Most Holy Family Monastery Contradictions, Lies and Heresies Exposed

Most Holy Family Monastery (commonly abbreviated MHFM) is a sedevacantist monastery run by Michael Dimond (also known as Frederick Dimond), who is the superior, and his brother Peter Dimond (also known as Bob Dimond), who operates a small monastery with a few people in the Fillmore, New York area.

This organization is most well known for its rejection of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I as Antipopes, as well as its teachings on many different points on the Vatican II Council (a council which they reject as apostasy from the faith). They have to this date produced many videos and books that have been shared to millions of people around the world, and have appeared on noted radio and television shows.

Their website, which is also named Most Holy Family Monastery, have daily posts of themselves as well as of their different adherents, who comment on issues that are mainly, but not exclusively, connected to the Second Vatican Council and the time following its promulgation.

The “About this website” section of their website state the following information of their organization: “This website is dedicated to defending and spreading the Catholic Faith, as taught and defined by the authoritative teachings of the popes throughout history. It is also dedicated to exposing in great detail the post-Vatican II pseudo-“Church” and the New Mass. These purport to be Catholic, but are not.”

Even though we disagree with the Dimond brothers on many issues, we do agree with them, however, on the Vatican II sect and the Antipopes and on the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church and Water Baptism.


Members

Current Members

  • Michael Dimond

  • Peter Dimond

  • One sister in a new convent

Former Members

  • John Vennari

  • Richard Ibranyi: According to Ibranyi: “I had held the sedevacante position a year before I was released from the monastery and was silenced by Michael from teaching this truth. He obstinately argued that he could not make a declaration that John Paul II is an antipope. Consequently, I persistently condemned him and his belief with the clear words of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio which decrees that a heretic cannot be elected to the papacy even if all of the Cardinals were to elect him as pope, and with canon law which decrees that a pope who becomes a notorious heretic automatically loses his papal office by operation of Church law and thus without the need of a declaration, as stated in Canon 188.4 on Tacit Resignation of Office… I vigorously resisted Michael by telling him that I would not consent to his heresy of denying these infallible teachings. … Consequently, I was eventually released from the monastery because of this intense dispute; but Michael has never admitted that this is the reason he let me go from the monastery. On August 29, 1997, Michael expelled me from the monastery. He tried to release me without mentioning the real reason. He told me that he believed God was calling me to a more public preaching ministry; whereas, the monastery is more contemplative. I did not tolerate his excuse. I told him, “That is a lie! For one, we are not a totally contemplative monastery. We have produced public controversial information that obliges us to defend our teachings publicly and to try to convert souls. The real reason you are expelling me is because I hold the sedevacante position and you do not.” Michael then banged his fist on the table and said, “Yes, that is the reason! No one can judge the pope. No one can make a declaration against a pope.” … A year or more after my departure, Michael changed his belief and held the sedevacante position; but he never admitted that he had expelled me for the real reason mentioned in this letter.”

Recent defectors

  • "Edmund" Eric Hoyle: The technical producer for the audio programs and English-to-Spanish translator. He also moderated the Sedevacantism debate the Dimonds had with William Golle. After being persuaded that it is sinful to go to a Byzantine Mass in communion with the mainstream “Catholic Church”, he left on December 31, 2007, with two others. Then he sued Frederick (Michael) and Robert (Peter) Dimond for "fraud" and lost.

  • Joseph Myers: a Protestant convert who claimed to have heard angels sing when he arrived at the Most Holy Family Monastery. He left together with Hoyle, although he regretted the choice.

Heretical, False and Scandalous Religious Practices

Sacraments from heretics

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

Mass attendance

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

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

The Church’s actual teaching condemns them

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

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

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

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

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: “The sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

Let’s look at another Papal statement condemning Peter and Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery, which is also an infallible statement since it corroborates the Catholic dogma that Catholics are forbidden to be in Communion with those who are outside the Catholic Church. The Dimond brothers and their adherents can argue however much they want that it only applies to the Eastern “Orthodox” or the Protestants as they constantly do whenever anything is quoted against them, but the fact remains, and the truth is, that Pope Pius XI forbids the participation in the assemblies of all non-Catholics, which includes the Vatican II sect and its apostate priests and all the heretical traditional “Catholic” priests who claim to be Catholic but who in fact are outside the Church through their Christ rejecting heresies.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’[2 John 1:10] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?…

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative!…

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…”

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

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

Which is why St. Paul says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there’s more…

CHURCH TRADITION ALSO CONDEMNS THEM!

Peter Dimond, Sacraments From Heretics Audio Debate, 1:11:06-1:11:20: “But in regards to its teaching on receiving the sacraments from excommunicated people in necessity (Canon 2261.2), that is perfectly consistent with the tradition I am describing here and the quotes I have covered which you don’t understand.”

Since Peter is referring so much to tradition, we ask him to please cite one Church Father, Saint, Council or Pope that has ever taught or permitted us to receive the Sacraments (other than Baptism in case of necessity) from a heretical priest that we know is a heretic, or that we should be in communion with them? Can he do it, you think? Of course not! And that’s why he hasn’t given any such quotes in the debate or articles either. Thus, this fact alone expose him.

A doctrine of faith or morals that is taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Saints is part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all doctrines that have been held by the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers are true and hence binds all Catholics to believe them also.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [that is, those who oppose] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

And:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 2, #1, #3, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

Peter of course can’t quote a single Saint or Church Father to support his heretical doctrine.

But what does the Saints and Fathers of the Church think of being in communion with heretics? Let’s take a look at some Church Fathers (tradition) so that we can see for ourselves what they think about Peter’s diabolical teachings.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-c. 115)

St. Ignatius warns Catholics to shun heretics and compares them to wild beasts and rabid dogs that bite in secret:

St. Ignatius of Antioch: “There are some, you know, who are accustomed to go around with the Name [of Christ] on their lips while they indulge in certain practices at variance with It and an insult to God. You must shun these men as you would wild beasts: they are rabid dogs that bite in secret; you must beware of them!” (Epistle to the Ephesians)

He teaches Catholics to shun and beware of all heretics, even heretical family members:

St. Ignatius of Antioch: “It is fitting, therefore, that you keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public speak to them. But flee from all abominable heresies and those who cause schism… Brethren, do not be deceived. If any man follows him who separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stay away from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to Hell… If anyone walks according to a foreign doctrine, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest you perish along with him, even though he should be your father, your son, your brother, or a member of your family.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 3)

Origen (2rd century)

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

St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century)

St. Cyprian: “Whoever is separated from the Church must be avoided and fled from; such a man is wrong-headed; he is a sinner and self-condemned. …But if some of the leaders of schism persist in their blind and obstinate foolishness, and if advice for their own good fails to bring them back to the way of salvation, let the rest of you…break away from their ensnaring falsehood. …One must withdraw from those who are engaged in sin; rather, one must fly from them, lest by joining in their evil course and thus taking the wrong road, one should…become involved in the same guilt oneself.” (Of the Catholic Church, nos. 17 and 23)

St. Cyprian: “Peter and Paul the blessed apostles…in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them.” (Epistle 74, par. 6.)

