MHFM Exposed

This article will expose the heresies on the sacraments from heretics issue of MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery) and Peter and Michael Dimond.

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

PETER DIMOND OF MHFM 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).”


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 teach that heretics cannot give an absolution in confession or have any jurisdiction whatsoever, Peter and Michael Dimond still has refused to accept this position. Wonder why?

Few Catholics realize that in order for a priest to validly absolve in confession he must not only possess valid orders and pronounce the correct words, but he must also have jurisdiction.

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... [another translation read: “OUGHT TO BE INVALID.” Meaning that a heretic’s absolution is totally worthless and invalid.] But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance priests have no power in reserved cases, let them strive to persuade penitents to do this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.”

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word “Catholic” and that it explicitly mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the heretics as being able to pronounce judgments, absolve penitents and receive valid jurisdiction in case of a necessity, such as in danger of death. 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 subject to heretical or schismatical priests and bishops (and their judgments) 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, as Pope Leo XIII said, “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 also 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.

Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, Chap. 6, pp. 82, 81: “As soon as a delict of heresy has been committed, the delinquent incurs excommunication… Obviously, it would be highly improper for anyone but a Catholic to exercise either ordinary or delegated authority, and thus to assume the role of directing the Catholic faithful in their religious life. Canon Law guided by this principle has consistently declared that those who do not possess membership in the Church,—heretics and other excommunicates,—are thereby incapacitated for the exercise of jurisdiction over the faithful.”

The Council of Trent further teaches that all those consecrated by heretics or schismatics (such as all those heretical and schismatical priests Peter and Michael Dimond tells others to approach for the sacraments) cannot exercise their orders lawfully (without sin) since they lack the canonical mission which the Church dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop or priest to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments:

Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 7: “If anyone saythat those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], ARE LAWFUL MINISTERS OF THE WORD AND OF THE SACRAMENTS: let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 967)

Notice that the Council of Trent infallible declared that all those who claim that heretical and schismatical priests are lawful ministers of the sacraments and that it’s lawful to receive the sacraments from them, are condemned.

Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine Law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-Catholics and heretics).

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.

That the Council of Trent was referring only to Catholic ministers are also proved by the following statements:

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 5, On Confession: “… all the Fathers [or unanimous Tradition] has ever understood, that the power of forgiving and retaining sins WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APOSTLES AND THEIR LAWFUL [CATHOLIC] SUCCESSORS, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism.”

This means that the power of jurisdiction was passed on to Catholic priests and bishops alone, for the heretics, as has been proved, are not lawful successors, but unlawful and illicit successors; they also lack jurisdiction.

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Can. 4: “If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, ARE NOT THE PRIESTS WHO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY A [CATHOLIC] BISHOP, BUT THE ELDERS IN EACH COMMUNITY, and that for this Cause a [Catholic] priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema.”

It is of course a direct heresy to assert that the Bible exhorts heretics as if they are ministers of the Church or that the Council said so. Hence that this canon, as all the other statements in the Council of Trent concerning the Sacraments of Penance, cannot have referred to the heretics. This is quite obvious, unless one is a liar.

Consider this. Extreme Unction is part of the Sacrament of Penance. But I ask you this (since no one can deny that the above quote refers only to Catholic priests), How logical is it to assert that only Extreme Unction needs a Catholic minister but that a Catholic priest is not likewise necessary for the sacrament of Penance or an Absolution? It is obviously illogical and false to assert that only Extreme Unction needs a Catholic minister and not likewise the Sacrament of Penance or Absolution, since the Council of Trent soundly refutes this heretical claim.

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. V, On Confession: “FROM THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE as already explained, THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH HAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD... that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, LEFT [CATHOLIC] PRIESTS HIS OWN VICARS, AS PRESIDENTS AND JUDGES...”

Again, it is of course a heresy to claim that the Council includes heretics in this statement as if Christ left them for us as his own "vicars" or "presidents" or "judges".

Council of Trent (continued):

“... that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, LEFT PRIESTS HIS OWN VICARS, AS PRESIDENTS AND JUDGES, UNTO WHOM ALL THE MORTAL CRIMES, INTO WHICH THE FAITHFUL OF CHRIST MAY HAVE FALLEN, SHOULD BE CARRIED, IN ORDER THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POWER OF THE KEYS [keys which the heretics don’t possess], THEY MAY PRONOUNCE THE SENTENCE OF FORGIVENESS OR RETENTION OF SINS [and which sentence requires jurisdiction]. For it is manifest, that priests could not have exercised this judgment without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments [or commanding satisfaction], if the said faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather specifically, and one by one.”

St. Thomas Aquinas in his “Summa Theologica” of course also teaches that only Catholic priests are ministers of this sacrament.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 84, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2: “In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this matter NEEDS TO BE APPLIED BY A MINISTER OF THE CHURCH [that is, a Catholic priest]… WHEN HE ABSOLVES THE PENITENT [absolvement, which requires jurisdiction, and which heretics has not].”

