Will Norris was associated with Michael and Peter Dimond and stayed at their “Monastery,” Most Holy Family Monastery in Fillmore New York, for a period of time. He has since abjured from the Great Apostasy and is now Catholic. Bob More is Will’s friend, who seems to be zealous for the truth and good willed, being misled by some of Michael Dimond’s false teachings into thinking Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics by attending their Masses. Will’s correspondence with Bob was in turn sent by Bob to Michael and Peter Dimond. This is what led to this debate and refutation that the Dimond brothers tried to evade.

Will Norris to Bob More (12/19/01)

December 19, 2001

From: Will Norris

To: Bob More

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your prompt response. The problems with Bro. Michael are not just his heresy but his horrible pride. I can get into that later. What you want to look up on the website is a couple things.

First, of look under Issue #1 of Exurge Michael. Once you click on that go to the part that says " Warning on the False Teachings of Bro. Michael Diamond." Here Rich blows away Bro. Michael’s theories on his Rome Video.

Secondly, Click on RJMI's Book section and print out and read the book " Faith before the Mass". It shows how all of these traditional Catholics put the mass before the faith including Bro. Michael.

The two big problems with Bro. Michael is that he says that you can go to these Mass's which means that you are praying in communion with heretics and receiving sacrilegious communions. Bro. Michael will try to say that it is the priest that is offering up the sacrifice and not the people but you are praying one with the priest when he offers up the sacrifice. It is called the "una cum" curse.

Then take a look at " Heretics to Avoid" That will lay out Bro. Michael’s other heresies. After that take a look at the "Abjuration Booklet".

Finally, Bob you can forget your $1,000 offer because the Novus Ordo is rotten to the core. In fact they are the worst people to try to convert. You have a better shot with conservative Protestants, Muslims or Jews or any other people who have conviction. Hope to hear from you soon.

To Jesus Through Mary,

Will

Will Norris to Bob More (12/21/01)

December 21, 2001

From: Will Norris

To: Bob More

Bob,

I think you are confusing two issues. The question about a heretical priest administering valid sacraments is one area. Yes, Bob an illegal priest can perform valid sacraments. For example the Greek Schismatics are valid priests but they are illegal because they are not Catholic. The part where you are in heresy when you go to a traditional chapel is that you are praying in communion with heretics and receiving sacrilegious communions. All of these traditional priests are heretics to one degree or another. With that in mind none of them are Catholic.

Bob we have an obligation to profess the faith. If we go to these chapels and don't profess the faith we commit a sin of omission. What Brother Michael does is that he will go to Mass late and sneak in the back and then he leaves right away without telling anyone about the faith. He fails in his obligation to profess the faith. You create scandal by praying with these heretics because people will think that you believe the same thing that they do. Because Bro. Michael says that it is OK to go to these non- catholic chapels and as result God punishes you for doing so.

Did you look at the things I recommended? Check out his website if you can. Rich will be more than happy to answer your questions but try to check out the website first…

One last thing, I talked to Rich and he said that he will be open to debate the Diamond Bros. over the internet. It will have to be limited to the heresies that they are accused of. We can put a cc with your name on it so that you can receive a copy of the interactions. Ask the Diamond brothers if they are up for the challenge. If they decline you know that they don't have the truth. Hope to hear from you soon.

To Jesus Through Mary,

Will

Bro. Peter’s Response to Bob More 12/24/01

December 24, 2001

From: Bro. Peter

To: Bob More

Dear Bob,

I received your e-mails and your concomitant correspondence with Will. I must say that it's very disturbing, though not unexpected. Will's activity at MHFM - his lack of charity and "all for one, but not one for all mentality" - demonstrated that he might very well follow a schism, such as that which Ibranyi provides, because "it is the hardest path." He mistakenly believes that whatever position seems the "hardest" or most "rigorous" must of necessity be the true one. But this is certainly not the case, as we will demonstrate, and as Church history demonstrates. As for Mr. Ibranyi (and now Will's) position, it is text-book schismatic. Canon 1325.2 (found on page 29 of issue 4) defines schism as the refusal of communion with the Roman Pontiff or the members of the Church subject to him. Now the latter aspect (refusal of communion with other Catholics) of this definition is where Will and Ibranyi find themselves. They refuse communion with other Catholics (the many traditional Catholics like ourselves) who hold to no heresy at all. They condemn us without any grounds whatsoever. First, Mr. Ibranyi admits in his material that the whole issue of reception of sacraments from heretics falls into the ambit of ecclesiastical law, not divine law or dogma. He admits this at least by implication, by telling us that (in his words), "the 1917 Code changed the law of Pope Martin V." Now Bob, if the 1917 Code changed the law of Pope Martin V regarding the reception of sacraments from heretics, then the whole issue falls within the ambit of ecclesiatical law, not divine, since divine law cannot be changed. Thus, Ibranyi is condemning as heretics those whom he admits are not even violating the divine law or denying dogma, but [at worst] having recourse to a different interpretation as to how one is allowed to apply the ecclesiatical law in a crisis - the worst of all time. In other words, even if the canon laws which Ibranyi quoted really did seem to favor his opinion (which they don't), it wouldn't prove his point, since it's not like quoting dogma. Epikeia (equity) allows for the benign interpretation of a law when the literal would be harmful to the salvation of souls. Nay, you can even break the ecclesiatical law under certain circumstances - as Ibranyi does by publishing books without Episcopal Imprimatur! This violates canon 1385.1. Now Bob, could we condemn Ibranyi (presuming his books were not heretical) as a heretic for violating canon 1385.1? No. Any knowledgable teacher of Catholicism in these days would agree that such an idea is absurd, since good Catholic books are necessary in these times to instruct the faithful. But Ibranyi and Will (and every other member of their schismatic sect) is doing this exact thing by condemning us for violating what they think is canon law, when we can invoke epikeia. All this destroys Ibranyi's position, even without examining the teaching of canon law itself, which clearly favors the position that one can receive the sacraments from such priests, not Ibranyi's neo-sectarian ideology. See canon 2261.2 - it's listed on page 62 of issue 4. It speaks for itself. The discussion starting on that page, in fact, soundly refutes Ibranyi's claims. Further, canon 1325 explains that heretics are those who pertinaciously deny a defined Catholic dogma. A faithful adherence to this definition destroys Ibranyi's sect, since they totally ignore the pertinacity requirement. One must be obstinate to be a heretic. Having a wrong opinion about something is not heresy. But Ibranyi and all his sect members profess- in their abjuration, which I have a copy of - that everyone (Yes, Bob, everyone) above the age of reason who attends any Mass anywhere (including all the Traditional and even Sedevacantist churches) are heretics and apostates who will be damned! This means that 10 year-old traditional Catholic sedevacantists are all in a state of mortal sin because they go to Mass where their priest doesn't require an abjuration! What absurdity! What stupidity! The theological ramifications of such nonsense are easy to exploit, such as the fact that Ibranyi has literally created new essential mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be among the elect! No longer is it the Trinity and Incarnation, but Sedevacantism, abjurations, etc. Our fidelity to the pertinacity requirement of heresy is why we point out in our magazines that those who reject the Sedevacantist position are to be considered heretics, not necessarily those Catholics who have not seen a clear presentation of it. There is much more to be said on this issue, but this should suffice for now. As far as debating Ibranyi, we're quite busy at the moment, but if we get more time we will definitely consider it –although we have already refuted his claims in issue 4. By the way, it's important to keep in mind that Ibranyi publicly claims to be the prophet Elijah, one of the two witnesses in Apoc. 11. He's claimed this since 1986, approximately. But he admitted in his newsletter that, about a year ago, he fell into heresy himself and was outside the Church forgoing to a "heretical" traditional chapel! This means that while he was the prophet Elijah, he was a also heretic. So much for his credibility! This alone proves that he is a false prophet. He's of the devil and Will is following him. Don't listen to them. The devil has used a prideful person like Ibranyi to create a sect that goes much further than the Church goes, and it entraps those prideful people who want to be more Catholic than the Church.

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

P.S. A thought to consider: Ibranyi admits in his books that he could be wrong about his position that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. So he's not even sure about whether or not you need water baptism for salvation (something that has been defined), but he is sure that every single person going to every single Latin Mass in the world is going to be damned. Is that logical? Is that consistent? Is that Catholic? No.

RJMI Comment – (1/11/2002)

A few points will be made here and the rest below. What is this all for one and one for all talk? It sounds like a cliché from those who are bringing about the One World Order for the Antichrist. Are you teaching that Catholics should be one with notorious heretics and schismatics? Are you saying Catholics should join in prayer with notorious heretics and schismatics? What you are promoting and practicing is a false ecumenism I call Vatican III that is rampant among the various non-Catholic traditionalist sects. Your very use of the words “Traditional Catholics” is schismatic. There is no such thing as a Traditional Catholic. A Catholic is a Catholic. All the schismatic sects that broke away from the Catholic Church employed the same type of terminology trying to express that they were the true Catholics. You imply there are Catholic priests and Catholics groups. For the record would you please list the names of those whom you believe are Catholic priests and Catholic groups?

Your understanding of epikeia is incorrect. Epikeia does not allow a Catholic to break a law. It allows a Catholic to be exempt from a law. There is a big difference between breaking a law and being exempt from a law. A Catholic can never break (violate) the law. You also confuse disciplinary matters with matters of faith and morals. Epikeia can exempt a Catholic from a disciplinary law in an emergency situation, but it can never be applied to a dogma of faith or morals. (See: my book Exceptions to the Law)

Peter, you constantly change topics. When you get trapped on one point you do not address it and then change the topic. That is a key ploy of all heretics and schismatics, evasion. I repeat this again loud and clear as I have many times, as is clearly written in my books, the issue at hand regarding attending Mass at a non-Catholic church is not only about the reception of the sacraments during the Mass BUT ABOUT PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH NON-CATHOLICS!!! Read the underlined portion three times so it will sink into your head. Nor is it about the fact that a non-Catholic priest can validly change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus—he does so validly but not legally. The Greek Schismatic priests are valid but they are illegal. That is an altogether separate topic from praying in communion with notorious heretics and/or schismatics and other non-Catholics.

The reception of certain sacraments from an excommunicated priest, as allowed by Canon 2261.2.3 is a disciplinary matter. Praying in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics and other non-Catholics is not a disciplinary matter, but is a matter of the faith! I teach in my books that Canon 2261.2.3 allows for the reception of certain sacraments from excommunicated priests. Canon 2261 does not deal with the topic of praying in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics and other non-Catholics. It does not contain the words “Mass” and “pray, prayer, or praying.” That canon only deals with the sacraments and sacramentals. A simple child who read that canon would now that.

