In this article, we will expose some of the errors and heresies of Peter and Michael Dimond of “Most Holy Family Monastery” (MHFM). For our most recent article refuting Peter and Michael Dimond’s lies and dishonesties on receiving sacraments from heretics in the debate and on their website “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate” – The Important Quotes, CLICK HERE. For our other article refuting their (and other people’s) heretical position of knowingly approaching heretical or even apostate priests for the sacraments, CLICK HERE. This article will show you things that the Dimonds want to hide from you. Most of the information on this page will be unclear to most people unless you first read this article.
Because none of them were ever ordained, and they believe that the New Mass is invalid and a false worship, they receive the sacraments from a Byzantine rite “Catholic Church” that is in communion with Vatican II and its antipopes, in Rochester, New York, in layman’s clothes in lieu of their Benedictine habits for this occasion in order not to evoke scandal. Peter Dimond wrote: “In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I’ve received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces.” (The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times)
So, since the Dimonds are obstinate in their position of knowingly approaching heretical or apostate priests for mass and the sacraments, and since they have refused to change position, and because they publicly teach this heresy on their site and to the people who asks them about it (where to go to mass), we have now been forced to publicly expose their heretical position, for the help and enlightenment of those whom they may have deceived. In the past, they had rejected several debate offers from us, and had also refused to even address any of our arguments. However, while they have refused to answer any of our arguments directed at exposing them and their position, they have nevertheless had time to attack and slander us in e-mail exchanges between us and them, dealing on different subjects, as we will see below:
MHFM: “You are a wicked, lying heretic. YOU ARE LIAR AND A FRAUD... STOP WASTING OUR TIME YOU DISGRACEFUL HERETIC, HEADED FOR EVERLASTING DAMNATION IN THE BOWELS OF HELL... WE ARE SICK OF YOU... YOU LYING HYPOCRITE PHONY... SERVANT OF SATAN...”
To just make an e-mail filled with curses without even trying to answer one single argument is disgraceful beyond words! Here follows another unpleasant e-mail from Peter Dimond. After I received this last e-mail from him, he blocked me:
Peter Dimond: “You’d be demolished in a debate... You know nothing about the Catholic faith... You are too stupid and uncreative to produce anything... That’s why you have to steal everything from us and others, you non-Catholic, headed for Hell criminal... The only reason we wouldn’t debate you is because you only want to do it to promote your criminal operation... You want to use us to promote your criminal outfit and websites... and we don’t let plagiarizers use our forum to spread their stolen material...
You don’t even put your name, but we know your address... Don’t waste our time anymore, you schismatic, clueless, demonic, loser headed for Hell...
By the way, you wouldn’t call me a sissy to my face, you punk...”
-Bro. Peter Dimond
(By the way, Peter finally agreed to a debate with us. Please read this article exposing his lies and dishonesties: THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED
There’s only one word for such infantile behavior: disgraceful. He would demolish me in a debate, yet refuse to debate with me? Of course, he never uses this tone in his own e-mail exchange, wonder why? Also notice how Peter Dimond numerous times judged us and called us for thieves. And for what reason did he call us thieves? He called us thieves because we were using and promoting their own material; their films and their articles, and all for the salvation of souls! and because we have “copied” it, which he calls “stealing”! These people are thus claiming ownership of God’s truth (in the things which they do teach rightly) which is truly an abominable thing to do since no one can claim particular ownership of God’s revealed truths. Also notice how he numerous times judged our intentions (which he possibly cannot have any knowledge of) to be purely evil and of bad motives only (as if spreading their material would be a “crime” according to the Dimonds). This is a clear mortal sin for the Dimonds to presume to know why we do something. When a person loves his own opinions or interpretations too much, there’s really not much one could say to him that would make him change his position. We have told them many times that our intention when using their material is to help souls in knowing the truth about Vatican II, and of course, to save souls. However, they have refused to accept this explanation from us and still claims and obstinately holds as opinion (as if it were the truth) that our only intention is theft, plagiarizing, propagating stolen material and promoting our criminal outfit and websites. O Lord God, help us to overcome such pride! We still want to spread their material (the material which contains no error and which have been corrected by us) for the salvation of souls. They may continue to judge us falsely and call us for thieves, as long as God will have patience with such utter and despicable pride and bad will, but the truth is, and God knows it, that our intentions are good.
The Dimonds also rightly criticize people who use fallible sources to try to prove their position. However, the Dimonds themselves have built their whole case and argument (of receiving the sacraments from heretics and telling others to do the same) - not on the infallible Magisterium of the Church - but mostly on the fallible theories and speculations of saints and theologians. However, even these few saints and theologians that they try to quote to prove their erroneous position, doesn’t even agree with their heretical position (except perhaps for John de Lugo). The Dimonds also knowingly twist their words out of context to support their sacrilegious position. See St. Thomas Aquinas, The 1917 Code of Canon Law, etc., etc...
Peter and Michael Dimond also knowingly misquote and pervert the Fourth Lateran Council by cutting out the relevant parts that when taken in context, actually refutes their heretical position. And then they have the stomach to claim the Council refers to heretics even though it never spoke about heretical individuals! They make this totally mortally sinful distortion in this despicable and desperate manner since their heretical position might seem to hold more weight to others if at least one Council seemed to agree with their heretical position. However, the truth is that no Pope or no Council ever agrees with them or supports them.
Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae (#29-31), April 13, 1791: “Keep as far from you as possible all intrusion and schism... Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”
These facts alone should prove to any honest person that Peter and Michael Dimond in fact are not Catholics - but sad heretics - who knowingly misquote, pervert and distort saints, theologians and even councils to try to prove their false, evil, and heretical position.
Peter and Michael Dimond also falsely argues that the Council of Constance’s decree Ad Evitanda Scandala gives credence to their sacrilegious position of receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics and schismatics. But the Dimonds are dishonest about this decree as well because the decree doesn’t even speak about heretics or even mentions the word heresy anywhere. As has been proven here, Ad Evitanda Scandala is not referring to any heretics at all but refers specifically to sinners and Catholics of various kinds. Hence that this decree is about Catholics and not about automatically excommunicated non-Catholics or heretics. But the Dimonds (who are of bad will) just refuse to understand such simple logic (even after correction) that many others (who are not of bad will) immediately understand. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine and The Holy Office also commented on the Council of Constance’s decree Ad Evitanda Scandala, but they never included the heretics or said that it was lawful to commune with them as the Dimonds do, and St. Robert Bellarmine and The Holy Office even refuted those who claimed it referred to the heretics or religious communion with them! (click the above blue link and scroll down a bit if you want to see the quotes and their commentary on the council).
But what is worse still and even more treacherous and evil from the Dimond brothers’ side is that they teach their lies and distortions to other people - as if it actually were the true and Catholic position - when it clearly is not! Greater abomination or evil can hardly be imagined! For the Dimonds are leading countless of people back into the jaws of heretics and schismatics—thus making them to profess communion WITH THE GATES OF HELL—with these heretical and schismatical evil priests and laymen that are enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church! “Most Holy Family Monastery” are thus fooling people back to the devil and his apostate church! They do this by telling their followers that they are not really in communion with these heretics and schismatics even though they pray in communion with them and receive the sacraments from them at their own mass!
That people actually fall for this is really sad to think about. But if a person doesn’t know about the Faith well enough, then that person is inclined to put his trust in other people that seem more trustworthy and more knowledgeable than himself. And Peter and Michael Dimond indeed seem to have authority and to be trustworthy in that they seem to teach almost everything right. However, the truth is that they sadly have heresies mixed with all these truths. That is what makes them so extremely deadly and dangerous since most of their followers would believe them in whatever they would say or teach (that would seem reasonable). That is why most of them without question (at the Dimond brother’s advice) enter the churches of heretics and approach heretical priests to receive the sacraments 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 meetinghouses of heretics] is unholy.’”
So the Church clearly condemns Peter and Michael Dimond for eating the Lamb “outside of this house” (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics, and for telling others to do the same.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitium (# 9): “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.”
Other errors, mortally sinful distortions, heresies and major heretical objections from Most Holy Family Monastery (and from others like them who also knowingly approach the churches of heretics and prays in communion with them and receives the sacraments from them), have been dealt with thoroughly and are exposed in this (general) and this (specifically against the Dimonds) article; all for the hope of these peoples’ eternal conversion. However, they will also be exposed briefly in detail in this article, which will deal more specifically on the Dimonds, and their contradictions, and their lies.
Michael and Peter Dimond are heretics for denying the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics:
III Council Of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”
Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “... 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...”
The Dimonds knowingly attend Mass at “meetinghouses (churches) of the heretics” and thus knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics. They attend Mass at an Eastern Rite church that is under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II church. They admit that the priests and most of the people in the church where they attend Mass (and in other churches where they tell their followers they can attend Mass) are notorious, known heretics:
Peter and Michael Dimond, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Issue #5, Final Remarks, p. 65: “The sad reality of this situation—which Antipope John Paul II [Benedict XVI or currently Francis] and his cohorts have created—means that those who accept him, follow him, or defend him, while disregarding the facts presented in this magazine and the other available evidence which exposes him as an Antipope (and even the Antichrist himself), will lose their souls and be tortured in Hell for all eternity.”
Peter Dimond, E-mail conversation: “The priest where we go to Mass knows what we believe, and the people who go there have had the information made available to them.”
By Peter’s own admission, then, these priests and laymen at the church where he attends Mass have no excuse for invincible ignorance because Peter presented them with the evidence of the heresies and the dogmas that condemn the heresies. Therefore, those who had not believed the truth are notorious heretics, as Peter admits elsewhere:
Peter Dimond, E-mail conversation: “Catholics may only attend Mass at Catholic churches. We have never taught or believed anything else. The churches that we say that Catholics can attend Mass at and receive the sacraments from (e.g., the SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Eastern Rite churches, independent priests, etc.) are Catholic churches, even though the priests and certainly a number of the people who go there are heretics.”
