Some more devastating facts Peter Dimond cannot answer.

PETER LIES ABOUT THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CONSTITUTION 3, ON HERETICS

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

Peter Dimond: “I will close this section on the Fourth Lateran Council by pointing out how the radical schismatics, lacking any cogent response to the devastating facts we just covered, are forced to multiply their irrelevant arguments. They re-quote the following (true) passage from the same decree, even though it’s completely irrelevant to the precise issue we are discussing.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, on Heretics: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.”

“They emphasize that this infallibly condemns all heretics automatically, without declaration, no matter what names they go under. That’s true, and completely irrelevant. Either they are lying or they still haven’t grasped the distinction between: 1) the fact that heretics can be rejected as non-Catholics without declaration; and 2) the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case in the Church’s ecclesiastical law comes with the Church’s “declaration” or “designation,” or if the heretic is so notorious that he cannot conceal his crime in law. #2 is the issue under discussion – not #1; and, as the passages above make abundantly clear, the Fourth Lateran Council clearly teaches that heretics, as well as those suspect of heresy and believers who defend heretics, are to be avoided in accordance with the Church’s declaration, or if someone’s crime is so notorious that it cannot be concealed in law.”

First, the Church’s ecclesiastical law that Peter referred to is not dealing with heretics in regards to religious duties (since this is decided by the divine law), but rather dealing with them specifically in secular affairs. It is the Church’s ecclesiastical laws that, in a necessity, decides to what point or to what extent it is lawful to work under a heretic, follow orders from a heretic, or talk with heretics, etc. It is the Church’s ecclesiastical laws that decides whether it is lawful to do business with a heretic, whether it is lawful to take their property or not, whether it is right to expel them from their lands or not, and whether it is lawful to put them to death or not, etc. St. Thomas Aquinas refers to this:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 11, Art. 3: “… after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion... delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.’”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 66, Art. 8: “I answer that, Robbery implies a certain violence and coercion employed in taking unjustly from a man that which is his. Now in human society no man can exercise coercion except through public authority: and, consequently, if a private individual not having public authority takes another’s property by violence, he acts unlawfully and commits a robbery, as burglars do. … Reply to Objection 2. Unbelievers possess their goods unjustly in so far as they are ordered by the laws of earthly princes to forfeit those goods. Hence these may be taken violently from them, not by private but by public authority.”

Ecclesiastical laws are thus not dealing with the precise issue of being in religious communion with heretics or receiving the sacraments from them because religious duties come under other laws, which are Divine and Dogmatic laws, and they are unchangeable. Pope Leo XIII refers to this on the authority of the Church Fathers:

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.”

Second, Peter seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the Fourth Lateran Council not only condemned all heretics, but that they likewise EXCOMMUNICATED THEM ALL, and made a declaration against them all, precisely so we can know to avoid them.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, on Heretics: “WE EXCOMMUNICATE and anathematize EVERY HERESY raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic Faith which we have expounded above. WE CONDEMN ALL HERETICS, whatever names they may go under.”

And so, since ALL KNOWN HERETICS ARE INFALLIBLY EXCOMMUNICATED in this decree and put outside the Church’s Communion, we sin if we knowingly enter into communion with them DESPITE THE PROHIBITION OF THE CHURCH, which was just expounded above.

An automatic excommunication is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the individual who is excommunicated. Here is a proposition made by the Church condemning just such an assertion:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”

Third, Peter argues that the Fourth Lateran Council teaches that heretics needs a declaration, before they must be avoided. Peter bases this conclusion on the fact that the believers, who receive, defend or support heretics (and who are not known as heretics), needs a declaration before being avoided. Peter claims that these people who are not known as heretics, in fact are heretics, and that the Council ordered us to stay away from these “heretics” only after the declaration.

However, Peter is not content with just wrenching the whole Council out of context in this way, but he must also go on lying about our position in a way that is quite dishonest. Note the bold, italic and underlining below.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Their response centered on the fact that the passage in question mentions “believers who receive, defend or support heretics.” They said that we had misled people because “believers who receive, defend or support heretics” are not necessarily heretics. (As an aside, it’s only in this instance that they say that those who “defend and support” heretics are not heretics. In all other cases, they would quickly denounce such persons as heretics.) They argued that while the Council teaches that believers who receive, defend or support heretics don’t necessarily have to be avoided until “they have been pointed out by the Church,” heretics must be avoided without a declaration. In an attempt to bolster their position, they pointed to another part of the same decree, on those “suspect of heresy.”

So not only does Peter maliciously and despicably claim that we and others would definitely denounce other people as heretics for them simply supporting or defending heretics, but he even goes so far as to claim that this is the ONLY instance in which we would NOT condemn possibly innocent people as heretics without first acquiring some proof of whether this accusation is true or not!

Peter Dimond claims they are heretics
   
“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... this destroys the schismatic position of those who condemn our perfectly Catholic position. It drives a nail in the coffin of the myth that it’s a “dogma” or part of the “divine law” that a Catholic can never knowingly attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, an undeclared heretic.”


Pope Innocent III says they are believers   

“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication BELIEVERS who receive, defend or support heretics... If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church [after the Church’s investigation], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”

As we can see here, the Church would first make an investigation of the acts of the person that is suspected or accused before condemning him as a heretic, but Peter would not.

Only obstinacy, bad will and pride could lead a person to fall into such an erroneous, contradictory and uncharitable position as Peter Dimond sadly has fallen into. His demonic position would actually force Catholics to condemn as heretics people who might not even be heretics! Who has ever heard of such an idiotic teaching before? How many saints would not Peter be forced to condemn as heretics (if he actually took his heretical position to its full extent) simply because they acted charitably towards heretics since they wished them good and that they might be converted? Only God knows. And then he has the nerve to say this: “Frankly, this destroys the schismatic position of those who condemn our perfectly Catholic position.” Peter’s position, which have condemned countless of saints and others who are now in Heaven, is a perfectly heretical and schismatical position. “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2). Peter truly cannot fear God or the last judgment when he makes such outrageous statements.

Please, pray for Peter’s conversion, and send him an e-mail and point out to him the above information, for the hope of his conversion: mhfm1@aol.com