1917 Code of Canon Law:

“c. 2261.1. An excommunicated person may not licitly consecrate or administer the sacraments:

c. 2261.2. Except as provided in 2261.3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated (ed. latae sententiae/toleratus), especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request.”

c. 2261.3. From a minister who is an excommunicastus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution in accordance with Canons 882 and 2252 only in danger of death.[1]

You have yet to show me where the above canon contains the word “Mass” or any form of the word “pray.”

An important side note: Some canonists teach that Canon 2261.2 only applies to excommunicated priests who are still Catholic. This type of excommunication was once known as a minor excommunication. This type of excommunication still exists. These canonists teach that Canon 2261.2 does not apply to priests excommunicated for heresy or schism because they are not Catholic. I believe this to be the true interpretation. Many canonists also teach that Canon 2261.2 does not apply to receiving the Holy Eucharist, but only confession. The fact that non-Catholics can administer the sacrament of baptism in emergency situations is covered in another canon. Being there are canonists with opposing views, and a pope has not settled this dispute, both views are acceptable. But in practice the teaching that Catholics can receive the sacraments from non-Catholic priests is a bad and unvigilant law and is a near occasion of sin. I do not recommend any Catholic to receive any sacrament from a non-Catholic. (See: my book, “Canon Law, Infallibility, and Vigilance” go to “Unvigilant and Scandalous Laws that are Near Occasions of Sin”)

I will deal with your case, the receiving of the sacraments from a priest who has been automatically excommunicated for notorious heresy and/or schism, thus rendering him a non-Catholic. When a Catholic receives a sacrament from an excommunicated non-Catholic priest by virtue of Canon 2261.2 he must remove any occasion of scandal. That means he must do so privately. The Catholic’s obligation to profess the faith demands he tell the priest he is not Catholic, and that Canon 2261.2 allows the Catholic to receive the sacrament from the priest. If this is not done then the Catholic and the priest are scandalized. The Catholic allows the priest to go on thinking he is Catholic, and the Catholic allows the priest to believe they are in communion with one another. A Catholic who does this sins by omission and association and shares in the sins of the priest. The same applies to the people who witnessed the Catholic’s reception of a sacrament from the non-Catholic priest. The Catholic would also have to profess the faith to these people and tell them the reason he is receiving the sacrament from the non-Catholic priest. He must also profess the faith to the people. That is also plain common sense, and is a Catholic’s duty and obligation (c. 1325.1).

Under no circumstances can a Catholic receive the Holy Eucharist in communion with other non-Catholics, such as if he only went into Mass to receive Holy Communion and left right after he received, because he is uniting himself with the other non-Catholics by receiving in union with them. This causes scandal by giving the people the impression that the Catholic is one with them and the priest. He also commits another crime. He participates in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion. Catholics may receive certain sacraments from a non-Catholic priest, but baptized non-Catholics may never receive any of the sacraments. The only sacrament a non-Catholic can receive is baptism to bring him into the Church.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “c. 731. It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they are in good faith and request the sacraments unless they shall have previously renounced their errors and obtained reconciliation with the Church.”

Pope Martin V was allowing for the praying in communion with those who were accused of being heretics and schismatics, but only those whose supposed crimes were less than notorious. Under no circumstances was it his intention to allow Catholics to pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics, because that is a sin against the faith. (See: my book, “Faith Before the Mass,” and go to “Catholics cannot attend the Masses of notorious undeclared heretics and/or schismatics)

I will deal with pertinacity below, but will ask you one question here. What do you base your judgment on that John Paul II is pertinacious, and thus is a formal heretic, being that you have not personally warned him or presented the truth to him? By what right and whose authority do you have to call him an apostate antipope?

Regarding water baptism: Are you implying that there has never been legitimate dissention over non-infallibly defined doctrines that are not part of the Ordinary Magisterium? What about Aquinas’ teaching that Mary was not conceived Immaculate? Water Baptism needs to be solemnly defined because of the confusion over the interpretation of the Council of Trent, Session 6 and Chapter 4. (See: my book Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, The Ordinary Magisterium.)

Prophets and saints are not God. They can make mistakes and even commit grievous sins. Moses sinned and could not enter the promise land. If they died as saints that means they repented, as did Moses and King David. I will deal with this issue below.

RJMI and Will Norris Accusations (12/26/2001)

December 26, 2001

From: Will Norris

To: Peter Dimond

Dear Bro. Peter,

Before Richard and myself refute your claims I want to make this appeal to you. Brother Peter you have wisdom and knowledge. I owe a great deal of my conversion to your council. Your brother on the other hand does not have any wisdom. Yes, he has a ton of knowledge in his head but he has no wisdom.

Bro. Peter how can you say that I displayed an " All for one, but not one for all mentality". Did you forget that it was you guys that needed help when I came up the second time? Did you forget that I never once asked for a dime when I came up there? I went there to do God's Will. Now I thank God that I got kicked out again. It confirmed my hunch that Bro. Michael is impossible to work and live with and on top of that he is in heresy.

Bro. Peter I saw the way he treats you and it is not right. Bro. Peter if you decide to leave the monastery you have a place to stay down here in New Mexico. We will pay for your plane ticket and you can stay here for free in a mobile home. You would be a great asset down here and more importantly you would be Catholic!!!

As far as Richard having the hardest path, What does our Lord say in Matt. 7:13-14: "Enter ye at the narrow gate, for wide is the path….." Bro. Peter, the truth is the truth!!!

Now to your letter to Bob More. Nice try on your refutation of Richard. You have evaded the issue, like a good Protestant. You again talk of receiving the sacraments, when the crime is praying in communion with notorious heretics and/or schismatics. I admit Canon 2261.2 allows for the reception of sacraments from an excommunicated priest, although I do not agree with this teaching. That is not the reason you are a heretic. The four main reasons are listed below.

1) You are praying in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics, which is a sin against the faith that cannot admit to epikeia. In this you are guilty of all their crimes by way of association. Have you no shame! (See: Faith Before the Mass)

[Council of Laodicea, 365 A.D.] "No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics."

[Council of Carthage, 418 A.D.] "One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman; let him be excommunicated." (Patrologiae Cursus Completus 56:486}

[III Council of Constantinople, 680 A.D.] "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion." (Sacrorum Conciliorium, XI:635)

“Canon 1258. It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.” Commentary: “...One may not be present at non-Catholic prayers, services or sermons either in a church or elsewhere.”[2]

2) You have shirked your duty and obligation to profess the faith to the non-Catholics that you pray in communion with. You do not demand they submit to the dogmas of the Church, by repenting, converting, and abjuring. In this you are guilty of all their crimes by way of omission. You attend Mass at what you admit is a non-Catholic church and remain silent.

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 the neighbor.”

Catechism Question: In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another’s sin? Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: 1. By counsel; 2. By command; 3. By consent; 4. By provocation; 5. By praise or flattery; 6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence; 9. By defending the ill done.

3) You are participating in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion. Non-Catholics, except for the sacrament of baptism, are forbidden to receive the other sacraments. This is of the faith and does not admit to epikeia. You, being a non-Catholic yourself, are receiving side-by-side with other non-Catholics. Thus you are a willing accomplice in this crime. Instead of condemning the priest and people on this point alone, you sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion side-by-side with them.

Canon 1917 Code of Canon Law: “c. 731. It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they are in good faith and request the sacraments unless they shall have previously renounced their errors and obtained reconciliation with the Church.”

“Canon 2260.1. “An excommunicated person may not receive the Sacraments; after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence; he may not receive even the sacramentals.”

This canon is not talking about a Catholic appealing to Canon 2161.2 to receive from a non-Catholic priest. A non-Catholic can never receive the sacraments under any circumstances, and this crime you witness week after week.

4) You have not taken a specific abjuration from the Great Apostasy, nor do you require others to do so. (See: The Abjuration Book)

In conclusion, Bro. Peter if you are humble and of any good will at all you will see the error your ways and leave the monastery immediately. Remember Matt. 10: 37; " Anyone who puts father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…" This could easily be said of brothers also. Remember Bro. Peter you have a place to stay and we will buy you your ticket to get down here!!! Hope to hear from you soon.

To Jesus through Mary,

Will

Peter’s Response - RJMI’s Refutation (12/29/2001)

Peter’s Opening Comment

Peter Dimond (hereafter PD) Comment:

Dear Richard Ibranyi, I address this letter to you Richard (even though Will wrote to me), because you are the principal source for Will's accusations and beliefs at this time. As you know, he is now with you in New Mexico. By addressing the letter to you, you won't be able to claim that I never refuted your arguments directly; which you might claim had I only addressed my letters to Will. However, what I have to say applies also to Will - since you and he believe the same way. I will also respond to the particular points raised by Will in his letter. First, allow me to say that if at any time Bro. Michael embraced a heretical position I would leave Most Holy Family Monastery. The fact that he is my brother makes no difference whatsoever. I have never been one to be overly attached to family members (as God knows is true), and I regard Bro. Michael primarily as a fellow Catholic and my superior. If Bro. Michael were a manifest heretic, I would leave MHFM immediately. But this is not the case. Will also mentioned that Bro. Michael treats me poorly. This is not true at all. Perhaps Will is disgruntled with the fact that he left here not on the best of terms. I might add that when Will was here he was treated extremely well also: he had his own place to stay; no demands or time limits on filling orders; all the food and provisions he needed, etc. The reason he didn't work here is simply because he could not be trusted - examples of which I could give but don't feel like getting into.

RJMI Comment:

You say Will cannot be trusted. There are two sides to every story. If anyone wants to hear Will’s side you can email him at the following address - (wnorris@catholichaven.org). This debate will reveal who cannot be trusted in the highest matters, those of the faith.

It is not enough to think you are Catholic.

PD Comment:

Now to the issue at hand. You accuse Bro. Michael and myself of being heretics. We in turn call you a schismatic - for separating yourself from communion with other Catholics (like myself), who hold to no heresy and can prove it. Our accusation of schism, therefore, results from your accusation of heresy. Obviously, if you didn't separate yourself and unlawfully denounce as heretics Catholics like ourselves and others, then you wouldn't be a schismatic, in accordance with the definition of canon 1325.2.

RJMI Comment:

Peter, it is not enough to think you are Catholic. You must be Catholic. You and Michael are not Catholic. Since when is a Catholic a schismatic for not being in religious communion with non-Catholics? The opposite is the truth. If a Catholic places himself in religious communion with non-Catholics he becomes a non-Catholic. Do you propose I do as you and apostate John Paul II do, ignore our differences and concentrate on what we have in common? What does wheat have to do with chaff, or Catholics with heretics and schismatics? The fact is that you, and whoever is associated with you, are not Catholic. You and your brother, Michael Dimond, are non-Catholic heretics. That is a fact! Just because you think you are Catholic means nothing. Martin Luther thought he was the true Catholic, as do all heretics and schismatics.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, January 6, 1873: “4. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error.”

