includes Peter, would know about their heresies.

    But why does Peter say we can approach some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests who accepts ecumenism, or that “impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass”, that we may not approach them?

    Peter’s dishonesty here is that he excuse the heretics’ crimes of heresy (that murders people’s souls) by claiming that they are not notorious about their heresies. He claims this even though he knows and even admits that the priests he approaches (and tells others to approach) are notorious, known obstinate heretics. Peter makes this distortion by misapplying and misinterpreting the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law.

    Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The Code of Canon Law contains the distinctions between public, notorious in law, and notorious in fact...

    To summarize the Definitions:

    Public = commonly known or can be commonly known

    Notorious in law = declared

    Notorious in fact = public and so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused

    “Since the meaning of notorious in law (declared) is obvious, we must continue to focus on notorious in fact. As we see above, the lack of “concealment” or “evasion” is the key in rendering something notorious in fact. The crime of the person who is notorious in fact cannot be concealed. While there are numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern “Orthodox” rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one. There is no concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They openly and without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious in fact. Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

    His above commentary was on this following canon:

    Canon 2197.1-4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

    A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

    (2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750;

    (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse;

    (4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…”

    Note carefully the bolded and underlined portions above. Canon law No. 1 & 3 clearly states that a crime is public ifit can and will easily become so, and notorious, if it is publicly known”.

    Canon 2197.1-4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known...”

    So even the EXACT SAME CANON LAW that Peter uses to “prove” his heretical doctrine, actually condemns his own position! How ironic.

    But to prove this even further, consider the following. Is not the different traditional societies’ heretical literature publicly available and easily accessible for anyone at anytime today? Of course they are. So their heresies are public, and in the public domain, and are commonly known, or will easily become so to anyone who just looks into it.

    Here follows some public and commonly known heretical literature from two priestly societies’ that Peter and Michael Dimond teaches one can receive the sacraments from under certain conditions:

    Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.’ The article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching.”

    The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine [on no salvation outside the Church], however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

    Notice that the SSPV writer “simply refuse to believe” in the Church’s dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. This is the SSPV’s public teaching (and all of these heretical priestly societies teaches their heresies publicly, as anyone can easily see for themselves by consulting MHFM’s own articles on the subject!). Yet Peter goes on to teach that Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from these obstinate heretics.

    Peter Dimond, Important Update on the Heretical Society of Pius V: “… 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.”

    But what did the 1917 Code mean with excused that Peter mentioned?

    Peter Dimond, Sacraments From Heretics Debate: “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 Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Notorious in fact = public and so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused... AS WE SEE ABOVE, THE LACK OF “CONCEALMENT” OR “EVASION” IS THE KEY IN RENDERING SOMETHING NOTORIOUS IN FACT. THE CRIME OF THE PERSON WHO IS NOTORIOUS IN FACT CANNOT BE CONCEALED [OR EXCUSED]. While there are numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern “Orthodox” rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one. There is no concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They openly and without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious in fact. Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

    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” (as we will see below in more detail). 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, or can and will easily become known so. 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:” (Isaiah 30:1)

    PETER’S “CONCEALMENT” AND “EXCUSED” IN LAW HERESY REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE

    Ever wondered why Peter says we can approach some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests who accepts ecumenism etc., that we may not approach them?

    Couldn’t the Dimond brothers warped Canon Law principle of excused and concealed in law likewise excuse the heresy of the Vatican II ecumenism, if we play after the Dimonds’ own standards? Of course it could. For so long as the heretic could divert the attention elsewhere and say something like: “Look, the Vatican II ecumenism is only about bringing the false religions of the world back into the bosom and unity of the Church again, and, Christ wants all to be Saved! Therefore, since the Church is His Body and the Church hierarchy approves of this, I have to accept it, even if I don’t agree with it or understand it. And, we must be in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and obey him—that’s a dogma—and so we cannot deny it; therefore, we must accept it. Neither can we judge the Pope, or the Church, and, Christ promised that the Gates of hell can never prevail against it! And there must be perpetual successors to St. Peter and so on and so forth; and so the Church cannot be wrong on this, etc.”

    Couldn’t all of these above mentioned excuses make up a concealment in law or an excuse in law even according to Peter Dimond’s own demonical and heretical standard? Of course it could. But Peter only follows his own principles when it suits him!

    Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “For example, a priest who offers a traditional liturgy under Benedict XVI, who has seen the evidence that Benedict XVI cannot be the pope, cannot “excuse” his adherence to him. He is guilty of heresy for obstinately adhering to him. BUT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO “CONCEAL” HIS CRIME AND REJECTION OF CATHOLIC TEACHING UNDER AN ALLEGED FIDELITY TO VATICAN I, AN ALLEGED FIDELITY TO THE TEACHING THAT “NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE HOLY SEE,” ETC. WHILE THIS “CONCEALMENT” DOESN’T EXCUSE HIM – HE IS STILL GUILTY – IT COULD RENDER HIM NOT NOTORIOUS IN FACT [WHICH THEN MEANS, ACCORDING TO PETER, THAT ONE MAY COMMUNE WITH HIM!].”