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.”
Michael Dimond, Can Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today?: “My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest [that is, heretical priests] who accepts Benedict XVI as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you are not going for the Mass. You are merely going to the church to receive Communion and confession. I have advised people to deliberately arrive at the Mass late because you are there merely to receive the sacraments and for nothing else. As far as praying with the people, I have told people that they should pray by themselves until Communion is given. When you see that the priest is about to give Communion, one could then go into the main part of the church to receive Communion.”
When or where has the Church ever endorsed such strange, contradictory behavior that the Dimonds are advocating here? Nowhere!
Council of Laodicea, Canon 33 (A.D. 364): “No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.”
Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 45: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.”
Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 65: “If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.”
Therefore, by Peter and Michael Dimond’s own admission, they knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics and tell others they can do the same. But Peter illogically and heretically refers to these churches as Catholic churches in spite of the fact that, as he admits, the priests and many of the people in these churches are notorious heretics. One wonders what Peter thinks it takes to make a Catholic church a non-Catholic church.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”
For more information, please see: Is a heretical Novus Ordo “Church” or a heretical “Traditional Catholic Church” different from the Eastern “Orthodox”?
Although Peter implies that these churches he approach and tells others to approach are Catholic churches or churches different from the other non-Catholic heretical churches (such as the Eastern “Orthodox”), yet, in another hypocritical twist, Peter implies that these churches are not Catholic churches, but are indeed meetinghouses of the heretics because he teaches that no one can give these churches financial support without committing mortal sin:
Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “This is why we have taken pains to strenuously point out to those who attend the Masses of the SSPV (or the C.M.R.I., Society of St. Pius X, Byzantine churches, and almost all independent ‘traditional’ priests, etc. who believe the same way) that they cannot give them any financial support under pain of mortal sin, for this would actually constitute a denial of the faith by donating to a heretical organization.”
Peter’s teaching, that financial support must not be given to these churches or to any of the churches under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II Church, can only be true if these churches are not Catholic churches, because it is a mortal sin for Catholics not to financially support their local Catholic churches. Indeed, the Catholic Church decrees that Catholics are forbidden to give financial support to heretical or non-Catholic churches:
A Practical Commentary, on Canon 1258, vol. I, p. 65: “It has been declared that a Catholic may not contribute money towards the building of an heretical church, or give his work gratis.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics.”
By teaching that one cannot financially support these churches, Peter implies that they are heretical, non-Catholic churches in the same way that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are non-Catholic churches. Elsewhere Peter explicitly admits this:
Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation: “God allowed the Catholic Buildings, Seminaries and Schools to be taken away and confiscated by a counterfeit non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect), with apostate priests, perverts, a phony “Mass” (the New Mass) and an apostate antipope...”
By Peter’s own admission, and speaking out of one side of his mouth, he teaches that these churches where he and others attend Mass are indeed heretical, non-Catholic churches, and thus the meetinghouses of heretics. He also admits that the priests and most of the people in these churches are heretics. Yet, speaking out of the other side of his mouth, Peter says that he does not go into the meetinghouses of the heretics to pray in communion with them:
Peter Dimond, speaking on behalf of Michael Dimond and MHFM: “Let it be known, however, that we don’t pray in common with heretics. I don’t join my prayer with any heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to do so, but only true Catholics... I repeat that I don’t pray or sing psalms with heretics... Moreover, as I said before, I don’t go into the meeting houses of heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to.” (E-mail conversation)
Although the Dimonds like to argue that they’re not praying in communion with heretics or schismatics or assisting at their mass (by their presence of acknowledgment) in the heretical church they attend, they are nevertheless forced to admit this fact publicly at their website:
Questions and Answers: “Question 39 – Can one serve the altar at the SSPX?
“Dear Brothers Dimond, Since it is okay to attend an SSPX [Mass] to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic, what about altar serving or assisting in the choir?”
MHFM: “One definitely should not serve the altar at the SSPX. This is because in serving the altar one is directly assisting the priest who is praying in union with Antipope John Paul II [Benedict XVI or Francis] and the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop.”
1) In their above statement, the Dimonds rightly imply that it is a mortal sin against the faith to assist a heretic in false religious services or to knowingly pray in communion with heretics. They say, “One definitely should not serve the altar at the SSPX... in serving the altar one is directly assisting the priest who is praying in union with Antipope John Paul II and the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop.” How then, do the Dimonds escape the same guilt? They also knowingly attend Mass at a non-Catholic church and assist the heretical priest and laymen at that church with their presence of support and by praying in communion with the heretical priest and laymen who in turn prays in communion with the Vatican II antipope and its local bishop. The Dimonds attempt to evade guilt by teaching that during the Mass the laymen do not assist or pray in communion with the priest who prays in communion with the Antipope—only the altar boys do.
When and where does the Church teach that the altar boys and not the laymen assist or pray in communion with the priest and the pope and the local bishop? One wonders if the Dimonds think the altar rail blocks the prayers of the laymen from reaching the priest so that the laymen are not assisting the priest by their praying in communion with him who in turn prays in communion with the Antipope! What, then, becomes of the prayers of the priest offered for the laymen present at his Mass (a mass which the Dimonds even knowingly attend). Does the altar rail block the priest’s prayers also? Again the Dimonds have made up their own faith to accommodate their heresies and other errors.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”
According to the Church’s teaching (as we will see below), the laity assist actively at Mass, and in so doing, manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the sacrifice. Indeed, moral unity with the priest is required to fulfill the Sunday obligation.
The Fathers of the Church, Pope Innocent III, and indeed Pope Pius XII himself in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites, even though they do not vocally recite these prayers themselves.
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, 3.6: “Not only do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.”
In Mediator Dei, his great encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Pius XII treats at great length the role that the laity play in offering the Holy Sacrifice.
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 93), November 20, 1947: “The people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and the same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 84), November 20, 1947: “Moreover, the rites and prayers of the Eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the offering of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: ‘Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;’ but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same.”
Thus there is no way for the sedevacantist to avoid it. The same active assistance at Mass required for fulfilling your Sunday obligation also inextricably joins you to the action of a priest at the altar. But what is worse, if the priest proclaims during the Canon that he offers the sacrifice together with Thy servant Francis, our Pope — the arch-heretic and false pope Bergoglio, the priest’s prayer is your prayer.
When the Holy Office in 1753 issued a prohibition against common worship with Greek schismatics, the first reason given was “especially because they commemorate the [heretical and schismatical] Patriarch of Constantinople.” (Holy Office, Decree Mission. Tenos In Peloponneseo (10 May 1753), Fontes 4:804)
Also, in 1636 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed that Catholics are not only banned from singing an acclamation for the schismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople but added that since the Patriarchs were also heretics they deserved to be cursed instead. (Rev. Szal, Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Canon Law Studies 264, Washington, CUA 1948, p. 182.)
As we have seen, a Catholic actively assists at a Mass by his presence when it is celebrated. This is a true form of active assistance or participation, and according to Catholic teaching constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”
Council of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 363-364): “The members of the Church are not allowed to meet... any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”
One falls deeper and deeper and becomes more illogical when, because of pride, he does not admit he is wrong. We challenge the Dimonds to produce a Church teaching which says that during Mass either the laymen do not assist or pray in communion with the priest or only the altar boys assist or pray in communion with the priest. If the Dimonds were to admit that the laymen do pray in communion with the priest during Mass, then the Dimonds would also have to admit that they themselves pray in communion with heretics because, by their own admission, they attend Mass at a non-Catholic Vatican II church (a meetinghouse of heretics) in which the priest is a heretic who prays in communion with the apostate antipope and local bishop. The Dimonds attend Mass at an Eastern Rite church that is in communion with Vatican II and Benedict XVI: St. Josaphat’s, in Rochester, New York.
Only if a person unknowingly entered a church building of the heretics or schismatics to pray and receive the sacraments would his prayer not be in communion with them. The same must be said in a fully Catholic Church where some attendants might be occult heretics; his prayers would neither be in communion with them. Also if a person were forced against his will to enter a church building of the heretics or schismatics and he prayed to God in that church, would his prayer not be in communion with them since it was against his will to even enter their heretical church building to begin with. Another example would be if a person entered a heretical church - but not to hear mass or receive the sacraments from them - but for the reason of converting them to the true Catholic faith. His prayers would neither be in communion with these heretics. But this same cannot be said when a person culpably and willingly enters the churches of the heretics or schismatics for the sole motive of receiving the sacraments from them, or in other words, to participate in sacramental communion with them.
2) The Dimonds also heretically believe that some SSPX priests (who are heretical priests) in these latter days of the Great Apostasy may not be considered notorious heretical priests that must be avoided for communion. Most if not all of the SSPX priests are heretics on several counts. I will only list two counts:
a) The SSPX priests are notorious heretics because their sect denies the Salvation Dogma; hence all SSPX priests must be presumed to deny the dogma. Indeed, every SSPX priest I have spoken with denies the Salvation Dogma. If they did not deny this dogma, they would be kicked out of the SSPX. If they did not deny the dogma but kept their belief secret so as to remain in the SSPX, then this would also make them guilty of heresy because Catholics must not only believe a dogma in their heart but also profess it when the situation demands it. That is why the early Christians who denied the faith when tortured fell outside the Catholic Church. Although they believed in Christ in their hearts, they outwardly denied Him under torture and thus became guilty of apostasy with the added mortal sins of hypocrisy and scandal. These apostates were known as lapsed Christians (lapsi) and had to abjure to re-enter the Catholic Church.
