Download as:

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

Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics - Debate Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Peter

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

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

Elias

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


PETER LIES ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

Around 3:20 in the debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III Council of Constantinople

Council of Carthage

Peter Dimond

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Numerous times in the debate; and on his website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PETER LIES ABOUT THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PETER LIES ABOUT THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

Let us now examine his lies and refute them thoroughly.

Peter Dimond’s first statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First quote:

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

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

Second quote:

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

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

Third Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continues:

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

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

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this question for us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Around 9:30-10:23 in the debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PETER LIES ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE (AD EVITANDA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

But I wonder if Peter ever would dare to admit to such an outrageously heretical teaching. In fact, he does not, thus proving his dishonesty.

Peter Dimond, John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: “Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE LAW. PIUS XII’S LEGISLATION DOESN’T APPLY TO HERESY... Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN’T MENTION HERETICS.”

So Peter’s own answer that he gave to John Salza actually crushes his own position on Ad Evitanda. Peter simply doesn’t want to grasp his own logic here since it refutes and condemns his own position and argumentation. But whenever the same argumentation is used against him, then he is quick to point out that a decree doesn’t have to make a distinction between Catholics and heretics and that it doesn’t have to mention the word “heresy” or “heretics” to exclude heretics and that they are simply excluded anyway, as he says, “by the DIVINE LAW.” So this is a perfect example of how the word “any excommunication” can be used without actually referring to or including heretics, and Peter agrees with this, as we have seen.

Third. When Peter said at 12:06- “so they attempt to conceal their heresy in law and it renders them less notorious”, he perverted the meaning of the decree Ad Evitanda, which said:

“...save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by any legal defence.”

Now think about the decree. What does it say? It says that there is no obligation to avoid such people if they cannot be pinned to the crime for which they would be excommunicated (especially that of striking a cleric) because they are cleverly evasive, OR if their action was excusable in law.

How can one be excused from excommunication for striking a cleric? Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

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

Again, Ad Evitanda Scandala is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope” (11:57!), or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” (12:00!) that Peter mentioned. Peter KNOWS that both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but he throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.

Arius claimed that he had an “excuse in law” to believe and teach that Jesus Christ was not God. So is it lawful to commune with them because they can pervert and distort the decrees to suit their heresy? No. The law NEVER permits heresy. Period. Therefore Arius does not have a legal defense for his ravings, and so a canon like Ad Evitanda has NO RELATION to communing with heretics in the sacraments.

Fourth. Peter says a good example of heretics who are out front and open about their heresies would be the Eastern “Orthodox”. The fact is that any sect that teaches heresy in their public literature, or publicly claims communion with the antipopes would qualify as “out front and open.”

Peter says at 11:40 that there is a distinction between heretics who are under Benedict XVI and the Eastern “Orthodox”, as though the Vatican II religion is somehow any less blasphemous than the Eastern “Orthodox”. The fact is that the Vatican II religion is (if it were possible) MORE blasphemous! I have not yet heard of an “Orthodox” teaching that they share the same God with Muslims, have you?

So Peter’s argument that there is a difference in the level of “up front and openness” about their heresy fails dramatically.

Fifth. Even if the decree Ad Evitanda was referring to heretics (which it isn’t), that would still only mean that the decree would first have come into effect in the year 1418, since that was the year when the pope first promulgated it and made it mandatory to avoid those only who had been condemned formally by name. This would then mean, that before 1418, it would have been forbidden for Catholics to talk to or have any religious communion with any excommunicated person (declared or undeclared) whenever they were known as such. The Catholic Encyclopedia expressly refers to this fact:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, "Excommunication", (1909): “All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters. This distinction dates from the aforesaid Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala", published by Martin V at the Council of Constance in 1418; until then one had to avoid communion with all the excommunicated, once they were known as such.”

So this is a good point, and it totally demolishes Peter’s main two arguments in the debate, namely: 1) that a declaratory sentence is always necessary for avoiding certain “undeclared” heretics; and 2) that this has always been the position held by the Church.

Peter Dimond, 10:12-10:23 in the debate: “that’s in fact the language we see throughout Church history in the ecclesiastical decrees that govern the obligation of Catholics to avoid undeclared heretics.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “That means that the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case comes: 1) if he has been declared; or, short of such a declaration, 2) if he is so notorious that he cannot conceal or excuse his crime in law. We find this distinction throughout Church history.”

Peter is either 1) lying on purpose, or 2) doesn’t know what he is talking about. Let us now examine at the Church history that Peter refers to so much so we can see whether it agrees with him or not.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are by ipso facto (by that very fact) deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”... St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same. … “St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance [Ad Evitanda], they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated [Catholics], that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

It’s quite strange however because Peter often cites several quotes from the very same book (from the very same page!) that the above quotations was taken from. We do hope Peter was simply ignorant about this, and about St. Thomas (which he so often quotes from), and that he did not simply disregard this evidence against himself. For how could any man with good conscience read such statements as above and still claim or obstinately assert that Ad Evitanda, St. Thomas Aquinas or the Church tradition agrees with him? Only in the valley of Josaphat at the day of judgment will we truly know if Peter were ignorant about these quotations that so clearly refutes his position.

So not only did St. Robert Bellarmine refute Peter’s pathetic argument on the Council of Constance, but he even affirms the point we’ve been trying to make clear in this article, namely, that the heretics “have been cut off [automatically] from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

Truly, one has to ask the question: If Catholics had to avoid an undeclared heretic for religious purposes before 1418, whenever he was known as such, why then would the Church make a law that says contrary afterwards? It wouldn’t! The only answer to this question is that the Church hasn’t made any such dangerous or ridiculous laws as Peter would have us believe, and neither would it make any sense if it had, because the Church would then be in contradiction with its own infallible decrees that teaches us to stay away from heretics and schismatics, and especially their communion.

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

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

As we can see here, the truth of avoiding known heretics and schismatics and their religious communion, was taught long before and long after Ad Evitanda was ever promulgated, thus proving to any person of good will that Ad Evitanda never dealt with heresy or heretics in regards to Catholic communion.

A divine law can never be changed so a Pope could never make a law that would contradict or change an infallible Catholic dogma, like the dogma that bans heretics from Catholic communion, and so allow devils and demons (heretics and schismatics) to be in religious communion with the faithful on earth and in heaven.

The divine law says that all heretics are outside the Church of God and that they don’t need to be excommunicated formally to be expelled from Her. Sinners, on the other hand, often need a formal excommunication (an ecclesiastical sentence) in order to be expelled, shunned and avoided. Ecclesiastical laws can be changed in order for the Church to better deal with different problems that may arise in future situations. But the divine law which God has established from eternity, can never be revoked, changed or replaced.

Peter Dimond: “The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II attempted to change.” (A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic Apologist”)

Sixth, even if Peter’s false interpretation of Ad Evitanda was correct (which it isn’t), it would still mean that it would have been abrogated by Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9) that was just cited above, and the following infallible Fifth Lateran Council. Thus, whichever way you look at it, Peter’s position is totally refuted.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, will be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

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

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

But there’s more...

THE HOLY OFFICE ALSO REJECTED THAT AD EVITANDA APPLIES TO HERETICS!

As MHFM points out in their material, the Jesuit theologian Cardinal John de Lugo (1583-1660), among others, did indeed teach that the Constitution of Pope Martin V in Ad Evitanda Scandala allowed Catholics to receive sacraments from heretics who had not been declared excommunicated.

But this interpretation was rejected by the Holy Office. The Holy See later dismissed the liberal interpretation that de Lugo and others had given Ad Evitanda in the matter of common worship with non-Catholics.

In a 1753 pronouncement that quoted Pope Benedict XIV, the Holy Office stated that it was permitted for Catholics to communicate “in merely civil and secular matters” - such as working with heretics or buying necessary things from them - who had not been expressly declared as such by name. However, they added:

Catholics should not therefore think that it is also permissible to participate together with these same heretics in acts of divine worship.” (Decree Tenos, Fontes 4:804)

The decree went on to name several theologians who had taught the the opposite, including de Lugo, and stated finally:

“In this matter it is almost impossible for it to happen that Catholics who would join together in sacred worship with heretics and schismatics would be excused from sin. For this reason, the Sacred Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Propagation of the Faith always considered such communion illicit.” (Decree Tenos, Fontes 4:804)

Please note the strong language: “it is almost impossible... to be excused from sin,” and the Holy See “always considered such communion illicit [that is, forbidden].”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, 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 [that is, with one who is excommunicated, such as heretics or schismatics] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

For future appeals either to Ad Evitanda or to de Lugo on the question of receiving sacraments from heretics, therefore, the 1753 decree is the final nail in the coffin.


COUNCIL OF BASEL, SESSION 20

Around 10:50 in the debate; and from his article

Just seventeen years after Ad Evitanda in 1435, the Council of Basel ended any confusion that may have existed because of certain theologians who attempted to apply the poorly worded Ad Evitanda to undeclared heretics.

Council of Basel, Session 20, 22 January 1435: “To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, OR IF IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMEONE HAS INCURRED A SENTENCE OF EXCOMMUNICATION WITH SUCH NOTORIETY that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. FOR THE SYNOD WISHES SUCH PERSONS TO BE AVOIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CANONICAL SANCTIONS. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.”

The following is Peter’s commentary on Council of Basel:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In this decree we also see that those who must be avoided are: 1) those who have been declared (notorious in law) or 2) those who, without a declaration, have so notoriously incurred excommunication that it cannot be “concealed” or “excused” in law (notorious in fact). Notice that there is a distinction between one’s ability to conceal a crime and one’s ability to excuse it. … Thus, we can see that the councils of the Middle Ages contain the same teaching as the First Council of Constantinople, canon 6, on the assemblies of heretics.”

First, we must keep in mind that this decree never referred to heresy or heretics. So where does Peter get from that this gives credence to his sacrilegious notion of communicating with obstinate heretics that attempt to “conceal” their heresy in law? To reject or contradict even a single article of the Catholic faith, with no successful attempt to hide the rejection or contradiction, makes one a notorious heretic according to Dimond’s own admission. And this is the crux of the issue, and it has been from the beginning. If you know the priest is a heretic because he publicly contradicts the catholic faith in some way, then you must avoid him under pain of schism, because his crime is not concealed! He is notorious in fact! If his crime were concealed you would not know that he holds a heretical position! Therefore if a priest publicly professes even one heresy, even if it is one that is contrary to less well known dogmas, it is still enough to bind all who see it to admonish him, and then avoid communion with him.

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

Indeed, Peter’s novel heresy of accepting some heretics or heresies while rejecting others is truly alien to the teachings of the Church and totally absurd, as we could see above.

Second, the Council of Basel decrees that all notorious excommunicates (declared or undeclared) are banned from any kind of religious communion with Catholics whenever they are known as such (like after talking with the priest and finding out about his heresy). The Council of Basel’s revision of the poorly worded Ad Evitanda by adding the words “or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law” and “For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions is more proof that it was not Pope Martin’s intent that Ad Evitanda should apply to undeclared heretical excommunicates because the Council of Basel decreed that all known notorious excommunicates must be avoided, including the heretics, since they are automatically excommunicated.


COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION

The following information will be quite devastating to the Dimonds’ heretical position on receiving the sacrament of Penance from heretical ministers. Even though the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and many others (as we will see) clearly teaches that heretics cannot give an absolution in confession or have any jurisdiction whatsoever, Peter still has refused to accept this position. Wonder why?

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases: “Wherefore, since the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects, the Church of God has always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor delegated jurisdiction ought to be counted as of no effect... But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance priests have no power in reserved cases, let them strive to persuade penitents to do this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.”

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word “Catholic” and that it explicitly mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the heretics. True, the Council never mentioned the word “Catholic,” but it doesn’t have to for three reasons.

First, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that “the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects. Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical or schismatical priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not! This fact is of course also backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church: “For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge them that are within? (1 Corinthians 5:12). So, then, it’s perfectly clear that those who are outside do not command on the inside, for “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

There are three parts contained in the sacrament of Penance, that is 1) Contrition, 2) Confession, and 3) Satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3). Every time the priest tells a person what kind of satisfaction he must make in order to be absolved from his sins, the priest makes a sentence (or command) over him that requires a satisfaction (or penance) on the part of the penitent. However, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that “the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects”, and Pope Leo XIII “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Now if a Catholic had been an eastern schismatic and confessed his former heresy or schism to an eastern schismatic priest, the priest would tell him that he did no sin at all when he was an eastern schismatic and that he would get no absolution unless he repented of his sin of separating from the eastern schismatic church. And that is why no non-Catholic priest can absolve a Catholic because the Catholic Church could never allow a non-Catholic priest to make a sentence or judgment on other Catholics when he cannot even judge right from wrong himself. That is not to say that heretics cannot know right from wrong in many cases, for they do. It rather means that as long as they remain outside the Church of Christ and lack the Catholic faith, they cannot have jurisdiction over Catholics or command them to do something that has to do with them receiving forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Penance.

    Second, the Council of Trent ordered the Priests (who was among ALL THE PRIESTS MENTIONED) that if they did not have this necessity “in danger of death” for granting a valid absolution in confession, they then must strive “to persuade penitents to do this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution. But I ask you, since when does the Catholic Church endorse heretical or schismatical priests, their superiors or their churches? Never! Therefore, this statement cannot have referred to heretical ministers, obviously.

Third. The Council of Trent affirmed that this teaching of jurisdiction has always been upheld and maintained in “the Church of God”, and “this council confirms it as most true”, thus proving to everyone that it’s not simply dealing with ecclesiastical laws that can be changed, but specifically with dogmatic laws that can never be changed.

Conclusion

These three points, then, totally excludes all heretics, schismatics, and apostates from ever being able to grant a valid absolution in confession or from ever being able to receive supplied jurisdiction in case of a necessity since they are outside the Church and Her jurisdiction (de fide).


ST. THOMAS TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “A few schismatics will quote St. Thomas in Summa Theologica, Supplemental Pt., Q. 38, A. 2, Obj. 1, in which the objection (not necessarily St. Thomas) says that a heretic cannot absolve. However, the schismatics don’t quote St. Thomas’ reply to the objection, in which he states that he’s referring to those who are “cut off.” Heretics who have been officially “cut off” or “suspended in regard to others” by a declaration cannot have jurisdiction, and thus cannot absolve.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2, Reply to Objection 1: “The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.”

To refute Peter’s argument, we will simply quote from another passage of St. Thomas that he simply cannot explain away or deny.

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

As we can see here, St. Thomas clearly teaches that heretics lose their jurisdiction independently of any declaration and that they lose it from simply being in heresy. This if anything should be the final nail in the coffin on the myth that St. Thomas is agreeing with the Dimonds or that he teaches that we may receive the sacraments from certain “undeclared” heretical ministers. We wonder if Peter will accept this information, or simply ignore it as usual.

As an aside note, Peter do agree with the above statement, at least in regards to excommunication, for Peter admits on his website that heretics and schismatics cannot excommunicate and that their excommunication would be worthless, invalid, and of no effect (excommunication requires jurisdiction too)! Nonetheless, even though he claims they cannot excommunicate, he nevertheless argues that they can absolve. His position is truly a contradiction from beginning to end.

Question: But what then does St. Thomas mean when he is referring to them as “cut off”?

Answer: When St. Thomas is referring to heretics or schismatics as “cut off”, he is simply referring to them as automatically excommunicated. For as we could see above, St. Thomas does not consider heretics to have any jurisdiction, independently of any formal excommunication. St. Thomas thus based his conclusion on the Divine Law, and not on any formal excommunication, as explained by St. Robert Bellarmine:

THE HOLY FATHERS AND SAINTS TEACH UNANIMOUSLY THAT HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS ARE IPSO FACTO [BY THAT VERY FACT] DEPRIVED OF ALL ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY

“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto [by that very fact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”... St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

“St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

“… those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. … while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

So while Peter teaches to his followers that they are right in seeking an absolution from a heretical minister, St. Thomas teaches that we sin if we knowingly seek an absolution from them.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 6, Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys?: “On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the ‘charity of the Church forgives sins.’ Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members. Since therefore the above are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of the keys in remitting sins. Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the above, for he disobeys the Church in so doing. THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED BY THEM: and so the same conclusion follows.”

Therefore, when St. Thomas refers to heretics or schismatics as “cut off”, “excommunicated” or “separated” etc. in context of receiving an illicit sacrament, he is not referring to them for any other purpose than to denote their automatic excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7: “Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY HERESY, SCHISM, or excommunication. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY HERESY, SCHISM, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.”

PETER’S MAIN ERROR ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE: HE GRANTS IT TO THE HERETICS!

That jurisdiction is required for the valid absolution in confession has inevitably given to the Dimonds some theological problems in justifying their heretical doctrine. But what is their solution to this question? Well, the simple answer is that they just give it to them automatically!

Peter Dimond, Facts which Demolish the “No independent priest today has Jurisdiction” Position: “Now we will see that a priest who doesn’t have jurisdiction for confessions somehow gets it to absolve someone in danger of death. Let’s quote the 1917 Code of Canon Law (the most recent collection of ecclesiastical laws) to prove the point.

Canon 872, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires, besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent.”

Canon 879.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “To hear confessions validly jurisdiction must be granted expressly, either orally or in writing.”

Peter Dimond: “Here we see that the Code of Canon Law states that jurisdiction is necessary for absolution, and that jurisdiction (if not had as part of an office) is only delegated orally or in writing. But wait a second… look at this:

Canon 882, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious…”

Peter Dimond: “We see that canon 882 teaches that priests who were never approved for confessions (i.e. never given jurisdiction in the normal channel) can validly absolve anyone in danger of death.”

It is entirely correct that CATHOLIC PRIESTS are granted supplied jurisdiction in case of a necessity to give an absolution (as infallibly defined by the Council of Trent.) But how then has it happened that Peter grants jurisdiction to heretics, schismatics, and apostate priests as well?