St. Martin of Tours (c. 316-c. 397)

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

St. Anthony the Abbot (c. 251-c. 357)

St. Anthony the Abbot: “So great is my aversion for the company of heretics, or of conversation with them, that I say we ought not even go near them.” (Psalm)

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

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

St. Athanasius (296-373)

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

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

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

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Let us hate those who are worthy of hatred. Let us withdraw from those from whom God withdraws. Let us say to God with all boldness concerning all heretics: ‘Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate Thee?’” (Ephesians)

This quotation from St. Cyril is not be understood in the context of really “hating” people, but must rather be understood in the context of despising or hating what sinners/heretics do and are guilty of. Humans cannot literally hate people or wish them evil with an evil intent without being guilty of mortal sin. We must pray for our enemies and desire their conversion. We must love our enemies as the gospel says, but despise their deeds and have no respect for their ungodly persons.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “One might properly and truly say that there is a Church of Evil-doers, that is, the assemblies of the heretics. … For this reason, the true faith has already delivered to you, by way of safe-guard, the Article: ‘And One Holy Catholic Church’ in order that you may fly from their meetings, and for the rest of your entire life to remain steadfast in the Holy Catholic Church.” (Catechetical Lectures 18:25)

St. Ambrose (340-397)

St. Ambrose: “Therefore, if by the sin of Judas, all the Apostles were put in danger, let us by this warning be on our guard against the unbelieving and against the traitor. … And let us also drive such a person out of our little ship, so that…while the Lord keeps watch no storm of iniquity shall strike us.” (The Two Ships, 7, Sermon 37)

St. Paphnutius (4th century)

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

St. Jerome (c. 340-420)

St. Jerome: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot and die!” (On Galatians 5:9)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century)

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

Pope St. Leo the Great (5th century)

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

Pope St. Leo the Great: “There is no concord between the love of this world and the love of God; and he who will not separate himself from the children of this world shall not belong to the children of God.” (On the Beatitudes, Homily 95, Chap. 9)

St. Hermenegild (6th century)

Hermenegild, a young Visigoth prince, was put to death by his heretical father because he courageously refused to receive his Easter Communion from an Arian bishop. The martyr knew that the Eucharist is the sacred symbol of Catholic unity and that we are not allowed to approach the Holy Table in company with those who are not in the true Church. A sacrilegious consecration gives heretics the real possession of the divine mystery, if the priestly character be in him who dares to offer sacrifice to the God whom he blasphemes. But the Catholic, who knows that he may not so much as pray with heretics, shudders at the sight of the profanation and would rather die than take a share by his presence in insulting our Redeemer in that very Sacrifice and Sacrament which were instituted in order that all may be made one in God:

Pope St. Gregory the Great, The Dialogues: “It was the feast of Easter. At an early hour of the night when all was still, his wicked father sent an Arian bishop to him with this message, that if he [Hermenegild] would receive Communion from his hands [the Communion of a sacrilegious consecration] he should be restored to favor. True to his Creator, the man of God gave a merited reproof to the Arian bishop, and, with holy indignation, rejected his sinful offer; for though his body lay prostrate in chains, his soul stood on ground beyond the reach of tyranny. The bishop therefore returned whence he had come. The Arian father raged, and straightaway sent his lictors, bidding them to repair to the prison of the unflinching confessor of the Lord, and murder him on the spot. They obeyed: they entered the prison; they cleft his skull with a sword; they took away the life of the body, and slew what he, the slain one, had sworn to count as vile. Miracles soon followed, which testified to the true glory of Hermenegild…”

If it was a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion from the hands of a notorious heretic then it is a mortal sin now too, and all who claim otherwise with knowledge of the dogmas of the church are excommunicated heretics. Any law that attempts to change this dogmatic law or diminish it in any way is a heretical law that makes a mockery of the blood of Saint Hermenegild.

St. John Damascene (676-749)

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

St. John the Almsgiver (7th Century)

St. John the Almsgiver, Patriarch of Alexandria, 7th Century AD: “Another thing the blessed man taught and insisted upon with all was never on any occasion whatsoever to associate with heretics and, above all, never to take the Holy Communion with them, ‘even if’, the blessed man said, ‘you remain without communicating all your life, if through stress of circumstances you cannot find a community of the Catholic Church. For if, having legally married a wife in this world of the flesh, we are forbidden by God and by the laws to desert her and be united to another woman, even though we have to spend a long time separated from her in a distant country, and shall incur punishment if we violate our vows, how then shall we, who have been joined to God through the orthodox faith and the Catholic Church -- as the apostle says: ‘I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ’ (2 Cor. 11:2) -- how shall we escape from sharing in that punishment which in the world to come awaits heretics, if we defile the orthodox and holy faith by adulterous communion with heretics? For ‘communion’, he said, ‘has been so called because he who has ‘communion’ has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has ‘communion’. Therefore I implore you earnestly, children, never to go near the oratories of the heretics in order to communicate there.’” (Three Byzantine Saints, “The Life of Saint John the Almsgiver”, Translators: Elizabeth Dawes & Norman H. Baynes, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood: 1977; p. 251)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

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

St. Thomas Aquinas: “To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus, the Church FORBIDS the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates… It is for this reason that both divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because there is a greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways.”

Blessed Margaret Clitherow (1556-1586)

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

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716)

Saint Louis Marie de Montfort: “Since these wretched souls will have to be separated from God and Heaven for all eternity because their place will be in Hell, already here on earth they have to be separated from the company of Christ Our Lord and His servants and hand-maids. Predestinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves!” (Secret of the Rosary)

As all with eyes to read can see for themselves, it is abundantly clear that the tradition of the Church is not agreeing with Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery (as he actually have the boldness to claim over and over and over again), but that it rather expose, crush and condemns him and his sect completely.

For more quotes from the saints and fathers of the Church condemning religious communion with heretics, see this file: http://www.sanctussanctus.info/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed/#Fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a 1729 decree the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed the following on the sin of scandal:

“… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in 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)

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

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

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves UNITY OF COMMUNION, IS NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE LAW).”

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

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 by themselves by the authority of Church’s “rule of faith” whether someone has fallen into heresy or not and whether this person must be avoided for communion 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,” if it did not actually intend to permit people to judge what is a heresy, or to avoid someone who is a heretic. Without this truth, people are forced to profess communion with everyone: Protestants, Muslims, Devil-worshipers, false traditionalists, Vatican II apostates and so on. 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…”

As we have seen already, people excommunicated in this way are majorly excommunicated, which means that they must be shunned for religious purposes and the sacraments:

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

MHFM’s Position on various issues

Regarding pre- and post- Vatican II Catholicism

  • Communists and Freemasons infiltrated the Catholic Church to overthrow it.

  • Siri Thesis. The Siri Thesis is a theory which holds that actually Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected Pope, after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but the newly-elected Gregory XVII, formerly Cardinal Siri, was put under grave duress or coercion - threatened and prevented from taking the Papal Chair (i.e. from publically proclaiming His Pontificacy) and illegally replaced by Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII). They believe that whether Cardinal Siri was truly elected to be pope or not, John XXIII’s election would have still been invalid (null and void) because John XXIII was a manifest heretic before his election, which is confirmed in his heretical teachings as an Antipope. “We believe that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign – thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI. But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.”

  • John Paul II is The Antichrist and The First Beast and Benedict XVI is The Second Beast and The False Prophet.

  • Post Vatican II hierarchy is the Whore of Babylon in the Apocalypse.

  • The Vatican II popes are antipopes (From John XXIII to Francis I).

  • The New Mass is the Abomination of Desolation - and the First Four Vatican II Antipopes parallel the Four False High Priests at the time of the Abomination of Desolation in the Machabees.

  • The Consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been already done by Pius XII, although not with all the bishops as was requested, and that the conversion of Russia means that it will be converted to a period of peace, not converted to Catholicism as commonly thought.

Doctrinal

  • The belief that holds that people can be saved in invincible ignorance of the Catholic religion is outright heresy, and Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood is heresy for those who have seen the evidence provided (i.e., Justification/Salvation by Desire alone to the exclusion of baptism is heresy).

  • Justification cannot happen without Baptism of water.