    Even though Peter claims above that he don’t believe that the priest can be “excused” for his heresies etc., the fact is—whether he ever will admit to it or not—that he in fact are excusing their heresies by concealing them for them! However an obstinate crime or heresy that is known to a person cannot be concealed, since it is known. Therefore, Peter has no excuse for “concealing” a known obstinate priest’s heresy because Peter certainly KNOWS that the priest is guilty! Peter is truly the devil’s advocate who, instead of pleading guilty sentences for criminals who spit at and reject the laws of God, is searching for ways to acquit them from a guilty sentence! A criminal could of course try to conceal his own guilt in a court of law and so be acquitted of the charges if it was not known that he was guilty or if evidence was lacking. But for Peter to “conceal” a known heretic’s crimes when he even knows he’s guilty, is so incredibly stupid and evil that one can only marvel at his evilness.

    They can excuse a priest who rejects our Lord Jesus Christ and the necessity of believing in Him, but seems not to excuse people who believe that the Vatican II ecumenism is acceptable? How does that make any sense? What is a more evil heresy, 1) to reject that it’s necessary to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation with obstinacy and without concealment; or 2) to accept ecumenism obstinately and without concealment? Obviously #1 is a much worse crime to be guilty of and to commit since to reject Christ is to reject the entire Christian Faith.

    If MHFM did not excuse some of the major heretical beliefs that the validly ordained heretical priests believed in, then, there would be virtually no priests left in the entire world that they, or their followers could go to for mass and the sacraments. That’s how bad the situation has become today, as even the Dimonds are forced to admit.

    Peter Dimond, An Unanswered Letter? Our letter “debate” with Bishop McKenna on Baptism of Desire: “They hold that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic Faith and are complete heretics. It is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their priests, that the priests of the CMRI adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49 and believe that invincible ignorance can save members of false, non-Catholic religions and persons who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. This heresy is held by almost all priests today.”

    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.”

    MHFM, A Warning about Certain Heretical “Traditionalist” Priests and Chapels: “The problem, however, is that almost all of the priests celebrating these traditional and valid Masses hold to one or more heresies. Almost all of them either... deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation in its true meaning – that is, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. Many of them hold to other heresies as well.”

    If MHFM would be consistent with their own teaching, they would have to excuse the priest who accept the Vatican II ecumenism as well. They would not only excuse the priest who rejects all other dogmas or even the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation, but would further have to excuse the Vatican II ecumenism or the heresy that the Eastern “Orthodox” doesn’t need to be converted.

    THE DIMOND BROTHERS ENTERS INTO COMMUNION WITH THE GATES OF HELL!

    Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “…we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics).”

    To knowingly receive a sacrament from a heretical person despite the prohibition of the Church, means, to be in religious communion with that person, and he who does this culpably has, in reality (unless ignorance excuse him), broken off his communion with the Church by uniting himself with those who are outside, with those who are THE GATES OF HELL!

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

    That Peter and Michael Dimond (who claims to be Catholic) actually enters into communion with known heretics, schismatics, and apostates, thus entering into communion with the GATES OF HELL, is quite revealing, and it proves how the Church’s indefectibility is not effected by obstinate heretics like Peter and Michael Dimond, since they are not Catholic. So their heretical position is in no way affecting the true faithful Catholics or the true Church of Christ since no true Catholic is in communion with apostates from the Faith.

    St. Cyril of Alexandria: “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 yourself to their communion.” (On Leviticus 17:3)

    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.”

    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!

    Heretical, False and Scandalous Religious Practices

    Sacraments from heretics

    Because none of them were ever ordained, and they believe that the New Mass is invalid and a false worship, they receive the sacraments from a Byzantine rite “Catholic Church” that is in communion with Vatican II and its antipopes, in Rochester, New York, in layman’s clothes in lieu of their Benedictine habits for this occasion in order not to evoke scandal. Peter Dimond wrote: “In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I’ve received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces.” (The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times)

    Mass attendance

    Will Norris, who was associated with Michael and Peter Dimond and stayed at their Monastery in Fillmore, New York, for a period of time, and who admitted to being misled by some of their teachings into thinking Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics by attending their Masses, said the following concerning their religious practices at the time of their association:

    Will Norris, T or C, New Mexico, 1/10/2002: “I went to Mass with Michael and Peter about three times. They do not wear religious garb. They dress as laymen so the priest and people do not think they are brothers. We went late all the time. We arrived around the reading of the Gospel. After Mass we went to confession and then promptly left without speaking to anyone or leaving any literature in the church or on the cars out front. He did this every time I attended Mass with him. I asked Michael about giving the information to the priest at the church. Michael said he was considering mailing it to him without putting his name on the envelope. But he was leery of doing this because he was afraid of being refused the sacraments. I asked Michael, is not the Mass the highest form of prayer and aren’t we praying in communion with the priest and people? Michael said the priest is the one who is offers up the sacrifice and not us. We are not guilty of his sins against the faith.”

