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."