Note that St. Thomas said that the Sacrament of Penance “needs to be applied by a minister of the Church… WHEN HE ABSOLVES THE PENITENT”! So, this statement by St. Thomas absolutely proves that membership in the Church is absolutely required for the validity of this sacrament and that the priest must be a Catholic (a member) since heretics are not members of the Church but are outside of her.

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.”

That is also why St. Thomas teaches that heretics cannot give an absolution in confession, as we shall see in the next section.

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 and Divine 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.”

COMMON OBJECTIONS

Now since the deceivers have left no means untried to try to explain away the Council of Trent’s dogmatic teaching on valid jurisdiction and priestly subjection to the minister acting as a judge in the sacrament, it will be necessary to refute some of the most common objections usually brought forward by the heretics that they use in order to justify themselves and their teaching of approaching heretics for this sacrament.

Objection: “For my counter point to this argument I will bring up the point about the sentence being imposed only on subjects, "the nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS". You take this statement to mean that when it says, "be imposed only on subjects", that it is referring to the penitent being subject to the priest. This sentence is not referring to the penitents subjection to the priest, it is actually referring to the penitent being subject to the Catholic Church (not some individual confessor) and I will show why. If you were correct and it was referring to the penitents subjection to the confessor then a true Pope could never go to confession. Because who is a true Roman Pontiff subject to? Nobody. This is clearly false, Popes have gone to confession. Therefore when Trent says, "imposed only on subjects", it is not referring to the penitent being subject to the confessor but that the penitent be subject to the Church. Meaning that a heretical penitent cannot get absolution and in order for that heretical penitent to get absolution they would have to become subject to the Catholic Church, they would have to convert.”

Answer: Of course the penitent has to be subject to the Catholic Church since there is no salvation nor remission of sins outside the Church. This is an infallible dogma of the Church that was proclaimed by Pope Boniface VIII in the bull Unam Sanctum, in A.D. 1302: “Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.”

However, when the objection added: “it is not referring to the penitent being subject to the confessor...” that is a false argument, and is easily refuted. For the penitent is in fact subject to the priest and his judgments in the Sacrament of Confession (the pope objection will be dealt with shortly), since it is de fide (of the faith) that the priest makes a judgment on the penitent in the Sacrament of Confession. One must have to deny the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas (and all other quotes on the subject) to deny that this is true, for this is clearly taught by both the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas, as we have seen, and will see; hence that this objection fails and is false.

Concerning the objection that the penitent is not subject to the priest in the Sacrament of Confession — it is a dogmatic fact that the Council of Trent INFALLIBLY ANATHEMATIZES ANYONE WHO MAKES THIS VERY ARGUMENT (that is, who denies that the penitent is subject to the priest and his judgments in the Sacrament of Penance)!

Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon IX.--“If any one saith, that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act [that is, pertaining to judgment in courts or tribunals of justice or to the administration of justice], but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven to him who confesses; provided only he believe himself to be absolved, or (even though) the priest absolve not in earnest, but in joke; or saith, that the confession of the penitent is not required, in order that the priest may be able to absolve him; let him be anathema.”

Hence, as is clear from above, the above canon infallibly anathematizes anyone who tries to make this exact objection — that the penitent is NOT subject to the priest, but only to the Church!

Likewise in confession the Pope is indeed subjected to the authority of the priest according to the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas (and they made no exceptions) since this is a Divinely instituted sacrament by Christ for this very purpose; and so this does not contradict the fact that a pope is NOT subjected to any earthly or spiritual earthly authority above himself (concerning any judgments) except for his own sins in the Sacrament of Confession — and as proof of this can be said the following: consider that even the Pope himself must obey his confessor’s penance to receive the full and perfect remission of his sins, and that unless he obeys or is obstinate, he will be damned (this is also the teaching of Trent, as we will see further on); hence that the priest makes a judgment (Council of Trent) on him (the Pope) and the Pope must obey (Council of Trent). The Priest can have this authority over the Pope (in the Sacrament) not only because he has received valid jurisdiction in order to do this, but also because the priest, in the sacrament, acts in the place of Christ himself, hence that the Pope would be subject also to Jesus Christ through the priest in the very sacrament which He instituted for this very purpose for the salvation of souls. So there is no contradiction here.

But even if, for the sake of argument, the Pope is not subject to the priest’s judgment (which he is, but let’s say he’s not for the sake of argument), then the Pope would be the only exception in that case. Because DOGMA has already settled the issue – and proved – that the penitent indeed is subjected to the priest and the priest’s judgment in the Sacrament of Penance, and one must be a total liar to deny this. So it wouldn’t prove the objectors case anyway, since it’s already proven that the penitent laymen (at least) in that case are subject to the priest’s judgment.