My duty as a Catholic is to admonish, condemn, and warn you that you are on the broad road to hell. That duty demands that I do not place myself in religious communion with you or I will share in your sins and become a non-Catholic.

Canon 1325.2 and Pertinacity

Peter Dimond Comment:

Obviously, if you didn't separate yourself and unlawfully denounce as heretics Catholics like ourselves and others, then you wouldn't be a schismatic, in accordance with the definition of canon 1325.2. Thus, the burden of proof begins with you. You must prove your charge of heresy. The Code says: "anyone, retaining the name Christian, [who] pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic..." (c. 1325.2). Therefore, to be a heretic, one must deny with pertinacity a "truth of divine and Catholic faith". Did Will's letter prove that I deny a truth of divine and Catholic faith with pertinacity?

RJMI Comment:

Are you implying you have denied an article of faith but not with pertinacity? The mere fact that you said this proves pertinacity without the need of a presumption. If that is not what you meant your sentence is poorly worded, or your thoughts are confused. All you should be concerned about is that you are denying an article of faith.

As soon as it is certain that a perpetrator has taught or practiced apostasy, idolatry, heresy, or schism, pertinacity is presumed with the burden of proof on the one who commited the crime.

Rev. McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, p. 35: The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity [footnote #12: Canon 2200.2]. There may however be circumstances which excuse the person either from all responsibility, or else from grave responsibility. These excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist. When satisfactory proof is offered, the juridical presumption will yield to fact, and the person will be pronounced innocent of heresy, and not liable to censure… p. 41: By virtue of canon 2200.2, the fact that a delict has been committed establishes a presumption that the delinquent was fully responsible. A mere assertion of ignorance will not suffice. (The Delict of Heresy)

Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy: “The external act must be (or at least must seem to be), the expression of a mind that is aware of, and a will that is freely committed to, a sinful act. The preservation of order, and the elimination of quibbling excuses, make necessary the provision that where the external delinquent act has been committed, the existence of sin be presumed… A person who ponders a question of faith and arrives at a decision, will regularly express his decision in speech or writing… he is guilty of the delict of heresy as soon as he completely expresses his erroneous judgment. …Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions.” P. 98: “The commission of an external act of heresy is presumed by law to have all the necessary qualities of contumacity, and hence is automatically punished by a state of excommunication, which the delinquent must recognize as binding him in both the internal and eternal fora.”

That is how you have been able to reject and condemn John Paul II as an apostate antipope without having to question or warn him. What goes for him goes for you. It is worse for you, because you have been directly warned many times by me. With Michael Rios as in intermediary, we debated this topic of attending the Masses of notorious heretics for almost six months and I mailed you a copy of “Faith Before the Mass” before you put out your first Journal. I am now admonishing, rebuking, and condemning you again. So you are doubly culpable and have no claim for ignorance whatsoever. Even if you were not warned you cannot claim ignorance because it is a basic dogma that Catholics cannot commit acts of idolatry, and praying in communion with notorious heretics is an act of idolatry.

Praying in Communion with notorious heretics and/or schismatics is a matter of the faith?

Peter Dimond Comment:

Therefore, to be a heretic, one must deny with pertinacity a "truth of divine and Catholic faith". Did Will's letter prove that I deny a truth of divine and Catholic faith with pertinacity? No. Let's examine his claims: - First, he accused me of denying the Council of Laodicea, 365: "No one shall pray in common with heretics." The Council of Laodicea is a regional council, not an ecumenical one; thus, it doesn't even represent Church discipline solemnly promulgated by a Pope, let alone a "truth of divine and Catholic faith" (dogma)! So yours and Will's first "proof" of heresy falls to the ground and crumbles. [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. This will be expounded upon more later. Nevertheless, your first accusation of our being heretics is soundly refuted - you have produced no article of divine and Catholic faith.] - The second thing Will quoted is from the Council of Carthage, stating basically the same thing as the Council of Laodicea. In response I repeat that I don't pray or sing psalms with heretics - no more than did any Catholic in Church history who attended Mass when a heretic also happened to be there. Was such a person praying with heretics? Obviously not, and neither am I. Furthermore, this quote from Carthage, like the one from Laodicea, is not "an article of divine and Catholic faith." It is a disciplinary decree. Articles of divine and Catholic faith admit of no exceptions. If this quote from Carthage were an article of divine and Catholic faith, to be interpreted as you do (without exceptions), then you must of necessity admit that every person in Church history who attended Mass at a place where a heretic was present, was also a heretic. Anyone of good will can see the absurdity of that position. Thus, your argument is refuted. - The third thing Will quoted was from the III Council of Constantinople. [III Council of Constantinople, 680 A.D.] "If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion." (Sacrorum Conciliorium, XI:635) This is also not an article of divine and Catholic faith, but another disciplinary decree, like Laodicea and Carthage.

RJMI Comment:

The decrees in a Regional Council that deal with faith and morals, apply to the Universal Church, and are confirmed by the pope are infallible. Even if a pope did not confirm a decree in a Regional Council it can still be infallible if it reiterates a dogma that had already been infallibly taught by a past pope.

Why do you speak of the status of the Councils at all, if as you say, the teaching that Catholics cannot pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics, and other non-Catholics is only a disciplinary matter? The fact is that it is a matter of faith, a basic dogma of the faith. It is also a fact that the III Council of Constantinople was an Ecumenical Council, an unquestionably infallible Council, something you conveniently failed to mention. The Council of Constantinople only reconfirmed what the Church has infallible taught and practiced from Her birth. “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers ...Go out from among them; and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:” (2Cor. 6:14-17) “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph. 5: 12) “Mark them who make offences and dissentions contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17-18) In Volume II of the Manual of Moral Theology, the Jesuits Noldin and Schmitt explain that no Catholic can formally participate in the worship of heretics because to do so is to deny the faith by the internal and external profession of a false religion.

If praying in communion with notorious heretics, schismatics and other non-Catholics is only a disciplinary matter, as you suggest, then John Paul II is not guilty of committing crimes when he prays in communion with non-Catholics. Being that people think he is the pope, and if it is only a disciplinary matter as you suggest, then he can change the decree and pray in communion with non-Catholics. Your heretical premise then is that Catholics can pray in communion with notorious non-Catholics if a pope allows it, or in an emergency situation by the principle of epikeia. This is what the thrust of you argument leans on; that Catholics can knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics, and other non-Catholics in certain situations. But strangely in the midst of making your argument you deny your own heretical premise. Speaking with a double tongue and proving that the law upon your heart convicts you, you deny the very point you are trying to make by saying you do not pray in communion with heretics, nor recommend anyone do so.

Peter Dimond: “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.”

What then, may I ask, are you doing when you attend Mass at a non-Catholic Church? Are you attending Mass or not? If you are that means you are praying the Mass in communion with the priests and parishioners.

So what do you believe? You speak with a double tongue and heart. Can Catholics pray in common with non-Catholics or not? It seems you are now agreeing with the Councils that teach the Catholic dogma that it is a sin to pray in common with notorious heretics. The law upon your heart convicts you several times in your letter. Your conscience is bothered by your idolatrous crimes so you close your eyes and ears and excuse yourself of this crime by playing stupid. You pretend there are no heretics in the non-Catholic church you attend, or they are all occult heretics. Do you not pretend that there are no heretics, or only occult heretics in the non-Catholic church you attend? Of course you do.

Peter Dimond: “I repeat that I don't pray or sing psalms with heretics - no more than did any Catholic in Church history who attended Mass when a heretic also happened to be there. Was such a person praying with heretics? Obviously not, and neither am I. …If this quote from Carthage were an article of divine and Catholic faith, to be interpreted as you do (without exceptions), then you must of necessity admit that every person in Church history who attended Mass at a place where a heretic was present, was also a heretic. Anyone of good will can see the absurdity of that position. Thus, your argument is refuted.”

Are you saying that is what Carthage taught? Talk about a twisted interpretation. The fact is if a Catholic did mistakenly wander into the non-Catholic church you attend he would be the only Catholic in the midst of notorious heretics.

Peter, who you are you praying and singing with when you attend Mass, at what you admit is a non-Catholic church, on Sunday? You have mixed apples with orange by changing topics.

Apples: One topic is a Catholic praying in communion with an occult heretic, meaning the Catholic does not know the man is a heretic.

Oranges: The other topic is a so-called Catholic who knowingly prays in communion with notorious heretics, schismatics, or other non-Catholics.

Apples: One topic is a non-Catholic occult heretic attending a Catholic Church among a flock of faithful Catholics.

Oranges: Another topic is a so-called Catholic attending a non-Catholic church of notorious heretics and/or schismatics.

To excuse yourself of the crime of praying in common with notorious heretics you must pretend you are either attending a Catholic church and that all those present are either Catholics, or occult heretics, or a combination of the two. Or, being you admit the church you attend Mass at is a non-Catholic church, you must then pretend all present are invincibly ignorant Catholics or occult heretics. Even if some were invincibly ignorant, which is not the case in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, your duty would be to profess the truth to them, expose the crimes and criminals, warn and tell them to leave the church.

Meetinghouses of Heretics

PD Comment:

Moreover, as I said before, I don't go into the meeting houses of heretics, nor do I recommend anyone to. If you try to assert that all of the Traditional Chapels are meeting houses of heretics, then you are caught in some big inconsistencies, such as when they became meeting houses of heretics, etc. But I'll save that for a future letter, if necessary.

RJMI Comment:

Give a list of all the Traditional Chapels that are Catholic? You do not go to a Traditional Chapel anyway so what is your point? You attend a non-Catholic Eastern Rite church, St. Josaphat in Rochester New York. That church is part of the Conciliar Church under apostate Antipope John Paul II.

Peter, you are playing stupid again, and God will not be mocked. Just meet with people you attend Mass with in the back of the church before or after Mass and you will immediately know you are in a meetinghouse of heretics. That is if you know what apostasy and heresy is yourself.

Are you proposing that in these latter days of the Great Apostasy the only problem in the Conciliar Church is an occasional occult heretic and all the rest are invincibly ignorant Catholics? A simple questioning of the people at the non-Catholic church you attend would prove to you that none of them are Catholic. They are not occult heretics. They will come right out and profess heresy. All you have to do is open the mouth that God gave you and profess the faith to them and show them the crimes. The fact is the notorious crimes of the Conciliar Church and John Paul II are manifest to all in these latter days of the Great Apostasy. To argue when they became manifest to all is a moot point. It is enough to know that they are manifest to all. You are like someone who remains in house he knows is burning and will not leave until someone tells him when the fire started. What does it matter as to when a meetinghouse of heretics became a meetinghouse of heretics? As long as you know it is a meetinghouse of heretics suffices for you to avoid it and warn others who belong to it to condemn and avoid it.