  • It is heresy to claim that the Vatican II popes are not anti-popes after having seen the evidence of their numerous heresies.

  • The belief that Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix) is not a fitting title for Our Lady even though the concept of Co-redemption is not new. They dismiss the evidence that several popes and other Catholics and saints have taught that Mary is Co-Redeemer as erroneous. Pope Pius XI himself used the title no less than three times during his pontificate. In one address, he explains the Co-redemptrix title as describing Christ’s incorporation of His mother in the work of redemption, in a way whereby He could not but associate Mary in the work of redemption (Miserentissimus Redemptor, Auspicatus profecto, Explorata res). Even before the year 200, the Church Father Irenaeus referred to Mary as “causa salutis” [cause of our salvation] given her “fiat”.

Moral

  • Natural Family Planning is sinful birth control.

  • Homosexual orientation is a result of demonic takeover because of frequent mortal sins of impurity, such as masturbation and pornography.

  • Rock music is inspired by the devil and most things broadcasted on the media is evil.

  • They believe a Catholic can receive the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist from heretical priests who were validly ordained but is not imposing or notorious about their heresy of denying the EENS dogma (No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) and Sedevacantism (and other dogmas).

They like to have their cake and eat it too

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 this. 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 email-exchanges and articles on various issues, which are (or were at the time) publicly available on their website.

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: “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: “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: “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: “… it is referring to those declared (notorious in law) or those who are so notorious that they cannot even conceal it (notorious in fact). It is not necessarily speaking of undeclared heretics who profess to uphold all of Catholic teaching and conceal their deviation from it.”

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 Antipope Francis, 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 Francis) be a rejection of Catholic truth? Isn’t he then a manifest heretic?

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001): “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.”

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

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

An automatic excommunication is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the excommunicated individual (such as the excommunicated heretics Peter and Michael Dimond, and their followers, approach for the sacraments and tells others to approach), as Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem fidei makes perfectly clear:

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

Even though Peter Dimond argues that one needs a declaration before the precept of avoidance takes hold (whenever it suits his own whims), he nevertheless argues on his website that this very position (that a declaration is necessary) is non-Catholic if others are using it. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look.

Peter’s Dimond, Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism: “According to the non-sedevacantists’ conclusion, Catholics would have to affirm communion with a man who publicly avowed that he wanted no communion with the Catholic Church… JUST BECAUSE NO FORMAL DECLARATION WAS MADE AGAINST HIM. TO STATE THAT CATHOLICS SHOULD HOLD COMMUNION WITH SUCH A MANIFEST HERETIC [such as the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, the Novus Ordites, or any other heretical priest who obstinately rejects Jesus Christ or denies several of his dogmas] BECAUSE NO PROCESS AGAINST HIM HAD BEEN COMPLETED, IS CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TEACHING, CATHOLIC TRADITION AND CATHOLIC SENSE.”

Even though Peter here condemned as non-Catholic the position that one should or could be in communion with heretics BECAUSE NO DECLARATION HAS BEEN MADE OR BEEN COMPLETED, he favors this position which he condemns when it suits his own purpose by asserting that we can be in religious communion with certain heretics precisely BECAUSE NO FORMAL DECLARATION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THEM! According to Peter, it’s non-Catholic and wrong to be in communion with heretics, and yet he is in communion with them!

Peter also readily admits on his website that it’s wrong to even pray with heretical family members. But one could wonder then, if (as he says) he believes that merely praying with them is wrong, how then has it happened that he don’t believe it’s wrong to do something of greater worth with them, such as receiving the sacraments?

MHFM, E-Exchanges Archive, Spring 2011: “Bill, it’s sad to say but your wife is a heretic. You should not pray with her, and you should not have been praying with her. The very fact that she attends the New Mass means that you should not pray with her. The same would be true if she only attended the traditional Mass, but disagreed on EENS.”

Here’s another one:

Question to MHFM: “Can I go the Novus Ordo for weddings/funerals?”

MHFM’s Answer: “No, a Catholic must not go.

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

How ironic. Peter quotes Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium animos against the Novus Ordo weddings/funerals, but refuses to apply it to their heretical communion and/or sacraments. It’s quite strange how Peter thinks it’s wrong to pray with a heretical family member and wrong to go to a heretical wedding/funeral but not wrong to go to a mass of a heretic or receive the sacraments from him.

According to Peter, one can go to a heretic for the sacraments and approve of him confecting the sacraments as a heretic and in a state of mortal sin, thus helping the heretical priest commit a mortal sin and sacrilege, but one may not go to a heretic for a wedding/funeral or approve of him getting married/buried as a heretic? According to Peter, to go to a heretical wedding/funeral would be to imply that God condones of his/her marriage outside the Church or that there was hope for the deceased persons salvation:

Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, On The 1917 Code Of Canon Law: “Note: this canon is not talking about Catholic Masses or Catholic worship presided over by a heretic, but non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend a Jewish Synagogue or a Buddhist Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc., etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or hereticsjust as long as one doesn’t actively participate! This is ridiculous, for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person involved in it) is a scandal in itself. It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the Church. A Catholic can neither take part actively in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. Hence, this canon also proves that this code is not infallible.”

But one could ask then, would not the same logic apply to the heretics, their religious celebrations and their sacraments? Of course it would. But to take this one step further, here’s what Peter and Michael Dimond says about celebrating even Christmas with heretics:

MHFM: E-Exchanges Archive 2: “To celebrate Christmas with heretics or with those who reject the faith is tantamount to acknowledging those heretics as members of the true Christian religion who can share in the blessings of Christmas. And that would be very wrong, of course. Hence, those who really love God’s truth and believe it matters should not only agree that one cannot celebrate Christmas with such individuals, but should be enthusiastic about not doing it. To put it another way, a person shouldn’t need a lot of persuasion that it’s not something one can do; rather, it should make complete sense. The very thought of celebrating Christmas and exchanging gifts with someone who is, for instance, obstinate in the Novus Ordo should spark an internal discomfort in a traditional Catholic who really believes that truth matters.”

EXACTLY. So if one should not even celebrate Christmas with a heretic (which is true), then one likewise should not celebrate mass or receive the sacraments from them. Because “to celebrate [Mass] with heretics or with those who reject the faith is tantamount to acknowledging those heretics as members of the true Christian religion who can share in the blessings of [Mass and the Sacraments]”.

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 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 behavior that the Dimonds are advocating here? Nowhere! Peter and Michael Dimond actually have the guts to claim that if one celebrates mass with heretics or receives the sacraments from them, then one doesn’t necessarily agree with them or share in their sin. “You’re only there for the sacrament”, they say. But if one goes to a heretical wedding, funeral, or Christmas celebration, then one would definitively agree with them or approve of their heresy or sin? Any honest person would see that the same logic applies in both situations.

Peter and Michael Dimond’s argument that it’s somehow different to receive the sacraments from heretics compared with attending their wedding/funeral ceremonies simply because “you’re only there for the sake of the sacraments”, fails miserably, because even if you go there only for the sake of the sacraments and don’t agree with them, the fact is still that you, by receiving the sacrament from them and by being present at their mass, are actively participating in a non-Catholic worship ceremony and publicly approving of their mortally sinful, heretical and sacrilegious deeds! It is exactly the same and in no way different from attending a heretical wedding, funeral, or Christmas celebration. Only an idiot would fail to see this.

MHFM, E-Exchanges Archive 1: “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.”

Amazing isn’t it? They just said that one may notgo to a non-Catholic church at all, even if it is just passively...” According to the Dimonds, we may not go to heretical Church-buildings passively for a wedding etc., but we may go there actively for hearing mass and receiving the sacraments?