Now, concerning the objection that the Pope is not subject to anyone on earth or that no one can judge the pope, etc., this is what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 22, Art. 4: “Objection 3. Further, a man can absolve his superior or his equal in the tribunal of Penance, as when a bishop confesses to his subject, or one priest confesses venial sins to another. Therefore it seems that a man may also excommunicate his superior, or his equal. Reply to Objection 3. Loosing and binding in the tribunal of confession affects our relation to God only, in Whose sight a man from being above another sinks below him through sin; while on the other hand excommunication is the affair of an external tribunal in which a man does not forfeit his superiority on account of sin. Hence there is no comparison between the two tribunals. Nevertheless, even in the tribunal of confession, A MAN CANNOT ABSOLVE himself, or HIS SUPERIOR, or his equal, UNLESS THE POWER [OF JURISDICTION] TO DO SO BE COMMITTED TO HIM. This does not apply to venial sins, because they can be remitted through any sacraments which confer grace, hence remission of venial sins follows the power of orders.”

Since an absolution is a “judicial act that requires that sentence of judgment be imposed only on subjects”, the power of jurisdiction will always be necessary for the valid and licit administration and reception of this sacrament (Penance). Hence, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, if a priest or bishop that is under the pope has received jurisdiction or permission to absolve the pope from his sins and make judgments concerning them, then he both can and may do so both validly and licitly since: “Loosing and binding in the tribunal of confession affects our relation to God only, in Whose sight a man from being above another sinks below him through sin” and the minister “who stands in the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power which operates in the sacraments is from Christ… wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by God working inwardly; WHILE THE MINISTER FURNISHES THE COMPLEMENT OF THE SACRAMENT, WHEN HE ABSOLVES THE PENITENT [absolvement, which requires jurisdiction, and which the heretics has not].” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 84, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2)

Again, since this sacrament is a Divinely instituted remedy against sin by Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of our salvation, there is no contradiction here since the pope obviously must be able to fulfill his obligation to confess his sins and have forgiveness and do penance like everyone else. And as explained by St. Thomas, the priest can also have this authority over the Pope (in the Sacrament of Penance) since the priest in this sacrament acts in the place of Christ Himself, hence that the Pope would be subject to Jesus Christ through the priest in the sacrament.

Objection: “If a heretical Priest did get jurisdiction to hear a confession from a penitent then the penitent would not be subject to the Priest himself but subject to Jesus Christ through the Priest. Just like how a Pope is not subject to the Priest himself in the confessional but is subject to Jesus Christ through said Priest. So this argument of yours, "Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical or schismatical priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not!" Fails.”

One could have expected that this objection would come.

The answer is as follows: First, a heretic cannot “receive” jurisdiction, “govern” lawfully or “command” in the Church. We have seen almost innumerable quotes proving this already. (But more can be shown still, and will be shown.) Therefore, since the first very first sentence, “If a heretical Priest did get jurisdiction...” is false by itself, it obviously follows that everything following upon this sentence fails by default, since a heretic can never have “jurisdiction” or “command” in the Church. This is a de fide dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that no one can deny or explain away.

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 [AND HER JURISDICTION], whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter VII: “THE ABSOLUTION, WHICH A PRIEST PRONOUNCES UPON ONE OVER WHOM HE HAS NOT EITHER AN ORDINARY OR A DELIGATED JURISDICTION, OUGHT TO BE OF NO WEIGHT WHATEVER.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “These things enable us to see the heavenly ideal, and the divine exemplar, of the constitution of THE CHRISTIAN commonwealth, namely: When the Divine founder decreed that THE CHURCH SHOULD BE ONE IN FAITH, IN GOVERNMENT, AND IN COMMUNION...”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For to the Apostles AND THEIR LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS ALONE THESE WORDS HAVE REFERENCE: "Going into the whole world preach the Gospel." "Baptizing them." "Do this in commemoration of Me." "WHOSE SINS YOU SHALL FORGIVE THEY ARE FORGIVEN THEM." And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only AND THOSE WHO SHOULD LAWFULLY SUCCEED THEM TO FEED - THAT IS TO GOVERN WITH AUTHORITY - ALL CHRISTIAN SOULS. Whence it also follows that it is NECESSARILY THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANS TO BE SUBJECT AND TO OBEY [lawful Catholic superiors]. And these duties of the Apostolic office are, in general, all included in the words of St. Paul: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor. iv., I).”

In this quote (# 10) Pope Leo XIII was talking about the Church’s Divine mission given Her by Christ (and Her lawful successors and superiors) to Christianize the world and baptizing them and forgiving their sins, and he said that this only applies to lawful Catholic successors, which obviously is true, since heretics do not “Christianize” the world but brings it to damnation; therefore, it is a blasphemy to assert that Jesus Christ or Pope Leo XIII gave the above admonishment to “Christianize the world” and “forgive sins” as to include the heretics – or as if it refers to them. However, while the above words obviously did not apply to the heretics, they nevertheless can baptize validly. Heretics can baptize validly since baptism does not require jurisdiction or even the character of the priesthood for its valid administration, as already explained by St. Thomas Aquinas. Confession, however, is entirely different from baptism, and requires not only jurisdiction, but also the priestly character. The Eucharist requires only the priestly character for it to be valid, hence that it is not a requirement to be Catholic or even a lawful successor for its valid (but illicit) administration. Therefore, since this crucial difference exist, the above words of forgiving sins can only be applied to lawful Catholic successors, and not to the heretics or unlawful judges, as all the quotes shows, and as Pope Leo XIII affirms.

