Here is some great quotes from a site that expose the satanic heresies of Most Holy Family Monastery which proves that the Dimonds admit that they make other commit mortal sin when receiving the sacraments. The evidence is very revealing and as far as I know none to this day have even tried to answer these charges of heresy of the Dimonds or their followers, even though this article is well spread. All refuse to deal with them and go and hide, even though they can talk about alot of other catholic things. All followers of the Dimonds are utter phonies and cowards:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/

"PETER LIES ABOUT THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

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

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

Peter Dimond: “They argue that this

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

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

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

Let us now examine his lies and refute them thoroughly.

Peter Dimond’s first statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we shall look at Peter’s third lie:

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

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

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

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

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

First quote:

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

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

Second quote:

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

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

Third Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continues:

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

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

St. Thomas Aquinas answers this question for us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/

Perhaps you missed, Belloc, that this person is even more extreme than the Dimonds, it could be David Landry or someone associated with him. He is saying you can't ever receive the sacraments from undeclared heretics, which is wrong.

Are you a home-aloner, sir?

Am I the only one who thinks that Exposed, holymystery, and catholicdoctrine are all the same person?

And yes, it might be David Hobson.

Please cite where Ad evitanda says anything about heretics.  It never mentions heretics and if you would have read what I gave you, you would have seen that this pathetic argument has been demolished long ago by St. Robert Bellarmine. Please cite where I took things out of context. Claiming another person takes a quotation out of context without providing evidence of this accusation is clearly unacceptable. St Thomas clearly say that baptism is the only sacrament that can be dispensed in necessity.

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

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.”

Here is the quote from the refutation of Ad evitanda from the text I gave you. Please read the whole text before you add another already refuted argument and please answer then if you want.

"PETER LIES ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE (AD EVITANDA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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