But the Dimonds are even worse off in their hypocrisy than the people they condemn, for they are not merely passive” as someone would be if he merely attended a wedding out of “human respect”, because the Dimonds go so far in their religious participation that they even actively” participate in the religious church services themselves with these heretics and schismatics, and even knowingly and actively” receive the communion from the heretical priest’s own hand (who commits a sacrilege in order to give them the sacrament). Thus, the Dimonds are not merely “passive” at the back of the church as someone would be if he simply attended a wedding out of “human respect” (and which they disapproved of), but are even worse since they are “actively” joining themselves to their heretical and sacrilegious communion.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”

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

MHFM, E-Exchanges Archive 1: “YOU CANNOT GO TO NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES.

AGREED. NOW FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE YOU CLUELESS HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS!

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

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

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

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him.”

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

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

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

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

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

It’s as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe that their self made list of what constitutes a notorious heresy is applicable to the rest of humanity! Their view actually have the boldness to claim that some heresies can be tolerated or excused while others may not. The Catholic Church however condemns all heresies and heretics and shuns communion with them.

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

How MHFM decide which heresies can be tolerated or excused or not is of course impossible to understand. As all honest people can see, it’s just the imaginations of the Dimonds’ own made up claims without any dogmatic proof whatsoever to back up their words.

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

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

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

Again, so you can’t pray the rosary with those who accept Vatican II but you partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord with them?

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

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.”

CATHOLICS CANNOT LEGALLY RECEIVE ORDERS FROM NOTORIOUS APOSTATE, HERETIC, OR SCHISMATIC BISHOPS

It is of the faith—therefore, epikeia cannot justify it—that a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishop cannot be a legal successor to the apostles, nor can he propagate a legal line by ordaining Catholic priests or bishops. People ordained by heretics or schismatics are valid priests and bishops, but their orders are unlawful and illicit, which means that they cannot exercise their order without sin.

The sin of entering into active religious communion with non-Catholics is committed when a self-professed Catholic knowingly gets consecrated or ordained by a notoriously non-Catholic bishop. It is of the faith that a Catholic cannot arrive at a good by an evil means. The Church has already dealt with a similar situation in which there were no Catholic bishops in Armenia. An appeal was made to the Holy See to allow schismatical or heretical bishops to ordain Catholic priests. The Holy See rejected the appeal.

On the Illegality of Ordinations by non-Catholic Bishops

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders, but not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. …Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. …The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 103-105)

By decreeing “in no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites use for going to the notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc to be consecrated bishops or ordained priests—they say, there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated or ordained. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

Even if a heretic or schismatic bishop lied to a candidate by hiding his notorious crimes of heresy or schism, and produced a forged papal mandate, that candidate, even though of good faith, upon discovering the fraud, cannot exercise his orders. That is not even the case with the Thucites, because Bishop Thuc’s notorious crimes could have been easily known upon a basic inquiry (he signed the Vatican II documents, for instance), and thus, all who received orders from him while knowing he was a heretic committed an act of communion in sacred things with a heretic, which is an act of bad faith. Either way, good faith or bad faith, their orders cannot be legally exercised. Those of good faith incur no mortal guilt; whereas, those of bad faith do, they become schismatics. Those of good faith would incur guilt if they continued to exercise their orders after discovering the bishop they received orders from was not eligible to legally confer orders.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. … Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred.”

These Thucites of bad will imply a good can come from an evil means: They violate the infallible Church law that forbids them to knowingly go before a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishop to be consecrated or ordained (Holy Office Decree, 1709 and c. 2372); they violate the infallible Church law that forbids active religious communication with non-Catholics (communicatio in sacris) (c. 1258, §1); they violate the natural law by scandal; and, they violate the divine positive law by endangering the Catholic faith of perversion.

As a result of their knowingly schismatic crime, God abhors them and places them, the obstinate sinner who refuse to convert, under the Romans’ One Curse. “For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.” (2 Pt. 2:20-21)

Do not be fooled because their immoral crimes are not manifest to you, for they are very good at hiding these crimes so as to appear pious and holy, like the Pharisees that outwardly appeared beautiful to men, but inwardly were full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Mt. 23: 27-28). Yet, in due time, God will expose their immoral crimes, “For there is nothing hid, which shall not be made manifest: neither was it made secret, but that it may come abroad.” (Mk. 4:22) However, sins of immorality are not the main issue. Your main concern must be their sins of apostasy and heresy, because they deny the Catholic faith; and, their sins of schism because they revolt from the unity of the Church. These sins are manifest among the Thucites and others like them. “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense.” (Rom. 1:28) You pay a high price, indeed, for putting the Mass and sacraments before the Faith, and that price is punishment here on earth and eternal damnation hereafter.

Thucites must abjure in order to enter the Church and be forgiven

If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

If the crimes were public, the specific abjuration must also be public. Epikeia would apply for the penitent bishops or priests to abjure if proper Church authorities are impossible to access.

Bishop Thuc did not abjure his apostate and heretical errors

There is no public record that Bishop Thuc abjured from signing the Vatican II documents, or from his association with the Conciliar Church and its apostate antipopes. He made a deficient declaration in 1982, but it was not an abjuration of his errors. An abjuration is an admission of guilt on the part of the penitent who takes it. In it, he must admit his personal guilt, he must reject and condemn all the errors he held and committed, along with all the errors of the sect he belonged to, along with denouncing its leaders. With this in mind, when you read Thuc’s Munich Declaration against the Conciliar Church, take special note that he is not admitting any personal guilt on his part. Instead, he refers to himself as being a faithful Catholic.

Munich Declaration

The Archbishop reading the declaration March 21, 1982: How does the Catholic Church appear today as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II as “Pope” surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and receive Holy Communion. But in the sight of God, how does today’s Church appear? Are the Masses—both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundays—pleasing to God? By no means, because that Mass is the same for Catholics as for Protestants—therefore it is displeasing to God and invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of Pius V, which is offered by few priests and bishops, among whom I count myself.

Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that priesthood which is pleasing to God. Besides this “Mass” which does not please God, there are many other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction.

“Moreover, the “priests” now hold to: 1) modernism; 2) false ecumenism; 3) the adoration [or cult] of man; 4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever; 5) the unwillingness to condemn heresies and to expel the heretics.

Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.

Here I add the principal documents:

1. The Bull “Quo primum” of Pius V.

2. Council of Trent, sess. XXII.

3. Letter “Adorabile exharistiae” Pu. VII., at Council of Florence: Decree pro Armenis (Dz. 698; Decree pro Jacobitis (Dz. 715).

4. Missale Romanum Pius V.: De defectibus in celbratione Missarum: “De defectibus forae”.

5. Constitution “Auctorem fidei” Pu. VI.; Decree “Lamentabili” Pu. X.; Encyclical “Pacendi domminici gregis” Pius X.

6. Council of Florence: Decretum pro Jacobitis; Encyclical “Quanta Cura” Pu. IX.; “Unam sanctum” Boniface VIII.

7. Codex Juris Canonici, can. 1322.

8. Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio” Paul IV.; Codex Juris Canonici, can. 188, n. 4.

9 Pontificale Romanum: “De conscratione electi in episcopum”, “Forma juramenti” et “Examen”.

February 25, 1982 Munich +Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc Archbishop

Where is Thuc’s admission of guilt for signing the Vatican II documents and for his association with the Vatican II Church and its apostate leaders? He does not even mention Vatican II. Where does he indicate that he is outside the Catholic Church and now desires to enter? Instead of admitting personal guilt, Bishop Thuc refers to himself as already being Catholic, among the faithful, and as being a “Roman Catholic bishop”.