Second. Concerning the objection that one is not really subject to the priest in that case, but to Jesus Christ, and that therefore one is not really subject to any heretics in the sacrament, and therefore the Council of Trent did not refer to being subject to a priest; this specific objection was already refuted specifically by the Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 9 as we saw above, since the Council explicitly and clearly anathematized anyone who denied that the penitent is subject to the priest or his judgments.

If any one saith, that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act [that is, pertaining to judgment in courts or tribunals of justice or to the administration of justice], but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven to him who confesses... let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 9)

And obviously, just because one is also confessing to Jesus Christ through the priest in this sacrament, doesn’t mean that the priest cease to exist or that it’s not the priest who is making these judgments by his own will and in his own person. For, as has already been established, it is a dogmatic fact that it is the priest who absolves, makes judgments, retains and looses sins, and decides what satisfaction is to be made as a penance. Jesus Christ does not possess the priest and deprives him of his own will, reason and power of judgment in this sacrament, obviously. Hence that the above canon anathematizes anyone who tries to make this objection.

Also, beware of the heretics who claim that Pope Leo XIII only referred to the loss of office in his encyclical Satis Cognitum — which is a false and easily refuted argument — since the loss of office and loss of jurisdiction or rightful (lawful) government or command in the Church (which is what Pope Leo XIII specifically was referring to) is one and the same thing. This is proven by the following statements:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction - Nor does it beget any confusion in the administration that Christians are bound to obey a twofold authority [one lawful and catholic; the other unlawful, illicit and invalid; i.e., such as the authority of heretics]. We are prohibited in the first place by Divine Wisdom from entertaining any such thought, since this form of [lawful] government was constituted by the counsel of God Himself.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction - But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, IF IT BE SUBJECT TO AND OBEYS PETER; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. … And as the [Catholic] Bishops, each in his own district, COMMAND WITH REAL POWER [of jurisdiction] not only individuals but the whole community...”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction - From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling [jurisdiction], IF THEY DELIBERATELY SECEDE FROM PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. THEY ARE THEREFORE OUTSIDE THE EDIFICE ITSELF; AND FOR THIS VERY REASON THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THE FOLD, WHOSE LEADER IS THE CHIEF PASTOR; THEY ARE EXILED FROM THE KINGDOM, THE KEYS OF WHICH WERE GIVEN BY CHRIST TO PETER [and passed on from the Popes to those under his obedience] ALONE.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15), June 29, 1896: “Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction - NO ONE, THEREFORE, UNLESS IN COMMUNION WITH PETER CAN SHARE IN HIS [THE POPE’S] AUTHORITY [OF JURISDICTION], SINCE IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND [OR HAVE JURISDICTION] IN THE CHURCH.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 12), June 29, 1896: “On The Universal Jurisdiction of St. Peter - How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction [and which is passed on to lawful successors]?”

The worst thing, however, is that some of these heretics, even after being aware of these quotations, still claim and obstinately lie that Pope Leo XIII does not refer to the “loss of jurisdiction”, “government” or “power of command” also in the sacraments concerning ecclesiastics who have fallen into some heresy or schism, but only to the loss of office and related governments!


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

Peter and Michael Dimond also knowingly misquote and pervert the Fourth Lateran Council by cutting out the relevant parts that when taken in context, actually refutes their heretical position. And then they have the stomach to claim the Council refers to heretics even though it never spoke about heretical individuals! They make this totally mortally sinful distortion in this despicable and desperate manner since their heretical position might seem to hold more weight to others if at least one Council seemed to agree with their heretical position. However, the truth is that no Pope or no Council ever agrees with them or supports them.

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae (#29-31), April 13, 1791: “Keep as far from you as possible all intrusion and schism... Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

These facts alone should prove to any honest person that Peter and Michael Dimond in fact are not Catholics - but sad heretics - who knowingly misquote, pervert and distort saints, theologians and even councils to try to prove their false, evil, and heretical position.

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

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

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

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

Pope 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 meetinghouses of heretics] is unholy.’”

So the Church clearly condemns Peter and Michael Dimond for eating the Lamb “outside of this house” (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics, and for telling others to do the same.

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

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


Brief Against the Dimonds

They pray in communion with heretics

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

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

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

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “... whether it’s lawful to receive sacraments from certain UNDECLARED HERETICS during this crisis and apostasy... It should also be emphasized that while we are pointing out that CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time, no Catholic may agree with or support such a priest in any way...”

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

Michael Dimond, Can Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today?: “My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest [that is, heretical priests] who accepts Benedict XVI as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you are not going for the Mass. You are merely going to the church to receive Communion and confession. I have advised people to deliberately arrive at the Mass late because you are there merely to receive the sacraments and for nothing else. As far as praying with the people, I have told people that they should pray by themselves until Communion is given. When you see that the priest is about to give Communion, one could then go into the main part of the church to receive Communion.”