It is true that there might be a priest that is a material heretic somewhere in these churches, but it is also true that even protestant churches might have people that are material heretics (as long as they do not reject the essential mysteries or the natural law (which one cannot be ignorant about)), but these scenarios are very unlikely. However, we must judge on what we see, not on anything else.
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”
Please consult the following sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas, and whether such a person as described above is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:
b) The SSPX sect does not condemn the manifest heresies and other crimes of the Vatican II Church and does not properly denounce its notorious heretical antipope, bishops, and priests. The SSPX has no excuse for not fulfilling these Catholic obligations because the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its members are manifest to all in these latter days of the Great Apostasy. Therefore by sins of omission and association, all the members of the SSPX who agrees with their heresies and all those who know about SSPX heresies and willingly attend Mass at an SSPX church share in the guilt of the crimes of the SSPX sect and thus in the guilt of the crimes of the Vatican II Church and its antipopes and bishops.
Also, anyone who contemplates attending Mass at an SSPX church obviously has access to the SSPX priests. Therefore before attending his Mass, all one has to do is ask the priest what he believes regarding the above two points. His answer will confirm that he is a notorious heretic. Thus the following statement, which the Dimonds condone, in Question 39 is illogical and heretical: “Since it is okay to attend an SSPX [Mass] to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic...” It is illogical because the person who asked the question has easy access to the priest and thus can easily find out what the priest believes. All he has to do is open the mouth God has given him and ask the priest what he believes, point by point. From the priest’s answer, he will receive confirmation that the priest is a notorious heretic that then must be avoided. The statement is also heretical because by not asking the priest what he believes, this person sins by omission by omitting to perform the spiritual acts of mercy of instructing the ignorant and admonishing sinners and by omitting the Catholic obligation to profess the faith (which is an implicit denial of the Catholic faith):
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 circumstances 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.”
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.”
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.”
The Dimonds, indeed, are digging a deeper pit for themselves and for all those who follow them. They are the blind leading the blind into the pit (Mt. 15:14). By God’s grace and aid, it is our hope and prayer to wake up the people from spiritual death who are in religious communion with the Dimonds or who agree with any of their other heretical and mortally sinful errors. Of course, by God’s grace and aid, it is also our hope and prayer to wake up the Dimonds from spiritual death. They will have no hope of being saved until they wake up and abjure their errors and enter the Catholic Church.
Peter Dimond, The Heresies of the Society of St. Pius X, 2006 version: “Thus, no one can give any financial support to the Society of St. Pius X under pain of mortal sin. Those who continue to do so obstinately – while being aware of this information – will not save their souls. [But...] One could attend the SSPX’s Masses and receive sacraments from them, provided one does not agree with them or support them at all, and if the SSPX priest does not notoriously preach or impose the SSPX’s heresies at the chapel.”
Peter Dimond correctly points out that a person will lose his soul for knowingly giving financial support to a heretic, but then he illogically and falsely concludes that this does not apply when receiving the sacraments from them or praying in communion with them or even when entering their churches. In this we see how the Dimonds have placed carnal things (worthless money) over spiritual things (the state of the soul), because in their opinion a person could receive the sacraments from heretics, pray in communion with them and even enter their churches without losing his soul. But if one were to give heretics a donation, then one would definitely lose his soul. This is utter hypocrisy, bad will and willful blindness from the Dimond brothers’ side! It is a certain fact that you will lose your soul for doing both of these things culpably or knowingly in direct opposition to the Church laws, however much the Dimonds wish to avoid this truth. Only good faith and ignorance would excuse a person from sin regarding this, namely, if he were unaware of the fact that he was entering or attending houses of heretics or donating money to a heretical organization; and also if he were ignorant of what the Church teaches in regards to donating to or aiding heretics or receiving the sacraments from them, however worthy their cause may be. (We are not saying that food, water, medicines, etc. shouldn’t be provided for such people who are in need of them, but one should not give unconditional aid or donations to people who will, almost certainly, continue their pagan and/or heretical lifestyles in rejection of the true God. One of course should hope and pray for their conversion.) Good faith would also excuse a believer who was donating to a heretical person for the sake of his or her’s conversion to the true Catholic Faith, or if he donated out of charity (if for example, the heretic didn’t have the means to financially support himself), since donating money in itself is a charitable act and can be a means of drawing heretics back into the Church. The donation could not in anyway support the heretical person’s propagation of heresy of course, but this should go without saying. But to culpably donate to support the cause of a heretical ministry, or to donate to a heretical person because you agreed with his heresy or schism, would be the equivalent of helping in the act of spreading heresy.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics.”
However, the above quote by Peter Dimond on the SSPX absolutely proves that the Dimonds do not believe that these churches they themselves attend or tell others to attend are Catholic churches and that these priests are Catholic priests. If the Dimonds believed that these churches are Catholic churches and that these priests are Catholic priests they would be committing a mortal sin for telling Catholics that they must not support the “Catholic” church where they attend Mass and the “Catholic” priest who offers them his ministrations. Hence, from this teaching alone it is absolutely clear that the Dimonds are admitting that Catholics are allowed to knowingly attend Mass at non-Catholic churches (at meeting houses of heretics or schismatics) and hence knowingly pray in communion with non-Catholic priests and laymen (obstinate heretics), a practice which the Catholic Church has always and infallibly condemned:
III Council Of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray... under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy [such as a heretical mass presided over by a heretical priest that prays in communion with the apostate Vatican II sect and its antipope], is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”
However, to emphasize their correct teaching that Catholics are not allowed to give financial support to non-Catholic churches and non-Catholic priests, the Dimonds compare the SSPX sect to the Greek schismatic sect:
Peter Dimond, Questions, Answers and Comments, Question 2: “The bottom-line is that one cannot donate money to any organization that propagates heresies and leads souls to hell, as the SSPX does. It is true that they do some good things which can benefit people, but so do the Greek Orthodox. If one can donate to the SSPX, then one can donate to the Greek Orthodox or any schismatic group or the Indult priests which have valid sacraments...”
Peter Dimond correctly points out that these heretics lead souls to Hell by spiritual murder. Yet, as he admits to this horrifying fact, he simultaneously and out of the other side of his mouth tells his readers that they are perfectly free to go to them and to attend the masses of these heretics and schismatics that murder souls! Thus, by Peters own admission, he is admitting that the people whom they deceive into attending the churches of heretics are being put in danger of eternal damnation in hell - since these heretical priests and laymen are known to deceive people and murder souls... How many of the people that have actually gone to these heretical churches (at the Dimond brothers advice) have later embraced their heresies? Only God knows. Yet, “Most Holy Family Monastery” does not seem to be concerned about that. Their only concern seems to be to get these people a “traditional” mass presided over by a heretical priest so that they can receive sacrilegious, illicit and invalid sacraments from his hand and become a sharer in his sin!
However, Peter did not say that “If one is forbidden to attend Mass at Greek schismatic churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from Greek schismatic priests, then one is likewise forbidden to attend Mass at SSPX schismatic churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from SSPX schismatic priests.” Peter conveniently left out the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teachings that Catholics are also forbidden to knowingly give spiritual support to Greek schismatic churches by attending their Masses and praying in communion with Greek schismatics:
Council of Laodicea, 4th Century: “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258, §1: “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., 1948: ―Article I—Active Participation (Canon 1258, §1): “If the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church. [Hence] active religious participation with schismatics is always intrinsically illicit. The reasons for this absolute prohibition of canon 1258, §1, have their origin in the natural and positive divine law. These reasons are: 1) The Church is the only de jure [by law] existing true religious society in which it is licit to render to God the worship that is due Him; 2) the giving of scandal through one’s quasi-approval of a false sect must be avoided; and 3) the danger of perversion from the true faith must remain effectively neutralized.” (pp. 42-48)
Holy Office Decree, August 7, 1704: “The decree which prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics APPLIED ALSO IN THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE WERE NO CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH PRAYERS AS CONTAINED NOTHING CONTRARY TO FAITH AND THE CATHOLIC RITE.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)
Holy Office Decree, June 22, 1859: “Communication with heretics can be either in a condemned doctrine, or in rites and other signs indicative of adherence to a false [non-Catholic] sect, with the accompanying scandal of the faithful, to whom the Church therefore forbids this communion, lest the faith be lost or endangered. Whence St. John the Evangelist strictly commands: ‘if anyone comes to you and does not bring this (i.e., the Catholic) doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is sharer in his evil works.’ II John 20. These words evidently imply that everything is forbidden that is expressed by a welcome, in so far as it constitutes liturgical actions instituted to signify ecclesiastical unity. Wherefore we read that a law was enacted by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage ‘against praying or singing with heretics’ as is cited by Benedict XIV. It is therefore illicit to invite heretics to a choir during sacred services, to sing alternately with them, to give them peace or sacred ashes and other such tokens of external worship [with or in front of them], which are rightly and reasonably regarded as signs of interior bond and agreement. This is to be done neither in the active sense, namely by giving them such things, or in the passive sense, by accepting from them in their sacred services.” (SO Instruction Communicatio, 22 June 1859, in Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide 1:1176)
But what does Peter do to get around the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from notorious heretics or schismatics, while not seeming to deny it? He denies the Church’s definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic. Peter believes that a priest who is an undeclared heretic cannot also be a notorious heretic unless the priest publicly teaches his heresy to his parishioners and also imposes his heretical beliefs upon them as a condition for attending his Masses or receiving the sacraments from him. The underlining is Peter’s:
Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “When priests make public announcements that are heretical, which impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then a Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from such a priest. This is not the case with a heretical independent, C.M.R.I. or SSPX priest who has not made an announcement such as this; in fact, most of the C.M.R.I, independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests (who hold to the same heresy as the SSPV) are silent about their heresies (and therefore they are not notorious heretics), and they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith. But the SSPV has placed itself in another category - the category of notorious heretics who impose their heresy upon the people attending their Masses - which puts their Masses and their sacraments off limits.”