The notorious crimes of the Conciliar Church are manifest to all in these latter days of the Great Apostasy without the need for anybody to warn them. Thus a Catholic is duty bound to recognize them as meetinghouses of heretics. If he does not he is a non-Catholic heretic by sins of commission, and if he recognizes it and does not reject, condemn, and avoid it then he is a non-Catholic heretic by sins of omission and by way of association.

Peter, you do go into the meetinghouse of heretics every Sunday. You only pretend they are not. To keep up this illusion you must bend over backwards, place your head deep in the sand, and remain deadly silent by not professing the faith and exposing the crimes and criminals to those you sit side-by-side and pray with. The crimes in these latter days of the Great Apostasy are manifest to every man on earth. Apostate Antipope no longer tries to hide his crimes. He broadcasts them worldwide. That is how you were able to condemn him. This same information is manifest to all that attend the non-Catholic Conciliar Church. And if it was not, as was the case in the early days of the Great Apostasy, it would be the duty of those who know the truth to warn the others and once warned they would be fully culpable if they did not heed the warning.

Absurd is your proposition that in these latter days of the Great Apostasy a Church full of Catholics can be found any where in the world, yet alone in every local Conciliar church, or Eastern Rite Conciliar church, or Society of St. Pius X church, or anywhere. ““But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”(Luke 18:8) The truth is that if a Catholic mistakenly wandered into one of these non-Catholic churches in these latter days of the apostasy he would be the only Catholic in the midst of a church full of notorious heretics. A simple questioning of the people would prove this to be true and if the Catholic remained and prayed in communion with them he would also become non-Catholic like the rest. Don’t play stupid! It has caused you to lie, like your father the Devil, and God will not be mocked by you lying evasion.

There is another hypocrisy in your position. Your position implies that you believe the bulk of the people in the Conciliar Church are either invincibly ignorant Catholics or occult heretics. Therefore, the church you attend Mass at is a Catholic church whose flock to the best of your knowledge, is Catholic. So then, why are you not enrolled in the parish that you attend Mass at or financially support it? If you refuse to enroll yourself with these Catholics and financially support the church then you are in schism on this point alone. If you change topics again and say that the church, the priest, and most of people are not Catholic then you prove your argument about occult heretics is false and a mere diversion, and that you are knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics.

(See: my book Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, Objective and Subjective Violations.)

Canon 1258

PD Comment:

But I'll save that for a future letter, if necessary. The bottom line is that this citation from the III Council of Constantinople is not an article of divine and Catholic faith; and it is nothing that I am violating. - Will also quoted canon 1258. You and he fail to realize that canon 1258 prohibits taking part in the sacred "services" of non-Catholics. This prohibits attendance at schismatic rites or Protestant services, not the Roman Rite or the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. You need to read this canon more carefully, as even Hutton Gibson pointed out in his newsletter when you accused him of violating this canon.

RJMI Comment:

You change and blend topics again to try and confuse the reader. You are mixing religious rites and services with the faith. The Roman Rite and Eastern Rite can be offered by non-Catholic priests in non-Catholic churches or they can be offered up by Catholic priests in Catholic churches. It is not the rite that is in question but the faith. The Protestant service is not even a valid rite, but that is not the topic of this canon either. The topic of this canon is that Catholics cannot attend the churches of non-Catholics and pray in communion with them.

You are trying desperately to justify your unjustifiable position. Of course Canon 1258 does not apply to Eastern Rite Catholic churches because they are Catholic. Canon 1258 applies to praying in communion with non-Catholics. You admit it applies to the churches of notorious heretics and schismatics. You admit it applies to the Greek Schismatics who have a valid rite. The question then is, “Do you think the Eastern Rite churches of the Conciliar Church under John Paul II are Catholic churches?” That is certainly what you imply. If they are, then the one you attend is a Catholic church, which means you are in schism for not enrolling yourself in the parish, and financially supporting it.

Obligation to Profess the Faith

PD Comment:

2) Will and you quote canon 1325.1 on the obligation to profess the faith, as if I am "shirking" my duty to profess the faith. This is utterly gratuitous. Every priest, bishop and cleric in the entire country has received a copy of our magazine. They all know - or have the opportunity to know - where we stand. 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. Your accusation holds no water and proves nothing.

RJMI Comment:

Your hypocrisy has reached epic proportions. If it is true that you have presented the truth to the priest and people whom you attend Mass with then how can they be invincibly ignorant Catholics or occult heretics? As I said above even if you did not present them with the truth they are still guilty. You hang yourself by your own words. You have said in your own Journal that once the truth is presented to someone there is no excuse for those who do not accept it. In such cases pertinacity is an indisputable fact without the need of presumption. You rightly consign such as these to hell if they die unrepentant.

Michael and Peter Dimond, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Issue #5, Final Remarks, p. 65: “The sad reality of this situation—which Antipope John Paul II 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.”

So what is it, are the priest and people who have the use of reason at the non-Catholic church you attend Mass at guilty of not? You said, “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.” Therefore, you cannot say the truth had not been presented to them. Here you admit what you denied above. You are now saying the non-Catholic church you attend is inhabited by notorious heretical priests and laymen, but above you said at best they were occult heretics and the rest are invincibly ignorant Catholics. Therefore, by your own admission, you are knowingly praying in communion with non-Catholics and participating in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion.

Your denial of faith has led you to lie, by way of the Romans One curse. You lied when you said you profess the faith to those whom you attend Mass with. You do not. I know. I witnessed this first hand. 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 commited 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.”

Peter, if as you say since I was kicked out of the “Monastery” for holding and professing the sedevacantist position, that Michael did not hold at the time, Michael now allows his minions to openly profess the faith in the non-Catholic church he attends Mass at, you lie. You have said you gave the priest and the people the information, have you not? I will call Will Norris to the witness stand. Will Norris had stayed with you at the “Monastery” from March to April of 2001 and then from Mid-June to sometime in August of 2001. By the grace of God and his good-willed cooperation he has abjured from the Great Apostasy and is now with me in Truth-or-Consequences New Mexico. What follows are his own words.

Will Norris, T or C, 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.

Michael and Peter, the next week when you attend Mass at what you admit is a non-Catholic church, whose leader is John Paul II whom you believe is a notorious apostate and even the Antichrist, go early and look to the persons to the left, right, front, and in back of you. Look at them real good in their eyes and then profess the faith to them. Show them the crimes and the criminals and the Church dogma that condemns them. Tell them the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church and John Paul II is an apostate antipope, and see what they say. And when to your face they deny the faith know that you are again convicted of the crimes I have accused you of. And if you do not witness to them then know also that you are also convicted of the crime I have accused you of, that being, shirking your duty to profess the faith and condemn heretics when the situation demands that you do. Thus you share equally in the guilt of the persons who sit in front, back, to the right, and to the left of you, yea, of all the persons in the non-Catholic church you attend, pray in communion with, and remain deadly silent.

Public crimes of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion

PD Comment:

3) Will and you accuse us of "participating in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion." This assertion is as novel as some of the worst Vatican II heresies. Never in the entire history of the Church have Catholics been held responsible if the other people at Mass receive sacrilegious Communions. This is utter nonsense! Quote one document from the Magisterium which states that when Catholics go to Mass they must interrogate every other person to see if they are Catholic and receiving Communion in the state of grace. I challenge you to do this. And if you can't - and you can't - then remain silent; for this is absolutely indispensable to your position. You hold that a Catholic must interrogate every other person at Mass and find out his beliefs. And when you can't quote anything to this effect - which you won't be able to - then consider that you are actually accusing the Popes (who failed to decree this responsiblity) of heresy as well. So much for your third charge of heresy.

RJMI Comment:

Peter, the whole premise of your argument is that the church you attend Mass at is a Catholic church presided over by a Catholic priest with Catholic laymen attending. You are playing stupid again, and God will not be mocked. Sins of omission, Peter, sins of omission, have you ever heard of them? You need to study your basic catechism. You are denying a very basic of the faith. A man who witnesses a crime shares equally in the guilt of the sin and sinner if he does not condemn both the sin and the sinner. A man who even suspects a crime has been commited must investigate to learn the truth of the matter.

THE SIN OF OMISSION

Lev. 5:1: “If any one sin, and hear the voice of one swearing, and is a witness either because he himself hath seen, or is privy to it: if he do not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity.”

Romans 16:17-18: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent.”

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.”

IV Lateran Council: “We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronize them, are excommunicated.”

Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.”

Romans 1:18,32: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

Peter is it a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion sacrilegiously? Does a Catholic commit mortal sin for remaining silent when he knows a person is receiving sacrilegiously? Is the church you attend Catholic? You must say the church is not Catholic, or you deny your own position. That being so, how can you presume everyone in the church is Catholic? Even if you thought there were a few Catholics in the church you would still be bound to warn them by teaching them the truth. If they do not believe it you would then know that even they are not Catholic. To rightly say as you do, that the Conciliar Church and John Paul II are not Catholic and teach notorious heresies to the flock and then to presume that the whole flock, or most of the flock is not in heresy, or only occult heretics, or invincible ignorant Catholics is the statement of a jackass. Excuse me, I did not mean to insult the animal. Animals are not that stupid.

“Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken. I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel [fallen-away Catholics] hath not known me, and my people hath not understood. Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel [Catholic Church], they are gone away backwards.” (Isa. 1:2-4)

An ox knows its owner, but you and Michael do not truly know God because you violate His very first commandment. If a parent’s son is fornicating in secret there is obviously no way for the parent to know, and thus the parent is not obliged to condemn him, because he is not aware of his crime. The minute a parent even suspects his son of committing fornication he must inquire further by questioning him, and by other means of investigation. If he discovers his son has commited fornication he must rebuke and condemn him of having committed a mortal sin, and tell him he will go to hell if he does not repent. If the son is living in a house with the girl he is fornicating with the parents cannot visit the house. It is not the house they are avoiding, and whatever good may be in it. They are avoiding it because of the public sin that is taking place in it by those who live there.