When or where has the Church ever endorsed such strange, contradictory behavior that the Dimonds are advocating here? Nowhere!

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, please see: Is a heretical Novus Ordo “Church” or a heretical “Traditional Catholic Church” different from the Eastern “Orthodox”?

Although Peter implies that these churches he approach and tells others to approach are Catholic churches or churches different from the other non-Catholic heretical churches (such as the Eastern “Orthodox”), yet, in another hypocritical twist, Peter implies that these churches are not Catholic churches, but are indeed meetinghouses of the heretics because he teaches that no one can give these churches financial support without committing mortal sin:

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

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

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

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

By teaching that one cannot financially support these churches, Peter implies that they are heretical, non-Catholic churches in the same way that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are non-Catholic churches. Elsewhere Peter explicitly admits this:

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

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

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


Why Catholic teaching shows us that Mary is to be considered Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer

People who are against the title Co-Redemptrix (such as the Dimonds) will admit that the actual meaning of it is not heretical, it’s the title of Co-Redemptrix that they believe is heretical even if the meaning of it is orthodox. Their position is that it’s heretical to believe she also redeemed mankind like how Christ did (and we agree that this is heretical). But their position is also that it’s heretical to even give Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix even if the meaning is orthodox (they believe it can only be interpreted the heretical way), they have acknowledged this in the debate video on this issue and in their articles, as we will see. Peter Dimond said:

“The position of Co-Redemptrix is not that Mary is in a category with the saints under the one Redeemer, and can be called co-redeemer in a sense just like St. Paul is said to help fill up the work of Redemption. No, the position of Co-Redemptrix is that Mary is in a unique category with Jesus as the Redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the “Co-Redemptrix” position by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of Redemption under the one Redeemer. That’s illogical and fallacious.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix); cf. Why Catholic teaching shows us that Mary is not to be considered Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer)

In the debate video, their opponent continually says that it depends on how one defines Co-Redemptrix that determines whether it is to be considered heretical or orthodox and he explains it several times, but Peter continues to treat the title of Co-Redemptrix to mean something that it does not mean, even after their opponent in the video explained the true meaning, and Peter even acknowledged it in the video but he still continued to treat the title Co-Redemptrix to mean something that it does not mean even after it was explained to him. Peter Dimond said:

Mary was integral to the events that led up to the redemption but Christ alone is the redeemer and he alone redeemed the world, and therefore the title Co-Redemptrix, is a false title. … there is no other reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the idea that she played an integral role in the actual specific formal act of redemption.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (video))

The correct meaning of the title Co-Redemptrix does not even mean the way that he obstinately interprets it to mean, but he claims that there is no reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you’re promoting it the heretical way! This is dishonesty to the max.

Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “These facts considered, it is contrary to Catholic Teaching to say that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Certainly, it’s possible for people to express themselves erroneously on this topic in good faith before the specific dogmatic definitions above are presented to them. But once they have seen these dogmatic definitions [“Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior…” (Council of Trent, sess. xxv)] they must reject this idea; it is, strictly speaking, a heresy which contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Trent and Florence.”

First, when Peter himself has admitted that there is an orthodox and non-heretical view to the title of Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer, then it’s obviously illogical of him to conclude that it must be heretical to apply the non-heretical and orthodox term of Co-Redemptrix to Mary.

Second, Popes and Holy Scripture teaches infallibly that all men have sinned without mentioning any exceptions. That did not mean there were no exceptions, and it did not mean the popes believed Christ and Mary had sinned, only they saw no need to mention the exception in the infallible decree, because the exceptions were already mentioned elsewhere. The Bible is the primary infallible source of revelation and it teaches, “all men have sinned” without mentioning the two exceptions of Jesus and Mary.

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12)

This must me taken in context. It is not meant to include Jesus and Mary although it does not mention them as exceptions. Other sources of revelation have to be looked at, either other places in the Bible or the oral traditions of the original apostles. We see the same thing in the Council of Trent.

Council of Trent, On Original Sin, sess. V: “2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Rom. 5:12]” (D. 789)

The exception was not mentioned at all in this paragraph. In a different paragraph within the same decree later on there is mention that Mary is not included in this decree. But the exception of Jesus Christ is not mentioned at all. This same above decree is found word for word in the Council of Orange II, 529, Original Sin, Grace, Predestination, and it never mentions any exceptions.

Council of Orange, Canon 2 (A.D. 529): “If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).”

Pope Boniface II confirmed the Council of Orange. Footnote 1, Denzinger 175: “Orange in Gaul. This Council approved by Boniface II [See D. n. 200 a. f.] obtained such authority in the Church that it is worthily held as an infallible rule.” (D. 175) As a side note this is a Regional Council that was made infallible by a pope.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531. They consequently enjoy œcumenical [infallible] authority and are printed in Denzinger’s "Enchiridion Symbolorum" (10th ed., nos. 174-200).” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, "Councils of Orange", 1911)

Pope Clement VIII also taught that “all sinned” without mentioning any exceptions.

Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die, 1758: “8. …Let us not think that our true, solid, and serious glory comes from the lips of men. We have all sinned, and we all need the glory of God.”

