Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery Beliefs and Practices Exposed

Brother Michael Dimond (also known as Frederick Dimond) is a self-professed traditional Catholic, Benedictine monk, brother of Peter (Robert) Dimond, and superior of Most Holy Family Monastery. Raised in a family with no religion, Frederick Dimond converted to what he claims was Catholicism at the age of 15, and, at the age of 19, he entered Most Holy Family Monastery in 1992, a short time after graduating from high school. Frederick, now going by the name of Brother Michael Dimond, was elected superior of Most Holy Family Monastery in late 1995, after Brother Joseph Natale, the founder and first superior of Most Holy Family Monastery, died. Michael also claims he took his final vows before a validly ordained priest. (Info on our Benedictine Community - Bro. Michael Dimond O.S.B.)

Michael Dimond’s and Most Holy Family Monastery’s Blatant Contradictions, Heretical Practices and Outrageous Heresies Exposed

They attend mass at meetinghouses of the heretics

As is well known, the Dimond brothers 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 also 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 to attend Mass) are notorious, known heretics:

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001): “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.”

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…”

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...”

Peter and Michael Dimond, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Issue #5, Final Remarks, p. 65: “The sad reality of this situation—which [the Vatican II sect and the] Antipope... 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... will lose their souls and be tortured in Hell for all eternity.”

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 [heretical] priest [of the heretical and apostate sect] 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 [heretical] people [who are members of the heretical sect], 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.”

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 conversations with RJMI (12/29/2001))

When or where has the Church ever endorsed such strange, contradictory behavior that the Dimonds are advocating here? Nowhere!

Council of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 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.”

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “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.”

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.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

Pope 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, if it’s true that they have presented the truth to the priest and people with whom they attend Mass, by their own admission, then, they are knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics and participating in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion with non-Catholics. Elsewhere Peter and Michael Dimond explicitly admits this:

Peter and Michael Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V (2003): “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.”

Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 7:62 (c. 380 AD.): “Take heed, therefore, not to join yourselves in your worship with those that perish... For there is no fellowship between God and the devil; for he that assembles himself with those that favour the things of the devil, will be esteemed one of them, and will inherit a woe. … So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid the assemblies of the ungodly... and of the rest of the heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to them we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by joining in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be partakers with them in their impiety.”

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. 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)

The Catholic Church, however, teaches the following concerning “receiving the sacraments” from heretical and schismatical ministers:

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 eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

A former member of Most Holy Family Monastery, Richard Ibranyi, said the following concerning the religious practices and activities of his former superior, Michael Dimond, at the time of his association with him:

RJMI, E-mail conversations 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.”

Concerning his expulsion from “Most Holy Family Monastery” by his superior - Michael Dimond - Richard Ibranyi said the following:

“Why I Left Most Holy Family Monastery - Many have asked why I left the Most Holy Family Monastery, in which Bro. Michael was my superior. I had held the sedevacante position a year before I was released from the monastery and was silenced by Michael from teaching this truth. He obstinately argued that he could not make a declaration that John Paul II is an antipope. Consequently, I persistently condemned him and his belief with the clear words of the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio which decrees that a heretic cannot be elected to the papacy even if all of the Cardinals were to elect him as pope, and with canon law which decrees that a pope who becomes a notorious heretic automatically loses his papal office by operation of Church law and thus without the need of a declaration, as stated in Canon 188.4 on Tacit Resignation of Office… I vigorously resisted Michael by telling him that I would not consent to his heresy of denying these infallible teachings. I also vigorously resisted him when he ordered me not to give these Catholic teachings to others; and thus I denounced him for impugning the truth, just as apostate John Paul II impugns the truth. Consequently, I was eventually released from the monastery because of this intense dispute; but Michael has never admitted that this is the reason he let me go from the monastery. On August 29, 1997, Michael expelled me from the monastery. He tried to release me without mentioning the real reason. He told me that he believed God was calling me to a more public preaching ministry; whereas, the monastery is more contemplative. I did not tolerate his excuse. I told him, “That is a lie! For one, we are not a totally contemplative monastery. We have produced public controversial information that obliges us to defend our teachings publicly and to try to convert souls. The real reason you are expelling me is because I hold the sedevacante position and you do not.” Michael then banged his fist on the table and said, “Yes, that is the reason! No one can judge the pope. No one can make a declaration against a pope.” That is when I said, “No person needs to judge a pope who becomes a notorious heretic because the Church Herself, by operation of Her laws, automatically excommunicates a heretical pope and automatically deposes him. I will say this a thousand times if I have to: Canon 188.4 teaches that ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary’ for a notorious heretic to fall from the papal office. That is the truth you are impugning, and I will not obey you in your sinful commands just as you do not obey John Paul II, a man you believe is the pope, in his sinful commands.” … A year or more after my departure, Michael changed his belief and held the sedevacante position; but he never admitted that he had expelled me for the real reason mentioned in this letter.”

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), said the following concerning their religious practices at the time of their association:

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 Michael Dimond’s heretical ravings, the Catholic Church teaches the following concerning religious association with known heretics and schismatics (and yes, as we have already seen, Peter and Michael Dimond do believe the churches offering them mass and the priests giving them the sacraments are heretical priests and heretical churches):

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)

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;”

Apostolic Constitutions, Canon 45: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon [or layman], 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 [or excommunicated].”

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.”