Bishop Thuc’s pre-1982-Declaration consecrations and ordinations

The Thucites admit there is no public record of Thuc abjuring or making any kind of public declaration before February 25, 1982. Therefore, even if Bishop Thuc did abjure in 1982, which he did not, it is of no consequence to those who were consecrated or ordained by him before his 1982 Declaration; those who were, and appeal to Thuc’s future 1982 Declaration to justify their crime, admit, by implication, that they went before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated illegally as bishops or ordained as priests.

There is public evidence that Thuc was still in communion with the Conciliar Church in 1981. Less than a month before Thuc consecrated Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers a bishop on 7 May 1981, and less than six months before he consecrated Moisés Carmona-Rivera and Adolfo Zamora Hernandez bishops on 17 October 1981, Thuc concelebrated the Novus Ordo Mass of Holy Thursday on 15 April 1981, with the Conciliar Bishop Barthe of Frejus-Toulon, and received “faculties” from him to hear confessions. Therefore, these Thucite bishops needed to have public, documented proof that Thuc abjured sometime after he concelebrated the Novus Ordo Mass in 1981 and before he consecrated them. No such proof exists. There is no proof that Thuc ever abjured his errors before he died on 13 December 1984; therefore, Thuc is not to be considered among the faithfully departed.

Most, if not all, of the Thucites that believe the Holy See is vacant trace their line through the Thucite Bishops des Lauriers and Carmona.

One Thucite bishop, Louis Vezelis, realizing the dilemma and admitting to its consequences, in desperation, lies by telling others that Thuc did not sign the Vatican II documents. But, Bishop Vezelis is still faced with the fact that Thuc adhered to the Vatican II Church, and for that alone he is guilty of apostasy and heresy, for that alone he needed to abjure, even if he did not sign the Vatican II documents.

In the secular realm, most men do not buy a house without first seeing and then receiving the Title, and without examining the condition of the house. If they were not diligent in doing this, and later discovered there was no Title or the house falls apart because it was in bad condition, the fault is theirs for not examining these basic things ahead of time. The same is true in the spiritual realm, the things of God. No man would buy a car or house without a Title and no true Catholic would go before a bishop in a time where almost no-Catholic bishops exists at all to be consecrated or ordained without that bishop having thoroughly proved he is Catholic, and that he can legally consecrate and ordain.

Whose fault is it if a layman or a priest did not thoroughly check the faith of Bishop Thuc, who was about to ordain or consecrate him, and demand from Thuc, in writing, a specific abjuration or confirmation that he took one that rejects and condemns the prevalent heresies and prominent heretics of the Vatican II Church? Whose fault is it if the layman or priest did not check if Thuc signed the heretical Vatican II documents? Surely, this is a very easy thing to do. Is not the making of priests and bishops one of the most serious things that men do in the eyes of God? What kind of man, especially in these days of the great apostasy when false shepherds abound, approaches any bishop for ordination or consecration without first thoroughly examining him, checking into his past, and demanding that the bishop put his beliefs in writing, and if he was associated with the non-Catholic Conciliar Church, or any non-Catholic sect, that he abjured from these non-Catholic entities?

I am sure that these same men (Thucites) are very diligent and meticulous with temporal things, such as when they buy a home, a chapel, or a car. They would make sure they had all the proper papers, and that the home, the chapel, or the car is in proper working order before they purchased it. They should have done the same before they were ordained or consecrated by Thuc! They should have been very diligent and meticulous in examining Thuc, by making sure they had signed papers from Thuc that prove he abjured, and all the evidence necessary to prove he is currently Catholic in word and deed, before they were ordained or consecrated by Thuc.

In The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, The Mother of God explains how a bishop should exercise his episcopal office in order to give glory to God:

A complete explanation to the bishop from the Virgin about how he should exercise his episcopal office in order to give glory to God, and about the double reward for having held the rank of bishop in a true way and about the double disgrace for having held it in a false way, and about how Jesus Christ and all the saints welcome a true and up right bishop.

Book 3 - Chapter 3

The Mother of God was speaking: “I wish to explain to the bishop what he should do for God and what will give glory to God. Every bishop must hold his miter carefully in his arms. He must not sell it for money nor give it up to others for the sake of worldly friendship nor lose it through negligence and lukewarmness. The bishop’s miter signifies nothing other than the bishop’s rank and power to ordain priests, to prepare the chrism, to correct those who go astray, and to encourage the negligent by his example. To hold his miter carefully in his arms means that he should reflect carefully on how and why he received his episcopal power, how he wields it, and what its effects and purpose are.

“If the bishop would examine how he received his power, he should first examine whether he desired the episcopate for his own sake or for God’s. If it was for his own sake, then his desire was no doubt carnal; if it was for God’s sake, that is, in order to give glory to God, then his desire was meritorious and spiritual.

“If the bishop would consider for what purpose he has received the episcopate, then surely it was in order that he might become a father to the poor and a consoler and intercessor for souls, because the bishop’s goods are intended for the good of souls. If his means are consumed inefficaciously and wasted in a prodigal manner, then those souls will cry out for revenge on the unjust steward. I will tell you the reward that will come from having held the rank of bishop. It will be a double reward, as Paul says, both corporal and spiritual.

“It will be corporal, because he is God’s vicar on earth and is therefore accorded divine honor by men as away of honoring God. In heaven it will be corporal and spiritual because of the glorification of body and soul, because the servant will be there with his Lord, due both to the way he lived as a bishop on earth and to his humble example by which he incited others to the glory of heaven along with himself. Everyone who has the rank and garb of a bishop but flees the episcopal way of life will merit a double disgrace.

“That the bishop’s power is not to be sold means that the bishop should not knowingly commit simony or exercise his office for the sake of money or human favor or promote men whom he knows to be of bad character because people petition him to do so. That the miter should not be given up to others on account of human friendship means that the bishop should not disguise the sins of the negligent or let those whom he can and should correct go unpunished, or pass over the sins of his friends in silence due to worldly friendship or take the sins of his subordinates on his own back, for the bishop is God’s sentinel.

“That the bishop should not lose his miter through negligence means that the bishop should not delegate to others what he should and can do more profitably himself, that he should not, for the sake of his own physical ease, transfer to others what he himself is more perfectly able to carry out, since the bishop’s duty is not to rest but to work. Nor should the bishop be ignorant of the life and conduct of those to whom he delegates his tasks. Instead he should know and review how they observe justice and whether they conduct themselves prudently and without cupidity in their assignments. I want you to know, too, that the bishop, in his role as shepherd, ought to carry a bouquet of flowers under his arms in order to entice sheep both far and near to run gladly after its scent.

“This bouquet of flowers signifies the bishop’s pious preaching. The two arms from which the bouquet of divine preaching hangs are two kinds of works necessary to a bishop, namely, public good works and hidden good works. Thus, the nearby sheep in his diocese, seeing the bishop’s charity in his works and hearing it in his words, will give glory to God through the bishop. Likewise, the faraway sheep, hearing of the bishop’s reputation, will want to follow him. This is the sweetest bouquet: not to be ashamed of God’s truth and humility, to preach good doctrine and to practice as one preaches, to be humble when praised and devout in humiliation. When the bishop has traveled to the end of this path and reaches the gate, he must have a gift in his hands to present to the high king. Accordingly, may he have in his hands a vessel precious to him, an empty one, to offer to the high king.

“The empty vessel to be offered is his own heart. He must struggle night and day in order for it to be empty of all lusts and the desire for fleeting praise. When such a bishop is led into the kingdom of glory, Jesus Christ, true God and man, will come out to meet him together with the whole host of saints. Then he will hear the angels saying: ‘Our God, our joy and every good! This bishop was pure in body, manly in his conduct. It is befitting that we should present him to you, for he longed for our company everyday. Satisfy his longing and magnify our joy at his coming!’ Then, too, other saints will say: ‘O God, our joy is both from you and in you and we need nothing else.