You will find no good or bad theologian who teaches that an undeclared heretic must also impose his heresy on others to become a notorious heretic.
Furthermore, notoriety is not determined by the fact if the priest imposes his heresies upon anyone, nor by how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or schismatic or by the fact if he is preaching his heresies from the pulpit; but this is rather determined by the fact from what you can know or understand about the heretical person in question. This is also the exact teaching of the very 1917 Code itself, which Peter Dimond purports to quote to give credence to his heresy:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2197, §3: “An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, IF IT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law (i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known).”
According to the above Canon: a priest’s heresy or crime becomes notorious and public the moment it has been made known to others.
But how can one be excused? Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, 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 [but is excused from excommunication because of the circumstances]... 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.”
So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” that Peter usually mentions as excuses. Both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but heretics like Peter throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.
Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do with how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or if he imposes his heresies on others during mass. Thus, the Canon law of the Church clearly teaches that a heresy of a heretic becomes public and notorious the moment it has been made known to others. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and the Popes of the Catholic Church:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15: “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”
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.”
Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into receiving the sacraments from them—directly contrary to the decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived! Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering these people’s souls (of those who are fully aware of what they are doing) inflicting mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe to you, apostate children, saith the Lord, that you would take counsel, and not of me: and would begin a web, and not by my spirit, that you might add sin upon sin...” (Isaiah 30:1)
Furthermore, a doctrine of faith or morals that is taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all biblical doctrines that have been held by the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers are true and hence, binds all Catholics to believe them also.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 2, January 6th, 1870, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
The Council of Trent in the 16th century was the first to infallibly define that a consensus can indeed make a doctrine part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And it was the first to infallibly define that the only kind of consensus that can do this is the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict this] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”
Here follows some interesting quotes from the fathers, popes, saints, councils, catechisms, the bible etc. that all condemns the idea of being in religious communion with heretics or schismatics or enter their churches.
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. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappodocia: “As for all those who pretend to confess sound orthodox Faith [like the heretical “traditionalists” MHFM often refers to], but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion [but who are in communion with Vatican II followers and manifest heretics], if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn [if we have admonished them once or twice but they still remain obstinate in their heresy], you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers [then we must NOT be in communion with them even if they call themselves “Catholic” or “traditionalists”].” (Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)
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.”
Origen: “If you eat the words of God in the Church, and also eat them in the synagogue of the Jews, you transgress the commandment which says: “In one House shall it be eaten.” (Exodus 12:46).”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, On Leviticus 17:3: “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 oneself to their communion.”
St. Athanasius the Great: “We are bound to refrain from communing with those whose opinions we abhor.” (Patrologia Græca, vol. XXVI, col. 1188B (“To Those Who Practice the Solitary Life and Who Are Established in Faith in God”)
St. Theodore the Studite (759-826 A.D.): “If anyone should not number with the other heresies the heresy which... say that communion with heretics is a matter of indifference, he is a heretic.” Another translation says: “If anyone should... say that fellowship with these people is a matter of indifference, he is a heretic.” (Patrologia Graeca, vol. XCIX, col. 352B (“First Refutation of the Iconclasts,” s. 20)
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. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 23, Art. 2: “An excommunicated person [such as a heretic] is banished from communion. Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the Church [commits schism]: and hence he seems to be excommunicated.”
The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter 9, On The Eucharist (c. 60-100 A.D.): “Now concerning the Eucharit. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord [and shares the same faith]; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Matthew 7:6).” (The Didache, The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, Early Christian Treatise)
Council of Laodicea, Canon 9: “Those who are members of the Church are not to be permitted to go into the cemeteries of any of the heretics for the purpose of prayer or veneration. If they do, they are to be excommunicated.” Another version says: “The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”
Council of Laodicea, Canon 33: “No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.”
Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 65: “If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended.”
“How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism)
“It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1)
“You help the ungodly, and you are joined in friendship with those who hate the Lord; and therefore you did indeed deserve the wrath of the Lord.” (II Paralipomenon 19:2)
“I will not communicate with the choicest of them... Depart from me, ye malignant ones!” (Psalm 140:4; 118:115)
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Titus 3:10-11)
“Are heretics and schismatics excommunicated? Yes; they have no part in the Communion of the Saints.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Catechism of the Summa)
“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. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit)
“Saint Peter and Paul have loathed heretics, and in their Epistles have warned us to avoid them.” (St. Cyprian)
“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!” (Blessed Margaret Clitherow)
From the Life of St. John the Almsgiver - Admonition against taking communion from heretics: “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 circumstances 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)
Many other saints could be quoted as well, including the famous letters of Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, “to his flock;” and “to the Solitaries,” Second letter to Monks.
For Saint Athanasius letters condemning communion with heretics, see THIS SECTION.
For many other quotes from Popes and Councils, CLICK HERE.
As we have seen, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and therefore the Ordinary Magisterium, condemns receiving the sacraments from heretics or being in religious communion with them. All the fathers and saints teach that one must shun religious communion with known heretics and schismatics. Hence that this fact alone totally refutes the heresy of Peter and Michael Dimond of “Most Holy Family Monastery”.
Peter knows that the unanimous consent of the Fathers condemns being in religious communion with heretics and forbids receiving the sacraments from them (we have pointed this out to him numerous times), and that not a single saint can be cited to ever having received the sacraments from a heretical priest—but he just couldn’t care.
The Dimonds are also heretics because they implicitly deny the Catholic faith by evading their obligation to properly profess the Catholic faith to those with whom they pray in communion. They are also heretics for making themselves partner in their sin.
A former member of “Most Holy Family Monastery”, Richard Ibraniy (RJMI), testified to the following shocking facts concerning this and their religious practices and activities at the time of his association with them:
RJMI, E-mail conversation with Peter Dimond (12/29/2001): “Michael Dimond strictly forbids anyone to talk to the people or the priest, not even so much as a hello. He also forbids his minions to hand out or leave any literature in, or in front of the church. I know. I was one of his minions. I gave him false obedience in this, and committed mortal sins against the first commandment by omission for remaining silent, and by association for knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics. I have been severely punished by God for this crime of mine. I sinfully obeyed Michael, and in so doing shirked my duty to profess the faith. I wanted to, but I gave Michael false obedience and remained silent for a long period of time. I chose men over God. It is even worse than when I was there. When I attended Mass with Michael we wore religious garb. I heard from Will Norris that he no longer does that. You and Michael, like cowards trying to hide your crime, attend Mass in the clothing of laymen. This only proves what was true when I was there. Michael, his religious order, and you are non-Catholic frauds. I told Michael this when I was at the “Monastery.” I told him, “Either we profess the full deposit of faith and live by it or we are nothing more than non-Catholic frauds. Lets take off these costumes now and stop pretending and lying to the people.”
Will Norris, who also was associated with Peter and Michael Dimond and stayed at their “Monastery” in Fillmore, New York, for a period of time (and who later admitted to being misled by some of their teachings into thinking Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics by attending their Masses and receive the sacraments from them), wrote the following facts concerning their “religious” practices at the time of his association with them:
Will Norris, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, 1/10/2002: “I went to Mass with Michael and Peter about three times. They do not wear religious garb. They dress as laymen so the priest and people do not think they are brothers. We went late all the time. We arrived around the reading of the Gospel. After Mass we went to confession and then promptly left without speaking to anyone or leaving any literature in the church or on the cars out front. He did this every time I attended Mass with him. I asked Michael about giving the information to the priest at the church. Michael said he was considering mailing it to him without putting his name on the envelope. But he was leery of doing this because he was afraid of being refused the sacraments. I asked Michael, is not the Mass the highest form of prayer and aren’t we praying in communion with the priest and people? Michael said the priest is the one who is offers up the sacrifice and not us. We are not guilty of his sins against the faith.”
Contrary to Peter and Michael Dimonds heretical ravings above, what you must do (instead of looking for excuses to go to them) is to denounce these murderers of souls (heretics and schismatics) before other people. And what you mustn’t do is to profess religious communion with them. It’s really easy if you are honest with yourself. Unless you oppose heretics and schismatics, you will be condemned to an eternal hellfire as the following quotes makes perfectly clear:
Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed... He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”
Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
James 4:17: “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.”
1917 Code of Canon Law: “1325§1 Obligation to Profess the Faith. The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances 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 their neighbor.”
The Church’s legislation that forbids Catholics to participate actively in worship with heretics and schismatics invariably mentions scandal as one of the reasons for the prohibition. Heretics and schismatics would conclude that a Catholic who worshipped with them approved of their errors or rebellion. Thus the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith warned in 1729:
“When they see Catholics go to their [heretical and schismatical] churches, assist at their rites, and participate in their sacraments, should not one believe (or at least fear) that from this fact alone they would be more greatly confirmed in their errors, and also be persuaded by this example that they are walking the straight path to salvation?
“From this it follows that it is most difficult to avoid the danger of pernicious scandal to heretics and schismatics themselves. Wherefore, a Catholic cannot be safe in his conscience if he worships together with them this way.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)
The Dimond brothers thus deny the Catholic Faith, give offense to God and give scandal to his neighbor by entering the houses of heretics and schismatics, thereby publicly professing to all present that they share the same faith with those heretics. The scandal and damage this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics and even the heretics themselves is easy to understand. For every person that sees them entering a church where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, or where the church is a Vatican II, SSPX, or Eastern “Orthodox” church etc., will assume they agree with his heresy, belief or schism. If they would stand up and denounce those who adhere to the phony Vatican II ‘church’, as a Catholic is bound to do, then they would immediately be thrown out of there. The Dimonds make a mockery of the unity of faith!