Not surprisingly, Peter interpret the fallible 1917 Code of Canon Law to support his heretical doctrine. According to Peter, if the 1917 Code of Canon Law does not make a distinction and clearly state if it was referring to Catholics or heretics, then it was referring to both.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “This canon [Canon 2261.2-3] also refutes the position of the radical schismatics. It clearly teaches that the faithful may receive sacraments from excommunicated persons, especially if there is no one else to give them the sacraments. In response, the schismatics are forced to arbitrarily exclude HERETICS from “excommunicated persons,” even though there’s nothing to support such exclusion.”

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to conclude that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII as well was including heretics in their statements, since they made no distinctions. But as we have already seen, Peter doesn’t teach that they were including heretics!

Peter Dimond, John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: “Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE LAW. PIUS XII’S LEGISLATION DOESN’T APPLY TO HERESY... Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN’T MENTION HERETICS.”

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

It should be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is clearly to be interpreted in agreement with the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other infallible proclamations, and not with the heretical teachings of Peter Dimond!

Neither can Peter evoke Epikeia in favor of the heretics. However, we do agree that Epikeia would give all the Catholic priests supplied jurisdiction in today’s situation. But to apply this to the heretical priests, as Peter do, is gratuitous folly and heretical (Council of Trent).

If Peter would bring up the St. Vincent Ferrer argument to prove his heretical position, then I would tell him that it is illogical. It is illogical, because St. Vincent Ferrer was never a heretic or a schismatic. And St. Vincent Ferrer (as was Moses) was also chosen by God, and, may very well have received jurisdiction directly from God himself so as to hear confession and to preach.

Peter Dimond, Facts which Demolish the “No independent priest today has Jurisdiction” Position: “So, in order to completely destroy the NJP, we must examine if there is any proof that an independent priest, who has not been approved for confessions, or even had his ordination approved by a true ecclesiastical authority, can have jurisdiction to hear confessions and carry on an apostolate blessed by God from day to day and NOT MERELY FOR SOULS IN DANGER OF DEATH? If we can demonstrate this, then there is nothing more that an advocate of the NJP could reasonably require to see that his position has been torpedoed, completely destroyed, and left sunk at the bottom of the ocean. The case of the great St. Vincent Ferrer gives us just this proof.”

Peter’s argument is truly pathetic. One could wonder why he even brings up the St. Vincent Ferrer argument so as to prove his heretical position when he KNOWS AND EVEN ADMITS that St. Vincent Ferrer was never a heretic or a schismatic!

According to Peter, one of the greatest saints that has ever lived and that was blessed by God should be accounted in the same way as a bad willed heretic or schismatic who is accursed and hated by God. According to Peter’s reasoning, both must be granted jurisdiction. But this is of course impossible, because, as we have seen, only Catholic priests can have jurisdiction in the Church of God (De Fide, Council of Trent). So this means that even if Peter doesn’t believe in or teach expressly to others that heretics are inside the Church of God, he is still arguing that they are, since he is giving them jurisdiction, which only Catholic priests can have!

But even if St. Vincent Ferrer did not receive jurisdiction from God or from the Church so as to hear confessions and give absolutions, it would make no difference because the absolution from a priest is not necessary for obtaining forgiveness without the sacrament of Confession (if no validly ordained non-heretical priest is available, of course) since perfect contrition absolves a person from his sins anyway. And God will of course always see to it that a person who is of good and sincere will will receive forgiveness and contrition before his death.

This then means that every person who did confess to St. Vincent Ferrer – even if he did not have jurisdiction – are forgiven their sins as long as they had genuine sorrow for their sins. God himself will forgive the sins of a sinner if he did not manage to receive a valid absolution from a priest—and that is true regardless of whether St. Vincent Ferrer had jurisdiction or not.

Conclusion

All non-Catholic priests (Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Eastern Rite churches, independent priests, etc.) who have been appointed in accordance with schismatical and heretical decrees, must be considered by us as schismatics and heretics that are lacking all ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the guidance of souls, and their absolution must be counted as invalid, or as of “no effect” (cf. Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7) and “heretics and schismatics... neither absolve... nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3).

Question: Why can heretics validly (although illicitly) perform the other sacraments, such as Baptism and the Eucharistic rite, but not the sacraments of Penance (Extreme Unction and Penance)?

Answer: Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas why:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 2: “I answer that, The other sacraments [such as the Eucharist] do not consist in an action of the recipient, but only in his receiving something, as is evident with regard to Baptism and so forth. Though the action of the recipient is required as removing an obstacle, i.e. insincerity, in order that he may receive the benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the use of his free-will. On the other hand, the action of the man who approaches the sacrament of Penance is essential to the sacrament, SINCE CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION, WHICH ARE ACTS OF THE PENITENT, ARE PARTS OF PENANCE. Now our actions, since they have their origin in us, cannot be dispensed by others, except through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser of this sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be done. Now a man is not competent to command another UNLESS HE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIM. Consequently it is essential to this sacrament, not only for the minister to be in orders, as in the case of the other sacraments, but also for him to have jurisdiction: WHEREFORE HE THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION CANNOT ADMINISTER THIS SACRAMENT ANY MORE THAN ONE WHO IS NOT A PRIEST. Therefore confession should be made not only to a priest, but to one’s own priest; for since a priest does not absolve a man except by binding him to do something, he alone can absolve, who, by his command, can bind the penitent to do something [heretics, of course, cannot lawfully bind anyone to do anything with regard to religious duties].”

The sacrament of Penance consist of three things: contrition, confession and satisfaction. All three of these conditions (whenever a priest is available) must be fulfilled before one is able to receive a valid absolution, in the Sacrament of Penance.

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, The parts and fruits of this sacrament: “The (quasi) matter of this sacrament [Penance] consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. THESE, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE BY GOD’S INSTITUTION REQUIRED IN THE PENITENT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN, ARE FOR THIS REASON CALLED PARTS OF PENANCE.”

When the Priest commands the Penitent to do something (like what kind of satisfaction he must do in order to be absolved from his sins), the Priest exercises his jurisdiction over him. Only a Catholic can command another Catholic to do something in the Church of God that has to do with his salvation. Only a Catholic can be under the spiritual authority of another Catholic; hence that “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside [he who is a heretic] can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

Question: Does this mean that all my former confessions to heretical priests were invalid? And must I re-confess all my mortal sins to a new non-heretical priest whenever one is available?

Answer: Yes, your former confessions were indeed invalid and must be remade whenever a fully Catholic priest becomes available to you. However, even though your former confessions were invalid, they were not useless, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas:

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

And so do not despair, for as long as you are truly sorry for your sins and have a desire for confession, your sins will be forgiven.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2: “...confession and absolution... in whom contrition, together with the purpose of confessing and the desire of absolution, suffices to deliver them from everlasting death..”

Absolution is not a magic formula that removes a mortal sin from you if you have not even been sorry for having offended God. If you have made an act of perfect contrition and been truly sorry for your sin (even if your heart feels hardened) then you are forgiven! That is something you must believe (that God will forgive you) because God promises to forgive us our trespasses whenever we wish to amend ourselves by not sinning anymore. And if a person doesn’t have this will to stop sinning, then confession and contrition will be of no avail because God does not forgive the sin of a sinner who does not even wish to stop sinning and offending God. This is not to be confused with falling back into former sins again which all people can do. A truly repentant soul however will not fall back into former sins again (at least not mortal sins), but if a person do fall back over and over again to the sin of impurity, for example, this is an indication that he is living a bad life and that he is not consistent in his spiritual life. (Read this file for help regarding those issues: Spiritual Information You Must Know to be Saved.) If we do not trust in God’s forgiveness or that He will forgive us, then we have no Faith in Him! If we let ourselves act in this faithless way, then we show to God by our way of acting that we do not trust in Him, and that is a very wicked thing to do. So don’t let yourself fall into this trap of mistrust and despair but have full faith in God and in His loving mercy and believe firmly that he will forgive you — and move on.

Question: What do I do if I cannot find a non-heretical priest to confess to? Can I confess my sins to a Catholic layman as a penance for my sin, although he cannot give me an absolution?

Answer: Yes. In lack of priests to confess to, you can always choose to confess to a trustworthy and non-heretical layman. (If you know of no Catholics in your area, then you may confess to whomsoever you desire.) This too will benefit you for salvation, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas:

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

ADDENDUM - ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND CONTRITION AND ABOUT RECEIVING FORGIVENESS WITHOUT AN ABSOLUTION

Question: The problem is all the priests are heretics. So if they cannot give an absolution, is everyone damned? Suppose the following scenario: I did not have perfect contrition without an absolution, I only had attrition, I felt bad and stuff but not perfect contrition, so would you say I was forgiven?

Answer: One of the most common reasons for that so many people choose to deny the overwhelming evidence against communicating with heretics is because they don’t believe that God will forgive them their sins without an absolution, or when it is not available. Many people obviously have many misconceptions about the Sacrament of Confession, Penance, Absolution and Contrition and what actually is necessary for obtaining salvation. The fact of the matter however, is that The Council of Trent’s decree on Justification and the Sacrament of Penance never say that perfect contrition is “so hard” or “impossible” to receive from God (for those who desire it) as many other false and fallible statements make it out to be. It also never actually said anything about that one can be saved with only imperfect contrition with an absolution. Rather, all it said is that this attrition (imperfect contrition) helps to dispose a man to receive forgiveness (perfect contrition) in the Sacrament of Confession.

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment [but not for God], It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted PREPARES a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) [imperfect contrition] cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, CONDUCT [OR LEAD] the sinner to justification, yet does it DISPOSE HIM TO OBTAIN THE GRACE OF GOD IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.”

As we can see, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that attrition or imperfect contrition disposes the penitent to obtain the grace of God (perfect contrition or the forgiveness of his sins) in the Sacrament of Penance whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.” It never actually said that it forgives a person without perfect contrition in the Sacrament of Penance, as is clear from the above words.

To further illustrate the point that attrition only disposes the penitent to receive something, suppose we changed this sentence and added the word “satisfaction” instead of the word “attrition”. Now the sentence would go like this:

“And although this (satisfaction) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance.”

Would this sentence now mean that all one need to do in order to receive forgiveness of one’s sins in the sacrament of Penance is to perform an act of “satisfaction”? Of course not. All the quotation is saying is that it disposes the penitent to receive forgiveness in the sacrament, not what actually is needed to receive forgiveness.

According to the Council of Trent, the sacrament of Penance consists of three parts – “contrition, confession and satisfaction”and all who want to receive forgiveness of their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements – at least in desire – in order to attain justification. Even those who misinterpret this passage to say that all one need to receive the sacrament is attrition, admits that one must perform an act of confession and satisfaction as well as that one must receive an absolution from the priest – in addition to being properly disposedin order to attain justification, which shows us how they themselves prove that their false understanding of this sentence means that one needs more than just attrition to receive the sacrament of Penance.

The Council of Trent teaches that Penance, that is, “contrition, confession, and satisfaction” are inseparable parts of the Sacrament and that they are even REQUIRED “FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN”! This means that for the imperfect who are not yet justified, they may become justified by performing penance, good works and prayers in order to achieve this end – such as by making satisfaction for their sins. This is explained by The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, in the following way:

“The (quasi) matter of this sacrament [of Penance] consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. THESE, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE BY GOD’S INSTITUTION REQUIRED IN THE PENITENT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN, ARE FOR THIS REASON CALLED PARTS OF PENANCE.” (Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, On the Parts and Fruits of This Sacrament)

So by doing penance for one’s sins, by confessing to the priest in shame, by feeling sorrow and shame before God (whom the priest represents) and for having offended God, and by praying the act of contrition, etc., — all of these things will make an unjustified man justified – provided he is of good will – and give him perfect remission of his sins from God, — the remission of his sins, which is a grace of God (obtained by obeying Him and His commandments).

But we also know that one must be rightly disposed and of good will in order to be forgiven one’s sins in the sacrament since not all absolutions, even if the priests pronounces it upon the penitent, is valid or has an effect, and deliberate unconfessed mortal sins is even a sacrilege in the Sacrament of Penance; and the priest can also refuse an absolution if he perceives that the penitent is insincere or unrepentant.

“He breathed upon His disciples, saying Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained [John 20:23].” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 1)

Hence that this absolutely proves that forgiveness is not always obtained in the Sacrament – or when one receives an absolution (if the penitent was not rightly disposed) – since a proper disposition is absolutely required in order to be forgiven and saved, and if this be lacking, one cannot be truly reconciled with God, whom one has grievously offended.

So to answer your question: No, you are not forgiven without perfect contrition, which is a sorrow that arises because it offends God who is all-loving and all-good and who do not deserve to be offended against, rather than only feeling contrition for your own sake or for the fear of punishments – as infallibly defined by Council of Trent (as we will see below).

In fact, Pope Leo X and Pope Innocent XI even directly condemned the heretical idea that says that one can be forgiven and saved with only attrition or imperfect contrition, and the interesting thing about these condemnations is that they do not say it referred only to those people who have not yet received an absolution, as if those who had received an absolution could be saved with only attrition (this false and heretical theory that many have fallen into namely says that one can be saved with only attrition with an absolution but not without an absolution).

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 57), March 4, 1679: “It is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins suffices.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Notice that the above proposition which asserted that “imperfect sorrow for sins suffices” was condemned.

Likewise, in the year 1520, Pope Leo X condemned the following proposition which asserted that “imperfect charity” is enough in order for a person to attain salvation by first going though purgatory.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 4), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

The same Pope also condemned another statement of Luther commonly made by so many people today, which is the heresy that says that being contrite or sorry for one’s sins is an impossibility. In fact, certain people we have talked to concerning forgiveness without receiving an absolution have even explicitly told us that if heretics cannot give an absolution in confession: this means that every one is damned in that case. But why do they say this? Because they don’t believe they can be truly sorry for their sins, just as if God would be unable or unwilling to grant them this grace – if they would just ask for it in faith or strive for it with their whole heart.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 12), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite... if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

So this statement directly condemns the idea that contrition is an impossibility. Indeed, only a faithless heretic would say that it’s “hard” or even “impossible” to feel sorry for God’s sake rather than for punishment’s sake or that one is damned without receiving an absolution, just as if loving God was an impossibility to achieve for a willing soul! Have not all the Saints as well as all the other saved people loved God and felt sorrow for having offended the all good God rather than only fearing Hell or punishments? Of course they have. Thus, it is not impossible, and it is a heresy to say it is.

God has complete and perfect knowledge of the past, present, and future, and He knew before the creation of the world that there would be times and places where Sacramental Confession would not be available. Since God is infinitely just He would not say that you must perform an act of Sacramental Confession to get to Heaven, while at the same time knowing that there will be times and places when Sacramental Confession would not be available.

Whenever you can’t go to confession for whatever the reason may be, you are to make an Act of Contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition, and have a desire to receive the sacrament as soon as a fully Catholic priest becomes available in order to be saved, because even in times when Sacramental Confession is not available, the desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance is still required for salvation, because the Dogma that allows one to return to a state of grace without actually going to Confession with a priest requires that one must still have the desire for Sacramental Confession for his sins to be remitted.

The sacrament of Penance includes three parts – 1) contrition 2) confession and 3) satisfaction – and all who want to receive forgiveness for their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements. When a penitent makes an Act of Contrition, saying the prayer and act of contrition to the priest, this prayer must include an act of perfect contrition. If one says this prayer, but does not mean it, one is speaking falsely.

The commonly used traditional Act of Contrition prayer that one can make either to a priest or directly to God in the case a priest is not available contains both an act of imperfect and perfect contrition:

“O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell [imperfect contrition or attrition]; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love [perfect contrition]. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

So long as one is truly sorry for God’s sake when one makes this Act of Contrition, then the act is termed perfect. To also fear God or punishment does not take away the fact that one can be sorry for God’s sake. And that is why all saints have also feared God.

So contrary to what some may believe, imperfect contrition is also beneficial for the soul, even though it is not possible to be saved without perfect contrition, and that is why attrition is a part of contrition, as well as a part of the Act of Contrition prayer. The Council of Trent teaches that attrition is effected “either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment”, and this in turn shows us that attrition is wholly beneficial for the soul, and that it does not negate or take away anything from the soul:

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.”

God Himself taught three times at the Council of Trent, once in the Fourteenth Session and twice in the Sixth Session, of what we are to do when confession is not available:

Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4, on Contrition, A.D. 1551, ex cathedra: “It sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins... but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season...”

Trent thus directly teaches that one can receive forgiveness by performing an act of perfect contrition even when the Sacrament of Confession is not available; but contrary to many misconceptions and fallible statements, the council never said this act is “hard” or “impossible” to perform. So returning your soul to a state of grace when Sacramental Confession is not available requires that one makes an act of contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition. And perfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because they offend God while imperfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven, and the pains of Hell.

Considering this definition of what perfect and imperfect contrition is, if one truly feels sorrow for having offended God and have a true sorrow for God’s sake rather than only feeling sorry because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell and punishments, etc., THEN THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERFECT CONTRITION ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT!

So is this grace really so “hard” to receive from God if one actually cares about God? that is, to feel sorry for your sins because they offend God rather than only feeling sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell? No, not at all, but in reality, most people don’t care about God enough nor about avoiding sin (even the smallest sin); hence that almost all people are damned and do not receive this grace from God (since they do not love Him). That almost all people are damned (Catholic or not) is a biblical fact and is confirmed by all the saints who have spoken on this topic. Hence, the issue is not about absolution, rather, the issue is about people living bad lives and that they don’t love God enough – that makes it impossible for them to be saved.