“Yet, our joy is heightened by the joy of the soul of this bishop who longed for you while he was still able to long. The sweet flowers of his lips increased our numbers. The flowers of his works consoled those dwelling far and near. Therefore, let him rejoice with us, and rejoice yourself over him for whom you longed so much when you died for him.’ Finally the King of glory shall say to him: ‘Friend, you have come to present to me the vessel of your heart emptied of your selfish will. Therefore, I will fill you with my delight and glory. My happiness will be yours and your glory in me will never cease.’”

It is our hope that the Thucites, and all those others who have been unlawfully consecrated or ordained, are of good will when they read this and repent and abjure. The only insurmountable obstacle is man’s own pride.

Epikeia does not justify consecrations and ordinations by non-Catholic bishops

The principle of epikeia allows for an exemption from Church laws that do not deal with faith or morals in certain emergency situations. Only Catholics and catechumens can be justified by the principle of epikeia in these emergency situations. Non-Catholics who are not preparing to enter the Catholic Church by baptism or abjuration cannot be justified by epikeia. Therefore, the Thucites, being non-Catholics and heretics and not catechumens, cannot justify any of their actions by epikeia. They cannot justify, make legal, their consecrations and ordinations by non-Catholic bishops (notorious heretics or notorious schismatics) anymore than the Greek Schismatics can. It would be of no effect if a Greek Schismatic attempted to make his consecrations and ordinations legal by appealing to epikeia, which is an exemption from a Catholic Church law, because he is not inside the Catholic Church. The same applies to the Thucites.

Canon 2372 forbids holy orders from notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishops

Canon 2372 teaches the dogmatic law that Catholics cannot legally receive holy orders from bishops who are notorious apostates, heretics, or schismatics.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

Bishop Thuc was a notorious apostate, heretic, and schismatic. Therefore, he could not have legally administered the sacrament of orders, ordain, or consecrate. Those who were ordained or consecrated by him incur automatic suspension and cannot legally exercise their orders.

Canon 2261, §2, does not apply heretics and schismatics

Some of the Thucites, of those who admit Bishop Thuc was an excommunicated notorious heretic when he ordained or consecrated them, appeal to the Canon 2261, §2, to justify, make legal, their ordinations or consecrations.

The Practical Commentary: “c. 2261, §2. Except as provided in 2261.3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request.” (Practical Commentary on Canon Law, vol. 2, p. 487)

Canon 2261, §2, applies only to excommunicated bishops and priests who are still Catholic. In a necessity, one may receive the sacraments from a Catholic bishop or priest who are excommunicated for something other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Hence it does not apply to heretics and schismatics. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is also a fallible collection of laws.

Canon 2261, §2, does not include the sacrament of holy orders

Even regarding excommunicate bishops who are Catholic, Canon 2261, §2, does not allow them to administer the sacrament of holy orders, the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops. Canon Law is written with the assumption that there is a visible hierarchy intact, even if the Holy See or a local see may be vacant. When a see falls vacant, in normal times, a vicar capitular or general is appointed to run the see until a new pope or bishop is elected. For a layman to legally receive the sacrament of holy orders (become a priest), he must first have dimissorial letters from his bishop, and he must be either incardinated into a diocese or belong (be ascribed) to a regular religious order, thus have a domicile, a place to legally function (c. 111-117). For a priest to become a legal bishop, he must be certain the consecrating bishop has a papal mandate from the pope (c. 953), at least tacitly, before he can legally be consecrated, and he must be assigned to a place in which he can legally function. Therefore, it is not just a matter of receiving the sacrament of holy orders, but also a matter of these other requirements that must be met in order to become a legal bishop or legal priest. Canon 2261, §2, cannot abolish the requirements in Canons 111-117, 953; therefore, Canon 2261, §2 does not include the sacrament of holy orders.

The lawgiver was well aware of these facts when he wrote Canon 2261, §2, and thus, never envisioned this canon to include the sacrament of holy orders, because of these other necessities—dimissorial letters, papal mandates, and domiciles. Canon 2261, §2 does not make provision for these necessities, and therefore, it cannot apply to the sacrament of holy orders. If it did, there would be chaos in the Church by the making of priests or bishops without the approval of proper Church authorities. There would be no place where they can go and legally function, often conflicting with those who were given a mission and a place to legally function by proper Church authorities. If Canon 2261, §2, includes the sacrament of holy orders, it would undermine and destroy the hierarchic order and structure of the Church. For instance, if Canon 2261, §2, includes the sacrament of holy orders, then bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, those who rule dioceses, would fall prey to excommunicated bishops in their dioceses who would be allowed to ordain priests and consecrate bishops by the mere request of the candidate, and thus without the approval of the ruling bishop, the result in those dioceses would be instant chaos, rebellion, and the undermining and destruction of the hierarchic order and structure of the Church.

Also, there would be no way to stop any Catholic from receiving holy orders, from being ordained or consecrated. All a Catholic layman or priest would have to do is ask an excommunicated bishop to ordain or consecrate him, and the bishop is not obliged to ask him the reason for the request—“in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request.” Thus, instead of Catholics being called to be priests or bishops, they, any Catholic man whatsoever, can demand it from an excommunicate bishop whether called or not, that is, if Canon 2261, §2 included the sacrament of holy orders.

Epikeia, not Canon 2261, §2, justifies a Catholic bishop’s consecrations

The fact that there is no hierarchy in the Church in these latter days of the Great Apostasy is a separate topic altogether that has nothing to do with the letter and the spirit of Canon Law 2261, §2, which was written with the assumption that there is a ruling hierarchy when this canon is utilized. One would have to appeal to the principle of epikeia in these days to justify a Catholic bishop’s ordinations and consecrations. In these cases, there is no conflict with proper Church authorities, such as the pope and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, because there are none. The next pope would approve these consecrations and ordinations, as long as the bishop in question is Catholic. The principle of epikeia allows for this, not Canon 2261, §2. Epikeia exempts the Catholic bishop from the letter of Canon 953 that requires an explicit papal mandate before he consecrates a bishop.

No pope could approve, either currently or retroactively or tacitly, of a subject who knowingly went before an excommunicated bishop to be ordained or consecrated, let alone a non-Catholic one.

St. Ansgar (A.D. 801-865) was a ninth century French missionary to the people of Denmark, Sweden and northern Germany. He was also a Benedictine monk. Early in his life, Ansgar desired to preach the Gospel in pagan lands. He founded the first Christian church in Sweden in 832. (The Life of Ansgar was written by his companion and successor, Bishop Rimbert.)

It should be noted that Ansgar was appointed to the See of Hamburg in 831 by the emperor, before the pope knew about it. The See of Hamburg was a brand new see which the emperor himself formed. After he created it, he appointed Ansgar to the position. Ansgar was then consecrated by bishops of the area. Pope Gregory IV confirmed the arrangement, but he did so after the fact. Hence, this is another example of how, at various times in Church history, Catholic bishops were sometimes consecrated and installed into even brand new territories without a papal mandate or without receiving papal approval.