Did the infallible Council of Orange and Pope Clement mean that Christ and Mary had sinned? And did the infallible Council of Trent mean that Christ has sinned (or that Mary sinned until it made her an exception three paragraphs later)? Of course not. It is understood they did not mean to include them, because the exceptions were so well taught elsewhere.

Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “Those who have a problem with the fact that we have said that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer don’t have a problem with us; they have a problem with the dogmatic Council of Trent, the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, which erred according to them when it infallibly defined that Jesus alone is our Redeemer. Further, look at the context of this dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church. The context deals with devotion to Our Lady and the Saints; and yet not only does it not say that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix, it specifically contradicts the idea by infallibly declaring that Christ alone is Our Redeemer.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)

As we have seen already, the point is that just because a certain infallible text does not mention an exception does not mean there is not an exception. Other sources of revelation have to be looked at, either other places in the Bible or the oral traditions of the original apostles, or other infallible Councils and decrees. The Holy Bible has many such examples. I relate this to the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” because those who deny the dogma say that there are exceptions to the words of Popes Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctum, and Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence. But search as they may they will find no exceptions mentioned elsewhere, not in the same decrees or any other decrees by these popes or their predecessors.

Peter then said: “there is no other reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the idea that she played an integral role in the actual specific formal act of redemption.” The Blessed Virgin obviously was a partner in the redemption—not an equal partner but a lesser partner. That is why she is called the Co-Redeemer and Jesus is called the Redeemer. Christ redeemed men from their sins but not without a partner from which He could take on human flesh. This partner, Mary, is correctly titled the Co-Redeemer because she played a vital role in the remission of men’s sins, while Jesus is the sole Redeemer whose death remitted men’s sins. Just because Mary’s title has the word “redeemer” in it does not mean she usurps Jesus’ title as the sole redeemer whose death remitted men’s sins.

Just as the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix, she also is the Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer. The principle is the same. Just as Mary’s title of Mediatrix does not deny Jesus Christ’s title as sole mediator before men and God the Father, Mary’s title of Co-Redeemer does not deny Jesus Christ’s title as the sole redeemer whose sacrifice remits sins and thus redeems men: “In whom we have redemption through his [Jesus’] blood, the remission of sins.” (Eph. 1:7)

How the Council of Trent is to be understood

The Council of Trent: “Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior…” (sess. xxv)

The Council of Trent uses the word “redeemer” to mean the one who redeems men from their sins and thus reunites them to God and offers them eternal life. However, the Bible also refers to other redeemers; but these redeemers did not effect the remission of sins. For instance, Moses was also called a redeemer: “This Moses… God sent to be prince and redeemer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the burning bush.” (Acts 7:35)

Rheims New Testament, 1582, annotation on Acts 7: 35: “Christ is our Redeemer, and yet Moses is here called redeemer. So Christ is our Mediator and Advocate, and yet we may have Saints as our inferior mediators and advocates. (See Annot. 1 John 2:1)”

Further, in the continuation of Council of Trent, Session 25 (that Peter quotes to deny Mary as Co-Redeemer), it says concerning “the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ” that:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (Council of Trent, Session 25)

So the Council of Trent just said infallibly that it’s not opposed to the word of God to invoke the saints in heaven and that this is not “inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…”

Hence Moses’ title as redeemer does not deny Christ’s title as the sole redeemer as referred to in the Council of Trent because Trent’s use of the word “redeemer” is in reference to the ultimate redemption, the salvation of souls. The same applies to Christ’s title as sole mediator before God. This title does not mean there cannot be other mediators, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and the good angels and the saints, all who are mediators between men and Christ, as we have just seen. So, indeed, Moses was truly a redeemer, but an inferior redeemer to Christ. Moses’ title as redeemer was in reference to the temporary salvation of God’s chosen people from slavery and other hardships imposed on them by the Egyptians. Moses’ redemption also prepared God’s chosen people for the ultimate redemption when Christ died on the cross:

Catholic commentary on Acts 7: “Ver. 35. … Redeemer. In the Greek Lutroten; Protestant version, Deliverer; though the learned Polus, in his Synopsis Criticorum, on this place, says, ‘that no greater injury is done to God, by calling Moses a Redeemer, in this place, than by calling him a Mediator, in Galatians iii. 19. He is called a Redeemer…in as much as he led forth, and preserved the people of God safe by the blood of a lamb, and this exhibited a figure of the true redemption, through the blood of Christ.’”

The Council of Florence taught the same. It declared that Jesus Christ alone by His death redeemed the human race and “opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven.” Thus, when the Councils use the word “redeemer”, it is in reference to the ultimate redemption, the salvation of souls and the opening of the kingdom of heaven.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)

It’s interesting that the Catechism of the Council of Trent also teaches that Christ alone redeemed us and “reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood.” While the catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”

All of the above quotes that we have looked at, the Dimonds use to “prove” that “Christ “alone” redeemed us and that Christ “alone” is the Redeemer”, which no one is denying, and they focus solely on the “alone” part completely ignoring what the quotes and councils means with their statements.