That of course means that one must do all in one’s power to avoid not only mortal sin, but also venial sin. It also means to in fact never even have a will to commit even the slightest sin that one knows to be a sin culpably or with full consent against the all good God — and now we may deduce already why most people in fact are damned. The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”

That one must avoid the proximate occasion of sin in order to be Saved and receive Forgiveness of one’s sins from God is a certain fact of the Natural and Divine law that has always been taught by the Church and Her Saints. For instance, Blessed Pope Innocent XI during his papacy, condemned three propositions that denied this truth:

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

For instance, in order to help people avoid occasions of falling into sin, we often tell them about the absolute need to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock (which means that they can’t see images at all when surfing various websites or any internet ads) so as to avoid innumerable occasions of falling into sin, not only venial sins, but also mortal sins of impurity.

Now, many people claiming to be Catholic and worshiping God and desiring forgiveness of their sins and enter Heaven strangely don’t care anything about this advice, and even chose to ignore it because of their perverse and evil will and attachment to images. Now if they really wanted forgiveness for their sins and cared anything about God, and to please Him, and not to offend Him, they obviously would not surf the internet with images on and thus expose themselves to innumerable bad images of sensual women or men tempting them everyday to fall into occasions of sin against the all good God.

It should go without saying, but when images is necessary or needed for what one is doing, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long time as it is necessary — provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Only at a particular time or occasion, such as for a work, or when reading some article, but other than that we have no reason or necessity to have them on, and therefore, they must be off.

And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.

“Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

(Please see this section for some more quotes on the issue and on the help and steps on how to block images in your web-browser and surf the internet with an adblock: http://www.allmonks.com/the-natural-law/#How-to-control-your-eyes)

Those people who choose to ignore this advice despite being told not to do so, infallibly prove the point (i.e., the above explanation of why most people are damned).

Most people just don’t care about God enough nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love – which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin.

Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole hearttrust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.

The above information only covers the basics on whether one can be saved without an absolution; that Perfect Contrition is required also in Confession; and that Imperfect Contrition only dispose a man to receive forgiveness in the Sacrament; and that the sacrament consists not only of an absolution or confession, but also of contrition and satisfaction. — And there are much more points and quotes to be considered on this issue. To learn more about the Sacrament of Penance, Imperfect and Perfect Contrition and what is needed in order to be saved, please consult the following article that deals more in depth with this issue: http://www.allmonks.com/contrition-and-the-sacrament-of-penance/


PETER LIES ABOUT THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Around 16:12-16:41 in the debate; and on his website

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

The following is Peter’s incredible commentary on the Third Council of Constantinople:

Peter Dimond, 16:12-16:41 in the debate: “That again is talking about churches which are notorious in law, those which have been declared by name, or those which are notorious in fact. Those which are so obvious like the Eastern “Orthodox”. That’s what it’s talking about [that those must be avoided]. It is not talking about undeclared individuals who profess to be catholic who happen to be heretics but are not so notorious. So it’s all beside the point.”

Now, can anyone please explain to us where the third Council of Constantinople mentioned that it was only referring to those groups of people that Peter just mentioned? Peter is simply lying through his teeth here since he know this dogma goes against him! If Peter did not argue as he does he would have to confess that this and similar decrees condemns him and his heretical position of going to “THE MEETINGHOUSES OF THE HERETICS!” (Third Council of Constantinople).

By the way, Peter has even admitted that his own notoriously heretical priest that he receives the sacraments from have rejected the evidence (MHFM’s material) when it was presented to him. Peter has even tried to convert his priest many times, but he has refused to listen. So what excuse is there for his priest? None. The priest is a notorious heretic even according to the Dimonds own standards. Yet Peter and Michael Dimond still presumably continues to go to this priest for mass and the sacraments.

According to Peter, it doesn’t matter how often or how many times his priest rejects the evidence or the dogmas of the Church or even how many times he excuses the heresies of the Vatican II “Church” and its antipopes. For so long as the priest stays less “notorious” or heretical, then, according to the Dimonds’ own made up and heretical standard, the priest can be approached and the Dimonds can avoid being condemned by their own standards or by the condemnation of the Third Council of Constantinople.

However, as anyone of good will can see for themselves, the Third Council of Constantinople never made any distinctions between declared or undeclared heretics, between less notorious or more notorious heretics, between more obvious or less obvious heretical persons, etc., as Peter actually have the boldness to claim, and so the only way to interpret this dogma is to interpret it for what it really says, and that would be to include all the known heretics, declared or undeclared, less notorious or more notorious, less obvious or more obvious about their heresies etc. For so long as we can know for a certain fact that a specific person is an obstinate heretic, then we must condemn him as such and avoid him and may not approach him for religious purposes just as the Third Council of Constantinople and similar decrees clearly state.

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

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

When Peter obstinately evade papal decrees, canons, councils and dogmas that are already so clear and easy to understand that no further explanation is needed or necessary to understand them, then he is acting dishonestly. Not all dogmas are as clear or easy to understand as others, of course, hence that some saints have misunderstood, for example, the Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, believing baptism of desire is true. And other dogmas might be easier to understand in view of other dogmas, etc. But whenever a dogma clearly forbids Catholics to have any religious communion with known heretics and schismatics, then no further explanation is necessary or anything more needed to be added to understand the meaning of the dogma, because it’s already abundantly clear from the words itself that all known, obstinate heretics must be avoided, as we have seen. (These dogmas of course only condemns association with heretics in direct opposition to the Church laws and not every kind of association like buying food from them etc.)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”


COUNCIL OF LAODICEA

Around 15:07-16:00 in the debate

Elias at this point wrongly argued that the Council of Laodicea was infallible. However, Peter correctly pointed out to him that Council of Laodicea is not infallible. This however doesn’t prove that the canon cited by Elias was fallible in itself since any specific canon (even a fallible one on its own authority) becomes infallible if it’s corroborated by another infallible statement that is teaching the same thing (as Elias also pointed out in the debate). To prove the point, I will quote the Fifth Lateran Council:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, will be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

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

Peter’s objection on the Fifth Lateran Council will of course be dealt with later on in this article.

Now, obviously, unless a Catholic leaves this world or becomes a hermitic monk, then he cannot avoid “odious heretics and infidels” completely. All the same, no Catholic needs to partake in the religious acts of those who are outside the Catholic Church, or to be joined in friendship with them. We need not enter their places of worship to worship with them, we need not attend their religious services (whether held in an official “church”, a private home or a common public area) to join in a religious ceremony with them, we need not follow the prayers of a heretic who leads them in these prayers, and so forth and so on. To the contrary, we are strictly forbidden to do such things since they are hateful to God, injurious to souls and violate our baptismal vows.

Peter was also wrong in saying that the Council of Laodicea definitively omitted the book of Revelation. That specific canon omitting the book of Revelation was probably added much later to the Canons of the Council, and it may not even be an original canon originating from that Council; hence that canon 60, the very last canon of that Council, is missing in many ancient manuscripts. When a canon is not even considered to be authentic then one shouldn’t act or speak as if it was an original canon or as if it actually came from that Council, when it may not be so. Doing so despite knowing this information is to be dishonest. Peter could be excused from sin in this instance if he did not know about this information himself. But if he did know about it and yet didn’t say anything and yet acted as if it were true, that would of course make him a mortal sinner and a liar on top of a dishonest heretic as well.

Sources:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea#Biblical_Canon


THE APOSTOLIC CANONS

Around 16:41-17:02 in the debate

Peter argues that the Third Council of Constantinople’s decree might not be accurate, and that it actually may originate from the Apostolic Canons. There’s no evidence that has come to our knowledge that proves this assertion from Peter. However, this canon from the Canons of the Apostles is very similar:

The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles, #Canon 64: “If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.”

We have had problems to verify that the quotation we’ve been using from the Third Council of Constantinople, actually originates from that Council. Many people on the internet use that decree and everyone lists its source as either from the Third or Second Council of Constantinople. We simply cannot confirm if it’s an accurate quote since we don’t have access to the original Latin documents. So we cannot say anything conclusive here, and neither can Peter it seems, for he says at 16:58 that “the quote is maybe not even accurate.” Peter isn’t sure either it seems. Although similar, these canons are not the same so no one can claim that they are. Both of these canons of course flow directly from the Bible.

St. John: “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.” (2 John 1:11)

St. Paul: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed” (1 Thessalonians 3:14)


THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL

Around 18:27-19:46 in the debate; and on his website

To better understand the meaning of this section of the debate, we need first to look at how the Dimonds present this quotation on their website.

The perverted, out of context decree with perverted out of context commentary, as presented by the deceiving heretics Peter and Michael Dimond:

“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…”” (The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times)

The above decree in the way Peter has presented it along with his erroneous commentary actually tells his readers that they may approach an undeclared heretic until the Church has pointed him out.

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. But this disproves the schismatic position of those who say that it’s heretical and mortally sinful to teach that one may receive Communion from or attend the Mass of any priest one recognizes to be a heretic.”

As we can see, Peter was using the above decree that was talking about suspects of heresy to somehow refer to known heretics. An even more clearer example of this can be seen in his next quote:

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “If, as the radical schismatics say, it were the teaching of the divine law that one may never receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) SOMEONE ONE RECOGNIZES TO BE A HERETIC, the Fourth Lateran Council would not have legislated as it did. It would have decreed that one must avoid such persons and clerics as soon as one recognizes that they receive, defend or support heretics. It wouldn’t have said ‘after they have been pointed out by the Church.’ Those who receive, defend or support heretics are, in many cases, undeclared heretics. People don’t tend to ‘receive, defend or support heretics’ unless they are heretics themselves, of course.”

We will now examine the Fourth Lateran Council to see whether it is agreeing with us or with Peter and to find out whether he is lying here or not.

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.

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…”

When reading it in context one can clearly see that the cleric mentioned was not a heretic, but a believer who has been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic. However, Peter and Michael Dimond present the decree in the following way on their website: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or SUPPORT HERETICS […] IF HOWEVER, HE IS A CLERIC...” By cutting out the above information, and by claiming that it is referring to heretics, Peter makes people believe that the cleric the Council talks about is heretical and that the obligation to avoid the priest comes with a declaration: “If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”

Do you see how clearly the Dimonds have perverted the meaning of this council? The Dimonds and other 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 believerwho receive, defend or support heretics.”

There are two major important points to understand here. The first point is that supporting, defending or receiving heretics aren’t evil actions 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...” Obviously, one cannot declare someone else as a heretic until one has evidence that this is true.

There are many examples one could give to show that a believer who receive, defend or even support heretics, isn’t heretical himself.

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

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

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

As we can see here, 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 even understanding that he actually might cause harm or give greater scandal. That’s why, according to the said council, they (the supporters etc.) are to be avoided ONLY after they have been pointed out by the Church, and their true intention has been revealed.

That is why it’s extremely dishonest for Peter to use the Fourth Lateran Council as an argument for receiving communion or confession from an obstinately, heretical priest because the Council clearly doesn’t teach that. Just because one supports a heretic doesn’t mean that one is a heretic as Peter makes it out to be. Not even the Council defined them as heretics, and yet Peter has the stomach to call them heretics by his own authority? It is indeed very sad and disgusting to see a grown up man lying without any problem.


PETER OBSTINATELY HOLDS TO HIS ERROR ON THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL – STRUCK WITH THE SWORD OF ANATHEMA

Around 19:52 to 22:40 in the debate, and again around 55:00

Peter starts his argument by quoting the Fourth Lateran Council’s declaration against suspected heretics, saying: “Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction”, in an attempt to argue that the obligation to avoid is only enjoined upon those who have been declared against. He says that the term “struck with the sword of anathema” means a formal declaration, which is true in this case, but he then takes the matter further by saying that the declaration must be applied to the individual heretics themselves, before the precept of avoidance takes hold.

It is true that those who are not heretics in many cases must be declared against formally before the precept of avoidance takes hold. But Peter is mistaken when he applies this necessity of a declaration (against suspects) to the individual heretics themselves because heretics need no declaration since they are already automatically excommunicated by the Divine Law! Not only that, but as all can see for themselves, this decree is referring only to the suspected heretics and not the actually heretical individuals:

Fourth Lateran Council: “Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction.”

Peter’s false argument is also contrary to the decrees of the Church. For starters, the Fourth Lateran Council’s decree he is referring to (and which do refer to the actually heretical individuals) begins in the following manner:

“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.”

Two things ought to be noted here. The first is that this solemn condemnation ex cathedra is directed at “all heretics, whatever names they go under”. In other words it includes both formally condemned heretics and heretics that have never been proceeded against by law, and who may not even be yet known to the Church. Secondly, this is as formal a declaration as you can ever ask for. It is not a condemnation of a specific individual, but is indeed a formal declaration against “every heresy” and “all heretics”. By this decree (and many others), not to mention the Divine Law, they have ALL been struck with the sword of anathema.

For further proof of this, we quote the authority of the Church once again:

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 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.”

In the above quote it is self evident that the obligation to avoid heretics has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the heretic has been formally condemned, but ALL heretics must be avoided, and the pope refers this to the authority of the Apostle. Again, note that Pope Vigilius explicitly states “even though he has not been formally condemned” and then reiterates the Apostles’ teaching to avoid such a person. One could not ask for a more explicit teaching which so clearly refutes the Dimonds’ heretical and schismatical madness.

Peter said around 22:26-22:36 that “smitten with the sword of anathema is a term used for a declared penalty in The First Lateran Council, #Canon 20.” While this is true, the First Lateran Council was not referring to heretics, but to sinners that have made violations or crimes of various kinds. This is thus further proof of that a person is not excommunicated by the ecclesiastical decrees unless there is evidence of heresy or crime.

First Lateran Council (1123), #Canon 20: “Having in mind the examples in the traditions of the fathers, and discharging the duty of our pastoral office, we decree that churches and what belongs to them, both persons and possessions, namely clerics, monks and their lay brothers, as well as those who come to pray and what they bring with them, are to be under protection and not be harmed. If anyone dares to act contrary to this and after recognizing his villainy, has not properly made amends within the space of thirty days, let him be banished from the bounds of the church and be smitten with the sword of anathema.”

Peter asked Elias at 21:26 min if he believed that the term “Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction” referred to declared individuals or undeclared individuals. Elias answer was “it is obviously talking about undeclared, that those should be avoided” (21:36-21:46). Elias of course thought that Peter was talking about heretics and obviously answered from this premise since this was what the debate was all about. However Elias was wrong here because these suspects of heresy that the council referred to have had a declared sentence against them (for suspicion of heresy). If they were not declared we would not know about the obligation to avoid them. For being merely an undeclared suspect of heresy is not proof that a person is heretical or that he must be avoided.

Even many pious saints and laymen have had suspicion of heresy against themselves, but they were not notorious or obstinate because they were not heretics. Neither did they evade or hid themselves from the authorities, because they were not heretics. And whenever they were called into questioning by the inquisition or by other appropriate judges who wished to look into the accusations and find out whether they were guilty or not, they complied and showed up at the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, thus proving their innocence.

Malleus Maleficarum, Part III, Question XIX: “For the Canon (cap. excommunicamus) says: Those who have been found to rest under a probable suspicion... unless... they should prove their innocence by a fitting purgation, they are to be stricken with the sword of anathema [for suspicion] as a worthy satisfaction in the sight of all men. And if they continue obstinate in their excommunication [for suspicion of heresy] for the period of a year, they are to be utterly condemned as heretics.”

If a person would fail to show up at an investigation for suspicion of heresy, or if he during the investigation refused to prove his innocence through obstinacy or evasion, only then would the penalty follow “to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation.” This penalty however is not yet a declaration of heresy but only a declared sentence of suspicion of heresy, and this person has not yet been declared as a heretic for this person is not yet known to be a heretic.

Pope Innocent III refers to this in the Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3 on Heretics:

“If they persist in the excommunication [for suspicion of heresy] for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics.”

But if the person in question was known as a heretic prior to the investigation, or if it turned out that he was an obstinate heretic during the questioning, then he would not merely be a suspect, but would in fact be a true heretic that then must be avoided for religious purposes. This would be true even if the heretic had not yet been declared against by the Church, as in the case of Martin Luther, Queen Elizabeth, and many other heretics.

Fourth Lateran Council: “Those who are only found suspect of heresy... [after they’ve been excommunicated for their suspicion of heresy] Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction.”

Now if even those who are merely declared as suspects (of heresy) must be avoided by everyone, how much more then must not all the known heretics be avoided, even if undeclared, because of their automatic excommunication?


PETER LIES ABOUT THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CONSTITUTION 3, ON HERETICS

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

Peter Dimond: “I will close this section on the Fourth Lateran Council by pointing out how the radical schismatics, lacking any cogent response to the devastating facts we just covered, are forced to multiply their irrelevant arguments. They re-quote the following (true) passage from the same decree, even though it’s completely irrelevant to the precise issue we are discussing.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, on Heretics: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.”

“They emphasize that this infallibly condemns all heretics automatically, without declaration, no matter what names they go under. That’s true, and completely irrelevant. Either they are lying or they still haven’t grasped the distinction between: 1) the fact that heretics can be rejected as non-Catholics without declaration; and 2) the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case in the Church’s ecclesiastical law comes with the Church’s “declaration” or “designation,” or if the heretic is so notorious that he cannot conceal his crime in law. #2 is the issue under discussion – not #1; and, as the passages above make abundantly clear, the Fourth Lateran Council clearly teaches that heretics, as well as those suspect of heresy and believers who defend heretics, are to be avoided in accordance with the Church’s declaration, or if someone’s crime is so notorious that it cannot be concealed in law.”