The Catholic Church forbids her children to knowingly attend Mass and pray with notorious heretics and schismatics. It is not the Holy Eucharist that they are dishonoring by avoiding receiving it in such churches when Mass is being offered, it is the unworthy ministers and people that are avoided.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “Reply to Objection 1. By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God’s sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers.” (Third Part, Question 82, Article 9)

A good can never come by an evil means. If a Catholic knowingly attends such a church he would have to deny the faith while at Mass and unite with the notorious heretics and/or schismatics by praying in communion with them. You cannot separate yourself from the people you are praying in communion with. If you pray just one “Amen” from the Mass at such a church you have prayed in communion with notorious heretics. If you sit when they sit, stand when they stand, kneel when they kneel, you are in communion with notorious heretics.

Peter, you are like a man who knowingly goes into a whorehouse week after week—you do admit the Conciliar Church is a harlot—and says week after week, “I do not see any whores in here.”

Specific Abjuration and Manifest and Notorious Crimes

PD Comment:

4) Your final claim is that I haven't taken a specific abjuration according to forms laid down by your religion. You have no authority to bind every person to your own abjuration for salvation, which is what you do. I would never sign your abjuration, because if I did I would commit a mortal sin; for your abjuration rejects as heretical every person attending every traditonal Mass in the world, does it not? I quote # 24 of your "Roman Catholic Form of Abjuration": "I reject any sect that allows 'Catholics' to attend the Masses of manifest heretics, or masses of those who are in communion with manifest heretics... I reject all the laymen who attend these churches and chapels along with the priests, and acknowledge them as non-Catholic apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church." That includes every person - whether they are 10 years old or 50 - who attends any Sedevacantist chapel, does it not? In fact, in another place, your abjuration makes special mention that there are no excuses for ignorance. The theological ramifications of such a statement, which your abjuration formula makes, are quite clear and easy to expose. First, the Church has never required that each Catholic knows every single dogma of the Church. We don't have to know everything that all the Popes have defined, but we must accept all of them - i.e., if we find out that what we believe is contrary to them we must change our position immediately or we become heretics. That is why Pope Pius X in Acerbo Nimis, April, 1905 speaks of " those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." Pius X is teaching that not every mystery of faith must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect. This is common sense and what the Church has always taught. Those mysteries of faith which must be known by everyone above the age of reason are the Trinity and the Incarnation (as the Athanasian Creed defines). One cannot reject any other teaching of the Church, but broken down to its simplest form which every one above the age of reason must know, the Catholic faith is defined as belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. That is why this holy creed says: "This is the Catholic faith... that we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity..." If you are above the age of reason and you are ignorant of the Trinity and Incarnation, you will be damned. However, if you are above the age of reason - and you believe as a Catholic - but you are ignorant of Session 7, Canon 8 of Trent (for example) or the Papal deposition teachings, you are not necessarily a heretic. But you, and your religion, have created new mysteries of faith which must be known and believed by everyone in order to be numbered among the elect. You say that every person above the age of reason must know of Sedevacantism, abjurations (nay, your specific abjuration), etc., etc., etc. This is not Catholic and not what the Church teaches. It is easily disproven. Consider the fact that you agree that infants of a SSPV or CMRI family are Catholics until the age of reason. Therefore, what you are saying is that when these infants get older - say seven, eight, ten - they immediately have to hold all of your positions for salvation, even though they already believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Papacy, attend only the Latin Mass, and reject Antipope John Paul II. They are still headed for Hell, according to you. This is ridiculous, for such a person has not denied any teaching of the Catholic Church. To say what you say (that such a ten your old attending the CMRI, SSPV, etc.) is a heretic, is to make your positions part of "those mysteries of faith that must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." That is as stupid as saying that every ten your old Catholic must know that sacraments are conferred ex opere operato (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 8) and that Jesus Christ has two wills (a dogma, but something most of the people who agree with you don't even know). All of this serves to prove how evil and schismatic your position is.

RJMI Comment:

A Protestant or Schismatic church is still a Protestant and Schismatic church even though the baptized infants who attend it are Catholic. Once the infants reach the age or reason they are culpable because they are willing members of the non-Catholic church. If they were not true then there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Yes, my religion, the Catholic religion, teaches fallen-away Catholics must take a specific abjuration in order to enter the Catholic Church. Fallen-away Catholics do not have to take the abjuration I composed, but they do have to take a specific abjuration once they learn the Church teaches they must. I would ask a so-called Catholic who said he took an abjuration to show it to me to see if the points on it are Catholic and to see if he missed some points and then inquire as to what he believes about the missing points. I composed the specific abjuration first for myself, as a test to see who is Catholic and who is not, so I no longer place myself in religious communion with heretics and/or schismatics. “Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1Jn. 4:1) There are no clerics, priests or bishops, who do this. Therefore they have not abjured from their own heresies and /or schisms and they preside over a church full of assorted apostates, heretics, and schismatics, making it a safe haven for them. “And why, even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” (Lk. 12:57)

I have discovered so-called Catholics heresies and/or schisms only when I brought up the specific abjuration. When I do they almost uncontrollably, by the hand of God, start spouting heresies I never knew they held. To my surprise this happened with people I never thought held heresies. The only way to discern the spirits, to test to see of one is Catholic, is to put the so-called Catholic on the spot and specifically question him as to what he believes and tell him to put it in writing, not just generally but specifically. That is why the Catholic Church has always demanded specific abjurations from fallen-away Catholics. The Church has not demanded the same of professed non-Catholics, such as those born and raised in Protestant sects. They take a non-specific form of abjuration, followed by a Profession of Faith.

Peter, how do you know that a person who tells you he is Catholic is truly Catholic? Do you take his word for it? Do you test him to see if he is Catholic before you refer to him as a Catholic and place yourself in religious communion with him? Satan himself can call you on the phone, or visit you in the “Monastery”—as he did through Ed, Michael’s false non-Catholic prophet he relies on for prophecies—and tell you he is Catholic and you would believe it just because he said so. Jesus Christ teaches there are people who “honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.” (Mk. 7:6-7) How would you know if a so-called Catholic believes in and teaches doctrines and precepts of men if you did not specific question him about the Catholic faith and the apostasies, heresies, and schisms of the Great Apostasy? How would you know if a so-called Catholic who says he repented of his crimes really did if he is not willing to publicly abjure from them in writing?

I know men who truthfully admit the Conciliar Church and John Paul II are non-Catholic entities but not for all the right reasons? Many hold other heresies such as the heresy of Americanism, and that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, and even the apostate teaching that Moslems worship the one God. Many left only because of the New Mass and for no other reason. I have known others who verbally profess belief in a dogma but do not want to put their belief in writing. These same people, when talking to others, would deny the same dogma they professed in front of me. Fr. Blanco is one such person. Once a person puts what he believe in writing the proof is there for all to see.

The point you mention on the abjuration is #32 not #24. You conveniently left out a part of the abjuration that qualifies that statement. You left out the introduction to points 31 to 32 and a portion in paragraph 32. The portions you left out are in bold and underlined.

Paragraphs 31-32 Apply only to these Latter Days of the Great Apostasy: 32. I reject and condemn any sect or person that teach that “Catholics” can attend the Masses of manifest/notorious heretics, or Masses of those who are in communion with manifest/notorious heretics. Therefore, I reject, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (una cum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen who attend these churches and chapels, and acknowledge them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.

The portion you left you makes it clear I am referring to latter days of the Great Apostasy when heresy, apostasy, and idolatry is being taught to all the children as soon as they reach the age of reason. Not only are they taught it they practice it by going to apostate Jewish Seder meals and other idolatrous ecumenical events. These are taught in the catechism books that teach the children. Just go up to any child of the age of reason in the non-Catholic Eastern Rite church you attend and ask the children of the age of reason some basics about the faith. Ask them, do Moslems and Jews worship the one true God? Are Catholics to look upon Moslems with esteem? Is the apostate Jewish religion a true religion? Are apostate Jews, Catholics elder brothers? If a man is not Catholic can he be saved? Are Protestants and Schismatics part of the Catholic Church? Are the Greek Schismatics, who deny the papacy, part of the Catholic Church and can they be saved? Are Catholics allowed to pray in communion with non-Catholics? These are the very basics of the faith that Pope Pius X teaches all Catholics must believe with no excuses for ignorance (Acerbo Nimis), if they want a hope to be saved. So you are playing stupid again by pretending that these children of the age of reason, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, are not denying basic dogmas of the faith.

Your premise also denies the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.” If you excuse these so-called Catholic children of the age of reason you must do the same for baptized Protestants children of the age of reason when they are taught by their ministers and parents anything contrary to the basics of the Catholic faith that must be believed, such as the denial of the papacy, or confession, or faith without works, etc. Therefore, you would deny the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” if you said these Protestant children of the age of reason can be excused because they did not know any better and had no one to teach them the truths about the very basics of the faith. This extends to apostate Jews and Moslems for those who do not believe in the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of baptism in which water must be used. They believe that their children, if never taught the faith are invincible ignorant and not culpable and can be saved by an implicit faith and desire for baptism.

You cannot have it both ways, Peter. Either children of the age of reason who are taught heresies regarding the basics of the faith by the fallen-away Catholics of the Conciliar Church and other non-Catholic sects that call themselves Catholic are guilty and so are baptized Protestant children of the age of reason, or both are not guilty, and thus Protestant children of the age of reason can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Your brother Michael in his “Journey to Hell” videotape quoted the following:

"Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell." (St. Leonard of Port Maurice, The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved)

It is clear St. Leonard is not referring to baptized infants, unless none died that day. He is speaking of all those with the use of reason, ten-year olds included. If only those very few were saved, in the days of St. Bernard in the 13^th century, when Catholicism was at it height, even if the number is exaggerated, what do think the number of the saved are in these days of the Great Apostasy? Michael taught this in his Hell video yet you act surprised when I teach the same; when I teach as the Church always had that baptized children with the use of reason go to hell for mortal sins against morals (immorality), the faith (heresy or apostasy), or charity (schism). So your accusation against me on this point, trying to make me seem like a merciless monster, is hypocritical. In so doing, you have accused the great saints and the Church and thus God Himself, of being merciless monsters. You would have to accuse Michael of the same when he also taught the same in his Hell video.