Peter Dimond: “The bottom-line is that there is no way of getting around the dogmatic definitions which declare that Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix))

Let’s see Council of Trent’s own answer to Peters protestant objection of Christ “alone” this, or Christ “alone” that, when this exact same term is applied to the “ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST”:

The Council of Trent: “Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (sess. xxv)

All who read this text should know that Mary is the “Mediatrix of all Graces” according to Catholic teaching, which means that She is a Mediator in the work of salvation of man. But according to the false logic of the teaching of MHFM, this would deny Trent.

Therefore the Council of Trent’s reference to Jesus as the only redeemer must be taken in correct context or one might deny the Bible verse that says Moses is also a redeemer, or deny that Mary can be Co-Mediator. Hence the Bible, councils and popes never meant to teach that there cannot be other types of redeemers or mediators, such as Moses, or that there cannot be a co-redeemer or co-mediator, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As the First Vatican Council declared on January 6, 1870 concerning understanding the dogmas as the Church has understood and understands:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different FROM THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD AND UNDERSTANDS: let him be anathema.” (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, On Faith and Reason, 4:3)

Jesus is the sole redeemer who redeemed men from their sins. However, the redemption did not happen without a woman who was worthy enough to conceive God in her womb so that the redemption could take place. This woman is the Immaculate Virgin Mary! Christ died for our sins, but without Mary there is no Christ to die for our sins. Christ’s death redeems men, but without Mary there is no Christ to redeem men. Therefore without Mary, there is no redemption. Hence Mary is truly and properly the Co-Redeemer! Christ redeemed men, but He would not redeem men without the help of Mary whose flesh He took and who offered her Son to God as Abraham offered Isaac. It is in this sense that Mary is truly the Co-Redeemer, which does not conflict with the Bible or infallible papal decrees or councils when taken in correct context and understood as the Church understands it. Indeed, popes, saints and other Catholic writers have taught that Mary is Co-Redeemer:

Life of St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231): “The first word [St. Anthony] uttered was the holy name of Mary… His most powerful and moving sermons were preached in her honor. In his writings are to be found the doctrines of her Immaculate Conception and glorious Assumption; and he never tired of speaking of her as the Mediatrix of All Graces, nor of dwelling upon her part in the redemption.” (Saints to Know and Love, by The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Anthony of Padua)

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Chapter IV, Section II — Mary, our Mediatress — The Necessity of the Intercession of Mary for our Salvation: “Saint Bernard says, ‘that as a man and a woman cooperated in our ruin, so it was proper that another man and another woman should cooperate in our redemption; and these two were Jesus and his Mother Mary.’ ‘There is no doubt,’ says the Saint, ‘that Jesus Christ alone was more than sufficient to redeem us; but it was more becoming that both sexes should cooperate in the reparation of an evil in causing which both had shared.’ Hence blessed Albert the Great calls Mary ‘the helper of redemption:’ and this Blessed Virgin herself revealed to Saint Bridget, that ‘as Adam and Eve sold the world for an apple, so did she with her Son redeem it as it were with one heart.’ This is confirmed by Saint Anselm, who says, ‘that although God could create the world out of nothing, yet, when it was lost by sin, He would not repair the evil without the cooperation of Mary.’

“Suarez says, ‘that Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world; thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God.’ For this reason our Lord has justly decreed, that as Mary cooperated in the salvation of man with so much love, and at the same time gave such glory to God, so all men through her intercession are to obtain their salvation.

“Mary is called ‘the cooperator in our justification; for to her God has intrusted all graces intended for us;’ and therefore Saint Bernard affirms, ‘that all men, past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and negotiator of the salvation of all ages.’ … And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when ‘the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary?’ as a certain author remarks. And before him Saint Germanus had said the same thing, speaking of Mary: ‘No one is saved but through thee.’ … And as we have access to the Eternal Father, says Saint Bernard, only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary: ‘By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation, that we may receive Him by thee, Who through thee was given to us.’”

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church.”

Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 1904: “6. Could not God have given us, in another way than through the Virgin, the Redeemer of the human race and the Founder of the Faith? Hence whenever the Scriptures speak prophetically of the grace which was to appear among us, the Redeemer of mankind is almost invariably presented to us as united with His mother. …Now the Blessed Virgin did not conceive the Eternal Son of God merely in order that He might be made man taking His human nature from her, but also in order that by means of the nature assumed from her He might be the Redeemer of men. …

“12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members, of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. …When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore. And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix[1] [Co-Redeemer] of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by Death and by His Blood…

“14. We are…very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us ‘de congruo,’ in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us ‘de condigno,’ and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.”

[1] The Latin word “reparo” means to restore, renew, or purchase. Hence the pope refers to Mary as a partner with Jesus in renewing men to eternal life and restoring a fallen world by purchasing or redeeming men’s sin debt, which means Jesus is Redeemer and Mary is Co-Redeemer.

