If you have a infallible teaching that says that there must always be at least a bishop or priest in the church, please quote it. I don't know of any such teaching however. If you want to claim there are aliens of mars, I don't have to prove that there no mars men on mars, but you must prove it. Likewise, you must quote that there must be bishops and priests for the church to continue.

If there must always be at least a priest and bishop somewhere in the world to continue apostolic succession, then he is somewhere. If you want to claim that we must always know a priest or a bishop personally, that is completely false and easily refuted. The church and its members had to suffer without priests and bishops countless times when whole countries apostatised, and thus, people in this country knew no priest or bishop during this time. The arian crisis is a good example, but there is many more.

I don't think you read what I said. Fallible speculation without dogmatic evidence is not church teaching:

"If you have a infallible teaching that says that there must always be at least a bishop or priest in the church, please quote it. I don't know of any such teaching however. If you want to claim there are aliens of mars, I don't have to prove that there are no mars men on mars, but you must prove it. Likewise, you must quote that there must be bishops and priests for the church to continue."

If there must always be at least a priest and bishop somewhere in the world to continue apostolic succession, then he is somewhere. Prophecies say that St Peter will come down from heaven and chose the new Pope after the 3 days of darkness and the church will continue to grow again, St Peter thus continuing the succession. If you want to claim that we must always know a priest or a bishop personally, that is completely false and easily refuted. The church and its members had to suffer without priests and bishops countless times when whole countries apostatised, and thus, people in this country knew no priest or bishop during this time. The arian crisis is a good example, but there is many more.

Among the great problem dogmatic sedevacantists face is their incorrect understanding of the rule of faith, as it was known and practiced by Catholics for nearly 20 centuries before them. Also, in failing to understand that the vast majority of Church teachings are not infallible but which still require and command assent from the faithful, the contrary proposition already condemned by Pope Pius IX. Your statements also reveal you don't understand what the Magisterium is, or how and in what way and form its ordinary and universal authority is exercised.

Anyway, whatever, if quote-mining is all you're interested in, here's an Ecuмenical Council,

So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

It was the Vatican Council, under Pope Pius IX. I'm surprised someone who evidently thinks he is one of the very last few Catholics on earth would not recognize it.

Once again, could we get back to the topic that I started. I will try to answer any questions that I can in order to help people get out of this heresy that the Dimonds are deceiving people with. If someone don't agree with what I have presented about the Dimonds, please present evidence that proves it wrong if you can and I will answer.

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[5],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 docuмent.

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.

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

"THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL

Around 18:27-19:46 in the debate; and on his website

To better understand the meaning of this section of the debate, we need first to look at how the Dimonds present this quotation on their website.

The perverted, out of context decree with perverted out of context commentary, as presented by the deceiving heretics Peter and Michael Dimond:

“Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics […] If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”” (The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times)

The above decree in the way Peter has presented it along with his erroneous commentary actually tells his readers that they may approach an undeclared heretic until the Church has pointed him out.

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “Of course, we want to stress, once again, that none of these points are meant to suggest that one may attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, every undeclared heretic. As we point out, it depends on the undeclared heretic. He must meet certain conditions: he must be validly ordained, using a traditional rite, he cannot be imposing, notorious, etc. But this disproves the schismatic position of those who say that it’s heretical and mortally sinful to teach that one may receive Communion from or attend the Mass of any priest one recognizes to be a heretic.”

As we can see, Peter was using the above decree that was talking about suspects of heresy to somehow refer to known heretics. An even more clearer example of this can be seen in his next quote:

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “If, as the radical schismatics say, it were the teaching of the divine law that one may never receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) SOMEONE ONE RECOGNIZES TO BE A HERETIC, the Fourth Lateran Council would not have legislated as it did. It would have decreed that one must avoid such persons and clerics as soon as one recognizes that they receive, defend or support heretics. It wouldn’t have said ‘after they have been pointed out by the Church.’ Those who receive, defend or support heretics are, in many cases, undeclared heretics. People don’t tend to ‘receive, defend or support heretics’ unless they are heretics themselves, of course.”

We will now examine the Fourth Lateran Council to see whether it is agreeing with us or with Peter and to find out whether he is lying here or not.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council (Tanner Edition): “Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics.”

Alright, the pope just said that those believers (not heretics) who receive defend or support heretics are to be excommunicated.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: “We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated,”

Keep in mind that we are still talking about non-heretical believers.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, continued: “We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, docuмents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”

When reading it in context one can clearly see that the cleric mentioned was not a heretic, but a believer who has been excommunicated for in some way helping a heretic. However, Peter and Michael Dimond present the decree in the following way on their website: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or SUPPORT HERETICS […] IF HOWEVER, HE IS A CLERIC...” By cutting out the above information, and by claiming that it is referring to heretics, Peter makes people believe that the cleric the Council talks about is heretical and that the obligation to avoid the priest comes with a declaration: “If any refuse to avoid such persons AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”

Do you see how clearly the Dimonds have perverted the meaning of this council? The Dimonds and other heretics want it to speak about heretics since it suits their purpose of going to other heretics for the sacraments, but anyone but a liar can see that it is not speaking about a heretic, but a believer “who receive, defend or support heretics.”

There are two major important points to understand here. The first point is that supporting, defending or receiving heretics aren’t evil actions in themselves, but rather charitable if done rightly. The second point is that a believer can be in good faith regarding heretics. Helping a heretic doesn’t necessarily mean that the person agreed with the heretic or that he himself was a heretic or that he even knew he was helping a heretic. That’s why the council declares these people as “believers,” who “receive, defend or support heretics...” Obviously, one cannot declare someone else as a heretic until one has evidence that this is true.

There are many examples one could give to show that a believer who receive, defend or even support heretics, isn’t heretical himself.

    For can a believer receive a heretic into his home for the purpose of converting him? Of course he can!

    Can the same believer in good faith and charity have compassion on a heretic who doesn’t have the means to financially support himself or his family? Absolutely! (The believer should of course, if he is aware of this person’s heresy, wish to use this charity or support as a carrot or incentive in order to bring the heretic, schismatic or apostate back into the Church again.)

    And, can a believer be in material heresy regarding a doctrine of the Church and unknowingly, defend the heretical position of a heretic? Absolutely!

As we can see here, these actions by the believer were neither heretical nor schismatical but charitable if done in good faith. A believer can thus do well towards others without even understanding that he actually might cause harm or give greater scandal. That’s why, according to the said council, they (the supporters etc.) are to be avoided ONLY after they have been pointed out by the Church, and their true intention has been revealed.

That is why it’s extremely dishonest for Peter to use the Fourth Lateran Council as an argument for receiving communion or confession from an obstinately, heretical priest because the Council clearly doesn’t teach that. Just because one supports a heretic doesn’t mean that one is a heretic as Peter makes it out to be. Not even the Council defined them as heretics, and yet Peter has the stomach to call them heretics by his own authority? It is indeed very sad and disgusting to see a grown up man lying without any problem."