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
All the people whom the Dimonds deceive into entering the churches of heretics and schismatics are also fully aware of the fact that the priest and most laymen attending that same church are heretics and that they in fact murder other peoples souls by their obstinate, bad willed heresies. The people who go there are thus fully aware of that most if not all people in that church are headed for hell, but yet they go there but not to inform them or to convert them, but to partake in the sacraments with them! The priest and the people in that house of heretics where they attend mass are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His Church and are sadly headed for hell, since they spit upon and reject the Church’s dogmas; and they are murdering their own and other people’s souls. They are murdering themselves and the souls which Jesus Christ redeemed and died for, yet, they continue to go there, avoiding their obligation to denounce heresy and save souls, instead perversely showing to all present that they are in communion with the same heretics they should denounce. If they really did try to convert the heretics, they would obviously not be allowed to continue go there and would be thrown out.
These people are truly despicable and abominable to say the least! We can understand that people have been deceived since all people are inclined to be deceived, but yet if one thinks about it carefully, there’s really no excuse for such behavior.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated – formally or automatically,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”
For knowingly attending Mass at non-Catholic churches and praying in communion with notorious heretics, the Dimonds commit other mortal sins such as sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion.
We have exposed many of the beliefs of the Dimonds and contrasted them with those of Catholicism, and we see that the Dimonds have set about defining their own religion and presumed to call it Catholic. Here is more evidence that shows they are nothing other than roaming wolves and getting caught in their own snares:
Observe how the brothers play both sides of the fence. How many times have we all heard from Novus Ordo people and other heretics that we don’t have the right to judge who is a heretic? That a heretic has to be formally declared by the Church? Of course we all know that’s not true and it seems the Dimond brothers would agree with us. Well, sometimes that is. You see, they sadly like to have their cake and eat it too. They play both sides of the fence. Below are some quotes from the Dimond brothers articles and email-exchanges on various issues, which are (or were at the time) publicly available on their website:
MHFM: “Heretics lose all membership and authority in the Catholic Church automatically.”
MHFM: “Catholics have an obligation to judge and denounce heretics when they manifest their rejection of Catholic truth by their words and actions.”
MHFM: “Certainly we are not saying that you cannot recognize someone as a heretic until the Church’s declaration. Rather, we are examining the issue of when the absolute obligation to avoid a heretic in every case kicks in.”
MHFM: “That’s absolutely right. The notion that a Catholic does not have the authority to recognize and denounce a heretic is modernist nonsense. Only a person who is completely faithless would assert that a Catholic does not have the authority and ability to recognize and denounce a heretic.”
MHFM: “While someone like Luther was clearly a heretic even before this declaration, this is an example of how… the absolute obligation to avoid a person in every case comes with the declaration [of the Church]. … It refers to those declared, like Luther, or those who are so notorious that their crime cannot be concealed in law.”
MHFM: “No, a Catholic doesn’t need any special authority to recognize that manifest heretics do not possess (but have lost) authority in the Church. Manifest heretics lose authority in the Church automatically and without declaration, whether they claim to be popes, bishops, cardinals or priests. That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
Notice the word “manifest” heretics. According to the brothers own definition by their quote above, a heretic would become manifest when he “manifests” his rejection of Catholic truth by his words or actions.
I wonder if this includes the Byzantine priest they go to whom when presented with all the information and heresies of the false Second Vatican council and Benedict XVI, obstinately refused to adhere to the truth and continues to accept the Council and claim communion with the antipope. After all, wouldn’t these actions of his (accepting the Second Vatican Council and subjecting himself to antipope Benedict XVI) be a rejection of Catholic truth? Isn’t he then a manifest heretic?
Sadly, here is where the brothers contradict themselves. You see out of one side of their mouth they say that Catholics have the obligation to judge and denounce heretics, and that heretics lose authority in the church WITHOUT DECLARATION. Then out of the other side of their double tongued mouth they say that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from a heretic so long as he is an “undeclared” heretic, meaning that he has not officially been declared a heretic by the Church. Now can anyone please tell me how they are going to be officially declared a heretic when the see of St. Peter is vacant?
Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate” – The Important Quotes: “CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time...”
Now, an automatic excommunication is not made just for show without anything actually happening to the excommunicated individual, as Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem fidei makes perfectly clear:
“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’ [by that very fact; that is, automatically] have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – Condemned as false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, #47, Aug. 28, 1794)
Likewise, here’s an interesting quote from Anne Catherine Emmerich demonstrating this fact further:
“I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are [ipso facto, by that very fact] excommunicated whenever they cooperate to enterprises, enter into associations [with heretics or other evil people such as Freemasons], and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, p. 69)
Precisely because God’s Laws and Judgments are always present and in force, so too, then, are our obligations which accompany those laws, valid, and in force, even when the see of St. Peter is vacant.
Indeed, Peter and his followers could hardly show any more lack of concern for God’s laws when they claim that some heretics must be “declared” before being avoided – just as if God did not ratify His own laws or put them into effect automatically independent of any declaration. It is truly to mock the whole Papacy and Jesus Christ to claim the declaration of the Church authorities as a requirement for avoiding certain heretics when the Church hierarchy is not even available or accessible for anyone today! And this is particularly more true today when – even according to the Dimonds – THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN MAKE THIS JUDGMENT!
If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church and communion, then, you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (1512-1517): “THE PENALTIES TO BE INCURRED, AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, for each and all of the aforesaid persons, if they act to the contrary (though may they not!), are immediate major excommunication, the incapacity for all and singular legal acts of any kind, being branded as infamous, and the penalties expressed in the law of treason;”
Here we see Pope Leo X affirming the dogmatic principle that some penalties are “incurred automatically and without the need for any further declaration” whenever one has committed a crime to which such an excommunication is attached. The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists some of these crimes:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2335: “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto [by that very fact] an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication...”
Pope Benedict XIV also made note of the term major excommunication:
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”
As we have seen, people excommunicated in this way (such as heretics) are majorly excommunicated, which means that they must be shunned for religious purposes and the sacraments.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, 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.”
Now, the brothers most used source to back up receiving sacrilegious and blasphemous sacraments from the hands of a heretical priest is St. Thomas Aquinas (here and here), the Fourth Lateran Council, (here) and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, (here and here) whose words or meanings they actually twist out of context to support their sacrilegious position (as we have clearly proved). So while the brothers claim that St. Thomas allows for their sacrilegious communions, they are quite wrong and are simply lying through their teeth. They have also been corrected and notified by us (and others) but they have still not changed their position.
Besides, can someone please explain to me how a priest who has seen all the evidence against Benedict XVI and the Vatican II church, yet still remains in communion with them, is a Catholic? Call the monastery or write them an e-mail email@example.com. Ask the brothers if they have ever presented the priest where they attend Church with their material. They will tell you yes (if they even have the guts to talk about it anymore.) They have presented it to him, more than once. “Michael” has even personally talked to him several times. So what excuse is there for such a person? Well, none, as the Dimonds admit!
In fact, let’s see what the brothers would say about such a person in their own words.
MHFM: “Any person who could look at these files [the Dimond brothers files] and still maintain that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not heretics is simply a liar and of bad will.”
Let’s look at some other major contradictions from the Dimond brothers side.
MHFM: “YOU CANNOT GO TO NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES.”
MHFM: “It deals with the question of whether people may go into non-Catholic churches for funerals or weddings as long as they don’t “participate.” Many “traditionalists” wrongly believe it’s okay to do that. The truth is that a Catholic may not go to a non-Catholic church at all, even if it is just “passively” for a wedding, etc.”
Behold the major contradiction from the Dimond brothers! I will repeat what they just said: “YOU CANNOT GO TO NON-CATHOLIC CHURCHES. … The truth is that a Catholic may not go to a non-Catholic church at all, even if it is just passively.”. But isn’t this exactly what the Dimond brothers do? Don’t they “passively” sneak into a heretical non-Catholic church for the mass and the sacraments, while claiming they are not actively participating in the heretical priest’s mortally sinful and illicit consecration of the mass and the sacraments or that they are praying in communion with these heretics or receiving the sacraments illicitly or invalidly from the hands of these heretics where they attend mass? Yes, the Dimonds must hold to the opinion that they are passively active (a real contradiction) at the heretical church they go to, since otherwise they would have to admit that they are actively participating in non-Catholic worship ceremonies, and actively participating at non-Catholic masses, and actively participating in non-Catholic prayer meetings with the same heretics they attend mass with. Ask them if you are unsure about what they really believe. Be very careful though, Peter doesn’t like anyone knowing his business, he might get angry. Especially if you point out that there is nothing “passive” about kneeling before a heretic and receiving the fruits of his sin. That’s right, heretics sin mortally when they confect the Eucharist, as we will see here. Also, another reader of our website asked him a few questions about these things, and their answer seemed pretty similar to the sad e-mails we received from them – just insults and railings without even a single word or answer on anything of which he wrote them about.
Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1729 decree: “... There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith... especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics — who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal.” (SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505)
But this brings up an important question. What kind of church do the Dimond brothers attend? Is it a Catholic Church – or a non Catholic Church? Why don’t they financially support the Church they go to (as they claim) if it is a Catholic Church? Because it is a non-Catholic Church, which they admit one must never go to or ever give financial support to! The brothers blatantly contradict themselves, because we can see by their quotes above (in which instance they are correct) that no one may attend a non-Catholic Church for any reason.