Therefore, since it’s forbidden to be in religious communion with heretics, pray with them, or receive the sacraments from them, it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from heretical ministers or enter their churches. Elsewhere Peter Dimond, speaking on behalf of Michael Dimond and MHFM, explicitly admits this:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

What Michael Dimond must do instead of looking for excuses to go to the heretics is to denounce these murderers of souls (heretics and schismatics) before other people as one is obliged to do in such situations, and what he must not do is to profess religious communion with them. It’s quite easy really if one is just honest with oneself. Unless one oppose heretics and schismatics and manifest error when one can do so, one will be condemned to an eternal hellfire and share in their sin as the following quotes makes perfectly clear:

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, 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 their neighbor.”

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.”

So 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.

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 as them. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees them entering a church where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume they agree with his heresy 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, they would immediately be thrown out of there. The Dimonds make a mockery of the unity of faith!

AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

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

The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be obvious to a Catholic.

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.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… 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. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a heretic is automatically excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or govern the Church, since he is not a member of it. To state that Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE DIMOND BROTHERS PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE

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 this. Well, sometimes that is. You see, they sadly like to have their cake and eat it too. 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:

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.”

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...”

Peter Dimond, Sacraments From Heretics Debate: “And what we’ve pointed out on our website, we’ve not said that unless someone’s imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No what we’ve said is, that without a declaration, for there to be a positive absolute obligation to avoid an undeclared heretic, he would either have to be an imposing heretic, impose his false views on you, or be so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused in anyway in law.”

By the way, if you ever wonder where the Dimonds got their “imposing” argument from, know they have simply made it up for themselves. As far as we are aware of, no saint, theologian or even a heretic has ever made such an idiotic argument, prior to Peter and Michael Dimond. The Dimonds simply made up this argument from thin air to bolster their heresy of receiving the sacraments from heretics.

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him. Another question to ask him is whether he believes that non-Catholics, such as the “Orthodox,” need to be converted to the Catholic Faith. If he doesn’t say “yes,” then he is a notorious heretic.”

But even though the Dimonds admitted above that the priest is a notorious heretic after admitting to his heresy, yet, in another hypocritical twist, they nevertheless teach that some heretics that WE KNOW ARE HERETICS AFTER TALKING TO THEM AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO THEIR HERESIES, may nevertheless be communed with as long as they are NOT NOTORIOUS about their heresies.

Peter and Michael Dimond, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “... you must call the... [heretical] priest up and ask him certain questions before receiving Communion from him... all of these priests hold that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith by “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance.” ... You will see by his answers that he holds that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. ... But... you can go to them for confession and Communion if they are validly ordained and NOT NOTORIOUS or imposing about their false positions and if one doesn’t support them.”

Do the Dimonds contradict themselves? Of course they do. According to the Dimonds, a priest can be both a notorious heretic and a non-notorious heretic at the same time!

It’s as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe that their self made list of what constitutes a notorious heresy is applicable to the rest of humanity! Their view actually have the boldness to claim that some heresies can be tolerated or excused (such as denial of the necessity of Jesus Christ or the Catholic faith for salvation) while others may not (such as the heresy of favoring the Vatican II ecumenism or that the “Orthodox” don’t need to be converted). The Catholic Church however condemns all heresies and heretics and shuns communion with them. How MHFM decide which heresies can be tolerated or excused or not is of course impossible to understand. As all honest people can see, it’s just the imaginations of the Dimonds’ own made up claims without any dogmatic proof whatsoever to back up their words.

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.”

That not even a single saint or doctor of the Church can ever be cited to have received a sacrament (except for perhaps baptism) from a known heretic, even though countless people have been in situations where sacraments were not available, does not face the Dimonds’ satanic will one bit.

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.”

CAN HERETICS HAVE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

What are the requirements for a licit reception of the sacraments? This is a very important question to understand since many claim one can receive the sacraments licitly not only from heretics, but from apostate priests as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. "Sacraments" (1912): “Conditions for the licit reception - (b) For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers.”

Sadly, we have come to a point in the history of the Church where even heretics are considered by some to consecrate the Eucharist licitly in the Church; which means, somehow, that heretics are given authority in the Church. But this is of course impossible. For to give or receive the sacraments licitly, means to give or receive them by the authority and permission of the Church. Do heretics have this authority in the Catholic Church (except for the sacrament of baptism)? No. Do heretics confect the sacrament of Confession validly and the Eucharist licitly? Of course not! And do they do these acts with the permission and the authority of the Catholic Church? Of course not! They do not have this authority either to consecrate the Eucharist licitly, or to absolve from sins validly or licitly, as we have shown! Please look at the following dogmas of the Church carefully, and see how heretics are outside the Church of Christ.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”

Here we can see that all Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church. Here are some other testimonies from the Magisterium which affirm this fact.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

This last solemn profession of faith by Pope Innocent III in Eius exemplo, demonstrates how foreign to Catholic belief – that is to say, how heretical – is the idea that a heretic can be inside the Church. Nevertheless, this is exactly the idea proposed by individuals who assert that heretics – somehow – have authority to licitly administer the sacraments. And since it is a dogma that a heretic cannot be inside the Church, it is a dogmatic fact (a fact which if it were not true would render a dogma false) that a heretic cannot have any authority in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Therefore, it is most certain that a heretic cannot consecrate the Eucharist licitly or administer the sacrament of Confession validly or licitly, because, as we have just seen, it is absurd to imagine that one who is outside can command in the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Related articles:

www.trusaint.com
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!