Author Topic: Most Holy Family Monastery TELLS PEOPLE TO SIN EXPOSED!!!!!! (Read 13809 times)

holymystery · « **on:** July 29, 2012, 08:38:11 AM »

This text exposes Most Holy Family Monastery and Peter and Michael Dimond and is from what I understand the issue or reason why this guy that they were sued by in court left the monastery, that is, the mortal sin of taking sacraments from/with heretics that the Dimonds do.

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

The cowards following the Dimonds all hide now. Please show this to other people that MHFM have deceived so that other people can see how the Dimonds lie and contradict themselves. The Dimonds actually have the satanic boldness to say that one should make others commit mortal sin in order to get the sacraments and did in the debate with Eli that this article talks about totally ignore the devastating argument Eli demolished Peter Dimond on that heretics commit a mortal sin when giving out the sacraments. This is how all liars like Peter works. They just ignore the facts and play the coward and run away and hide when they have no answer since they know they are lying.

Excerpt from the article exposing the Dimonds:

"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

Quote

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 (or perhaps lie):

“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, 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 Penance 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."

Read the whole article here to see how the Dimonds lie and deceive people:
http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/

holymystery · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2012, 05:33:03 PM »

Is there no one who knew about the Dimonds blatant and obvious admission of how they make others sin mortally? They admit it, yet no one seems to care. Don't anyone have something to say and condemn in their behavior? Here's some more quotes from saints:

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

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

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

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

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

Origen (2rd century)

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

St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Athanasius (296-373)

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

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

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

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

St. Ambrose (340-397)

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

St. Paphnutius (4th century)

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

St. Jerome (c. 340-420)

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

St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century)

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

Pope St. Leo the Great (5th century)

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

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

St. Hermenegild (6th century)

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

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

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

St. John Damascene (676-749)

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

St. John the Almsgiver (7th Century)

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

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

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

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

Blessed Margaret Clitherow (1556-1586)

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

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716)

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

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

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

Catechist99 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2012, 12:49:51 PM »

I think most people on this site and several other traditional sites are fully aware that the Dimonds are not real Catholics. They are Calvinists parading as Catholics. I've viewed many of their videos and they do teach blatant heresy. The true faithful would have no interest in the Dimonds because they clearly are teaching lies.

We have a Magisterium that interprets scripture and tradition for us. We don't need the Dimonds or Brother Nathanael. ABL NEVER taught that we should listen to private interpretations of scripture. He dedicated his life to fighting heresy and apostasy. There are still good faithful bishops and priests left in the SSPX.

Don't despair and turn to false teachers. Remember the admonitions of Our Lord on this topic of the many false teachers and false christs that would come in the final days. We ARE in the final days.

Stay away from HFM, Bro Nathanael, Mayan calendar, 2012 prophecies, and any 3 days of darkness prophecies that do not have credible episcopal approval.

Remember the words of Our Lord and the saints, especially Our Lady. First the apostasy, then the great world war, then the AntiChrist.

Forget the Dimonds. You would do better to watch Bp. Williamson videos. Or better yet study Our Lady of Fatima and dedicate yourself to spreading the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

holymystery · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2012, 10:57:14 AM »

Well, I agree that the Dimonds are heretics, as I have shown. But I agree with the Dimonds on much other stuff and am a sede too. MHFM mostly follow the dogmas of the church, but not when it concerns taking sacraments from heretics, as I have shown.

La Sallette clearly said: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.” And this is what we see now, although a lot of people still remain in communion with them. SSPX and their priests hold that members of false religions can be saved, sadly, and I cannot go to their churches since they are not sedevacantists. I wanted to hear about people who had opinions about this dogmatic topic at hand however, for MHFM can be proven to be heretics by dogmas in this case. Is there some who have held the position of MHFM and then repented? Perhaps after reading the text here?

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

Please tell me if you have any thoughts on this theological topic that is discussed here.

Clint · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:59:24 AM »

Where do the Dimond's go to mass and to get the sacraments?

Ascetik · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:07:35 PM »

"SSPX and their priests hold that members of false religions can be saved, sadly, and I cannot go to their churches since they are not sedevacantists."

I have never met or even heard of any SSPX priest who believes such an absurd notion, since the SSPX was founded to combat that particular heresy by Abp Lefebvre.

If you really think the SSPX believes that then you don't know the position of the SSPX.

Pius IX · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:11:27 PM »

The Dimonds are wrong about Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

roscoe · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2012, 03:18:44 PM »

Dimonds are among the libelers of Card Rampolla.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2012, 04:26:17 PM »

Quote from: Ascetik

"SSPX and their priests hold that members of false religions can be saved, sadly, and I cannot go to their churches since they are not sedevacantists."

I have never met or even heard of any SSPX priest who believes such an absurd notion, since the SSPX was founded to combat that particular heresy by Abp Lefebvre.

If you really think the SSPX believes that then you don't know the position of the SSPX.

From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________
!
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Pius IX · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2012, 04:54:05 PM »

Nadie do you believe in BOD with explicit Faith and perfect charity?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:04:58 PM »

Quote from: Pius IX

Nadie do you believe in BOD with explicit Faith and perfect charity?

Do you limit that description to only the BOD of the catechumen who is justified but dies before he can be baptized,?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:31:57 PM »

Quote from: holymystery

...the issue .... the mortal sin of taking sacraments from/with heretics that the Dimonds do.

Where do the Dimond's go to mass and to get the sacraments?

Ascetik · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:52:25 PM »

So two quotes from the Archbishop means the entire SSPX is heretical? That doesn't make sense. I've never even seen this quote before and I've been studying the SSPX for a long time.

I highly doubt the archbishop believed it in the way you are proposing to his dying grave. He constantly spoke of the errors of the Vatican II council.

“No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the (visible) Catholic Church,
but those who are saved, even outside the (visible emphasis mine) Catholic Church, are saved by
the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know
it, even if they are unaware of it…” (Sermon, Geneva, 1976).

Even St. Thomas Aquinas believed that, he used Aristotle all the time.

You need to quote contextually, which you have not done:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:

“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]

I believe Saint Augustine holds the same position, I would have to find the quote, it's been a long time.

Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…” [Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213]

Saint Augustine made the distinction that, as long as an individual does not assent to the false doctrines of another religion, there can be a possibility of salvation, not by that religion, but in that religion as a group of people and the teachings which are in accord with the good and the will of God.

We have to be very careful about making blanket statements about what Abp Lefebvre was saying, you cannot look at what he says in a vacuum.

Pius IX · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:55:39 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Pius IX
Nadie do you believe in BOD with explicit Faith and perfect charity?

Do you limit that description to only the BOD of the catechumen who is justified but dies before he can be baptized,?

I hold however Holy Mother Church and her theologians teach it.

Also, I believe that the Dimonds avail themselves to Eastern Rite, non-sedevacantist clerics for the sacraments.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:50:13 PM »

Quote from: Pius IX

Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote from: Pius IX
Nadie do you believe in BOD with explicit Faith and perfect charity?

Do you limit that description to only the BOD of the catechumen who is justified but dies before he can be baptized,?

I hold however Holy Mother Church and her theologians teach it.

Whatever