(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Quote from this site: http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/
"DOES ST. THOMAS REALLY TEACH THAT WE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS FROM EXCOMMUNICATED “UNDECLARED” HERETICAL PRIESTS?
Around 47:37-59:06 in the debate; and on his website
Peter Dimond: “St. Thomas Aquinas, did he teach that non-Catholics – or excuse me – that undeclared heretics, could receive communion from a heretic? That someone could receive communion from an undeclared heretic?”
First, St. Thomas doesn’t teach that Catholics can receive communion from known heretics (as we will see). Second, notice how Peter correctly points out that it’s non-Catholics and heretics we’re talking about here (47:40 in the debate!). Peter incredibly actually said that non-Catholics and undeclared heretics could receive communion from heretics! Peter Dimond and his obstinate followers are indeed non-Catholic undeclared heretics. It is very true indeed that heretics can receive communion from heretics, but only unto their own damnation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful [illicit] (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith [like ignorance] would excuse the recipients from sin.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”
So, does St. Thomas really teach that we can receive the sacraments from excommunicated “undeclared heretics” as Peter really claims? In the negative. “No case” actually means no case, but Peter who is willfully ignorant sadly fails to understand this.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 9, Reply to Objection 2: “Some heretics... I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly [Latin: manifeste, i.e. obviously or clearly] cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 5, Reply to Objection 3: “We might also reply that by ‘members of the Dove’ he [St. Augustine] means ALL WHO ARE NOT CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH, for those who receive the sacraments from them, receive grace, whereas those who receive the sacraments from those who are cut off from the Church, do not receive grace, because they sin in so doing, except in the case of Baptism, which, in cases of necessity, may be received even from one who is excommunicate.”
Notice how St. Thomas said above that it’s sinful to receive the sacraments from those who are not “members of the Dove” (i.e. not members of the Church) and from “those who are cut off from the Church”. Heretics are not members of the Church of course, since they are automatically cut off from Her. This totally refutes Peter.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1: “The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.]. WHEREFORE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN EXCOMMUNICATION.”
I think we have proved already that St. Thomas is not agreeing with Peter. But since there are certain passages in St. Thomas’ Summa that Peter erroneously believes agrees with him, more proof is needed. We will now look at those passages.
PETER PERSIST IN HIS ERROR ON ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUPPL. PART, Q. 82, ART. 9
“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “I answer that, As was said above (AA,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. … Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”
The following is Peter’s commentary on the above quote:
Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc. He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.”
Peter is completely wrong when he claims that the above words from St. Thomas is attributed alike to heretics and schismatics because heretics and schismatics have no need for a declaration since they are already automatically excommunicated (from simply falling into heresy) and put outside the Catholic Church and Her Communion by the Divine law (de fide). SINNERS, on the other hand, are not generally excommunicated automatically unless through notoriety by committing grave crimes like concubinage.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): ‘LET NO ONE HEAR THE MASS OF A PRIEST WHOM HE KNOWS WITHOUT DOUBT TO HAVE A CONCUBINE.’”
Now notice how St. Thomas said that those who receive the sacraments from a heretic commits sin: “Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin.” He then goes on to speak about the last category of priests, that is, sinful priests: “But not all who are sinners...” and says that some of the sinners (not heretics) must first be formally excommunicated before one must avoid them for the sacraments.
St. Thomas clearly divides the priests into four different categories when he mentions “heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests” and then concludes that “not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power”. It’s clear that he’s here trying to distinguish between sins that debars people automatically from using this power to perform the Eucharistic rite, such as concubinage, with the other sins that do not, referring to the lesser crimes Catholic priests can commit without being automatically suspended or excommunicated as a consequence of their sin.
Therefore, when St. Thomas mentioned that it was “lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass” until the Church’s sentence has been pronounced, he was not referring to heretics or schismatics, but specifically to tolerated sinful, undeclared Catholic priests. That should be absolutely obvious to any honest person of good will reading this document.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 64, Art. 6, Reply to Objection 2: “He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister of the Church [a Catholic priest], not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church [remember, heretics are not ministers of the Church]. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him [Catholic sinful priest], does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, HE THAT RECEIVES A SACRAMENT FROM HIM SINS, BECAUSE HE COMMUNICATES IN HIS SIN.”
This quote is essentially identical to the other one we saw before. But the difference in this quote from the former is that he here did not mention anything about heretical or schismatical priests, thus helping people (such as Peter) to avoid any possible confusion and what St. Thomas could have meant.
In the above quotation it is self evident that St. Thomas did not intend to include heretics in his other statement or that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from them because St. Thomas said that we “receives it [the sacrament] from a minister of the Church... as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry”. However heretics are not tolerated by the Church nor ministers of Her, hence that St. Thomas couldn’t have referred to heretics as Peter claims.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside [he who is a heretic] can command in the Church [have jurisdiction].”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
So these facts totally demolishes Peter’s position on St. Thomas. Peter simply couldn’t have been more wrong, as usual.
|Posted Aug 8, 2012, 3:57 pm
Ignored by: 0