First, the Church’s ecclesiastical law that Peter referred to is not dealing with heretics in regards to religious duties (since this is decided by the divine law), but rather dealing with them specifically in secular affairs. It is the Church’s ecclesiastical laws that, in a necessity, decides to what point or to what extent it is lawful to work under a heretic, follow orders from a heretic, or talk with heretics, etc. It is the Church’s ecclesiastical laws that decides whether it is lawful to do business with a heretic, whether it is lawful to take their property or not, whether it is right to expel them from their lands or not, and whether it is lawful to put them to death or not, etc. St. Thomas Aquinas refers to this:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 11, Art. 3: “… after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion... delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.’”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 66, Art. 8: “I answer that, Robbery implies a certain violence and coercion employed in taking unjustly from a man that which is his. Now in human society no man can exercise coercion except through public authority: and, consequently, if a private individual not having public authority takes another’s property by violence, he acts unlawfully and commits a robbery, as burglars do. … Reply to Objection 2. Unbelievers possess their goods unjustly in so far as they are ordered by the laws of earthly princes to forfeit those goods. Hence these may be taken violently from them, not by private but by public authority.”

Ecclesiastical laws are thus not dealing with the precise issue of being in religious communion with heretics or receiving the sacraments from them because religious duties come under other laws, which are Divine and Dogmatic laws, and they are unchangeable. Pope Leo XIII refers to this on the authority of the Church Fathers:

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.”

Second, Peter seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the Fourth Lateran Council not only condemned all heretics, but that they likewise EXCOMMUNICATED THEM ALL, and made a declaration against them all, precisely so we can know to avoid them.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, on Heretics: “WE EXCOMMUNICATE and anathematize EVERY HERESY raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. WE CONDEMN ALL HERETICS, whatever names they may go under.”

And so, since ALL KNOWN HERETICS ARE INFALLIBLY EXCOMMUNICATED in this decree and put outside the Church’s Communion, we sin if we knowingly enter into communion with them DESPITE THE PROHIBITION OF THE CHURCH, which was just expounded above.

An automatic excommunication is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the individual who is excommunicated. Here is a proposition made by the Church condemning just such an assertion:

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

Third, Peter argues that the Fourth Lateran Council teaches that heretics needs a declaration, before they must be avoided. Peter bases this conclusion on the fact that the believers, who receive, defend or support heretics (and who are not known as heretics), needs a declaration before being avoided. Peter claims that these people who are not known as heretics, in fact are heretics, and that the Council ordered us to stay away from these “heretics” only after the declaration.

However, Peter is not content with just wrenching the whole Council out of context in this way, but he must also go on lying about our position in a way that is quite dishonest. Note the bold, italic and underlining below.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Their response centered on the fact that the passage in question mentions “believers who receive, defend or support heretics.” They said that we had misled people because “believers who receive, defend or support heretics” are not necessarily heretics. (As an aside, it’s only in this instance that they say that those who “defend and support” heretics are not heretics. In all other cases, they would quickly denounce such persons as heretics.) They argued that while the Council teaches that believers who receive, defend or support heretics don’t necessarily have to be avoided until “they have been pointed out by the Church,” heretics must be avoided without a declaration. In an attempt to bolster their position, they pointed to another part of the same decree, on those “suspect of heresy.”

So not only does Peter maliciously and despicably claim that we and others would definitely denounce other people as heretics for them simply supporting or defending heretics, but he even goes so far as to claim that this is the ONLY instance in which we would NOT condemn possibly innocent people as heretics without first acquiring some proof of whether this accusation is true or not!

Peter Dimond claims they are heretics

Pope Innocent III says they are believers

“If, as the radical schismatics say, it were the teaching of the divine law that one may never receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) SOMEONE ONE RECOGNIZES TO BE A HERETIC, the Fourth Lateran Council would not have legislated as it did. It would have decreed that one must avoid such persons and clerics as soon as one recognizes that they receive, defend or support heretics. It wouldn’t have said ‘after they have been pointed out by the Church... this destroys the schismatic position of those who condemn our perfectly Catholic position. It drives a nail in the coffin of the myth that it’s a “dogma” or part of the “divine law” that a Catholic can never knowingly attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, an undeclared heretic.”

“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication BELIEVERS who receive, defend or support heretics... If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church [after the Church’s investigation], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”

As we can see here, the Church would first make an investigation of the acts of the person that is suspected or accused before condemning him as a heretic, but Peter would not.

Only obstinacy, bad will and pride could lead a person to fall into such an erroneous, contradictory and uncharitable position as Peter Dimond sadly has fallen into. His demonic position would actually force Catholics to condemn as heretics people who might not even be heretics! Who has ever heard of such an idiotic teaching before? How many saints would not Peter be forced to condemn as heretics (if he actually took his heretical position to its full extent) simply because they acted charitably towards heretics since they wished them good and that they might be converted? Only God knows. And then he has the nerve to say this: “Frankly, this destroys the schismatic position of those who condemn our perfectly Catholic position.” Peter’s position, which have condemned countless of saints and others who are now in Heaven, is a perfectly heretical and schismatical position. “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2). Peter truly cannot fear God or the last judgment when he makes such outrageous statements.

Please, pray for Peter’s conversion, and send him an e-mail and point out to him the above information, for the hope of his conversion: mhfm1@aol.com


DOES THE CHURCH USE THE TERM “HERETIC” DIFFERENTLY AT DIFFERENT TIMES?

Around 25:00-27:36 in the debate; and on his website

Peter’s position is that “heretic” has two different meanings, one in its dogmatic decrees and another in its ecclesiastical decrees. He claims that in dogmatic decrees it refers to all heretics, but in ecclesiastical sentences only to those who are declared against.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “One point on which I spent some time in the debate was the distinction between the way the Church uses the term “heretic” in its dogmatic decrees and in its ecclesiastical law. We know that, according to the Church’s dogmatic teaching, all who dissent from an authoritative teaching of the Church are heretics without any declaration. However, the Church’s ecclesiastical laws have used the term in a different sense. The case of Martin Luther is a prime example. In studying the papal bulls relating to Martin Luther, one will discover that he wasn’t considered to be a heretic in the Church’s ecclesiastical law until he was declared such. At that point, the absolute obligation to avoid him was imposed.”

What Peter doesn’t get is that the Church must first make an ecclesiastical sentence before it allows people to act legally against someone who is an undeclared heretic, and for good reasons. If the ecclesiastical sentence did not exist, the faithful would be tempted to take the law into their own hands and drive out heretics or other Catholics with whom they have a quarrel, in which case they could say “Well he’s a heretic!” So ecclesiastical sentences do not permit heretics to be acted against temporally unless they have been marked by the Church.

But to extend this and say that one may pray or commune with heretics who are undeclared is gratuitous folly.

Peter’s argument is that Pope Leo X, in Exsurge Domine, condemned Martin Luther, a heretic whom he had previously tolerated, and that for some reason this supports his notion that one may partake in sacraments with heretics.

But this is complete nonsense. It is not the declaration of the Church which condemns and forbids a man who is heretical from giving out or receiving the sacraments, but the Divine sentence of anathema, as noted in the Second Council of Constantinople:

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 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.”

Toleration of errors (that is a period of time of inaction on behalf of the Church’s authority) does not equate to a license for the faithful to commune with heretics, but is only a grace period for the heretic to amend before he is temporally acted against.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine: “Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine: “As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors?”

At this point, the pope decided to act against Martin Luther so that the full temporal force of Christendom would be brought to bear upon him, whereas prior to this, the pope hoped that he might gain the conversion of him.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine: “Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation.”

But this does not mean that the faithful would have been permitted to commune with Luther before this. Such an implication would mean that men are permitted to expose themselves to damnation.No, if men knew on their own that he was a heretic, they would be bound to denounce and avoid communion with Martin Luther, or anyone else that they knew to be a heretic. In fact, here are two quotations which supports this fact:

Pope Alexander VII, Decrees of Sept. 24, 1665: “Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him], if you cannot prove it.” - CONDEMNED

St. John: “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.” (2 John 1:11)


PETER’S DISHONESTY ON THE FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL

Around 29:07-30:14 in the debate; and on his website

Peter says “that the Fifth Lateran Council is not declaring that you have to avoid in every way someone that sows a heresy” and that the Latin (fore) means something like “to be about to be”. He continues to expound on this on his website: “It is frequently translated as “will be.” Thus, the Council is saying that those who sow such false assertions are about to be or will be shunned and punished as heretics.” And he continues in the debate: “And so what it’s saying is that they are going to be sent through the processes to be judged and punished and condemned as heretics and avoided that way. And so, you’re wrong, it doesn’t disprove our position. In fact it highlight our position and contradicts yours. Wrong again.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517, 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 [or according to Dimonds own interpretation which no translator we know of has translated it as: are about to be. The Dimonds also use a more correct translation which says: will be] avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”

We can obviously only avoid heretics after we have found out that they are heretics. Just because some heretics will be shunned when we have found out that they are heretics doesn’t mean that one could have communed with them or taken the sacraments from them if one knew they were guilty. Here is a good example demonstrating this fact: If I were to tell you to avoid sin or that you will avoid sin, would this mean that you could have sinned before or that you sinned before? Of course not. It only means that you must stay away from sin, not that you could have sinned before. That is all the quote is saying.

There’s not a single translator that has ever translated the text as “are about to be avoided”, but some translators translate it as “should be avoided”, “will be avoided” or “must be avoided” referring to an event in the future that must happen.

The Church has not even once said in its 2000 year history that one must only avoid certain heretics in religious communion after a formal declaration. In fact, it has consistently stated the exact opposite, as we have proved. Even Peter admits that notorious heretics must be avoided for religious things without any formal declaration, and that many heretics before this time had already been avoided without any formal declaration.

The individual heretic will indeed be shunned, punished and avoided when we have found out that he is a heretic, but as Pope Innocent III formally declared in the Fourth Lateran Council: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under”; and Pope Vigilius infallibly stated in the Second Council of Constantinople: “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”.

ALL heretics have been struck with the sword of anathema. As soon as you know they are heretics (by admonishing once or twice), you must avoid them.

So, even if Fifth Lateran Council is to be interpreted as Peter would have it, this still proves our position.

Peter continues to elaborate on this on his website:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Without even getting into an examination of the Latin (which exposes their error), someone with a truly Catholic sense (an attribute the schismatics don’t possess) should have detected the weakness of their contention. How could the Church dogmatically define that whoever dissents from Catholic truth must be avoided in every way? Dogmatic statements admit of no exceptions. If that were a dogma, the Church could never have allowed a heretic to baptize; it could never have approved mixed marriages; it could never have approved approaching a heretic for confession in a necessity [that’s a direct lie. The Church has never approved of approaching heretics for the sacrament of Penance, hence that Peter cannot quote anything that agrees with him]; it would have required Catholics to always not communicate in domestic affairs with heretical family members, etc. For those reasons, the schismatics’ understanding of the quote should have been rejected right off the bat. If they had a Catholic sense, they would have recognized that the passage doesn’t mean what they would like it to mean.”

Peter is completely wrong when he says that dogmatic statements admit of no exceptions. While this is certainly true in almost every case, there are sometimes exceptions to decrees that are never mentioned. One example demonstrating this fact would be the concept of “material heresy”. Dogmatic statements never mention anything about material heresy in it’s decrees or states that “if anyone unknowingly denied this dogma, he would not be anathematized.” Take the following dogma on the Immaculate Conception as a perfect example of this:

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”

Are we to believe that this dogma means that people cannot unknowingly deny it without by that very fact, becoming a heretic... if, as Peter says, dogmas admit of no exceptions? Of course not! Peter knows that even though this dogma never mentioned the concept of material heresy, it nevertheless is true and that people can be in error innocently about a dogma and remain a Catholic. Peter explicitly admits this fact elsewhere on his website:

Peter Dimond, Why John Paul II was not the Pope – a Comprehensive Presentation: ““Material heretic” is a term used by theologians to describe a Catholic erring in good faith regarding some Church teaching, who has not denied it deliberately. The only way that one can be a “material heretic” is by being unaware that the position that he holds is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Such a person would change his position immediately upon being informed of the Church’s teaching on the matter. Thus, a so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic at all, but rather a confused Catholic who denies nothing of that which he knows the Church to have taught.”

So this shows once again how Peter doesn’t even believe in the argument that he was using, for he KNOWS AND EVEN ADMITS that certain exceptions do exist, such as material heresy, even though the dogmas never mentioned it.

However, Peter is absolutely correct when he mentioned that we don’t have to avoid a heretic in every way or in every situation as long as the Church is not opposed to it, such as marrying a heretic (with the explicit approval of the Church), or, in a necessity, working under/with heretics, or taking secular orders from heretics, or being forced to go in school with heretics, or being forced to talk with heretics through necessity, or simply living with heretical family members, etc. All of these are permitted, but that’s about it.

The Church doesn’t force us to avoid heretics when neither the heretic nor the receiver of a sacrament commits any sin, but only when heretics acts in opposition to the Church’s laws and commits sin by consecrating the sacraments. Why? Because any person who associates with heretics or receives a sacrament from a priest in direct opposition to the Church’s laws, is helping him in his sin (by his association) and are, as a consequence of this, helping to increase that persons torment that he will have to endure forever in hell! It is truly sick and abominable to be a part of and to help increase another person’s sin and punishment that he will have to endure and account for at the day of judgment for eternity!

Ask yourself, dear reader, is it charity to be the cause of someone else’s mortal sins and sacrileges? Is it charity to be an actual cause of the eternal torments that someone else will suffer for all eternity? Does your “necessity” of wanting the sacraments justify that mortal sins or sacrileges takes place? In the negative. So not only do you act uncharitably towards the priest who commits a mortal sin and sacrilege on your behalf and with your approval, but you are also accepting and agreeing with the priest’s profanation of our Lord’s true Body and Blood when you are there to receive it from him. You are thus part of and guilty of this sin against our Lord.

The only sacrament that is absolutely necessary for salvation is the sacrament of Baptism. And that is why the Church has allowed for it to be received from heretics without sin. All other sacraments are beneficial of course, but no one will miss any graces when there is no non-heretical Church to attend. Many people sadly deceive themselves with this false argument, claiming that they cannot receive as much grace if they do not receive the sacraments, as if God were powerless to give out even more graces without the sacraments, or when they are not available. All the holy saints that were hermits or anchorites that lived without the sacraments for extended periods of times, of course, refutes this argument.


PETER’S MIXED MARRIAGE ARGUMENT FAILS UTTERLY

Around 30:23-32:40 in the debate; and on his website

Only very briefly in the debate, Peter brought up the Sacrament of Matrimony, mixed marriages to be exact, as an example of “permission” by the Church to commune sacramentally with heretics. Peter also brought up the Mixed Marriage argument on his website, and he is quite confident about this argument. But as usual, his lies will be confounded once again.

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 addition to other points, this fact is fatal to the radical schismatics’ argumentation. That’s because they argue that to knowingly communicate in a sacrament with a heretic is necessarily to communicate in the sin of the heretic. They analogize it to a contagious disease that is transmitted by touch: if you knowingly receive it from someone infected, you get the disease. That line of argumentation, while appealing to the emotions, is completely wrong; and it is refuted by the reality of mixed marriages. That’s why the radical schismatics get extremely uncomfortable when they begin to discuss mixed marriages...

“The radical schismatics have no answer to the reality of mixed marriages and the Church’s past allowance of them. Their only recourse is to dishonestly distort the issue. 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.”

Note: when Peter admitted above that a Catholic is never allowed to go to a heretical minister so that he may be a witness of the marriage, he buries his own position. Peter’s whole argument simply crumbles into nothingness because Peter’s position is that we could approach a HERETICAL MINISTER so as to hear his mass and receive his sacraments.

In his dishonesty, Peter also fails to point out the major difference between the mixed marriage argument and receiving the sacraments from a heretical minister. The main difference between the two is that in the mixed marriage argument, not only is it allowed by the Church to take place but no mortal sin is committed by anyone, neither by the priest nor the laymen as long as it is explicitly approved of by the Church and as long as it takes place in front of a Catholic minister. However, whenever a person receives a sacrament from a heretical minister in direct opposition to the Church’s laws, then he commits a mortal sin unless ignorance excuse him, and the priest commits a mortal sin since he is a heretic administering the sacrament in direct opposition to the Church’s laws.

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;”

Peter of course understands these differences since he points them out on his website all the time, but here he is suddenly stricken with the sickness of amnesia and acts as if a mortal sin and something that is allowed by the Church are the same thing. Even though Peter will not admit that he commits a mortal sin by approaching a known heretical priest for the sacraments, he readily admits on his website that the priest commits a mortal sin by giving him the sacraments.

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.”

Peter has also admitted that the people who are heretics cannot receive Catholic Communion and that the Church cannot allow them to receive Catholic Communion even in danger of death.

Peter Dimond: “The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II attempted to change.” (A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic Apologist”)

Therefore, Peter knows that his comparison with mixed marriages fails miserably since these other sacraments are not allowed by the Church to be received by/from heretics, but he lies and tries to compare them anyway since he has nothing else to say.

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 in the debate. However, this has not been defined by the Church and no such quote has ever been brought forth by Peter in the debate or 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 sacraments, except for the sacrament of baptism in case of a necessity.

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.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos: “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.

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 [i.e, in the houses 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 is unholy [i.e, whoever eats the Lamb in the houses of heretics is unholy].’”

Therefore, to accommodate for his new heretical doctrine, Peter must compare #1 marriage: where the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament and where neither Catholic nor heretic is committing any mortal sin, with #2 the Eucharist and Confession: where the priest is the minister of the sacrament and where even the Dimonds admit that the priest commits a mortal sin and sacrilege whenever he consecrates or partakes in the sacraments as long as he remains a heretic or excommunicated. This is how his black magic works and how he deceives people.

Peter’s position simply crumbles into nothingness when thoroughly examined. It is easily refuted and it is self-condemned because Peter cannot prove with any Church teaching that we can lawfully receive any other sacrament besides the sacrament of baptism in case of a necessity from a heretical minister.

We will end this section by quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on mixed marriages, which further demonstrates the points we’ve made.

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 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.”

Please, write an email to Peter Dimond and point out to him his errors and how he deceives himself in order to convert him: mhfm1@aol.com


IS A HERETICAL NOVUS ORDO “CHURCH” OR A HERETICAL “TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC CHURCH” DIFFERENT FROM THE EASTERN “ORTHODOX”?