Your optimism and absolving of guilt of the ten-year old is unfounded and not a Catholic teaching. Your human sentiments take precedence over God and his truth. As soon as a child reaches the age of reason he is bound to believe all the basics of the faith and even the deeper dogmas as they are taught to him. When all is said and done at the General Judgment it will seem as if the Gates of Heaven were almost totally closed during the last half of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

I will now deal with the other non-Catholic churches that hold the sedevacantist position. Peter; are Bishop Kelly and his SSPV, and Bishop Pivarunus and his CMRI Catholic entities? If you want to speak truthfully you must say, no. Why are they not Catholic entities? The SSPV and CMRI teach that men can achieve salvation without explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity. This is a denial of the Most Holy Trinity, the very basic and root of the faith. They teach that those who do not belong to the Catholic Church can be saved, and that is another denial a basic dogma of the faith that all Catholics must know as professed in the baptismal vows and creeds of the Church. They also teach their children and adults the heresy that they can pray in communion with non-Catholics by attending their Masses and that is a basic of the faith, a denial of the first commandment. They also teach that if a man denies a basic dogma because cannot comprehend it he can be saved by following his own conscience to the best of his ability. They teach that a man who denies the basics of the Catholic faith can be saved due to ignorance, thus they deny the absolute necessity of explicit belief in the very basics of the Catholic faith. Some also teach the heresy that dogmas can only be put forward as opinions that do not need to be believed for a hope of salvation, thus the whole deposit of faith is thrown out. They teach that Catholics are not allowed to make judgments and condemn anyone in areas that deal with the faith. Others teach the John Paul II is the pope and not the pope and thus their children are taught they can disobey a true pope in areas of discipline and government and in everything, and that is a basic of the faith, submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. So, please, no excuses for the 10-year-old heretics and/or schismatics in these chapels. If you excuse them you must then excuse 10-year-old Protestants and Greek and Russian Schismatics. The hard facts are that young children take the faith of their parents or guardians. If they are of good will they will eventually detect the falsehoods and come to the knowledge of the truth.

I will relate the following true story that proves children of the age of reason are far from stupid and if they are of good will can detect falsehoods. A woman who we both know, one who was seduced by you and is still struggling, was going to an Eastern Rite church under apostate Antipope John Paul II. She brought her children there for Sunday Mass. When she told Michael her conscience bothered her for going there he told her to do as he does, “Go late and leave early.” So it appears Michael Dimond also has a conscience he cannot evade. He hopes he can sneak in and out before God sees him. Below are three letters I wrote to her.

R. J. M. I.

X X X

July 20, 2001
St. Jerome Emilian, pray for us!

J.M.J

Dear “name deleted”,

…I am glad to see that you have responded to all the precious graces from Jesus through Mary. When we spoke last you did have a grasp on the truth, you did understand at that time. But, to live the truth is hard. As hard as these times are, and as hard as the truth is to believe, it is only hard because of our attachments to people and possessions. It is people who will sway you from the truth if you are looking for friends or companionship. To be a Catholic in these final days means the utmost persecution and banishment from society, family members, friends, and neighbors. Most are not willing to make this sacrifice and they break and chose men over God.

Just stay home, as you are now, and stop looking for a bishop or priest to go to. There are none at the moment. If you are confused, and I am sure you are, the only way to get unconfused is to stay home and stop attending non-Catholic chapels that invite powerful devils to harass you—I call them the una cum (one with the John Paul II) devils. You must persevere in prayer, penance, and studying of the faith. It would be a lot simpler if you read my works as your primary source and this will give you the base to judge what others are teaching. Stay home and study before you take any action, such as falling back into communion with a non-Catholic bishop or priest who seems Catholic. In these days not even a Catholic bishop or priest can demand that you go under him and attend his Mass and receive sacraments from him. Only the next pope can do that, and this is the safest way.

For example, the issue we dealt with at length before, to which you originally agreed and understood, that the Faith must come before the Mass. Either this is true or it is not. If it is true, and it is, then Br. Michael is leading souls to hell by his false teachings. I believe there were two reasons you did not follow what you knew to be true.

1) Desire for human respect, not to be mocked by your family members and friends.

2) The attacks that are leveled back and forth from opposing parties may have caused you to back out altogether and not take any side, but in reality you had to take a side and chose whether it is was alright to attend Mass at a manifestly non-Catholic church or not.

Our Lord said, that to defend the faith is a war, and it must be boldly fought. When you see good guys fighting bad guys in a war, such as the Battle of Lepanto, when Catholics were killing Moslems and visa versa, the question is who is right and who is wrong? Who is fighting for God and who is not? Even if some profess to be fighting for God if they are heretics or schismatics they are not fighting for the true God. The key questions to all these battles is, who is teaching and living the truth and who is not. Do not let personal attacks distract from the main topics at hand, the truths of the Catholic faith. Read again my “Faith before the Mass,” the revised version I have up on the website, and you will see that Br. Michael is a heretic for praying in communion with manifest heretics.

The main thing to be concerned about with the Thuc line and SSPX is that they are non-Catholic, they are both illegal. The Thuc line is valid, and I believe the SSPX line is also valid, but that is a secondary issue compared to their illegality, which means they are not Catholic. Thuc and Levebre signed the V2 documents and never repented and abjured.

“Name deleted” is a heretic due to the fact that he still attends Fr. Blanco’s chapel. He is doubly guilty since all the crimes have been publicly exposed. They were public when we both attended Fr. Blanco’s chapel and we were all guilty for doing so, only “name deleted”, due to pride has not admitted this. I explain this in my book “The Abjuration.”

If you have any questions just ask and I will answer them and direct you where to read. You must prepare yourself to take a specific abjuration from the Great Apostasy. Read my website, I will be posting up a specific abjuration form from the Great Apostasy. I can send you one in the mail of you want.

Soli Deo Gloria

Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi

“To Jesus through Mary”

R. J. M. I.

X X X

July 26, 2001
Good St. Anne, Mother of the Immaculate Conception, and Grandmother of God, pray for us!

J.M.J

Dear “name deleted”,

What I say in this letter is one, for the love of God and His eternal truths and then for the love of you, for your soul. “name deleted”, God does not judge you according to what you think, or what you personal feel is good and true. He judges according to His Word, His commandments; if you have not obeyed them then hell awaits no matter what you think or feel is right. Every protestant that left the Church thought he was right and that God approved of them, when the opposite was the truth. The Greek Schismatics receive the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and they think they are blessed and consoling Him. Take to heart these following scriptures.

“There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death” (Prv. 16:25)

“I have nothing on my conscience, but I am not hereby justified.” (1Cor. 4:4)

Not only do you not console the Lord by attending Mass with non-Catholics, you blaspheme Him and commit sacrilege for putting the faith in second place. The Holy Eucharist is a gift from God that can only be received by those in a state of grace and for you to be in a church in which you know they are not Catholic is to partake in their crimes. You, yourself, are not Catholic because of your association with them. Christ’s Church is one, one Lord, one FAITH, and one baptism. You cannot attend a church that does not have the ONE FAITH because it is not Christ’s one Church. You speak of needing to receive the Holy Eucharist to receive an increase in sanctifying grace and to stay in a state of grace, when the opposite occurs because you receive sacrilegiously.

“Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord… For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” (1Cor. 11:27,29)

The devil says to you “name deleted”, “Do you want to receive the Holy Eucharist?” And you say, yes. He then says, “Blaspheme God by praying in communion and attending Mass with non-Catholics and then you can receive.” You ignore the history of the Church when there were many periods of time in which Catholics could not receive the Holy Eucharist and would not attend non-Catholic churches to receive because they knew that this was a sacrilege. Not only did God not abandon them He blessed them for this supreme sacrifice of putting the faith above all other considerations. I speak of this in Faith Before the Mass, open your ears and eyes and read it.

By your reasoning it would be better if Catholics went into Greek Schismatic churches to receive Holy Communion, instead of Catholic churches, because they would be consoling the Lord who is being blasphemed by them. No, “name deleted”, when you are in communion with heretics by attending their churches you are equally guilty as they. That is how God sees it, no matter what you think. Your common sense should tell you this. Read again Faith Before the Mass and take sides. This is no game for popularity, or a game of personal pride between men trying to prove who is right and who is wrong. It is about the pure unadulterated truth, by which you will be judged. I tell you this out of love for you. You are now, at this very moment on the broad road to damnation, no matter what you think, or what Br. Michael tries to tell you. There is no room in God’s Church for compromisers, who comfortably sit in the assembly of the malignant (Ps. 25:5) What a joy when I speak with a good willed man who converts, he understands without the need of all the excuses that bad willed people come up with. A good willed person hears the voice of the Good Shepherd and follows, sees clearly, and does not make excuses to cover a lie. God has sent them, as few as they are.

Personal attacks do not bother me in the least. I do pity those who resort to them and pray for their repentance and conversion. All that matters is the truth. I do not care in the least what people think of me. I only care what God thinks of me. That is how all must be judged. All that matters is if God approves of me, even if the whole world opposes me.

I am one of the final day witnesses mentioned in the Book of Apocalypse chapter 11. I am not Elias, nor John the Baptist, neither was John the Baptist, Elias. I explained this already in Exurge Michael Issue #1. Whether you believe it, or not, is of no consequence whatsoever. It is God who chooses whom He wills, not men. Do not allow this to distract from the main issues, which is the truth as taught by God’s Holy Catholic Church, which you are now disobeying. Our Lord says those who love Him obey His commandments and His Word (Jn 14:20-25). I leave you with this final word, read Faith Before the Mass and repent, convert, and abjure from your association with the non-Catholic church you are now attending. Do not let the likes of Br. Michael send you to hell, for Br. Michael will not be able to console you in the eternal fires of hell. Make no mistake about what I have said in this letter it is true, and I pray God, through the intercession of St. Anne, on this her feast day, will send you a sign to wake you up out of your spiritual stupor, for unless God grants this extraordinary grace there will be no hope for you.

May God, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, grant you all the graces you need to save your soul.

Soli Deo Gloria

Richard J. M. Ibranyi
“To Jesus through Mary”

PS: Attached are the Abjuration Form and Catechism Question and Answer.

After this letter she was talking to her nine-year-old son and told him that we only go to that church on Sunday to receive the sacraments, but that the people in the church do not believe as we do. The child said to her, “Mommy, if they do not believe as we do then why are we going to there?” Ah, out of the mouths of babes. God always uses the simple to confound those of the world.

July 30, 2001
SS. Abdon and Sennen, pray for us!

Dear “name delete”,

The Church is where the faith is, even if there was only one Catholic in the world. I speak of this in Exurge Michael Issue 3 the article, “Where are the Catholic Bishops and Priests?” In Noe’s day, the Church existed with only eight people.

You say that there must always be a continual sacrifice of the Mass. The holy prophet Daniel teaches the opposite. “And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away.” (Dan. 12:11)

…”name deleted”, the church you attend is no longer Catholic, because it is no longer controlled and run by Catholics. Just as King Henry VIII took over all the once Catholic churches down until today, that does not mean a Catholic can attend them and they are still Catholic. The Arians in the time of St. Athanasius had taken over the bulk of the Catholic churches and they were then known as Arian churches and Catholics were forbidden to attend them, until they were taken back by Catholics. How can a church be considered Catholic, if those that control and run it are not Catholic? It is primarily the Catholic faith that unites Catholics, without which one cannot be Catholic.