The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger: “In the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (section on indulgences), Sunt quos amor, June 26, 1913 (AAS 5 (1913) 363), he [Pope Benedict XV] praises the custom of adding to the name of Jesus the name of ‘His Mother, our coredemptor, the blessed Mary’; cf. also the prayer enriched by the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary is called ‘coredemptress of the human race.’ (Jan. 22, 1914; AAS 6 [1914] 108).”

Pope Benedict XV, Inter solalicia, 1918: “The Blessed Virgin suffered with her suffering Son and nearly died with Him when He died; she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men, and so far as it appertained to her she immolated her Son to placate the divine justice; so that she may rightly be said to have redeemed the human race with Christ.”

Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928: “And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress [Co-Redemptrix].”

Pope Pius XI, Auspicatus profecto, 1933: “[Mary became the Mother of Jesus] in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.”

Pope Pius XI, Explorata res, 1923: “The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of the redemption.”

In a book series on the Catholic faith called “The Library Of Catholic Knowledge”, in the book about the Blessed Virgin Mary, it explains Co-Redemptrix, and it goes onto say: “It belongs to the Church to fix the language of her theology, and to judge whether or not any confusion is likely to occur in certain cases; and in authorized documents the magisterium of the Church tends increasingly to favour the expression Co-redemptrix to express this doctrine. It has now received “the freedom of the city” so to speak, and it remains for us to explain what it involves.”

The book then goes onto explain in detail Co-Redemptrix. So when it comes down to it, the Church has most certainly allowed the idea and it has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, and, as we have seen, at least 3 Popes have taught it, and the medieval Franciscans support it too and so did Saints, and the main thing is that the term is not heretical because what it MEANS is not heretical! The Dimonds in their pride (yet again) have lied and have given themselves far too much confidence on this. For them to condemn anyone who holds it (the correct meaning), is absolutely absurd.

  • In Reparation for Insults Offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Taken from the Raccolta)

O blessed Virgin, Mother of God, look down in mercy from Heaven, where thou art enthroned as Queen, upon me, a miserable sinner, thine unworthy servant. Although I know full well my own unworthiness, yet in order to atone for the offenses that are done to thee by impious and blasphemous tongues, from the depths of my heart I praise and extol thee as the purest, the fairest, the holiest creature of all God’s handiwork. I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human race. I bless the Eternal Father who chose thee in an especial way for His daughter; I bless the Word Incarnate who took upon Him our nature in thy bosom and so made thee His Mother; I bless the Holy Spirit who took thee as His bride. All honor, praise and thanksgiving to the ever-blessed Trinity who predestined thee and loved thee so exceedingly from all eternity as to exalt thee above all creatures to the most sublime heights. O Virgin, holy and merciful, obtain for all who offend thee the grace of repentance, and graciously accept this poor act of homage from me thy servant, obtaining likewise for me from thy divine Son the pardon and remission of all my sins. Amen.

An indulgence of 500 days (Holy Office, Jan. 22, 1914; S. P. Ap., Dec. 4, 1934). The Raccolta, translated into English from the 1938 edition by The Rev. Joseph P. Christopher, Ph.D., and The Very Rev. Charles E. Spence, M.A. (Oxon.) By authorization of the Holy See.


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


AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION

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

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

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

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

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

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

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


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

We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church." (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

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

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

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

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

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


THE NECESSITY TO STUDY AND KNOW THE CATHOLIC FAITH

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

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

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


THE DIMOND BROTHERS
&
THEIR BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS

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

Receiving the Sacraments

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

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

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

MHFM: “Certainly we are not saying that you cannot recognize someone as a heretic until the Church’s declaration. Rather, we are examining the issue of when the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case kicks in.”

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

MHFM: “While someone like Luther was clearly a heretic even before this declaration, this is an example of how… the absolute obligation to avoid a person in every case comes with the declaration [of the Church]. … It refers to those declared, like Luther, or those who are so notorious that their crime cannot be concealed in law.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church and communion, then, you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (1512-1517): “THE PENALTIES TO BE INCURRED, AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, for each and all of the aforesaid persons, if they act to the contrary (though may they not!), are immediate major excommunication, the incapacity for all and singular legal acts of any kind, being branded as infamous, and the penalties expressed in the law of treason;”

Here we see Pope Leo X affirming the dogmatic principle that some penalties are “incurred automatically and without the need for any further declarationwhenever one has committed a crime to which such an excommunication is attached. The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists some of these crimes:

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2335: “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto [by that very fact] an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”

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

Pope Benedict XIV also made note of the term major excommunication:

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. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”

As we have seen, people excommunicated in this way (such as heretics) are majorly excommunicated, which means that they must be shunned for religious purposes and the sacraments.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

Dimond brothers on attending non-Catholic churches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dimond brothers on the term imposing

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

Here they are:

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t you see how evil this is?

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

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

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

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

The Dimond Brothers on the term “Notorious” Heretics

Dimond brothers on faith before mass

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

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

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

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

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

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 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 [such as with a heretic] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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


THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR AVOIDING HERETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AGAINST HERETICS AND PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


CAN HERETICS HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

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

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

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

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved."

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

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