Around 37:14 in the debate; and on his website

Peter claims that a heretical church who professes itself “Catholic” and that celebrates the traditional liturgy is somehow different from a notorious meetinghouse of the heretics such as the Eastern “Orthodox”.

This statement from Peter is totally false yet nonetheless true in another sense. Let me explain: It is true in the sense that a church who professes itself “Catholic” at least outwardly (perhaps) don’t appear to be heretical in the same way as a Protestant or “Orthodox” church would. For example, we would know immediately upon hearing that if such and such a church was Protestant or “Orthodox” that it’s not Catholic and that it must be presumed to be heretical. The same normally don’t apply to churches who professes themselves “Catholic,” of course. For when a church professes itself “Catholic” it’s only natural to assume that it’s a Catholic Church before one sees the evidence of heresy or schism. I say normally because today we must assume that any “Church” who professes itself “Catholic” is heretical since all of them (as far as we are aware of) either denies the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation or rejects several of his dogmas.

Now the problem with Peter isn’t that he’s unaware of the fact whether the traditionalists he approach and tell others to approach are obstinate and known heretics or not, but that he in fact is fully aware of this, and yet he somehow makes them out to be “less” heretical than the Eastern “Orthodox” churches. It is totally false to make this comparison because it’s just a fact that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are less heretical than the Novus Ordo church or even most of the traditional “Catholic” churches. So if the Eastern “Orthodox” then called themselves Catholic (which they also do), then according to the Dimonds’ warped and heretical view, so long as they’re undeclared, they would be the best option for us to hear mass and receive the sacraments from. But to go to these “Orthodox” schismatics would of course be unlawful and a mortal sin. But then again, the same applies to all other heretics as well that are perhaps worse heretics than the Eastern “Orthodox” have ever been or are. In reality, there are no kinds of heretics that are acceptable to the Church or who can be excused or accepted within Her communion, as we have seen.

However Peter strangely thinks that it’s decided, if we have to avoid someone, based on what they call themselves and whether they claim to profess a “sound faith”.

Peter Dimond “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “When the councils refer to avoiding “meetinghouses of heretics” and “non-Catholic churches,” they are, like this canon, referring to groups, buildings and sects that are notorious in law (declared) or notorious in fact (openly non-Catholic in the external forum). This should be obvious even to the Catholic sense of any person who considers this issue; for there is an obvious difference between an Eastern “Orthodox” [openly non-Catholic]... and a “traditionalist” heretic [openly calling himself “Catholic”] under Benedict XVI... Decrees concerning one’s obligation to avoid the “meetinghouses of heretics,” etc. are not referring to priests or groups who celebrate a traditional Catholic rite and profess to hold all Catholic teachings, but are actually heretical.”

Let’s recall the statements of St. Basil the Great, Pope Leo XIII, and the Holy Bible again that so clearly refutes Peter:

St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappodocia: “As for all those who pretend to confess sound orthodox Faith [like the “traditionalists” Peter referred to above], but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion [but who are in communion with Vatican II followers and manifest heretics], if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn [if we have admonished them once or twice but they still remain obstinate in their heresy], you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers [then we must NOT be in communion with them even if they call themselves “Catholic” or “traditionalists”].” (Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unityif any one holds to one single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic.’”

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

Here we can see that tradition teaches us to judge others (such as heretics) based on what FAITH THEY BELIEVE IN AND PROFESS, and NOT what they pretend to “confess”, as the heresiarch Peter is advocating.

Those who hold Peter’s heretical position must also understand that the churches which they obstinately call “undeclared Catholic churches” in fact are not Catholic Churches at all. We are too far gone in the Great Apostasy for obstinately holding to this erroneous position any longer.

Today, a traditional “Catholic” church or Novus Ordo church where most if not all priests and laymen are known, obstinate heretics or schismatics that even reject the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation or denies several of his dogmas, can in no way be likened with a Catholic Church prior to the Vatican II revolution when the apostasy was not so visible yet and many priests and laymen were still fully Catholic. For to reject even a single dogma of the faith is in fact to reject the entire Catholic faith, as explained by Pope Leo XIII:

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

So if they don’t even hold the Catholic faith then one cannot obstinately refer to them as “Catholic” or their churches as “Catholic churches” or their mass as a “Catholic mass” or their sacraments as “Catholic sacraments!” Their churches are heretical churches and their sacraments are mortally sinful and/or invalid sacraments and their mass is an illicit and mortally sinful mass, as should be totally obvious to any honest person of good-will reading this document.

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.”


PETER’S DISHONEST SCHISM/HERESY ARGUMENT CRUSHED

Around 36:30-40:00 in the debate

Peter Dimond: “What I’m illustrating is that your position is illogical and it’s not consistent. Because if they were non-Catholic churches then the bishops who were in communion with non-Catholic churches were heretical, and the Pope who was in communion with non-Catholic bishops presiding over non-Catholic churches had to be antipopes. So you had to say that Pius the 11th, Pius the 10th were antipopes, because they were in communion with all kinds of non-Catholic dioceses. It’s ridiculous...”

Just as an aside note, Peter doesn’t really believe that what he said above is true, and he also knows that it was a false argument because Peter knows that people can be in material heresy or schism and not themselves be heretics or schismatics if they are unaware of that the people around them are heretics. Peter just made up this stupid argument since he had nothing else to say.

Elias response: “It’s actually laughable, [Elias meant ridiculous by these words, it’s not really laughable but sad] your argument, because you say that people in churches, whether protestants, Novus Ordo or schismatics can be material heretics, that mean that we shouldn’t account them as heretics; and it all depends, as I said, whether you know a person to be a heretic or not. And you said, since the pope was in communion with heretic bishop, Cushing for example, it makes him a heretic, — you must be stupid to make this argument, because he [the pope] is judged from what he knows, he will not be judged for a bishop who is heretic, for example, against the natural law. If for example a heretic bishop was heretic against the natural law and the pope knew it and defended him or... said that he could continue in the Church, the pope would be automatically excommunicated. But you cannot say that the pope should know everyone of his thousands of bishops or millions of subjects and if he was in communion with them, or thought that they were Catholics, that means that he is a heretic! That must be the most perverse and stupid statement I’ve heard in a long time, and it just proves that you have nothing.”

Elias makes many good points. The pope, being the head of the religion, cannot be a heretic or in schism merely for professing outward communion with a heretic, since, as the head of the religion, he is not claiming subjection to any heresy or accepting the heresy of any heretic. However, if the Pope knew without a doubt that a person was heretical and yet continued in religious communion with this heretic, then the Pope would have to be considered as a schismatic since he had united himself with heresy and with the Gates of Hell, and in so doing, broken of his communion with the Catholic Church.

So if antipope X claimed subjection to antipope Z, then he is schismatic on this account, whereas he could never be called schismatic for professing communion with such and such a heretical bishop any more than Pope Leo X could have been called schismatic for delaying in excommunicating Martin Luther.

If a clergyman is obviously heretical, and his adherents remain in religious communion with him despite his obvious heresy, that is when they are in schism. But here again, the only way that they are actually guilty of the sin is if they can and ought to know that their religious superior is heretical.


PETER LIES ABOUT ELIAS’ POSITION

Around 40:30-43:24 in the debate

The following is Peter’s incredible response to Elias previous statements:

Peter Dimond: “You don’t understand... I completely refuted you... you’ve demonstrated your un-stupidity, if you want to call it that. Your diabolically schismatically stupid, that’s what you are, not through in-a-defect, but through perverse will. And with regard too, anyone who has common sense can see that your position is ridiculous... You have the bishop, he is in communion with non-Catholic churches and Catholic churches, if that’s the case... according to your ridiculous idiotic argument... the bishop who’s in communion with a notorious non-Catholic church must be also a non-Catholic. And therefore the Pope who is in communion with such a bishop must be a non-Catholic. That’s how it would have to work if your logic were sound, which it isn’t.”

So after Peter pathetically threw insults at Elias just now in the debate (after he was thoroughly refuted by him on his stupid “schism/heresy” argument), he now starts with lying again. We have already heard Elias state clearly (several times in the debate!) that if a person didn’t know that a Church was heretical and one were in communion with the people there, that one would not be a heretic. Ignorance can excuse from heresy or mortal sin, as Peter clearly knows, but he simply refuse to understand it on this occasion.

Elias also clearly pointed out to him that a Pope or Bishop in no way can be a schismatic or heretic for unknowingly and erroneously thinking that people or priests are Catholics (even though they’re not). So for Peter to repeat a false position already refuted by Elias in the debate and apply that false position on Elias as if it was his own, when he nowhere said so, is to slander and to lie about him, and that is of course a clear cut mortal sin.

Anyone with a speck of Catholic sense would know that a person is not automatically heretical for being unaware of some Church teaching or for unknowingly going into a heretical church building etc., and Peter normally agrees with this, although not in the debate, dishonest as he is.


PETER OBSTINATELY PERSISTS IN HIS DISHONESTY!

Around 43:25-47:36 in the debate

The following is Peter’s incredible response to Elias previous statement:

Peter said: “[Eli says] that if you have this non-Catholic Church before Vatican II where the priest is a heretic – it’s a non Catholic Church – but if the person doesn’t know that the priest is a heretic: therefore he can be a material heretic at a non catholic Church; — and yet you try to condemn our position according to that, on that issue, — and so you contradict yourself, because you don’t know what you are talking about.”

Notice how Peter during this section of the debate dishonestly tried to make Elias look like as if he contradicted himself. However, the only one who is contradicting himself is Peter, for he is acting in willful opposition to the Church’s laws, while the person whom Elias was talking about (and that Peter referred to above), is not, since he is acting in ignorance. Peter is not ignorant of the fact that it’s heretics he approach or that the Church condemns being in communion with them. Yet, the ignoramus Peter tries to compare a material heretic or an ignorant person with his own position where he positively knows about that the priest and Church is heretical! One could wonder if Peter is even serious. Can he really be this delusional? It seems so, sadly.

For Peter to mix these two positions (as he did during this section of the debate) is truly sad to behold, and Elias told him so, but he persisted in his lies anyway, as we saw.

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.”

St. Paphnutius: “I cannot communicate with unclean heretics even by a single word!” (Cornelius Lapide)

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

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

Peter obviously don’t want to admit or accept the Church’s teachings in this regard, which is why he is a heretic. When one sees how stupid his arguments are, it’s obvious that such stupidity is of a spiritual kind; for no one with even a speck of Catholic sense could make such outrageous mistakes or be obstinate in them unless a spiritual force compelled him to make such outrageous mistakes.

But why is Peter even speaking like this? Well, if he did not reason as he did he would have to condemn himself as a schismatic for being in willful communion with heretics and schismatics. So just to excuse himself, Peter holds the following idiotic argument: if they who are ignorant could be in communion with heretics and schismatics unknowingly without committing sin, why then, reasons Peter, can I not be so knowingly? His arguments are so stupid that it’s beyond words to describe!

Until Peter learn the distinction between ignorance and culpability, between not knowing and knowing, between doing so on purpose and not doing so on purpose (which by the way only an idiot could fail to understand), he will sadly remain in his heresies, schisms, and contradictions.


DOES ST. THOMAS REALLY TEACH THAT WE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS FROM EXCOMMUNICATED “UNDECLARED” HERETICAL PRIESTS?

Around 47:37-59:06 in the debate; and on his website

Peter Dimond: “St. Thomas Aquinas, did he teach that non-Catholics – or excuse me – that undeclared heretics, could receive communion from a heretic? That someone could receive communion from an undeclared heretic?”

First, St. Thomas doesn’t teach that Catholics can receive communion from known heretics (as we will see). Second, notice how Peter correctly points out that it’s non-Catholics and heretics we’re talking about here (47:40 in the debate!). Peter incredibly actually said that non-Catholics and undeclared heretics could receive communion from heretics! Peter Dimond and his obstinate followers are indeed non-Catholic undeclared heretics. It is very true indeed that heretics can receive communion from heretics, but only unto their own damnation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful [illicit] (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith [like ignorance] would excuse the recipients from sin.”

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.”

So, does St. Thomas really teach that we can receive the sacraments from excommunicated “undeclared heretics” as Peter really claims? In the negative. “No case” actually means no case, but Peter who is willfully ignorant sadly fails to understand this.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 2: “Some heretics... I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly [Latin: manifeste, i.e. obviously or clearly] cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.”

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 are cut off from the Church, 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.”

Notice how St. Thomas said above that it’s sinful to receive the sacraments from those who are not “members of the Dove” (i.e. not members of the Church) and from “those who are cut off from the Church”. Heretics are not members of the Church of course, since they are automatically cut off from Her. This totally refutes Peter.

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.”

I think we have proved already that St. Thomas is not agreeing with Peter. But since there are certain passages in St. Thomas’ Summa that Peter erroneously believes agrees with him, more proof is needed. We will now look at those passages.


PETER PERSIST IN HIS ERROR ON ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUPPL. PART, Q. 82, ART. 9

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “I answer that, As was said above (AA[5],7), 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. … 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.”

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

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc. He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

Peter is completely wrong when he claims that the above words from St. Thomas is attributed alike to heretics and schismatics because 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.’”

Now 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.

St. Thomas clearly divides 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.

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.

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.”

This quote is essentially identical to the other one we saw before. 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 (such as Peter) 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 Peter claims.

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.”

So these facts totally demolishes Peter’s position on St. Thomas. Peter simply couldn’t have been more wrong, as usual.


SUSPENDED IN REGARDS TO OTHERS

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “To thoroughly refute their argument, we must notice that St. Thomas draws a distinction between 1) those who are suspended by the divine sentence, and 2) those who are suspended by the Church’s sentence. He says that the heretics and the excommunicates must be avoided because they have been suspended by both. He also says that sinners, although suspended by the divine sentence, “have not been suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence.” He is contrasting the sinners with the heretics, etc., who have beensuspended in regard to others by the Church’s sentence. This is a key point. The sin comes in communicating with someone who has been “suspended in regard to others” by the Church’s sentence.

“Does the language “suspended in regard to others” refer to an automatic penalty or a declared penalty? It refers to a declared penalty, in the external forum, that suspends a priest in view of the other faithful. St. Thomas is teaching that this suspension “in regard to others” has occurred in the case of the heretics, excommunicates, etc. who must be avoided. Since they have been “suspended in regard to others” by the Church’s declared penalty, it is a sin to communicate with them in the sacraments. However, “until the Church’s sentence is pronounced,” it can be lawful. This also confirms our point, that the sin of communication in the sacraments with a heretic is triggered by doing it against the Church’s designation, etc.”

Peter argues that since St. Thomas was using the words “suspended in regards to others”, this means that he was referring to a declared penalty, and he concludes that this necessarily must have included the heretics as well. But heretics are automatically excommunicated and suspended by the infallible declarations of the Church and are thus in no need of a declaration. Peter is also wrong in claiming that “suspended in regards to others” necessarily means a declared penalty, as we shall see.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, THIRD PART, QUESTION 100, ARTICLE 6, PROVES THAT “SUSPENDED IN REGARDS TO OTHERS” IS AN AUTOMATIC PENALTY INCURRED FOR COMMUNICATING IN A SACRAMENT WITH SOMEONE ONE KNOWS IS GUILTY OF A CRIME THAT WOULD HAVE RENDERED THIS COMMUNION UNLAWFUL!

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 100, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 2: “One ought not to receive Orders from a bishop one KNOWS to have been promoted simoniacally, either on account of his command or for fear of his excommunication: and such as receive Orders from him do not receive the exercise of their Orders, even though they are ignorant of his being guilty of simony; and they need to receive a dispensation. Some, however, maintain that one ought to receive Orders in obedience to his command unless one can prove him to be guilty of simony [you know he’s guilty, but cannot prove it], but that one ought not to exercise the Order without a dispensation. But this is an unreasonable statement, because no one should obey a man to the extent of communicating with him in an unlawful action. Now he that is, by virtue of the law, suspended as regards both himself and others...”

Note: He is suspended as regards both himself and others since he’s guilty and since you know he’s guilty. St. Thomas continues:

“Now he that is, by virtue of the law, suspended as regards both himself and others, confers Orders unlawfully: wherefore no one should communicate with him, by receiving Orders from him FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER. If, however, one be not certain on the point [if you don’t know he’s guilty or have any proof that he’s guilty], one ought not to give credence to another’s sin, and so one ought with a good conscience to receive Orders from him. And if the bishop has been guilty of simony otherwise than by a simoniacal promotion, and the fact be a secret, one can receive Orders from him because he is not suspended as regards others [since no one knows he’s guilty, he’s not suspended as regards others], but only [suspended] as regards himself [since he’s guilty], as stated above (ad 1).”

So St. Thomas is once again agreeing with us and confirms the point we’ve been trying to make clear in this article, namely: that the unlawfulness and sinfulness is triggered when communicating in a sacrament with someone one knows is guilty of a crime that would have rendered this communion unlawful and sinful:Now he that is, by virtue of the law, suspended as regards both himself and others, confers Orders unlawfully: wherefore no one should communicate with him, by receiving Orders from him FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER.

Do you read that? NO ONE SHOULD RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT FROM HIM FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER! One could not ask for a more explicit teaching which so clearly refutes the Dimonds.


SUMMA THEOLOGICA, SUPPL. PART, Q. 38, ART. 2

Around 53:40-55:22 in the debate; and on his website

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “To further refute the schismatics on St. Thomas, we need to examine this passage, for which they have not the slightest semblance of a response.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, A. 2: “I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. Iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church…. Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.”