Troubling isn’t it? Are you following the Dimonds? Do you follow their instructions on “where to receive the sacraments”? Have you talked to them about where they receive theirs? Do you not wonder why such a public outfit as MHFM would not be more forthcoming with people who ask them about this?
Further, what’s so contradictory about the Dimond brothers position is that they often point out to others that it is more important to keep the faith whole and inviolate instead of attending mass and receiving the sacraments.
MHFM: “You must never go to the invalid New Mass again. You must also keep in mind that spiritual works or time spent without a pure intention or a submission to His faith lose all merit. God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.”
But one could wonder, then, why don’t they follow their own advice? However, instead of following their own advice, they sadly make up more and more excuses on why a person should be allowed to receive the sacraments from heretics and non-Catholics. And what’s even more amazing and sad is that the brothers even teach that one can approach the Greek “Orthodox” schismatics for the sacrament of Confession in danger of death!
MHFM: “A heretic can also absolve from sins in certain situations, which is why a Pope and Saints have taught that a Catholic could even go to a Greek Orthodox in danger of death. Someone has clearly misled you in this area.” (Questions, Answers and Comments, Some Q &A’s from Summer 2004)
Yes, Dimonds, someone has clearly misled you in this area! But what about putting the faith before the mass or the sacraments, Dimonds? They even say that a Pope and Saints have taught this. Well, we sent them this question:
“Hello. You said one can go to the Greek orthodox for confession? What Pope said so, and what Saints have said so?
Another question. Why can one go (according to you) to a heretical or schismatical (but validly ordained) Vatican II or “traditional” priest for the sacraments, when one may not go to the Eastern “Orthodox”, (except maybe for confession, according to you?)”
The Dimonds, as usual, did not care to show us what source they did get this novel teaching from, nor did they care to answer us at all! If a Pope and Saints really did teach this (as they say), then one would think they wouldn’t have had any problem to cite their sources. Yet, strangely, without giving any source or answering our e-mail, they still continue to claim this as an article of faith (that one may go to an heretical, schismatical Greek “Orthodox” for confession) on their site as if it were true. Amazingly, though, in another of their e-mail exchanges, they once again give an answer to their own heretical and schismatical position, thus blatantly contradicting themselves:
MHFM’s answer: “No, the Eastern “Orthodox” are not Catholic. You cannot go to non-Catholic churches. The “Orthodox” are unfortunately heretics and schismatics...”
Well, there’s more. You see the brothers have taken it upon themselves to define what kind of heretic you may receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from! Now if you are familiar with the brothers you will often hear Peter Dimond say something along these lines: “To our knowledge, we are the first people to ever use this quote,” or “to my knowledge, no one else has ever made this point.” Peter Dimond can finally, accurately state that he and Michael are the first that we know of in the history of the Catholic Church, to use the word “imposing” as a requirement for a heretic to be avoided in the reception of the sacraments.
Here they are:
MHFM: “They are so vigorous about their heresy against the salvation dogma that they impose their heretical beliefs upon the people who approach them for the sacraments. Therefore, no one should go to them for any sacraments at all.”
MHFM: “We carefully point out that you may only go to an undeclared heretic who professes to be Catholic and is not notorious about his heresy (or less obvious, as some like to say.)”
MHFM: “The traditionalist priest whom a Catholic can approach for Communion today must be validly ordained and cannot be notorious or imposing about his heretical position and you cannot support him.”
MHFM: “Thanks for the interest. No, you should not go to the SSPV for anything, not even for confession. They are notorious and imposing heretics.”
MHFM: “If one believed in and/or taught heresy against that dogma (bod/bob), then he could say: I ask forgiveness for denying the Catholic Church’s teaching on the necessity of the Catholic faith and Baptism for salvation. There are a good number of priests who would listen to that and simply give you absolution without necessarily getting into their heretical beliefs on the issue.”
Don’t you see how evil this is?
I will quote his blatant contradiction again: “There are a good number of priests who would listen to that and simply give you absolution without necessarily getting into their heretical beliefs on the issue.” Oh, okay. So you know the priest is an evil, bad willed heretic, and God, and all of Heaven knows that he is a bad willed heretic, but so long as he doesn’t “impose” his heresies, or is “less obvious” about them, then you’re safe? If you can’t see how evil this is, then you are blind. You commune with enemies of Jesus Christ so that you can continue to receive the illicit and sacrilegious sacrament of the Eucharist and the invalid Penance or Absolution to your own damnation. This is not the Catholic approach! This is the approach of cowards and heretics who put the sacraments before the faith!
If anyone can provide the Catholic Church teaching that uses the word “imposing” in the way the brothers use it, please let us know.
For proof that the Dimonds are distorting Catholic teachings to support their depravity, please read the following sections:
MHFM: “we must utterly reject others in any matter that touches upon their rejection of God or the true faith. One must offer a complete and total rejection of the ungodly in any matter implicating their impiety, or else God will reject such a one.”
MHFM: “Stop going just by externals, and start to care about and believe in the Catholic faith and the dogmas. It really is disgusting that people like you do not care at all about the issues of the faith, but only about the Mass and whether a group has churches, etc.!”
AGREED! THANK YOU DIMOND BROTHERS. IT IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING! NOW WHY DON’T YOU TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE?
MHFM: “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.”
Yes! That’s right! When a heretical priest celebrates the Mass, even if it is valid, he sins MORTALLY. Thank you brothers! So wouldn’t common sense and Catholic teaching tell us we participate and become guilty of this mortal sin, both by taking part in it (which you do when you receive those sacraments) and by our silence?
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [such as with a heretic] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”
So you sin mortally every time you receive that sacrilegious communion, and invalid absolution.
MHFM: “But one should not watch the invalid New Mass or other programs that would be a danger to one’s faith.”
Truly lamentable, you can’t watch the invalid Mass but you can take part in the sacrilegious one, Dimonds?
MHFM: “Thanks for the e-mail and the interest. We believe that you should not pray the Rosary with them, since they still accept Vatican II.”
Again, so you can’t pray the rosary with those who accept Vatican II but you partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord with them? Besides, how does their statement above make any sense to their own contradictory mass attendance at a Vatican II church? How does their “prayers” at that heretical Vatican II church where they attend mass make any sense at all to their statements? It’s truly a contradiction from beginning to end!
MHFM: “Thanks for the comment. We would just point out that one shouldn’t call Benedict XVI the pope.”
Unless, it’s your Byzantine priest you attend mass at and then it’s okay, right? Yes, that’s right, they attend mass at the house of a priest who accept Benedict XVI as the pope!
Now, those of us who have arrived at a correct understanding of the actual situation in the Church — so-called “sedevacantists” (see Sedevacantism) — affirm that Bergoglio/Francis is a heretic and an apostate and therefore no true pope. So, on the face of it, it makes no sense whatsoever for us to participate in a Mass where, a few moments before the consecration, the priest proclaims that Bergoglio is Papa nostro — “our pope.”
Pope Benedict XIV (March 1675 – 3 May 1758), in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic in the Canon of Mass: “...but let him carefully avoid making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.” (Ex Quo, # 22)
Benedict XIV, Ex Quo (# 9), March 1, 1756: “...‘Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”
Pope Benedict XIV states that the reason for this prohibition is that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates: “The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates... And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...” (Ex Quo, # 23) He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: “One can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are offered for the members of the Church.” (Commentary on the Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 18, q. 2, art. 1)
MHFM: “You cannot follow the Lamb wherever he goes if you maintain a communion of faith with a manifest heretic who rejects Vatican I, the Council of Trent and accepts false religions.”
Unless, it’s your Byzantine priest and then it’s okay? So according to the contradictory logic of the Dimonds, a person can maintain his faith and salvation even if he is in public communion with other manifest heretics and even if he enters their churches to hear mass and receive the sacrament from them. But didn’t he just say above that this wasn’t possible to do? Let’s see in his own words again: “You cannot follow the Lamb wherever he goes if you maintain a communion of faith with a manifest heretic who rejects Vatican I, the Council of Trent and accepts false religions.”
Okay, so this, along with the articles linked to above that show how the brothers distort St. Thomas Aquinas, Ad Evitanda Scandala, the Fourth Lateran Council, The 1917 Code of Canon Law etc., should be enough for anyone to see that they are bad willed, double talking heretics that are leading souls to hell!
In closing, we are going to take the brothers’ own words to one of their readers and offer it as advice to them.
MHFM: “There’s really not much that we can say to you, other than that you need to convert. That will only come about when you humble yourself and stop imposing your own views of reality on God’s truth and rather conform your views to God’s truth. Some people would consider your position to be compassionate and tolerant and charitable. The truth is that it’s inestimably arrogant and prideful, to think that you know how things should be more than the God you claim to believe. Recognize that God is the One who reveals and that you must be the one who accepts. The problem comes when people attempt to please people and not God alone. It comes when they start to conform or hide the truth because they are afraid of losing people. There are too many out there who purport to teach the traditional Catholic faith but don’t really believe or are not serving God with a pure intention. Instead, they wind up serving Satan. They need to stop serving Satan.”
As explained by Rev. Szal in his book Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, on Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics or heretics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass.
We will continue to pray for the conversion of the Dimond brothers.
2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics, “communicateth with his wicked works.” This means that those who have dealings with heretics have a part of and share in their sins.
Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious or known heretics or receive the sacraments from them as Pope Leo X makes perfectly clear:
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, 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, should 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…”
So, the Pope just said infallibly that all “heretics should be avoided in every way” and be “totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful” (that has to do with religious communion and other unnecessary dealings with them). Note that you can only know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question. Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him “in every way” and “totally exclude” him from your communion, and may not approach him 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, 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).”