    The Church’s actual teaching condemns them

    Contrary to Michael Dimond’s heretical response to Will Norris’ above question, the Catholic Church teaches the following concerning religious association and communion with known heretics and schismatics and entering their Churches (and yes, MHFM believes the churches they attend and the priests offering them mass are heretics and heretical churches):

    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)

    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;”

    The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “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.”

    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.”

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

    1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

    St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1: “The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.]. WHEREFORE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN EXCOMMUNICATION.”

    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 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 eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

    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.”

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

    Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “… 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...”

    The point is clearly made by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos:

    Catholics are absolutely forbidden to have “…any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching…” and the “… Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”

    Which is why St. Paul says:

    You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

    Because any obstinate adult practitioner of a false sect or religion is serving the Devil and not the true God, being the child of this Devil, any practice of his false religion or sect is a partaking “of the table of the devils.” This means the religious ceremonies and prayers of a false sect or religion.

    Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 7:62 (c. 380 AD.): “Take heed, therefore, not to join yourselves in your worship with those that perishFor there is no fellowship between God and the devil; for he that assembles himself with those that favour the things of the devil, will be esteemed one of them, and will inherit a woe. … So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid the assemblies of the ungodly… and of the rest of the heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to them we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by joining in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be partakers with them in their impiety.”

    Our Almighty Creator is appalled when His children soil themselves with the filth of false religions or non-Catholic sects. So while it is wrong to be at the ceremonies and prayers of a false religion because it misleads non-Catholics and scandalizes Catholics, more than anything by far is it gravely sinful because it betrays God Himself. God commands all men to worship in His Religion of Catholicism, and He is exceedingly angry when people violate this most important of His commandments.

    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)

    As Rev. Ignatius Szal explains from the beginning of his Canon Law commentary:

    Communication in religious rites [with heretics and schismatics] is forbidden because of accompanying dangers such as perversion of faith and scandal to others. This prohibition of the Church, found in Can. 1258, extends not only to active participation with schismatics in rites that are of their nature non-Catholic, BUT ALSO EXCLUDES COMMUNICATION WITH THEM IN RITES WHICH, THOUGH PECULIARLY CATHOLIC, ARE EXERCISED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A NON-CATHOLIC SECT.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

    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, 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))

    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)

    THE NECESSITY AND OBLIGATION FOR ALL TO JUDGE, DENOUNCE, CONDEMN AND AVOID HERETICS, HERESY AND SCHISM

    Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#’s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “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 we can 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 to be “separated from communion with the Church.” This is a command, and not something which people can choose or not choose to do. You must thus 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 or from professing the faith whenever the situation requires it will torment you for all eternity in the fires of hell, as the Catholic Church have always taught.

    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.”

    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.”

    Catechism Questions and Answers: 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.”

    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)

    These statements are of course directly contrary to what Michael Dimond told Will Norris, that “the priest is the one who is offers up the sacrifice and not us. We are not guilty of his sins against the faith.” However, on their website, his brother (Peter Dimond) correctly agrees with the Church’s teaching, teaching that it is a sin to act against the Church prohibitions and communicate with people against the Church prohibitions, saying that “[the] sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

    Now their contradictory, heretical and false position is this: they don’t apply the Church prohibition against communicating in the sacraments with all known heretics, but only to the heretical priests they themselves deem to be of limits. Go figure.

    Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “Of course, we want to stress, once again, that none of these points are meant to suggest that one may attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, every undeclared heretic. As we point out, it depends on the undeclared heretic. He must meet certain conditions: he must be validly ordained, using a traditional rite, he cannot be imposing, notorious, etc.”

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

    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.”

    A former member of Most Holy Family Monastery, Richard Ibranyi, said the following concerning the religious practices and activities of his former superior, Michael Dimond, at the time of his association with him:

    RJMI, E-mail conversations with Peter Dimond (12/29/2001): “Michael Dimond strictly forbids anyone to talk to the people or the priest, not even so much as a hello. He also forbids his minions to hand out or leave any literature in, or in front of the church. I know. I was one of his minions. I gave him false obedience in this, and committed mortal sins against the first commandment by omission for remaining silent, and by association for knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics. I have been severely punished by God for this crime of mine. I sinfully obeyed Michael, and in so doing shirked my duty to profess the faith. I wanted to, but I gave Michael false obedience and remained silent for a long period of time. I chose men over God. It is even worse than when I was there. When I attended Mass with Michael we wore religious garb. I heard from Will Norris that he no longer does that. You and Michael, like cowards trying to hide your crime, attend Mass in the clothing of laymen. This only proves what was true when I was there. Michael, his religious order, and you are non-Catholic frauds. I told Michael this when I was at the “Monastery.” I told him, “Either we profess the full deposit of faith and live by it or we are nothing more than non-Catholic frauds. Lets take off these costumes now and stop pretending and lying to the people.”

    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 the sacraments 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)? No. Do heretics confect the sacrament of Confession validly and the Eucharist licitly? Of course not! And do they do these acts 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, as we have just seen, 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.”

    Related articles:
    www.ProphecyFilm.com
    Free DVDs, Articles and Books
    FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
    WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!