Peter Dimond: “In this passage St Thomas is discussing ordination. Those points aren’t relevant to our topic. What is extremely relevant to our topic is the fact that this quotation shows that St. Thomas (and other authors of his time) distinguished between two classes of heretics. Those who are “tolerated” by the Church are those who have not yet been specifically declared by a judge to be heretics and to be avoided. These “tolerated” heretics are automatically severed from the Church for denying the faith, but they haven’t been declared. Those who have been “cut off” are those who have been pronounced against by a judge in a declared sentence.

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

“If St. Thomas were teaching what the radical schismatics say, he obviously wouldn’t have mentioned only those who are “cut off” from the Church. Certain radical schismatics say that whoever knowingly communicates in the sacraments with anyone he recognizes to be a heretic necessarily sins, even if that heretic is undeclared and meets certain conditions. What St. Thomas says disproves their position. He is saying that to communicate in the sacraments with a heretic who has been officially “cut off” is a sin, but he doesn’t say that about undeclared heretics. This passage from St. Thomas confirms our points about the previous quote we discussed. As our debate showed, the radical schismatics have no answer to this argument or to the distinction St. Thomas employs here. They can only ignore it.”

Peter only cites those excerpts that suits him from this Supplemental Part, but as we can see, this very next part of the Summa refutes his own position!

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.”

Truly, one has to ask the question: WHY would anyone want to go to heretics if they are incapable of conferring grace or give a valid absolution? Obviously, St. Thomas doesn’t teach what Peter supposedly claims he does, otherwise St. Thomas wouldn’t teach that heretics are incapable of conferring grace or give a valid absolution.

But what then is St. Thomas teaching in this passage? Let’s find out.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2: “I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25).”

Alright. St. Thomas is here talking about four opinions that are mentioned by other people, which means that the following opinions are not necessarily that of his own.

St. Thomas continues: “For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is impossible,”

Okay. St. Thomas just mentioned the first opinion of some people which said that heretical priests can be tolerated by the Church. But as we can see, this was never his own opinion, for he said “some said” and not that he himself held this opinion. Therefore, when Peter said around 54:00 min in the debate and on his website that this was “St. Thomas distinguishing between heretics tolerated by the Church and heretics cut off, is simply not true, for he nowhere said so.

Moving on with St. Thomas:

“Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church.”

St. Thomas was here referring to the fact that heretical or schismatical priests and bishops retain their Power to ordain even after they’ve been cut off from the Church automatically or formally. The first above opinion namely denied that heretics could retain their power to ordain after they’ve been cut off from the Church.

It was this erroneous opinion that St. Thomas was refuting here. This opinion was wrong because heretics cut off from the Church still retain their power to ordain other priests (although illicitly), hence that the Eastern “Orthodox” have a valid priesthood.

So St. Thomas was not here discussing whether heretical priests could ever be tolerated by the Church in religious communion, nor was this ever his opinion.

Peter also said that when the term cut off is used by St. Thomas it means that he necessarily is referring to a formal or declared excommunication taking place (54:06 in the debate; and in his article). But this is not true, since, as we have seen, heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically cut off from the Catholic Church and Communion and are in no need of a declaration.

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 [cut off] a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity… if any one holds to one single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

So just because St. Thomas was mentioning the fact that they were cut off, doesn’t mean in anyway that he was referring to a formal or declared excommunication. So for Peter to claim that this “confirms” his position or that St. Thomas was referring only to those who’ve been declared against formally (and not likewise to the undeclared and automatically excommunicated), is simply not true.

Moving on with St. Thomas:

“For this reason others said that those who are cut off from the Church after having episcopal power in the Church, retain the power to ordain and raise others, but that those who are raised by them have not this power. This is the fourth opinion.

“But this again is impossible, for if those who were ordained in the Church retain the power they received, it is clear that by exercising their power they consecrate validly, and therefore they validly confer whatever power is given with that consecration, and thus those who receive ordination or promotion from them have the same power as they.

“Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion.”

Notice how the second opinion said that heretics one knows are cut off from the Church can confer grace in the sacraments. This is not true (except perhaps in baptism) because as long as they remain in heresy or schism they remain outside the Church, Her Communion, Salvation, and Grace. This is what St. Thomas was refuting next.

“But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person [knowingly] communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity.”

But how do we know St. Thomas was here referring to individuals who are approaching heretical priests knowingly in opposition to the Church’s laws? Obviously, we know that this is true because we cannot possibly be sinning if we are ignorant of the fact that it’s wrong to approach heretics or—if we know it’s wrong—but had no way of knowing that the priest is a heretic or schismatic, and so unknowingly approached a heretical or schismatical priest for mass and the sacraments.

St. Thomas Aquinas himself refers to this in his Summa:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 3: “The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (63, 3). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated [automatically and/or formally] or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. HE ALSO SINS that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, UNLESS IGNORANCE EXCUSES HIM.”

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 ARE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH, 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.”

Moving on with St. Thomas:

“Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who [knowingly] receive the sacraments from such [obviously excommunicated] persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.”

Notice how St. Thomas here agreed with the third opinion which held that heretics do not confer grace in the sacraments if one receives it from a minister whom one knows is excommunicated. This quote is of course teaching in perfect agreement with other quotes from St. Thomas as well.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 100, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 2: “But this is an unreasonable statement [to receive orders from a bishop one knows have been promoted simoniacally], because no one should obey a man to the extent of communicating with him in an unlawful action. Now he that is, by virtue of the law, suspended as regards both himself and others, confers [the sacrament of] Orders unlawfully: wherefore no one should communicate with him, by receiving Orders from him FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER.”

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.’”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 2: “Some heretics... I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly [Latin: manifeste, i.e. manifestly or clearly] cut off from the Church [automatically or formally]; because from the very fact that anyone [knowingly] receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.”

Now if it really was St. Thomas’ own opinion that we can communicate sacramentally with heretics and approach heretics for divine worship as Peter claims, then St. Thomas position would literally make no sense because he is saying on the very same page that “a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments and “but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

Peter might object to this by claiming that St. Thomas statements was only referring to those who’ve been declared against by the Church. But this is an unreasonable statement, and is contrary to what he said, for he said that we sin if we communicate in the sacraments with a person we KNOW is guilty, excommunicated or suspended in regards to others—even if undeclared.

Hopefully, after being aware of this information, Peter will no longer obstinately persist in his claims that St. Thomas is agreeing with him.


PETER SAYS ST. THOMAS MUST HAVE BEEN A HERETIC!

Around 58:50-59:06 in the debate; and on his website

Peter argues that if it’s wrong to receive the sacraments from heretics, then St. Thomas must have been a heretic for teaching that it was lawful.

Peter Dimond: “What you’re arguing is that it’s contrary to the apostolic faith going back to the very beginning of the Church: to ever receive the sacrament from an undeclared heretic or communion, — and if that were true (which it isn’t) then St. Thomas would be a heretic. Alright, so that’s why it’s a good point.”

And as usual, Peter is completely wrong. St. Thomas would have been in error, just as Cardinal John de Lugo was in error. But that’s beside the point because St. Thomas never actually taught what Peter claims he did, as we have proved.

However, others have taught this, but this doesn’t automatically make them heretics. A person could know that a priest is a heretic but think that he needed the sacraments in order to save his soul. This person could be excused and be without sin if he did not know about the Church’s laws which forbids people from receiving sacraments from heretics. A person can also misunderstand some Church teaching and think that it’s right to receive the sacraments from undeclared heretics—as Cardinal John de Lugo did, when he misinterpreted Ad Evitanda Scandala and applied it to heretics—and be without sin as long as he was acting in ignorance.


COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH (341)

Around 1:20:38-1:21:14 in the debate

Next, Peter quotes from the Council of Antioch, Canon 1 to be exact. But Peter is not giving the context behind the quote nor is he honest when quoting it. He also only quoted a small excerpt from the whole Canon that superficially may have seemed to agree with him. Let’s now look at Canon 1 and see what it was all about.

Council of Antioch, (A.D. 341), #Canon 1: “Whosoever shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity. But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, by observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them. And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which the holy Canon and God’s priesthood partake.”

Now the following part of the Council is the ONLY section Peter quoted in the debate. But Peter also added some (extra words) to the Council about what he thought that the Council meant in order to fool his listeners into believing that it actually agreed with him. Let’s behold his black magic:

Peter Dimond, 1:20:42-1:20:53: “and it deposes not only such persons themselves (meaning, I guess, heretical individuals) from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them.”

The Council never spoke about heretics or schismatics as Peter makes it out to be. It spoke specifically about sinful priests who would dare to oppose the Church’s decree on what day to celebrate Easter. This was thus about disobedient Catholics and Ecclesiastical laws, and not about heretics or Divine laws as the willful liar Peter Dimond makes it out to be. For Peter to actually add those extra words to the Council and claim it referred to heretics when it never spoke about heretical individuals is outrageous! Already, we have seen him do things like this numerous times in the debate, and so we are not in the least surprised that he acted in this way once again.

Historically, the Eastern Church celebrated Easter at the same date that the Jews Celebrated Easter, but the Western Church celebrated Easter at another date, and always on a Sunday. The conflict was settled at the Council of Nicaea, where it was decreed that East and West should celebrate Easter on the same day and always on a Sunday, according to Western standards.

So what the Council was talking about here was sinful, disobedient priests who had violated ecclesiastical laws and who were about to be formally excommunicated for violating these laws. It was not talking about heretical individuals as Peter claims. And we agree with Peter that it’s lawful to approach a sinful priest until the Church’s sentence has been pronounced (except in the case of concubinage and other grave crimes where an automatic excommunication or suspension is attached). We likewise agree with that after the Church’s sentence has been pronounced on such a priest, it’s no longer lawful to approach to him. So what’s Peter’s point? He had no point really with this Council except to lie about it and make it appear to support his heretical doctrine.

Elias even confronted Peter on the Council and said to him that the quote didn’t say what he claimed it did. Elias said to Peter: “No. Your quote didn’t say that obviously, everyone could hear that…” Peter responded: “I just quoted it. I just quoted it word for word. I don’t know what you are talking about. I just quoted it.”

Instead of admitting to his lie and telling us the truth that the Council never referred to heretics as he first claimed, he persisted in his error and mortal sin of lying by obstinately asserting that he quoted it truthfully. Peter did thus stand by his lie even though he was confronted about it.


THE DIMONDS ON NOTORIOUS HERETICS

Around 1:00:56-1:02:40 in the debate; and on his website

Peter asked Elias if he stands by his words when we say on our website, that according to Canon law, a heresy or crime is notorious and public the moment it has been made known to others. Elias stated that this was true “for you, of course”, meaning that it is true for the person who has discovered the crime or heresy personally - which is the true position. Peter however did not agree with this.

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. He 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.”

Even though Peter here claims we must avoid the “Orthodox” absolutely, he in fact does not believe that this is true.

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

Yes, Dimonds, someone has clearly misled you in this area. Even though the Dimonds claims saints and a pope have taught this, yet, even until this day, they have never cited a single statement by a Pope or Saint that has taught this!

MHFM teaches that heretics and schismatics can absolve without quoting anything...

Several Saints and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot absolve.

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

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto 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.”

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.”

So the Dimonds does not only contradict St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine and many other saints and popes but are in fact teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE THING!

Not only does Peter contradict himself in embarrassing ways like this all the time, but even the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law that he was referring to just now, contradicts him. 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 [remember, heresy has no legal 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 if “it 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: 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.

Almost any heretic today can easily become known as a notorious and known, public heretic. In fact, it’s so easy today to find out whether a priest is heretical or not that all one has to do is simply to ask the priest what he believes.

Precisely because it’s so easy today to find out whether a priest is heretical or not, the Dimonds tells their readers to call the priests and ask them certain questions before allowing themselves to receive the sacraments from them.

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “For example, with regard to a priest in the Eastern Rite who accepts Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope, here are some guidelines: you must call the Eastern Rite priest up and ask him certain questions before receiving Communion from him. You should confirm that he was ordained in the Eastern Rite and ask him what he thinks of praying with members of other religions, “ecumenism,” etc. If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him. Another question to ask him is whether he believes that non-Catholics, such as the “Orthodox,” need to be converted to the Catholic Faith. If he doesn’t say “yes,” then he is a notorious heretic. But if he answers in a more conservative way, then you could go to him for Communion without supporting him. But when you go to such a Mass in order to receive Communion, we recommend that you simply pray by yourself...”

Even though Peter disagreed with us in the debate when we said that a priest is a public and notorious heretic for simply making his obstinate heresy known to us, he nevertheless agrees with us on his own website when dealing with other issues, such as when it would NOT be lawful to receive the sacraments from certain known heretical priests, as we just saw above. So, dear reader, Peter and Michael Dimond do agree with us... but only when it suits their own purpose.

One could wonder then, if (as they say) the priest becomes a notorious heretic for simply admitting to his heresy, doesn’t this mean that whenever we have found out about his heresies and if he’s obstinate in them that he must be avoided for communion, even according to the Dimonds’ own standard? Of course it does.

MHFM: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him.”

But even though the Dimonds admitted above that the priest is a notorious heretic after admitting to his heresy, yet, in another hypocritical twist, they nevertheless teach that some heretics that WE KNOW ARE HERETICS AFTER TALKING TO THEM, may nevertheless be communed with as long as they are NOT NOTORIOUS about their heresies.

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

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. 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.”

Do the Dimonds contradict themselves? Of course they do. According to the Dimonds, a priest can be both a notorious heretic and a non-notorious heretic at the same time!

Please point out to Peter and Michael Dimond their embarrassing contradiction. Here is their e-mail address: mhfm1@aol.com

By the way, if you ever wonder where the Dimonds got their “imposing” argument from, know they have simply made it up for themselves. As far as we are aware of, no saint, theologian or even a heretic has ever made such an idiotic argument before prior to Peter and Michael Dimond. The Dimonds simply made up this argument from thin air to bolster their heresy of receiving the sacraments from heretics.

It’s as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe that their self made list of what constitutes a notorious heresy is applicable to the rest of humanity! Their view actually have the boldness to claim that some heresies can be tolerated or excused while others may not. The Catholic Church however condemns all heresies and heretics and shuns communion with them. How MHFM decide which heresies can be tolerated or excused or not is of course impossible to understand. As all honest people can see, it’s just the imaginations of the Dimonds’ own made up claims without any dogmatic proof whatsoever to back up their words.

That not even a single saint or doctor of the Church can ever be cited to have received a sacrament (except for perhaps baptism) from a known heretic, even though countless people have been in situations where sacraments were not available, does not face the Dimonds’ satanic will one bit.

THE DIMONDS “CONCEALMENT” AND “EXCUSED” IN LAW HERESY REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE

But why does Peter say we can approach some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests who accepts ecumenism, that we may not approach them?

Couldn’t the 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.

Peter 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 this 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 Peter 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 he, or his 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 Peter would be consistent with his own teaching, he would have to excuse the priest who accept the Vatican II ecumenism as well. He 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.

However, instead of excusing or concealing manifest, obstinate, bad willed heresy and heretics, we must admonish, denounce and condemn them as the word of God commands us to do.

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

Note that admonition means to try to convert the heretic and save his soul, it does not mean, as the Dimonds make it out to be, to be in religious communion with him after you know that he is an obstinate, bad willed heretic.

But the worst part of the Dimonds’ hypocritical and heretical teaching regarding notorious heretics is that they are leading people into the jaws of the Devil and his heretical ministers so that they can be devoured by them, one by one. According to the Dimonds, as long as the laymen freely allows heresies to be taught to them by their heretical priest and the priest does not impose his heretical belief on them, Catholics can continue to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from this priest. That is like saying that a pedophile priest should be allowed to have sexual relations with children as long as he does not impose his perversion on them, as long as the children freely consent to or allows the priest’s perversion. According to the logic of the Dimonds’ heresy, one could argue that this priest is an obstinate pedophile but not a notorious pedophile and hence Catholics are allowed to continue to feed their children to him and continue to attend this priest’s Masses who are actions of mortal sin and even bring one’s children so that they’ll be taught, seduced, and devoured by him. People are always inclined to believe those in positions of authority, such as a bishop over a priest and a priest over a layman. The longer a layman attend the Masses of a publicly heretical priest, the greater the odds are that he will teach his heresy to them in some forum or another and hence the greater the danger of them starting to believe in his heresy. But the worst part is that when laymen attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from a priest whom they know is a heretic, they commit mortal sins of omission and association, as well as other mortal sins, regardless if they embrace the priest’s heresy or not. The heretical Dimond brothers “are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.” (Mt. 15:14)


DIMOND ON THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW

Around 1:07:12-1:14:58 in the debate; and on his website

Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “… 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 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).”

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

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “This canon 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. In fact, the Code contradicts them by including heretics among “excommunicated persons.”

Canon 2314.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and every heretic or schismatic: 1. Incur by that fact excommunication.”

First, let’s note that the 1917 Code of Canon Law did not mention the word heretic or schismatic anywhere. It explicitly mentioned excommunicated persons. 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 Church because the 1917 Code of Canon Law is not infallible, and even contains several heresies, as people can see for themselves here.

Second, also notice how (as usual) the very quotation that Peter uses to prove his position, refutes him:

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 Peter doesn’t teach that heretics may only be approached for the Eucharist or Confession in danger of death, for he teaches that they may be approached every time as long as they are not notorious.

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.”

So the very canon that Peter uses to prove his heresy demolishes his own position, for Peter teaches that one may go to heretics for confession without any danger of death! One could wonder why Peter is even using this canon, for he is evidently not following it anyway. It is the same with almost every quotation that he has used. None of them has agreed with his position, but even contradicts it, as we have seen over and over again.

Third, let’s see how Peter would have responded to a similar objection if it was brought against his own position.

The following section was written by John Salza, a Vatican II heretic, as a supposed “refutation” against the sedevacantist position.

John Salza, J.D., The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law: “Ecclesiastical law poses further problems for the Sedevacantist thesis. Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII legislated that a Cardinal’s election to the papacy is presumed to be valid, irrespective of any ecclesiastical censures he may have incurred prior to his election.

“Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904).

“Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).”

As we can see above, neither Pope St. Pius X or Pope Pius XII made any distinction on the excommunicated persons. Therefore, according to Peter’s reasoning, this must mean that they intended to include heretical excommunicated Cardinals in the possible election of the Supreme Pontiff. This is what Peter’s reasoning would have to come to if he took his heretical position to it’s full extent — but Peter of course denies this notion.

The following refutation against John Salza’s argument (and inevitably against Peter himself) was taken from Peter’s article: John Salza’s Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed.

Peter Dimond: “The refutation is as follows: 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. 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 cardinal who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a cardinal because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a cardinal who receives an excommunication for something else is still a cardinal, though in a state of grave sin. So when Pope Pius XII says that all cardinals, whatever ecclesiastical impediment they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this presupposes cardinals who have received an excommunication for something other than heresy, since a cardinal who has received an excommunication for heresy is not a cardinal at all. The key point to understand is that heresy is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment, but an impediment by divine law.

The canonist Maroto explains: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself…” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1921.)

“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 was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.”

Even though Peter admitted above that the words “any excommunication” can be used without including heretics or contradicting the divine law, he nevertheless refuses to understand it on this occasion, in the case of the 1917 Code of Canon Law simply because it contradicts him.

Okay, so the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law is not referring to any excommunicated heretics for the same reasons mentioned by Peter, that is, that they are excluded by the divine law and that the divine law cannot be changed.

PETER’S “PROOF” ON THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW: THE PRIVATE OPINIONS OF CERTAIN THEOLOGIANS!

Peter is also trying to “support” his distorted view on the 1917 Code by referring to other fallible theological opinions around 1:07:38-1:07:50 in the debate. Peter is thus not trying to prove his position based on the infallible magisterium of the Church (as he should be doing), but on other theologians.

Peter Dimond, 1:07:38-1:07:50 in the debate: “The Canonists of that time clearly applied that to ALL excommunicated individual, they didn’t exclude heretics. Alright, so that’s another point that completely refutes your position.”

Peter is also arguing around 1:08:00-1:08:15 in the debate that the Council of Constance (which according to the Dimonds, the 1917 Code of Canon Law supposedly referred to for this new teaching on receiving the sacraments from heretics) did not exclude heretics.

Peter Dimond, 1:08:06-1:08:15 in the debate: “And the Council of Constance, according to numerous authorities, did not exclude heretics. And so that refutes you as well.”

So he has proof, but cites none? Instead of citing the evidence, he simply referred to the many “authorities” which supposedly claimed that this was what the Council taught.

THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW AND THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE

On his website, Peter gives some of his sources for his supposed claim that the Council of Constance refers to heretics.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Moreover, canon 2262.2 references the Council of Constance’s decree, Ad evitanda Scandala.”

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “The [heretical] 1917 Code of Canon Law gives none other than the Council of Constance’s decree Ad evitandi scandala as its sole source for canon 2261.2... Therefore, the authors of the Code of Canon Law saw Ad evitanda scandala not as something that’s in contradiction to its allowance in canon 2262.1, as you falsely claim, but as the very source for what is allowed in canon 2261.2 [i.e., according to Peter: the source for the licit reception of sacrilegious sacraments from the hands of known heretics].”

This is supposedly Peter’s “proof” that the 1917 Code of Canon Law includes heretics—that it referred to the Council of Constance. But as we have seen already in this article, Ad Evitanda Scandala does not refer to heretics, but specifically to sinners of various kinds that are tolerated in Catholic Communion. So Peter is completely wrong, as usual.

THE 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW CONTRADICTS PETER

While Peter claims that the 1917 Code supports his heretical position, he is quite wrong as usual.

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.”

As we can see here, even the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law condemns and refutes his sacrilegious position on hearing mass and receiving sacraments at non-Catholic Churches.

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

It is true that the 1917 Code of Canon Law contains several laws that are heretical and dangerous. Nevertheless, this Code of Canon Law is a good representation of Catholic teachings and practices otherwise.

Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is supremely authoritative, being the mind of the Church since earliest days regarding religious association with those who are not Catholic, and the Third Council of Constantinople and especially the Second Council of Constantinople are even more authoritative, having the full power of the Papacy behind it as well.

Third Council of Constantinople, 680: “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.”

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.”


IS IT ALWAYS A MORTAL SIN TO RECEIVE A SACRAMENT FROM A HERETICAL MINISTER?

Around 1:30:53-1:33:24 in the debate

Elias said that all who receive the sacraments from a heretical or schismatical priest at a heretical or schismatical church are in mortal sin for doing so. Elias of course was only referring to those people who are aware of the Church’s teaching since no one can be at fault for doing things in ignorance in this respect. It goes without saying. But if some would be confused by his saying he also made it clear that some people could be material heretics and in error. One can use the words “all” without specifically meaning every single being. Here is a perfect example of this from the Bible: “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Our Lord and Our Lady have of course never sinned, so this is a perfect example of the principle explained above. This is exactly how the Bible or specific statements must be interpreted. The whole of the Bible must be taken in context without isolating specific verses.

Elias also repeated himself and said around 1:31:10 in the debate (after he explained that people could be in material heresy) that the people who receive the sacraments from heretics commit mortal sin. This should be understood in the sense of those people who are heretics or mortal sinners in that church since all who receive the sacraments in heresy, schism, apostasy, or in mortal sin, receives it sacrilegiously and illicitly. But if there’s an erring Catholic in that church he doesn’t commit a mortal sin, of course.

Elias also said that they are heretics and that Peter yet knowingly go to them around 1:30:47 -1:31:15 in the debate. He said “they are” (speaking of those only who actually are heretical). This should be understood in the sense that the people who enters the meetinghouses of the heretics and schismatics must be presumed to be heretics or schismatics, even if there’s a small chance of some of them being material heretics.

Peter Dimond, 1:33:02-1:33:24 in the debate: “See, you contradict yourself again because you say everyone in these churches is heretical, and then you go on to say: well some of them are material heretics; and it’s just one contradiction...”

It would be quite obvious to any honest person not suffering from bad will to understand what Elias was trying to say here, especially since he has already mentioned SEVERAL TIMES IN THE DEBATE that people can be in error and not themselves be heretics or mortal sinners in a heretical church!

Let’s recall Romans 3:23 again: “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.” Elias was only speaking about those people who were heretics and not about people who are material heretics since no one who is in material heresy can be blamed or be judged as a heretic.

However, after Elias had said that all were mortal sinners and heretics he made plain his words by saying that some could be material heretics (1:31:01-1:31:10) so that no one should misunderstand what he really meant, which is, that they are presumed heretics.

Yet, the mortal sinner and liar Peter Dimond thinks that he can isolate a single sentence even after he received an explanation that refutes his claims. The Bible doesn’t even give an explanation of certain exceptions immediately after a specific statement in the way Elias explained himself, yet we know that Peter wouldn’t claim that the Bible was contradicting itself. When one sees how Peter lies and is willfully ignorant on purpose—since he has nothing else to say—then one can understand that it is a spiritual sickness he is laboring under.


POPE ST. PIUS V AND THE ANGLICAN SCHISM

Around 1:42:06-1:43:23 in the debate; and at his website

Peter Dimond, Some quotes to get a better perspective on the “Una Cum” Issue: “The extremely rigorous and totally Catholic Pope St. Pius V was giving conditions for re-admitting schismatics in England into the Catholic Church. These schismatics had been compromised with a new false “Mass” (like the New Mass) and heresies which were comparable in many ways to what we are dealing with in the Vatican II sect. The quote from The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (below) also proves that many were receiving traditional sacraments from priests in England who had compromised. These priests had compromised more out of cowardice than agreement with the heretical Queen. Thus, they were willing to give sacraments to traditionalists. So, faced with such an ecclesiastical situation, which was similar to ours, what did this extremely rigorous pope require for these converts? Did he require them to not receive Communion from any such priest who had compromised or was heretical in some way? Did he give any such requirement? No. He told them they must not go to the Protestant service or receive the invalid Protestant host – period.”

Peter argues that Catholics were receiving communion from heretical priests in England and that Pope St. Pius V did not require Catholics to abstain from receiving communion from these priests who had compromised, and that this somehow gives credence to his position.

But on what grounds does Peter base this strange idea on? Let’s see in his own words:

THE QUOTE [FROM A BOOK!] from The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (below) also proves that many were receiving traditional sacraments from priests in England who had compromised... Did he [Pope Pius V] require them to not receive Communion from any such priest who had compromised or was heretical in some way? Did he give any such requirement? No. He told them they must not go to the Protestant service or receive the invalid Protestant host – period.”

As we can see, Peter bases his entire conclusion that his position is right and that the Pope didn’t require anyone to abstain from sacrilegious communion BASED ON WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN ONE BOOK!

According to Peter’s logic then, baptism of desire must be true and defined as a true doctrine because no Pope has ever condemned it by name or ever condemned any person spreading these books or condemned any of the books in which this heresy was written. But Peter would of course never argue in this way in regards to baptism of desire, but only in regards to those doctrines which suits him. I guess Peter knew his argument on St. Pius V was totally crushed since he did not even try to make a response. Even though Peter knows his argument was totally crushed and refuted in the debate, yet, to this day he still continues to teach this very argument on his website as if it were true!

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to argue that Baptism of Desire is true since no pope has ever condemned any books containing these heresies or condemned any person spreading these books. But Peter does not argue that baptism of desire is true from an argument of silence because Peter condemns this very position on his website!

The following information is taken from Peter Dimond’s book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, and can be found publicly at his site.

THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE

OBJECTION- If it is true that there is no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood, then why didn’t any pope come out and condemn these theories as they were appearing in so many catechisms in the late 1800’s and following?

ANSWER- Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are shown in various ways to be excluded by the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The fact that no pope came out and explicitly condemned the theories by name doesn’t change that fact. The fact that no pope since the late 1800’s removed these theories from inclusion in catechisms doesn’t prove anything either. It was being taught in catechisms at the same time that one can be saved in a non-Catholic religion. To my knowledge, the heresy that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions was not removed by express order of any pope. Does this mean that these popes believed in the heresy that one can be saved in a non-Catholic religion? Does this mean that it’s okay to believe the heresy that one can be saved in a non-Catholic religion? Absolutely not.

[EXACTLY! NOW WHY DON’T YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE YOU CLUELESS SCHISMATIC!]

Popes are very busy people – with tons of responsibilities – so they can be unaware of what is being taught catechetically at the diocesan level. They rely on their bishops to preserve the faith in their respective dioceses, which unfortunately did not happen in the last 100 years. One example that is very interesting to consider in this regard is the fact that no pope ever ordered St. Thomas Aquinas’s opinion on the Immaculate Conception to be removed from the Summa Theologica, even though many of them were consistently recommending it!

The word hypocrite denotes a person who condemns, criticizes, or refutes another person for an error, argument, or sin that he himself commits. Peter sadly commits this grievous sin since he tells the Baptism of Desire advocates that just because popes didn’t condemn several books with this heretical teaching does not mean that they ever approved of it or defined it as a true doctrine.

Peter, in his abominable hypocrisy, uses the exact same argument from silence of popes when it suits his own whims that he condemns, refutes, or criticizes when others is using. And then he tells his readers that when the Pope didn’t condemn or speak about the specific error that was occurring in England during the Anglican schism, that this proves or gives credence to his position!? Greater dishonesty can hardly be imagined.

Please show to Peter his embarrassing hypocrisy. Perhaps he will be converted from your e-mail: mhfm1@aol.com


PETER LIES ABOUT FR. RISHTON AND BLESSED EDMUND CAMPION

Around 1:44:19-1:46:15 in the debate; and on his website

Peter said: “This Fr. Rishton was martyred with Blessed Edmund Campion. So I think most people would say he was not a heretic. And he [Fr. Rishton] is describing people who (as Catholics) as more careful about the faith who received the valid host from this priest. But who was this priest they received it from? A heretical priest who was also giving out the invalid host to people who were going to the new service. So does Rishton say that the Catholics who received the host from the priest who was compromised, were themselves heretical? No he doesn’t! And it illustrates how the Catholics at that era did not regard this situation or the issue as you schismatics do. You would condemn him as a heretic. You would condemn Blessed Edmund Campion as a heretic – he was a compatriot of him – and so it just shows you who wrong you are. They were receiving communion from a priest in necessity who were compromised.”

Peter argues that if our position was true we must condemn as heretics Fr. Rishton and Blessed Edmund Campion. But that’s a direct lie and a demonic misrepresentation! It is quite sickening to have to deal with bad willed heretics like Peter.

Not only did Peter wrongly accuse us of condemning Catholics as heretics, but note how he even seems to claim that Fr. Rishton and Blessed Edmund Campion received the sacraments from Anglican heretical ministers:

Peter Dimond: “You would condemn him [Fr. Rishton] as a heretic. You would condemn Blessed Edmund Campion as a heretic – he was a compatriot of him – and so it just shows you who wrong you are. THEY WERE RECEIVING COMMUNION FROM A PRIEST IN NECESSITY WHO WERE COMPROMISED.”

It is possible that Peter wasn’t referring to Fr. Rishton and Edmund Campion when he spoke of “they”. Nevertheless, Peter must of course realize that just because Fr. Rishton wrote in his book that other people received the sacraments from compromising priests in England, doesn’t mean in anyway that Fr. Rishton or Blessed Edmund Campion ever received the sacraments from any such priest.

Just because they were friends or martyred together doesn’t mean in anyway that either of them ever received the sacraments from any such priests. In fact we could prove just the opposite to be true. It’s just a fact that not a single saint or blessed person has ever knowingly received the sacraments (excluding perhaps baptism) from heretical ministers or approved of this — and that’s just a fact!

So why not see what Blessed Edmund Campion had to say for himself on this matter:

“Before Campion and his associates began to preach, Catholics had often compromised with Protestantism to the extent of attending the official church services. But Campion preached recusancy, bold and uncompromising. Catholics could not attend the Protestant services and retain their faith.” (Wings of Eagles, Corley and Williams, p. 40)

As we can see here, Blessed Edmund Campion preached against having anything to do, religiously speaking, with these Anglican heretics, schismatics, and apostates from the faith!

I think it’s important for us to comprehend this fact: no saint has ever approved of this new teaching that Peter is trying to teach. If this doesn’t tell us whose position is right, then what will (excluding dogma of course)? This fact also tells us that it’s not natural to be in communion with heretical people who are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His Church.


SUSPECT OF HERESY

Around 1:48:24-1:49:55 in the debate

When Peter couldn’t get away with his straw-man arguments and false accusations on the Anglican schism (since Elias refuted them), Peter changed the subject to “suspect of heresy” and what the term means. Now, Elias answered wrong on Peter’s question, but only because Peter didn’t ask his question properly. Peter namely forgot to mention the very important fact of after they have been struck with anathema to Elias beforehand, and so it was impossible for him to know what Peter was talking about or trying to say. The following words are the only thing Peter mentioned, before demanding an answer:

Peter Dimond: “Alright, to illustrate what a liar you are, I think it’s important to ask you a question. When the Councils use the term suspect of heresy, in their ecclesiastical decrees—the fourth Lateran Council and councils of that period—are they referring to declared or undeclared?”

Elias answer: that it was about undeclared.

However, unless Elias was a mind-reader and could have known that he was trying to say “after they have been struck with the sword of anathema”, he could only have given one answer, namely: that not every person who’s been suspected of some heresy, has been declared as a suspect of heresy. One of course cannot answer a question before one understands the context of it.

And so when Elias answered that it was an undeclared individual it was nothing strange about his answer at all because Peter didn’t ask his question properly. Based on the information Peter gave before demanding an answer, Elias answer wasn’t wrong, but only logical. But in the context Peter was referring to, those suspects have been declared since they have been struck with the sword of anathema (a declared sentence).

Peter is right that people who are suspected of heresy and “who have been struck with the sword of anathema” falls under a declared sentence and that they then must be avoided. But that’s beside the point and it doesn’t prove anything for Peter’s position because these suspects are not yet known as heretics and could as well be Catholics, although they are suspects.

So why does Peter over and over again try to prove a point that doesn’t even prove his own position? That we don’t have to avoid a person that we don’t even know is a heretic is obvious, and we agree with it. We also agree with that people whom we don’t know are heretics must be avoided first after they’ve been pointed out by the Church. So what’s Peter trying to prove here? Nothing. And so the above Councils proves nothing for Peter one bit, yet he repeats them over and over again.


PETER SAYS WE ARE CRIMINALS!

Around 1:51:12-1:51:20 in the debate

To answer this objection by Peter, we will quote from our article on the amazing lies and contradictions of brother Michael and Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery.

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

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

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

-Bro. Peter Dimond

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

Only an idiot could claim (after being presented with this evidence) that a worldly law comes before the spiritual law or that to copy someone else’s material would be the equivalent of “stealing”. Peter never lost his articles, films or material to begin with, so how can he call it stealing? The definition of stealing is “to take another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.” It thus means that the person lost the thing which was taken from him. But copying doesn’t steal or take it away from another, because copying only reproduces it, and that for free. So to claim that one shouldn’t spread or copy soul saving material because it would be classified as “stealing” to “copy” someone else’s material – is just stupid. If we could copy someone else’s food and give this food to starving people, would that also be considered as “stealing” according to these people? We asked them this question, and they never answered. Copying is not stealing. Period! No man can hinder the spreading of God’s truths. Period! Neither can any man claim particular ownership of God’s truths, as Peter do. Period! This is of course a divine and natural law!

That the Dimonds actually whine about us spreading their material shows us one thing: they are of satan. When we see people spreading our material we don’t whine about it or threaten them with legal action but are actually happy to see people spreading the truth. Anyone of good will will of course be happy to see the truth being spread and not try to hinder it in anyway. But Peter however acts in the exact opposite way. We have not only made no profit on their material, but have even spent all our savings on advertisements trying to promote our own and their material on our website, all for the salvation of souls, so that we now have been forced to go on social welfare because of this.