THE LAW OF THE CHURCH PRESUMES PERTINACITY IN HERESY UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVEN

In addition to the undeniable facts which demonstrate that the Vatican II antipopes are definitely formal heretics, and that most if not all the “traditionalist” priests and bishops are heretics, the presumption of the law is also against them:

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states:

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”

Another canon law manual states: “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies 77. Washington: 1932)

Not only have the Vatican II antipopes made literally hundreds of statements contrary to revealed and defined dogma, but they have also explicitly declared themselves to be in communion with – in the same Church as – schismatics and heretics. To a lesser extent, essentially all of the more known “traditional” priests and bishops also hold similar heresies of salvation for pagans through a so-called baptism of desire or blood etc., as well as the heresy that one can lawfully commune with non-Catholics or heretics, and this of course makes it a mortal sin to be in religious communion with any of them or receive the sacraments from them since they are heretics and outside the Church and Her communion. The antipopes have, furthermore, confirmed these statements with acts which further manifest their adherence to heresy, such as communicatio in sacris (communication in sacred things) with non-Catholics and heretics and various other members of false religions. It is not, therefore, the law or the spirit of the Church to exonerate someone publicly spewing heresy, but rather to presume him guilty.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

St. Robert Bellarmine explains why this must be.

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.”

A simple illustration will also demonstrate why this must be.

Suppose you had some sheep and you appointed a shepherd to watch over them. Suppose one day the shepherd became a wolf and began eating the sheep and tearing them to pieces. Would you, looking after the welfare of these sheep, maintain the wolf as head of the sheep? Would you demand that the other sheep not yet eaten subject themselves to the wolf, and thus place themselves in proximate danger of being eaten? Of course you wouldn’t, and neither would God.

God could never allow one who is promulgating manifest heresy in the external forum to maintain authority in the Church or be able to demand the submission of Catholics, regardless of what his intentions are. Remember, heresy kills souls. Suppose the wolf in our story is just hungry, or having a bad day. Does this change the fact that the sheep are being eliminated? No.

Furthermore, what wolf who was trying to deceive people would openly declare himself to be a non-Catholic or an enemy of the Church?

Matthew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

There is no more effective way to assist a false prophet than to insist that he, despite his public profession of heresy, maintains authority in the Church. Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that we cannot regard a public heretic as a person with authority when dealing with the case of the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, began to preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful reacted by breaking communion with him, having realized that since Nestorius was preaching public and notorious heresy he could not have authority in the Catholic Church. The following quote from Pope St. Celestine is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Pope St. Celestine: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

Pope Pius IX confirms this principle by teaching that one is considered a heretic or a schismatic even if one has not yet been declared as such by the Holy See.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873: “Since the faction of Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.”

This is why the saints, theologians, doctors, canonists and popes who speak to the issue of a “heretical pope” avoid the terms “material” and “formal” heresy, for these are terms that imply a judgment of the internal forum. Rather, they use the words public, manifest, notorious, etc. – terms corresponding to the external forum.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

Canon 192, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or an act of the lawful superior.”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.

What is a public defection from the faith?

Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so…”

Thus, we have shown in great detail why it’s utterly false to assert that the heretical “traditionalist” priests and bishops or the Vatican II antipopes are merely “material heretics.” They cannot be material heretics because 1) they know very well of the dogmas which they deny since they have even been rebuked for their heresies—the heresies which they still adhere to and even defend and maintain in their public teachings and literature; 2) they are bound to know the Catholic Faith as “bishops,” especially the dogmas which they deny; and 3) they, the Vatican II sect and the antipopes especially, lack and contradict the essential mysteries of Faith which one must hold to be a Catholic.

Read more: Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

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.

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.

The traditional Catholic Church’s teaching on why Sacraments From Heretics is Sinful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INFALLIBLY CONDEMNS RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM ALL HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS AND FORBIDS RELIGIOUS COMMUNION WITH THEM

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

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

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

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

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

St. Thomas Aquinas said the following concerning this:

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;”

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

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

“… 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…”

So, the Pope just said infallibly that all heretics “should be avoided in every way” (that has to do with religious communion and other unnecessary dealings with them) and that they “are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful”. 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 “totally exclude” him from your communion, and may not approach him for the sacraments.

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.”

When we enter into sacramental communion with heretics or receive the sacraments from them, we give scandal to our neighbor and make the heretic who distributes the sacrament commit mortal sin; and most importantly, we sin against God and Heaven. Indeed, the heretical priest who consecrates the host or gives out the sacraments commits a mortal sin of sacrilege at that very moment. A person who thus receives the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist or Penance from a person he knows is a heretic (that is automatically excommunicated or formally excommunicated), actually makes this heretic sin mortally by receiving the sacrament from him!

MHFM, E-Exchanges: “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.”

Only a thoroughly hardhearted human would continue to go to him after knowing about this fact, receiving the fruit of his sacrileges, mortal sins and profanations of our Lord... The heretical priest commits a mortal sin when he confects the sacraments, as well as when he gives it out to others, yet the obstinate people receiving the sacrament from him couldn’t care less about the mortal sins of sacrilege and profanation of our Lord that are enacted in front of him. In truth, “You help the ungodly, and you are joined in friendship with those who hate the Lord; and therefore you did indeed deserve the wrath of the Lord.” (2nd Paralipomenon 19:2)

Hermenegild, a young Visigoth prince, was put to death by his heretical father because he courageously refused to receive his Easter Communion from an Arian bishop. The martyr knew that the Eucharist is the sacred symbol of Catholic unity and that we are not allowed to approach the Holy Table in company with those who are not in the true Church. A sacrilegious consecration gives heretics the real possession of the divine mystery, if the priestly character be in him who dares to offer sacrifice to the God whom he blasphemes. But the Catholic, who knows that he may not so much as pray with heretics, shudders at the sight of the profanation and would rather die than take a share by his presence in insulting our Redeemer in that very Sacrifice and Sacrament which were instituted in order that all may be made one in God.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 1, On the contrary: “By refusing to hear the masses of such priests [sinful, heretical or excommunicated priests], or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God’s sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor: but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers... Moreover, [Pope St.] Gregory says (Dial. ii.) that ‘the faithless father sent an [heretical] Arian bishop to his son [St. Hermenegild], for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God’s devoted servant rebuked him [and refused the communion from his hands], as was right for him to do.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, The Dialogues: “It was the feast of Easter. At an early hour of the night when all was still, his wicked father sent an Arian bishop to him with this message, that if he [Hermenegild] would receive Communion from his hands [the Communion of a sacrilegious consecration] he should be restored to favor. True to his Creator, the man of God gave a merited reproof to the Arian bishop, and, with holy indignation, rejected his sinful offer; for though his body lay prostrate in chains, his soul stood on ground beyond the reach of tyranny. The bishop therefore returned whence he had come. The Arian father raged, and straightaway sent his lictors, bidding them to repair to the prison of the unflinching confessor of the Lord, and murder him on the spot. They obeyed: they entered the prison; they cleft his skull with a sword; they took away the life of the body, and slew what he, the slain one, had sworn to count as vile. Miracles soon followed, which testified to the true glory of Hermenegild…”

If it was a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion from the hands of a notorious heretic or excommunicated person then it is a mortal sin now too, and all who claim otherwise with knowledge of the dogmas of the church are excommunicated heretics. Any law that attempts to change this dogmatic law or diminish it in any way is a heretical law that makes a mockery of the blood of Saint Hermenegild.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 2, I answer that: “The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily [such as the heretics or excommunicated], are deprived of the fruit [the unity of the Faith], as was said above (7; 80, 4). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith [the Catholics] are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing [that is, from the heretics or the excommunicated]... [since the] heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even [notoriously] 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.”

Real Catholics (such as St. Hermenegild) absolutely shudders at the thought of that a sacrilegious profanation is committed against our true Lord’s true Body and Blood by an unworthy heretical minister. True Catholics will certainly not be part of this profanation and sacrilege of Our Lord or give their approval of it when this most grievous sin is committed in front of them, as we have just seen.

ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?