In the above decree Pope Vigilius makes it perfectly clear that Catholics may not even communicate sacramentally with undeclared heretics, since all heretics are automatically excommunicated. He said: “even though he has not been condemned formally... after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him”. This means that we may never enter the “Churches” of heretics, worship with them, or receive the sacraments from them. A Catholic who receives the Holy Eucharist and Penance from any heretic thus sins mortally, for he disobeys the Laws of the Church and God while doing so, and it does not matter whether the heretic is declared or undeclared, formally excommunicated or automatically excommunicated as a heretic as we can see from the infallible teaching of Pope Vigilius in the Second Council of Constantinople.
Pope Paul V (1552-1621), repeating his predecessors’ interdict of Pope Paul IV (1476-1559): “Great has been the grief of our mind for the tribulations and calamities ye have constantly undergone for your adherence to the Catholic faith; and as we understand that these trials are become more severe at present, our affliction is increased exceedingly. For we are informed that ye are compelled, under the most grievous penalties, to go to the churches of heretics, to frequent their meetings, and be present at their sermons. Indeed we are fully persuaded that ye who, with so much fortitude and constancy, have hither-to undergone almost infinite miseries, that ye might walk without stain in the law of the Lord, will never consent to be defiled by communicating with those who have forsaken the Divine law. Nevertheless, urged by the zeal of our pastoral duty, and from paternal solicitude with which we daily labour for the salvation of your souls, we are forced to admonish and conjure you, that ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.” (Quoted in Bishop George Hay’s, “The Sincere Christian” - Pope Paul V repeated his predecessors’ interdict of Pope Paul IV, on September 22nd, 1606 A.D. in his brief Romani Pontificis, contra juramentum Fidelitatis – The Roman Pontiff, against the Alligence)
DID YOU HEAR THAT? “ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.”
Pope Pius IX, Graves Ac Diuturnae, 1875, (# 4): “You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church’s children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice.”
Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITH who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction...” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy...” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM...”
This evidence should be enough for anyone who is not suffering from the mortal illness of bad will and pride. If you have fallen for this heresy, we pray with tears that God may lead you out of this outrageous and scandalous position which has forced you to profess external communion with the most abominable, apostate, heretical or schismatical priests and laymen that may ever have lived!
People who are against the title Co-Redemptrix (such as the Dimonds) will admit that the actual meaning of it is not heretical, it’s the title of Co-Redemptrix that they believe is heretical even if the meaning of it is orthodox. Their position is that it’s heretical to believe she also redeemed mankind like how Christ did (and we agree that this is heretical). But their position is also that it’s heretical to even give Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix even if the meaning is orthodox (they believe it can only be interpreted the heretical way), they have acknowledged this in the debate video on this issue and in their articles, as we will see. Peter Dimond said:
“The position of Co-Redemptrix is not that Mary is in a category with the saints under the one Redeemer, and can be called co-redeemer in a sense just like St. Paul is said to help fill up the work of Redemption. No, the position of Co-Redemptrix is that Mary is in a unique category with Jesus as the Redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the “Co-Redemptrix” position by appealing to how other saints participate in the work of Redemption under the one Redeemer. That’s illogical and fallacious.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix); cf. Why Catholic teaching shows us that Mary is not to be considered Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer)
In the debate video, their opponent continually says that it depends on how one defines Co-Redemptrix that determines whether it is to be considered heretical or orthodox and he explains it several times, but Peter continues to treat the title of Co-Redemptrix to mean something that it does not mean, even after their opponent in the video explained the true meaning, and Peter even acknowledged it in the video but he still continued to treat the title Co-Redemptrix to mean something that it does not mean even after it was explained to him. Peter Dimond said:
“Mary was integral to the events that led up to the redemption but Christ alone is the redeemer and he alone redeemed the world, and therefore the title Co-Redemptrix, is a false title. … there is no other reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the idea that she played an integral role in the actual specific formal act of redemption.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (video))
The correct meaning of the title Co-Redemptrix does not even mean the way that he obstinately interprets it to mean, but he claims that there is no reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you’re promoting it the heretical way! This is dishonesty to the max.
Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “These facts considered, it is contrary to Catholic Teaching to say that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Certainly, it’s possible for people to express themselves erroneously on this topic in good faith before the specific dogmatic definitions above are presented to them. But once they have seen these dogmatic definitions [“Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior…” (Council of Trent, sess. xxv)] they must reject this idea; it is, strictly speaking, a heresy which contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Trent and Florence.”
First, when Peter himself has admitted that there is an orthodox and non-heretical view to the title of Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer, then it is obviously illogical of him to conclude that it must be heretical to apply the non-heretical and orthodox term of Co-Redemptrix to Mary.
Second, Popes and Holy Scripture teaches infallibly that all men have sinned without mentioning any exceptions. That did not mean there were no exceptions, and it did not mean the popes believed Christ and Mary had sinned, only they saw no need to mention the exception in the infallible decree, because the exceptions were already mentioned elsewhere. The Bible is the primary infallible source of revelation and it teaches, “all men have sinned” without mentioning the two exceptions of Jesus and Mary.
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12)
This must me taken in context. It is not meant to include Jesus and Mary although it does not mention them as exceptions. Other sources of revelation have to be looked at, either other places in the Bible or the oral traditions of the original apostles. We see the same thing in the Council of Trent.
Council of Trent, On Original Sin, sess. V: “2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Rom. 5:12]” (D. 789)
The exception was not mentioned at all in this paragraph. In a different paragraph within the same decree later on there is mention that Mary is not included in this decree. But the exception of Jesus Christ is not mentioned at all. This same above decree is found word for word in the Council of Orange II, 529, Original Sin, Grace, Predestination, and it never mentions any exceptions.
Council of Orange, Canon 2 (A.D. 529): “If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).”
Pope Boniface II confirmed the Council of Orange. Footnote 1, Denzinger 175: “Orange in Gaul. This Council approved by Boniface II [See D. n. 200 a. f.] obtained such authority in the Church that it is worthily held as an infallible rule.” (D. 175) As a side note this is a Regional Council that was made infallible by a pope.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531. They consequently enjoy œcumenical [infallible] authority and are printed in Denzinger’s "Enchiridion Symbolorum" (10th ed., nos. 174-200).” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, "Councils of Orange", 1911)
Pope Clement VIII also taught that “all sinned” without mentioning any exceptions.
Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die, 1758: “8. …Let us not think that our true, solid, and serious glory comes from the lips of men. We have all sinned, and we all need the glory of God.”
Did the infallible Council of Orange and Pope Clement mean that Christ and Mary had sinned? And did the infallible Council of Trent mean that Christ has sinned (or that Mary sinned until it made her an exception three paragraphs later)? Of course not. It is understood they did not mean to include them, because the exceptions were so well taught elsewhere.
Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “Those who have a problem with the fact that we have said that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer don’t have a problem with us; they have a problem with the dogmatic Council of Trent, the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, which erred according to them when it infallibly defined that Jesus alone is our Redeemer. Further, look at the context of this dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church. The context deals with devotion to Our Lady and the Saints; and yet not only does it not say that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix, it specifically contradicts the idea by infallibly declaring that Christ alone is Our Redeemer.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)
As we have seen already, the point is that just because a certain infallible text does not mention an exception does not mean there is not an exception. Other sources of revelation have to be looked at, either other places in the Bible or the oral traditions of the original apostles, or other infallible Councils and decrees. The Holy Bible has many such examples. I relate this to the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” because those who deny the dogma say that there are exceptions to the words of Popes Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctum, and Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence. But search as they may they will find no exceptions mentioned elsewhere, not in the same decrees or any other decrees by these popes or their predecessors.
Peter then said: “there is no other reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the idea that she played an integral role in the actual specific formal act of redemption.” The Blessed Virgin obviously was a partner in the redemption—not an equal partner but a lesser partner. That is why she is called the Co-Redeemer and Jesus is called the Redeemer. Christ redeemed men from their sins but not without a partner from which He could take on human flesh. This partner, Mary, is correctly titled the Co-Redeemer because she played a vital role in the remission of men’s sins, while Jesus is the sole Redeemer whose death remitted men’s sins. Just because Mary’s title has the word “redeemer” in it does not mean she usurps Jesus’ title as the sole redeemer whose death remitted men’s sins.
Just as the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix, she also is the Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer. The principle is the same. Just as Mary’s title of Mediatrix does not deny Jesus Christ’s title as sole mediator before men and God the Father, Mary’s title of Co-Redeemer does not deny Jesus Christ’s title as the sole redeemer whose sacrifice remits sins and thus redeems men: “In whom we have redemption through his [Jesus’] blood, the remission of sins.” (Eph. 1:7)
The Council of Trent: “Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior…” (sess. xxv)
The Council of Trent uses the word “redeemer” to mean the one who redeems men from their sins and thus reunites them to God and offers them eternal life. However, the Bible also refers to other redeemers; but these redeemers did not effect the remission of sins. For instance, Moses was also called a redeemer: “This Moses… God sent to be prince and redeemer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the burning bush.” (Acts 7:35)
Rheims New Testament, 1582, annotation on Acts 7: 35: “Christ is our Redeemer, and yet Moses is here called redeemer. So Christ is our Mediator and Advocate, and yet we may have Saints as our inferior mediators and advocates. (See Annot. 1 John 2:1)”
Further, in the continuation of Council of Trent, Session 25 (that Peter quotes to deny Mary as Co-Redeemer), it says concerning “the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ” that:
“Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (Council of Trent, Session 25)
So the Council of Trent just said infallibly that it’s not opposed to the word of God to invoke the saints in heaven and that this is not “inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…”
Hence Moses’ title as redeemer does not deny Christ’s title as the sole redeemer as referred to in the Council of Trent because Trent’s use of the word “redeemer” is in reference to the ultimate redemption, the salvation of souls. The same applies to Christ’s title as sole mediator before God. This title does not mean there cannot be other mediators, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and the good angels and the saints, all who are mediators between men and Christ, as we have just seen. So, indeed, Moses was truly a redeemer, but an inferior redeemer to Christ. Moses’ title as redeemer was in reference to the temporary salvation of God’s chosen people from slavery and other hardships imposed on them by the Egyptians. Moses’ redemption also prepared God’s chosen people for the ultimate redemption when Christ died on the cross:
Catholic commentary on Acts 7: “Ver. 35. … Redeemer. In the Greek Lutroten; Protestant version, Deliverer; though the learned Polus, in his Synopsis Criticorum, on this place, says, ‘that no greater injury is done to God, by calling Moses a Redeemer, in this place, than by calling him a Mediator, in Galatians iii. 19. He is called a Redeemer…in as much as he led forth, and preserved the people of God safe by the blood of a lamb, and this exhibited a figure of the true redemption, through the blood of Christ.’”