ONE MAY NEVER COMMIT EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME

Romans 3:7-8: “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.

St. Augustine, To Consentius, Against Lying: Let us do evil that good may come? A thing which you see how the Apostle detests.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Q. 84, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 5: “That a man commit a sin with a good intention, seems to point to ignorance, in so far as he knows not that evil should not be done that good may come of it.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 64, Art. 5, Reply to Objection 3: “Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because “evil must not be done that good may come” (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.”

Now, those who believe that it is permissible to ask the sacraments from a heretic are evidently blind to this Catholic truth, because most assuredly, they are asking another man to sin mortally. It is a sin for all heretics to consecrate or confer any sacrament, except for Baptism in a case of necessity:

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.”

“No case” means not even when asked by a layman who cannot find a non-heretical priest. That means that even when asked by such, the heretic would still be committing sin by doing so. And surely all people of good will will agree with the following quotation from the Ecumenical Council of Lyons:

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

And this:

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.”

Now how does a person avoid the culpability described by Pope Innocent IV and Pope Felix III if he goes to a heretic and asks for the sacraments? Answer: He does not avoid culpability at all. If he truly opposed the manifest crime of a heretic consecrating or conferring the sacraments, he most certainly would not receive them from his hands, let alone ask him for absolution, which, as we have seen, the priest is INCAPABLE of bestowing.

IF ALL THIS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU,

Consider Dimond’s position when expressed more simply:

Peter Dimond’s position on notoriety and the lack of necessity to avoid undeclared heretics is this: The more subtle and sneaky the heretics, the more permissible it is to go to them and ask them to commit the mortal sin of consecrating and giving out the sacraments.

I answer him and all his followers in this perverse compromise against sound Faith: Do you know he is a heretic? Then get away from him for the love of God and your own soul! You are asking to be deceived and damned!


CATHOLICS WHO HAD NO ACCESS TO CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND AVOIDED NON-CATHOLIC PRIESTS

There were times in the history of the Church when Catholics could not attend Mass or receive the other sacraments for extended periods of time because no Catholic priests were available to them. In the case where only non-Catholic priests were available, Catholics were nevertheless dogmatically banned from any religious communion with them. Hence in the history of the Catholic Church there were extended periods of time in which Catholics were deprived of the Holy Mass and the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, confirmation, and orders. This is empirical proof that the Catholic faith comes before the Mass and the sacraments and that Catholics can be saved without being able to attend Mass or receive the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, confirmation, and orders. Hence a man can be saved without these good things, but he cannot be saved without the Catholic faith.

There is only one sacrament that is absolutely necessary for all people to receive for salvation, and that is the sacrament of 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).”

Now we want to present some remarkable stories of saints and ordinary people who lived without the sacraments for extended periods of times throughout Church history in order to show people that many Catholics who had been deprived of the sacraments still managed to go on with their spiritual life, and some even reached perfection.

St. Paul the Hermit

During the Decian persecution of Christians, St. Paul the Hermit fled to the desert when he was 16 years old. He then lived alone in the desert for nearly 100 years without a Mass and the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, penance, and extreme unction. Yet when he died, St. Anthony the Great saw St. Paul’s soul fly straight to heaven.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Paul the Hermit: “When a young man of sixteen Paul fled into the desert of the Thebaid during the Decian persecution. He lived in a cave in the mountain-side till he was one hundred and thirteen. The mountain, adds St. Jerome, was honeycombed with caves.”

The Life of Paulus the First Hermit, by St. Jerome, 374 or 375: “2. During the persecutions of Decius and Valerian, when Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian at Carthage shed their blood in blessed martyrdom, many churches in Egypt and the Thebaid were laid waste by the fury of the storm… 4. While such enormities were being perpetrated in the lower part of the Thebaid, Paul and his newly married sister were bereaved of both their parents, he being about sixteen years of age. He was heir to a rich inheritance, highly skilled in both Greek and Egyptian learning, gifted with a gentle disposition and a deep love for God. Amid the thunders of persecution he…fled to the mountain wilds to wait for the end of the persecution. He began with easy stages, and repeated halts, to advance into the desert. At length he found a rocky mountain, at the foot of which, closed by a stone, was a cave of no great size… 6. Accordingly, regarding his abode as a gift from God, he fell in love with it, and there in prayer and solitude spent all the rest of his life… 7. …The blessed Paul had already lived on earth the life of heaven for a hundred and thirteen years, and Antony at the age of ninety was dwelling in another place of solitude (as he himself was wont to declare), when the thought occurred to the latter, that no monk more perfect than himself had settled in the desert. However, in the stillness of the night it was revealed to him that there was farther in the desert a much better man than he, and that he ought to go and visit him… 14. …And now another day had dawned [for him to visit him] and a three hours’ journey still remained, when he saw Paul in robes of snowy white ascending on high among the bands of angels, and the choirs of prophets and apostles…”

St. Benedict

When St. Benedict was 14 or 15 years of age, he fled from the world to live in a cave. He lived there for three years, and a priest visited him only once during that time. Butler’s Lives of the Saints does not mention that the priest offered him Mass or the Holy Eucharist; hence, at most, St. Benedict only attended Mass and received the Holy Eucharist once in three years.

St. Mary of Egypt

St. Mary of Egypt fled to the desert to do penance and lived in total isolation for nearly forty-seven years until Abbot Zosimus crossed her path. “Zosimus asked how long she had lived in that desert. ‘It is,’ she said, ‘as near as I can judge, forty-seven years.’” (Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Husenbeth Edition, v. I, April 9, St. Mary of Egypt, p. 436.)

During these forty-seven years St. Mary did not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, or have the sacrament of penance. Yet God was so pleased with her that He gave her the power of prophecy and miracles during her self-imposed exile.

Catholics during the Arian crisis

During the Arian crisis in the 4th century, Arian heretics took over many Catholic churches. Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by Arian priests or receive any sacrament from them or be in any other kind of religious communion with the Arians; and therefore for an extended period of time, many Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc. St. Hermenegild was one such faithful Catholic.

St. Hermenegild, Martyr: “On Easter night a heretical Arian bishop was sent to him with Holy Communion, but he refused to receive even the Easter Communion from the hands of a heretic, and his father then put him to death.” (The New Roman Missal, Fr. Lasance, 1945, April 13, p. 1687.)

We read that Saint Anthony the Great would have nothing to do with the Meletian schismatics and Arian heretics other than to warn them and try to convert them.

St. Athanasius, Life of Anthony: “68. And he [St. Antony] was altogether wonderful in faith and religious, for he never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and apostasy from the beginning; nor had he friendly dealings with the Manichaeans or any other heretics; or, if he had, only as far as advice that they should change to piety. For he thought and asserted that intercourse with these was harmful and destructive to the soul. In the same manner also he loathed the heresy of the Arians, and exhorted all neither to approach them nor to hold their erroneous belief. And once when certain Arian madmen came to him, when he had questioned them and learned their impiety, he drove them from the mountain, saying that their words were worse than the poison of serpents… 69. …Wherefore have no fellowship with the most impious Arians. For there is no communion between light and darkness.” (Life of Anthony [Vita S. Antoni], by St. Athanasius, n. 68, 69.)

St. Athanasius also teaches the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to attend Mass or any other religious service in non-Catholic churches, which includes the Arian churches even though the Arians still called them Catholic churches. He also teaches the dogma that the Catholic faith must come before churches and other buildings and before the Mass and sacraments.

Letter of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, to his flock: “May God console you! What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches [Catholic churches that became Arian churches; a similar situation to what has happened today] by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises—but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider what is more important, the place or the Faith? - The true faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle—the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way… You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)

St Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, to the Solitaries, Second letter to Monks, Letter 53: “Athanasius to those who practise a solitary life, and are settled in faith in God, most beloved brethren, greeting in the Lord. I thank the Lord who hath given to you to believe in Him, that ye too may have with the saints eternal life. But because there are certain persons who hold with Arius and go about the monasteries with no other object save that under colour of visiting you, and returning from us they may deceive the simple; whereas there are certain who, while they affirm that they do not hold with Arius, yet compromise themselves and worship with his party; I have been compelled, at the instance of certain most sincere brethren, to write at once in order that keeping faithfully and without guile the pious faith which God’s grace works in you, you may not give occasion of scandal to the brethren. For when any sees you, the faithful in Christ, associate and communicate with such people, [or worshipping along with them], certainly they will think it a matter of indifference and will fall into the mire of irreligion. Lest, then, this should happen, be pleased, beloved, to shun those who hold the impiety of Arius, and moreover to avoid those who, while they pretend not to hold with Arius, yet worship with the impious. And we are specially bound to fly from the communion of men whose opinions we hold in execration. If then any come to you, and, as blessed John says, brings with him right doctrine, say to him, All hail, and receive such an one as a brother. But if any pretend that he confesses the right faith, but appear to communicate with those others [the heretics], exhort him to abstain from such communion, and if he promise to do so, treat him as a brother, but if he persist in a contentious spirit [and obstinately continues to have religious communion with the heretics], him avoid. I might greatly lengthen my letter, adding from the divine Scriptures the outline of this teaching. But since, being wise men, you can anticipate those who write, and rather, being intent upon self-denial, are fit to instruct others also, I have dictated a short letter, as from one loving friend to others, in the confidence that living as you do you will preserve a pure and sincere faith, and that those persons, seeing that you do not join with them [the heretics] in worship, will derive benefit, fearing lest they be accounted as impious, and as those who hold with them.”

Catholics in Anglican England

When the Catholic churches in England became Anglican churches, Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by Anglican priests, who at that time consecrated the Holy Eucharist because they were valid priests. Hence for an extended period of time, most English Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc., because they did not have access to a Catholic priest.

In 1580 Blessed Edward Campion, a convert from the Anglican religion, worked zealously in England to convert Anglicans and to edify Catholics. He forbade Catholics to attend the Masses of the Anglicans who inhabited the once Catholic churches. At that time in the Anglican Church, 46 years after its creation in 1534 by King Henry VIII, there was still a valid priesthood and therefore they consecrated the Holy Eucharist.

Wings of Eagles: “Before Campion and his associates began to preach, Catholics had often compromised with Protestantism to the extent of attending the official church services. But Campion preached recusancy, bold and uncompromising. Catholics could not attend the Protestant services and retain their faith.” (Wings of Eagles, Corley and Williams, p. 40, Imprimatur: +Moses E. Kiley, Jan. 11, 1944, Archiepiscopus Milwvkiensis.)

Catholics in schismatic France

When most of the Catholic priests in France became schismatics by joining the French Constitutional Church, Catholics were forbidden to attend Masses offered by these priests even though they consecrated the Holy Eucharist because they were valid priests. Hence for an extended period of time, many French Catholics could not attend Mass, receive the Holy Eucharist, go to confession, etc.

Fr. Demaris, a Missionary of St. Joseph and professor of theology in Lyon, France, remained faithful during the upheaval caused by the French Revolution, when many priests had apostatized by joining the French Constitutional Church. Although there were no Catholic priests for the bulk of French Catholics, there were many non-Catholic priests available. In 1801 Fr. Demaris wrote a consoling letter titled ‘They Have Taken Away My Lord’ addressed to the Catholics who, instinctively obeying the divine laws that can never change, refused to go to non-Catholic churches and to attend Masses that were presided over by these ex-Catholic priests who were now non-Catholic schismatics. He speaks to Catholics of how God will remit their sins if they make a sincere confession to God along with the promise to confess to a Catholic priest when one becomes available. He speaks of making a good confession, just as they would if a Catholic priest were available.

Fr. Demaris: “Removed from the resources of the sanctuary and deprived of all exercise of the Priesthood, there remains no mediator for us save Jesus Christ. It is to Him we must go for our needs. Before His supreme Majesty we must bluntly tear the veil off our consciences and in search of the good and bad we have done, thank Him for His graces, confess our sins and ask pardon and to show us the direction of His Holy Will, having in our hearts the sincere desire to confess to His minister whenever we are able to do so. There, my children, is what I call confessing to God! In such a confession well made, God himself will absolve us. It is thus in all painful situations that deprive us of the Sacraments. The carrying of the Cross like a Christian is the source of the remission of our sins… What the world does to drive us away from God only brings us closer… We are now to repair those faults which came from too great a trust in absolution and not examining one’s weaknesses thoroughly enough. Obliged to wail now before God, the faithful should consider all its deformities… Let this confession to God be for you a short daily practice, but fervent… The first fruit that you will draw from it apart from the remission of your sins, will be to learn to know yourself and to know God, and the second will be to be ever ready to present yourself to a priest if you are able, enriched in character by the mercy of the Lord. “…Console yourselves, my children, in the trust you have in God. This tender Father will pour on you His graces, His blessings and His mercies in these awful moments that you fear, in more abundance than if you were being assisted by His ministers, of whom you have been deprived only because you wouldn’t abandon Him. The abandonment and forsakenness that we fear for ourselves resembles that of the Savior on the Cross when He said to His Father, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’…Your pains and abandonment lead you to your glorious destiny in ending your life like Jesus ended His! …Don’t be surprised at the great number who quit! Truth wins, no matter how small the number of those who love and remain attached to God. God watches over us, our hope is justified. It tells us that either the persecution stops or the persecution will be our crown. In the alternative of one or the other, I see the accomplishment of our destiny. Let God’s will be done, since in whatever manner He delivers us, His eternal mercies pour into us.”

Fr. Demaris consoles the French Catholics who were deprived of extreme unction:

Fr. Demaris: “God, who loves and protects us, wishes to give us His Body at the approach of death—to take away our fear on this last journey. When you look to the future and see yourself on your deathbed, without the last sacrament, without Extreme Unction and without any help on the part of the ministers of the Lord, you see yourself abandoned in the most sad and terrible way. Console yourselves, my children, in the trust you have in God. This tender Father will pour on you His graces, His blessings and His mercies, in these awful moments that you fear, in more abundance than if you were being assisted by his ministers of whom you have been deprived only because you wouldn’t abandon Him Yourself. The abandonment and forsakenness that we fear for ourselves resembles that of the Savior on the Cross when He said to His Father: ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ (Matthew 27: 46) Ah! How constructive and consoling are these words! Your pains and abandonment lead you to your glorious destiny in ending your life like Jesus ended His. Jesus, in His sufferings, His abandonment and His death, was in most intimate union with His Father. In your pains and abandonment, be to Him likewise united, and let your last sigh be like His, that God’s Will be done. Being deprived of Extreme Unction, and in the hands of persons, who not only do not help, but insult me, I shall be much happier that my death shall have more conformity with that of Jesus who was a spectacle of opprobrium to all the world. Crucified by the hand of His enemies, He was treated like a thief and died between two thieves. He was Wisdom itself and was taken for an idiot; He was Truth, and He was taken for a cheat and deceiver. The Pharisees and Scribes triumphed over Him and in His Presence. They were finally sated with His Blood. Christ died in the most shameful infamy of torture and excruciating pains of the Cross. Christians, if your last moments and death are an occasion for your enemies to treat you with insults and disgrace, what were those of Jesus? I am not sure that the angel who was sent to make up for the hardheartedness and callousness of men was not to teach us, that in similar circumstances, we receive the consolation of Heaven when that of men is missing. It was not without a special plan of God, that the Apostles who ought to have consoled Jesus, remained in a deep sleep. So the Faithful should not be surprised to find himself without a priest in his last moments. Jesus reproached His Apostles that they slept, but He did not say that they left Him without consolation, to teach us, that if we go into the Garden of Olives, if we climb up to Calvary, if we die alone and without human help, God watches over us, consoles us, and for us that suffices. Faithful, you are afraid of what follows the present time. Lift your eyes up to Jesus, keep them on Him, contemplate Him—He is your model.”

Fr. Demaris consoles the French Catholics who were deprived of the Holy Eucharist:

Fr. Demaris: “The Holy Eucharist had for you many joys and advantages when you were able to participate in this Sacrament of love, but now you are deprived of it for being defenders of truth and justice. …We sacrifice our own life as much as it is in us to do renewing itself every day, every time that we adore with submission the hand of God that drives us away from His altars… It is to be advantageously deprived of the Eucharist, to raise the standard of the Cross for the cause of Christ and the glory of the Church… Yes, I have no fear in saying it. When the storm of the malice of men roars against truth and justice, it is more advantageous to the faithful to suffer for Christ than to participate in His Body by Communion. I seem to hear the Saviour saying to us ‘Repair by this humiliating deprivation that glorifies Me, all the Communions which dishonor Me.’”

In all of these above cases, Catholics could not attend Mass or receive the Holy Eucharist or be confirmed or go to confession or receive the last rites (extreme unction) for extended periods of time. Who would dare say that these Catholics could not save their souls for want of a Catholic priest to offer Mass and dispense the sacraments? Who would dare say that these Catholics were not exempted from the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday? Only heretics who put the Mass and the sacraments before the Catholic Faith would say or even think such a thing!

(This article will be updated in the future with more points, objections and refuted arguments. Please contact us if you have any questions or wonder about any argument not yet covered in this article.)

WHAT WE’VE PROVEN: A LIE, AN ERROR, A HERESY OR A STAGGERING CONTRADICTION CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE AFTER PAGE OF MHFM’S AND THE DIMONDS’ DEBATE AND ARTICLES CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT

You’ve just read an exposé of the Dimonds’ debate and some of their articles on this subject. We’ve refuted every major objection of their articles and proved that there are lies, errors, heresies and staggering contradictions. Not only were their statements proven wrong, but they were proven wrong with their own words! It should be clear by now that the Dimonds are sadly proven liars, dark heretics and spiritual deceivers. Here’s a rapid summary of what we’ve seen in this article. But first we will post the contents of our other article concerning their embarrassing contradictions.

www.allmonks.com
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!