But are their any exceptions to this biblical rule of not communicating with heretical ministers in a Sacrament? Yes, there is one. From the very beginning, the Church has only allowed the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism to be received from a heretical minister.

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.”

Not only that, but baptism can in fact be conferred by anyone as long as there is a necessity, and as long as the one getting baptized is wanting to become a Catholic.

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 is an infallible teaching by the Catholic Church.

But there is also another sacrament that the Church permits to be received from heretics—which is the Sacrament of Marriage. But the difference with this sacrament from baptism, however, is that this sacrament is not received from a minister (whether Catholic or heretic), but is rather exchanged between the contracting parties themselves. Hence that the Church does not permit this sacrament to be received from a heretical minister, but only to be received or exchanged between the contracting parties themselves. Again, the priest is not the minister of this sacrament, but acts only as a witness of the sacrament taking place between the contracting parties themselves.

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).”

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to explain:

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. Parish priests are also reminded that it is their strict duty to tell Catholics who ask for information that such going before a [heretical] minister in a religious capacity is unlawful and that they thereby subject themselves to ecclesiastical censure. … When a Catholic party has gone before an heretical minister before coming to the parish priest, the latter cannot be present at the marriage until full reparation has been made.”

Therefore, according to the Church’s teaching as well as that of St. Thomas, since baptism is the only exception that one may receive from a heretical minister in a necessity, it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from them at any point even though you cannot find a Catholic priest.

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].’”

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 and Michael Dimond in the debate and articles. However, this has not been defined by the Church and no such quote has ever been brought forth by Peter or Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery or on their 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.”

As Rev. Szal notes in his book “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics”, on June 17, 1839, The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith forbade the reception of Holy Communion from an heretical priest. A general prohibition against receiving any sacraments from schismatics was issued by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also forbade the use of the services given by schismatics for the conferring of the sacraments. Rev. Szal gives this stunning summary of these decisions as follows:

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

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 in order 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.” (Council of Florence) 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; and guess what — the Eucharist and Penance has never been defined as exceptions! That’s why the objectors cannot actually quote anything to prove this.

All other Catholic Sacraments (such as Penance and the Holy Eucharist) are therefore strictly forbidden under pain of mortal sin to be received from any priest that is a heretic, and it does not matter whether he is declared or undeclared as such or not.

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. That is also why Peter Dimond states 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)

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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “Technically, mixed marriages are those between Catholics and non-Catholics, when the latter have been baptized in some Christian sect. The term is also frequently employed to designate unions between Catholics and infidels. From the very beginning of its existence the Church of Christ has been opposed to such unions. … Hence arose the impediments to a marriage with a heretic (mixta religio) and with an infidel (disparitas cultus). … The Council of Trent therefore in declaring all matrimonial unions between Catholics and non-Catholics null and void, unless entered into before the [lawful and Catholic] ecclesiastical authority… For the issuing of a dispensation for a mixed marriage, the Church requires three conditions; that the Catholic party be allowed free exercise of religion, that all the offspring are to be brought up Catholics and that the Catholic party promise to do all that is possible to convert the non-Catholic. It is not to be supposed, however, that even when these precautions have been taken, this is all the suffices for the issuance of a dispensation. In an instruction to the Bishops of England, 25 March 1869, the Congregation of the Propaganda declared that the above conditions are exacted by the natural and divine law to remove the intrinsic dangers in mixed marriages, but that in addition there must be some grave necessity, which cannot otherwise be avoided, for allowing the faithful to expose themselves to the grave dangers inherent in these unions, even when the prescribed conditions have been fulfilled. The bishops are therefore to warn Catholics against such marriages and not to grant dispensations for them except for weighty reasons and not at the mere will of the petitioner. The latest legislation affecting mixed marriages is that of the decree Ne temere which went into effect 18 April, 1908. By this decree all marriages everywhere in the Latin Church between Catholics and non-Catholics are invalid unless they take place in the presence of an accredited priest and two witnesses, and this even in countries where the Tridentine law was not binding. By a later decree, Provida, the Holy See exempted Germany from the new legislation.”

The point being made (that the only sacrament that one can receive from a heretical priest without committing mortal sin is Baptism), one will not, however, find any other exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments (such as Penance and the Holy Eucharist to be received from heretical or schismatical priests.)

Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery 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.”

See: PETER LIES ABOUT THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

And: PETER’S MIXED MARRIAGE ARGUMENT FAILS UTTERLY

According to the teachings of the Church, heretics and schismatics must be avoided under pain of mortal sin and excommunication. 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.

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES CONDEMNS RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM HERETICS

Especially in the 16th and 17th century, after the protestants had overthrown the authority of the true Church, some protestant countries in Europe actually forced Catholics to go to the churches of heretics. According to Pope Paul V, Catholics in the 17th century had to labor “under the most grievous penalties, to go to the churches of heretics, to frequent their meetings, and be present at their sermons.” If there would be a situation where the Church would allow communicating with heretics or receiving the sacraments from them, one would naturally think that this was one of them. The truth, however, was totally different, as Pope Paul V was “forced to admonish and conjure you [the faithful], that on no account you go to the churches of heretics, or hear their sermons, or join in their rites, lest ye incur the wrath of God; for it is not lawful for you to do such things, without dishonoring God, and hurting your own souls.”

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

On March 23, 1875, because of the rise of the heretical and schismatical sect called “Old Catholics” who denied the dogma of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I, Pope Pius IX issued the encyclical Graves Ac Diuturnae, (# 4): “You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church’s children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice.”

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

In his important encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII made firm the Church’s teaching concerning the unity of the Church, as well as the absolute necessity to not accept - or allow oneself to be - in communion with heretics.

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.”

At this point in time, (1896 A.D.) the Church’s immovable dogma concerning sacramental communion with heretics started to get challenged by a lot of heretics, as did many other dogmas, and this forced Leo XIII to once again repeat this dogma of the Church. This is undoubtedly the main reason why the Church has been moved by the Holy Ghost to repeat this dogma so many times during the Her 2000 year history. This is a fact that must be emphasized, since the tendency of the fallen man is almost always to seek physical and human comfort, friendship and acceptance rather than standing firm with God against heretics, heresy and mortal sin. Thus, when many countries fell away from the Catholic Faith in the diabolical protestant revolution, most people in these countries wanted to fit in with the larger crowd of lost souls who went to heretics for the sacraments, and saw no difference between one Church and another, which in the end led to their eternal damnation.

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

As we all know, the times didn’t get better. Thus, in 1928 A.D., Pope Pius XI had to repeat why “this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics”.

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

MORE ON BROTHER MICHAEL DIMOND AND PETER DIMOND, THEIR BELIEFS, PRACTICES AND HERESIES EXPOSED

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!

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 priestin 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 “REQUIREDFOR 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 enoughthat 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.

Una Cum Masses Exposed and the Te Igitur Prayer Controversy Explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Attending “Una Cum” Masses

What Does the “Una Cum” Prayer Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the other dangers to the faith posed by worshipping with heretics and schismatics, Archbishop Francis Kenrick (Archbishop of Baltimore, 1851–1863) likewise pointed to the recognition of a usurper as another reason for avoiding such services:

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

By the fact that he assists at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist recognizes as pope someone he would otherwise say is a usurper.

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

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

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

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

Can’t I “Withhold My Consent”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Wrong with Participating?

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

  1. Tell a pernicious lie.

  2. Profess communion with heretics.

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

  4. Implicitly profess a false religion.

  5. Condone a violation of Church law.

  6. Participate in a sin.

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

  8. Recognize the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.

  9. Offer an occasion for scandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked factionthis deplorable sectThis sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church.”

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Peter is, there is the Church:

where the Church is, there is eternal life.

Related articles:

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