The Council of Florence taught the same. It declared that Jesus Christ alone by His death redeemed the human race and “opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven.” Thus, when the Councils use the word “redeemer”, it is in reference to the ultimate redemption, the salvation of souls and the opening of the kingdom of heaven.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)
It’s interesting that the Catechism of the Council of Trent also teaches that Christ alone redeemed us and “reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood.” While the catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”
All of the above quotes that we have looked at, the Dimonds use to “prove” that “Christ “alone” redeemed us and that Christ “alone” is the Redeemer”, which no one is denying, and they focus solely on the “alone” part completely ignoring what the quotes and councils means with their statements.
Peter Dimond: “The bottom-line is that there is no way of getting around the dogmatic definitions which declare that Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix))
Let’s see Council of Trent’s own answer to Peters protestant objection of Christ “alone” this, or Christ “alone” that when this exact same term is applied to the “ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST”:
The Council of Trent: “Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (sess. xxv)
All who read this text should know that Mary is the “Mediatrix of all Graces” according to Catholic teaching, which means that She is a Mediator in the work of salvation of man. But according to the false logic of the teaching of MHFM, this would deny Trent.
Therefore the Council of Trent’s reference to Jesus as the only redeemer must be taken in correct context or one might deny the Bible verse that says Moses is also a redeemer, or deny that Mary can be Co-Mediator. Hence the Bible, councils and popes never meant to teach that there cannot be other types of redeemers or mediators, such as Moses, or that there cannot be a co-redeemer or co-mediator, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary.
As the First Vatican Council declared on January 6, 1870 concerning understanding the dogmas as the Church has understood and understands:
“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different FROM THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD AND UNDERSTANDS: let him be anathema.” (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, On Faith and Reason, 4:3)
Jesus is the sole redeemer who redeemed men from their sins. However, the redemption did not happen without a woman who was worthy enough to conceive God in her womb so that the redemption could take place. This woman is the Immaculate Virgin Mary! Christ died for our sins, but without Mary there is no Christ to die for our sins. Christ’s death redeems men, but without Mary there is no Christ to redeem men. Therefore without Mary, there is no redemption. Hence Mary is truly and properly the Co-Redeemer! Christ redeemed men, but He would not redeem men without the help of Mary whose flesh He took and who offered her Son to God as Abraham offered Isaac. It is in this sense that Mary is truly the Co-Redeemer, which does not conflict with the Bible or infallible papal decrees or councils when taken in correct context and understood as the Church understands it. Indeed, popes, saints and other Catholic writers have taught that Mary is Co-Redeemer:
Life of St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231): “The first word [St. Anthony] uttered was the holy name of Mary… His most powerful and moving sermons were preached in her honor. In his writings are to be found the doctrines of her Immaculate Conception and glorious Assumption; and he never tired of speaking of her as the Mediatrix of All Graces, nor of dwelling upon her part in the redemption.” (Saints to Know and Love, by The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Anthony of Padua)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Chapter IV, Section II — Mary, our Mediatress — The Necessity of the Intercession of Mary for our Salvation: “Saint Bernard says, ‘that as a man and a woman cooperated in our ruin, so it was proper that another man and another woman should cooperate in our redemption; and these two were Jesus and his Mother Mary.’ ‘There is no doubt,’ says the Saint, ‘that Jesus Christ alone was more than sufficient to redeem us; but it was more becoming that both sexes should cooperate in the reparation of an evil in causing which both had shared.’ Hence blessed Albert the Great calls Mary ‘the helper of redemption:’ and this Blessed Virgin herself revealed to Saint Bridget, that ‘as Adam and Eve sold the world for an apple, so did she with her Son redeem it as it were with one heart.’ This is confirmed by Saint Anselm, who says, ‘that although God could create the world out of nothing, yet, when it was lost by sin, He would not repair the evil without the cooperation of Mary.’
“Suarez says, ‘that Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world; thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God.’ For this reason our Lord has justly decreed, that as Mary cooperated in the salvation of man with so much love, and at the same time gave such glory to God, so all men through her intercession are to obtain their salvation.
“Mary is called ‘the cooperator in our justification; for to her God has intrusted all graces intended for us;’ and therefore Saint Bernard affirms, ‘that all men, past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and negotiator of the salvation of all ages.’ … And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when ‘the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary?’ as a certain author remarks. And before him Saint Germanus had said the same thing, speaking of Mary: ‘No one is saved but through thee.’ … And as we have access to the Eternal Father, says Saint Bernard, only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary: ‘By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation, that we may receive Him by thee, Who through thee was given to us.’”
Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church.”
Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 1904: “6. Could not God have given us, in another way than through the Virgin, the Redeemer of the human race and the Founder of the Faith? Hence whenever the Scriptures speak prophetically of the grace which was to appear among us, the Redeemer of mankind is almost invariably presented to us as united with His mother. …Now the Blessed Virgin did not conceive the Eternal Son of God merely in order that He might be made man taking His human nature from her, but also in order that by means of the nature assumed from her He might be the Redeemer of men. …
“12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members, of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. …When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore. And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix [Co-Redeemer] of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by Death and by His Blood…
“14. We are…very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us ‘de congruo,’ in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us ‘de condigno,’ and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.”
 The Latin word “reparo” means to restore, renew, or purchase. Hence the pope refers to Mary as a partner with Jesus in renewing men to eternal life and restoring a fallen world by purchasing or redeeming men’s sin debt, which means Jesus is Redeemer and Mary is Co-Redeemer.
The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger: “In the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (section on indulgences), Sunt quos amor, June 26, 1913 (AAS 5 (1913) 363), he [Pope Benedict XV] praises the custom of adding to the name of Jesus the name of ‘His Mother, our coredemptor, the blessed Mary’; cf. also the prayer enriched by the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary is called ‘coredemptress of the human race.’ (Jan. 22, 1914; AAS 6  108).”
Pope Benedict XV, Inter solalicia, 1918: “The Blessed Virgin suffered with her suffering Son and nearly died with Him when He died; she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men, and so far as it appertained to her she immolated her Son to placate the divine justice; so that she may rightly be said to have redeemed the human race with Christ.”
Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928: “And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress [Co-Redemptrix].”
Pope Pius XI, Auspicatus profecto, 1933: “[Mary became the Mother of Jesus] in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.”
Pope Pius XI, Explorata res, 1923: “The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of the redemption.”
In a book series on the Catholic faith called “The Library Of Catholic Knowledge”, in the book about the Blessed Virgin Mary, it explains Co-Redemptrix, and it goes onto say: “It belongs to the Church to fix the language of her theology, and to judge whether or not any confusion is likely to occur in certain cases; and in authorized documents the magisterium of the Church tends increasingly to favour the expression Co-redemptrix to express this doctrine. It has now received “the freedom of the city” so to speak, and it remains for us to explain what it involves.”
The book then goes onto explain in detail Co-Redemptrix. So when it comes down to it, the Church has most certainly allowed the idea and it has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, and, as we have seen, at least 3 Popes have taught it, and the medieval Franciscans support it too and so did Saints, and the main thing is that the term is not heretical because what it MEANS is not heretical! The Dimonds in their pride (yet again) have lied and have given themselves far too much confidence on this. For them to condemn anyone who holds it (the correct meaning), is absolutely absurd.
In Reparation for Insults Offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Taken from the Raccolta)
O blessed Virgin, Mother of God, look down in mercy from Heaven, where thou art enthroned as Queen, upon me, a miserable sinner, thine unworthy servant. Although I know full well my own unworthiness, yet in order to atone for the offenses that are done to thee by impious and blasphemous tongues, from the depths of my heart I praise and extol thee as the purest, the fairest, the holiest creature of all God’s handiwork. I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human race. I bless the Eternal Father who chose thee in an especial way for His daughter; I bless the Word Incarnate who took upon Him our nature in thy bosom and so made thee His Mother; I bless the Holy Spirit who took thee as His bride. All honor, praise and thanksgiving to the ever-blessed Trinity who predestined thee and loved thee so exceedingly from all eternity as to exalt thee above all creatures to the most sublime heights. O Virgin, holy and merciful, obtain for all who offend thee the grace of repentance, and graciously accept this poor act of homage from me thy servant, obtaining likewise for me from thy divine Son the pardon and remission of all my sins. Amen.
An indulgence of 500 days (Holy Office, Jan. 22, 1914; S. P. Ap., Dec. 4, 1934). The Raccolta, translated into English from the 1938 edition by The Rev. Joseph P. Christopher, Ph.D., and The Very Rev. Charles E. Spence, M.A. (Oxon.) By authorization of the Holy See.