Please, be patient and stay home, pray, make sacrifices, and keep studying the faith. I know there is a lot of confusion out there. This is part of God’s punishment against fallen-away Catholics who ignored the faith for so many years. The holy prophet Amos mentions this curse (Amos 8:11-12). This is not a numbers game. I would not be the least bit surprised if there are now less then 100 Catholics in the whole world. It has happened before, and it has now happened again. Be thankful to God that He has given you the grace to be seeking as you are. Now you must cooperate with this grace and judge all things in the light of the truth. If you have any questions I will be glad to help.

I believe your 9 year old had given the sign I hoped God would send you through the intercession of St. Anne. Out of the mouths of babes.

May Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and St. Anne,
Grant you grace, comfort, protection, and divine light.

Richard J. M. Ibranyi
“To Jesus through Mary”

Soli Deo Gloria

Peter, if you say my teaching is ridiculous, or cruel, or merciless then you have accused God of the same. God sends children of the age of reason that are heretics, idolaters, and schismatics to hell and I must teach the same. Yea, God sends unbaptized invincible ignorant infants to hell if they die as such. If a child of the age of reason is good willed God will see to it that he lives long enough to leave the non-Catholic church he belongs to, repent, convert, abjure and become Catholic before he dies. I can testify to this fact first hand. And there are other young men who grew up in the Vatican II Church who have repented, converted, and abjured. So you see God knows His sheep and they will know Him sometime before they die and do what they must to enter the one fold in order to be saved.

In regard to your crime of not taking or requiring others to take a specific abjuration when it apples see my “The Abjuration” book. Just as the Church demands that Catholics confess all their mortal sins against morality, they must also do the same and confess all mortal sins against the faith (apostasy and heresy) and charity (schism), which place them outside the Catholic. Before ex-Catholics can even confess their sins against the faith or charity that placed him outside the Church they must first enter the Catholic Church by abjuration. That is a fact, an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. If a Catholic holds back confessing one mortal sin, either due to shame, pride, or lack of proper examination of conscience, he commits sacrilege and none of his sins can be forgiven. The same applies to abjuration, and thus the need and demand of a specific abjuration. Just because there are no Catholic bishops or priests does not mean abjurations do not have to be taken and sins do not have to be confessed. The truth of the matter is that those who do not want to abjure are infected with pride. Being that you and your brother have never abjured and do not teach others they have to, you are a bunch of pride filled heretics and schismatics in communion with one another, who believe your are excused from your sins against the faith and charity by invincible ignorance. Try telling that to God on your judgment day?

Closing Comments

PD Comment:

I could say more, I could even prove that if what you say is true, the Catholic Church defected in 1913. But this suffices to disprove your claims. There is more to be said in regard to canon 2261.2, etc. (which clearly proves our position as well), but anyone reading this can see that you and Will are schismatics who have proved nothing. I don't wish for your damnation, but you are headed for it, as well as those who enter your sect by signing your ridiculous formula of abjuration. By the way, I just have one last question: When you fell into heresy about a year ago (as you admit in your newsletter) for attending Fr. Blanco's chapel, were you the prophet Elijah?

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Prophets are tested. They are not God.

RJMI Comment:

What follows is an excerpt from a debate I had with Patrick Henry.

Patrick Comment: 10

I am not trying to make others think I am teaching with some kind of special AUTHORITY as if I was a Priest, or one of the two Witnesses St. John wrote about in the book of the Apocalypse. I do not think as you do.

RJMI Response: 10.1

Patrick, so you do admit that the two witnesses would have a special power and authority from God, that would be needed in these days of the great apostasy in order to unite Catholics and teach the truth, authoritatively. Haydock Commentary: “Apocalypse 11:1. Two prophets are promised, to teach mankind.” [RJMI, added 1/15/02: Why the need of two prophets to teach mankind if there is a Catholic hierarchy with Catholic priests?]

Patrick, I am one of the two witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse chapter 11, and I do invoke that power and authority that God will confirm in me. A prophecy from a brother of St. Francis of Assisi confirms that the Church will be saved in an unprecedented way that indicates teachers who have no spiritual directors or prelates to authorize them, not because they don’t seek them, but because there are none to be found. I quote.

The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi: “76. ...The Holy Spirit will choose uneducated young men, and unsophisticated ordinary persons who are looked down upon. Without precedent, without teacher, in fact contrary to the training and personal character of those who teach, the Spirit of Christ will choose them and will fill them with a holy reverence and a very pure love of Christ. And when the Spirit has increased the number of such persons in various places, then it will send forth a wholly pure and saintly shepherd and leader, conforming to Christ. To the praise and glory, etc." (Translated by E.M. Blaiklock & A.C. Keys, cap. 76, p.169.)

This prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes. Without the principle of epikeia this prophecy would be schismatic and the Church cannot exist in these days of the great apostasy. The special authority that the two witnesses have does not mean they can ignore the Catholic Church’s laws and commandments. That is precisely why I have always defended myself by proper use or Church law and dogma, and appeal to epikeia which is also a teaching and practice of the Church that is absolutely needed in these days. My public mission of directly opposing the Antichrist has not yet begun. This is all a preparation. When it does come then starts the 3 ½ years. God will confirm me when my teachings are pleasing to Him, when I have corrected my errors and completed my learning. This is the test of fire the prophet Daniel speaks of, “Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.” (Daniel 12:10) Patrick, if you wish not to be wicked you must humble yourself and admit you are wrong. No prophet and no saint is God, and they can be wrong. During their approach to perfection God tests them and trains them, educates them and prepares them for battle. One of the key elements of this test is to be able to admit when one is wrong and that takes humility. “The just is first accuser of himself.” (Prv. 18:17)

In these days of the great apostasy not one of us can claim to have been right in everything we have taught as we travel to the road of perfection, but one thing is certain, when God shows us the truth we must accept it and admit we were wrong or not only can we not be perfected, but we will go backward and fall into all sorts of evil and be among the wicked spoken of by the prophet Daniel in which they shall not understand. The most seductive aspect of these wicked is that they think they do understand while their mouths are full of contradictions, stupidities, eccentricities, and vain babble. In God’s good time, if I stay faithful, He will confirm me as one of the witnesses of the Book of the Apocalypse, and you will realize that this is true. Whether you accept the truth or not depends if you have true humility. If you are not humble, and full of pride as you are now, then you will rebel against this truth, as you already are. God will choose between you and I, and between any others that oppose the mission God has given me. “Judica me Deus, et discerne causum meam, de gente non sancta, ab homine et iniquo et doloso erue me.” This is not a game Patrick, to see who is right and wrong, but a matter of crying out for the Glory of God, and for the salvation of souls. There is no room in this battle for either liberals on the left, or Pharisees on the right who scrupulously paralyze their victims.

On true and false prophets (teachers)

RJMI Response: 72.1

…There are many laymen who are putting themselves forward as teachers of the Catholic faith and many contradict one another in areas of the faith. That means they cannot all be Catholic. So the same question you pose for bishops can be posed for laymen. “What layman should I follow?” “Should I follow Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, or Patrick Henry, or Michael Dimond, or Hutton Gibson, etc?” So you see you have missed the point altogether. The answer to the above question is quite simple. “I will follow the ones who are Catholic.” Ah, the poor people, the burden is on them, for once in their life they must make a real persevering effort to learn the Catholic faith and take sides, because in the past they have abused and been disobedient to popes and bishops, and have been slothful in learning their faith, and now they have no choice. Those who are of good will and are truly seeking the truth will migrate to the Catholic teachers. God will see to it that they do. And those of bad will, will remain in the enemy camp, where they belong. This is the separation of the wheat from the chaff and it is a true test of fire, as the Prophet Daniel mentions shall come to pass in these final day.

…Just because there are many impostors does not mean the righteous—the Catholics—should remain silent and not fulfill whatever obligations they must in order to help save souls, be they Catholic bishops, priests, or laymen. For what does a Catholic have to do with a non-Catholic, or the righteous with the unrighteous, or the faithful with the unbeliever, or light with darkness, or a false prophet with a true prophet? What does our Lord teach regarding this? Ezechiel Chapter 13 God declares against false prophets and prophetesses, that deceive the people with lies.

Ezechiel 13:19: And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, prophesy thou against the prophets of Israel that prophesy: and thou shalt say to them that prophesy out of their own heart: Hear ye the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit, and see nothing. Thy prophets, O Israel, were like foxes in the deserts. You have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel, to stand in battle in the day of the Lord.[3] They see vain things, and they foretell lies, saying: The Lord saith: whereas the Lord hath not sent them: and they have persisted to confirm what they have said. Have you not seen a vain vision and spoken a lying divination: and you say: The Lord saith: whereas I have not spoken. Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Because you have spoken vain things, and have seen lies: therefore behold I come against you, saith the Lord God. And my hand shall be upon the prophets that see vain things, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the council of my people, nor shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord God.

Jeremias Chapter 23 God reproves evil governors; and promises to send good pastors; and Christ himself the prince of the pastors. He inveighs against false prophets preaching without being sent.

Jeremias 23:25: I have heard what the prophets said, that prophecy lies in my name, and say: I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies, and that prophesy the delusions of their own heart? …The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream: and he that hath my word, let him speak my word with truth: what hath the chaff to do with the wheat, saith the Lord?[4] Are not my words as a fire, saith the Lord: and as a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore behold I am against the prophets, saith the Lord: who steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold I am against the prophets, saith the Lord: who use their tongues, and say: The Lord saith it. Behold I am against the prophets that have lying dreams, saith the Lord: and tell them, and cause my people to err by their lying, and by their wonders: when I sent them not, nor commanded them, who have not profited this people at all, saith the Lord. If therefore this people, or the prophet, or the priest shall ask thee, saying: What is the burden of the Lord? thou shalt say to them: You are the burden: for I will cast you away, saith the Lord.

Just because in the days of Jeremias and Elias there were many false prophets does that mean the true prophet must stop teaching. Elias, the sole surviving prophet in his day, had opposed 150 false prophets of Baal and imposed upon the people a choice they must take, a real choice—an abjuration if you will—to make a real choice and take sides between the true God and the false gods of Baal. Moses did the same at the bottom of Mount Sinai when he demanded all who were to follow the true God to come over to his side and the rest he killed. Real choices Patrick, and real action must be taken, not just empty words that are not backed by demanding action and offering solutions. You are akin to an impotent General who comments about the enemy and points out all their weaknesses but when it comes time to fight, to offer a battle plan you back out, you cower down in the face of the enemy, and not only that you try to take away the weapons from those who are fit to fight… The specific abjuration that I composed is a weapon, the most effective instrument to bring one into the Catholic Church and the only instrument that will promote true Catholic unity. Make no mistake about this, that form is pleasing to God, and it was what God demanded that I compose, because it is what the Church teaches and demands. So, Patrick, God shall choose between you and I, between all the false teachers and I. Why are most of them false teachers? Because they do not have the humility to admit when they are wrong so as to amend their position and eventually become perfect as God is perfect, and to become holy as God is holy. In these days of the great apostasy there is not one of us who have been right in all they we have taught, but God requires us to learn, to amend our position when we are shown to be wrong and move forward. How can we pass our test of fire in which God is burning off the dross, if we hold on to the dross and refuse to be purified? I am not saying I am yet perfect, but my hope and desire is to be perfect. No true man of God, no matter how great he may be, would dare presume that even if he was perfect that he could not fall into imperfection while he lived. The only human creature on earth that was always perfect was the Blessed Virgin Mary, and only in heaven could the other saints be assured of always and eternally being perfect. No saint from the Old or New Testament period of time, while he lived upon earth was always perfect, in that they had done no wrong, or could never be wrong. Yes, saints achieve perfection on earth but not without knowing that if it were not for the grace and assistance of God along with their diligent cooperation they would fall into imperfection. King David who was a prophet and a king speaks of his imperfections.

“For I am ready for scourges: and my sorrow is continually before me. For I will declare my iniquity: and I will think for my sin.” (Ps. 37:18-19) “Deliver thou me from all my iniquities: thou hast made me a reproach to the fool. I was dumb, and I opened not my mouth, because thou hast done it. Remove thy scourges from me. The strength of thy hand hath made me faint in rebukes: Thou hast corrected man for iniquity. And thou hast made his soul to waste away like a spider: surely in vain is any man disquieted. Hear my prayer, O Lord, and my supplication: give ear to my tears. Be not silent: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner as all my fathers were. O forgive me, that I may be refreshed, before I go hence, and be no more.” (Ps. 38:9-14)

And we will read of the Prophet Elias, who at one point did not believe he was perfect enough to effect true conversions in Israel.

Then Elias was afraid, and rising up, he went whithersoever he had a mind: and he came to Bersabee of Juda, and left his servant there, And he went forward, one day's journey into the desert. And when he was there, and sat under a juniper tree, he requested for his soul that he might die, and said: It is enough for me, Lord; take away my soul: for I am no better than my fathers... And when he was come thither, he abode in a cave and behold the word of the Lord came unto him, and he said to him: What dost thou here, Elias? And he answered: With zeal have I been zealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant: they have thrown down thy altars, they have slain thy prophets with the sword, and I alone am left, and they seek my life to take it away. (3 Kings 19:3-4, 9-10)

And the Prophet Jonah who at first did not respond to God’s call and later became angry with God for sparing Ninive, whom He was told by God to condemn. Jonah’s was not angry that the inhabitants had repented and were spared, but because he wrongly felt he had wasted his time and effort in condemning Ninive, when God knew they would repent and convert. The saints all had the humility to admit when they were wrong and in so doing, they approached perfection on earth to the point where they had many moments of perfection during their earthly life.

A fool laugheth at the instruction of his father: but he that regardeth reproofs shall become prudent… Instruction is grievous to him that forsaketh the way of life: he that hateth reproof shall die… A corrupt man loveth not one that reproveth him: nor will he go to the wise… He that rejecteth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that yieldeth to reproof, possesseth understanding… The wicked man impudently hardeneth his face: but he that is righteous, correcteth his way. (Prv. 15: 5, 10, 12, 32; 21:29)

--- End of Excerpt ---

Listen to what the great St. Paul says of himself during the height of his ministry when he wrought many miracles and effected many conversions by the power of God, in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.

“Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect: but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended. But one thing I do: Forgetting the things that are behind and stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, this also God will reveal to you,”(Phil. 3:12-15)

If Abraham did not remain faithful to God, God would have chosen another.

The Liturgical Year, Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B., MONDAY OF QUINQUAGESIMA WEEK: Had Abraham, after receiving the divine call, chosen to remain in Chaldea, and refused to break up the home which God had bade him leave, God would then have selected some other man to be the patriarch of His chosen people, and father of that very family, which was to have the Messias as one of its children. This substitution of one for another in the order of grace is frequently forced upon divine justice; but what a terrible punishment it is for him that caused the substitution! When a soul refuses salvation, heaven does not therefore lose one of its elect: God, finding that the one He called despises him, offers the grace to another, until His call is followed. The Christian life consists in this untiring, unreserved obedience to God.

Let us all then strive to be perfect as God is perfect and holy as God is holy. “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt. 5:48) You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1Pt. 1:16)

See my “Exurge Michael” Issue #1 and go to “Am I the Witness of the Apocalypse?” for further explanation.

Has Daniel’s Prophecy been fulfilled?

Michael and you teach that the following prophecy of Daniel’s has been fulfilled. “The continual sacrifice shall be taken away.”(Dan. 12:11) In this you are hypocrites. Michael and you teach and tell others there are Masses that they can legally attend worldwide and every day. So then, how has Daniel’s prophecy fulfilled?

Michael teaches the Catholic Church as a vestige of the Beast. His mysterious friend is a heretic.

You are still blaspheming the papacy and the Catholic Church, as Protestants do, by referring to three popes as heads of the beast, which implies the Catholic Church is a beast. (See: my “Exurge Michael, Issue #1, and go to “Warning on the False Teachings of Br. Michael Dimond”). The mysterious man who visited your house and left his satanic garbage at your door is a coward, as I have mentioned. He does not like to let people know his name or where he lives. For that alone the man is a faithless coward who has no trust in God. Well, I found out his first name is Ed from Will Norris who answered the phones when he was staying at you house of spiritual ill repute. Will said that Ed is a heretic because he does not hold the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church,” and that Ed accuses you and Michael of being heretics because you profess belief in the dogma.

Who made you Benedictines?

By what right, and by whose authority, do you and Michael have to call yourselves Benedictines? Give me the name of the Catholic Benedictine Abbot who made you Benedictines and gave you the charter for your “Monastery.” The principle of epikeia applies only to Catholics and penitent non-Catholics who enter the Church by abjuration. Neither of you are Catholic, that alone makes it impossible for you to be Benedictines. Even a Catholic cannot appeal to epikeia to be ascribed into an existing religious order without approval from the proper Catholic authority of that order. But, a Catholic could appeal to epikeia to start a new religious order while awaiting a future pope’s confirmation.

May Jesus Christ, by the merits of His passion, death, resurrection, and Most Precious Blood, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, grant Michael and Peter Dimond the grace to humble themselves, repent, convert, and abjure, as well as all those who follow their heretical teachings and practices

Soli Deo Gloria

Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi

“To Jesus through Mary”

[Top]

Part Two:

RJMI Reply 1/26/2002 to Peter Dimond 1/25/02

If anyone wants the full text of Peter Dimond’s refutation on 1/25/2002 I will send it to you upon request, either by mail or email.

Silence on three of the accusations

Peter, the only accusation you addressed was the first one praying in communion with notorious heretics, which I will deal with at some length in this refutation. You did not address two of the charges, and did not fully address one of them. Your silence condemns you. Your guilt on each of these crimes places you in mortal sin. Two of them render you a heretic, and one you commit the mortal sin of sacrilege.

Second Charge: Sins of Omission for not professing the faith

The second charge against you is the shirking of your duty to profess and defend the Catholic faith when the situation demands that you do. This is the one you did not fully answer.

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: I challenged you to quote one Papal document which teaches that when Catholics attend Mass they must interrogate the other people to find out what they believe and if they are receiving Communion sacrilegiously or not. You have quoted nothing. Yet, like the pharisee you are, you bind people to this as if it were an infallible truth and condemn people for the sacrilegious Communions of other people. This is sheer novelty and absurdity.

Not only is this a very insufficient answer, but you also shirked your duty to profess the faith be rejecting the very fact that a Catholic is obliged to profess the faith when the situation demands it. A Catholic’s obligation to profess the faith, and to do spiritual acts of mercy when the situations demand it, are not absurd and novelties. They are the very core of a Catholic’s existence. These are two infallible truths you have totally ignored. You did not even comment on these obligations.

Evidently you do not believe a Catholic is obliged to profess the faith or perform spiritual acts of mercy when the situation demands it. The obligation to profess the faith as found in Canon 1325.1 is listed below, and a Catholic’s obligation to convert and admonish the sinner, and instruct the ignorant are spiritual acts of mercy. Are you fulfilling these obligations when you attend Mass at a church in which you admit the priest and most of the people are heretics? If a Catholic’s obligation to profess the faith means anything it certainly means he must do so to avoid scandal. If that were not the case then a Catholic has no obligation to profess the faith at all or perform spiritual acts of mercy. These would be meaningless commands and concepts.

By not professing the faith at the church you attend Mass at you are guilty of sins of omission in which you share in the guilt of the heretics you do not admonish, condemn, and teach the truth. By shirking this duty you have implicitly denied the Catholic faith.

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 the neighbor.”

On this point alone you have implicitly denied the faith and are a non-Catholic heretic by way of sins of omission because you do not profess the faith when the situation demanded that you do. Implicit denial of the faith means that your may verbally profess a truth (dogma), but by not professing it to those whom are denying it when the situation demands that you do, you become guilty of denying it yourself. It does no good for you to tell me it is apostasy to teach that Moslems worship the one true God when at the same time you do not condemn those who believe in this when the situation demands that you do. Not only do you not condemn them you pray in communion with them and sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion along with them.

Catholics are not obliged to profess to faith to everyone and everywhere, but they are when the situation demands it, when scandal would arise by the Catholic remaining silent.

Third Charge: Sacrilegious Receptions of Holy Communion.

This charge you did not answer at all. Non-Catholics are never allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. If they do they commit the sin of sacrilege. If any one knows someone who commits this crime and remains silent they are also guilty of the sin of sacrilege. “If any one sin, and hear the voice of one swearing, and is a witness either because he himself hath seen, or is privy to it: if he do not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity.” (Lev. 5:1)

Canon 2260.1. “An excommunicated person may not receive the Sacraments; after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence; he may not receive even the sacramentals.”

You have admitted the priest of the church you attend Mass at, as well as most of the people, are not Catholic. You said, “The priests and certainly a number of the people who go there are heretics.” The full quote is below. Therefore, you admit you are receiving Communion with heretics. You share in their sins of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion in five ways; 1) by consent; 2) by concealment; 3) by silence; 4) by being a partner in the sin, because you sacrilegiously receive with the other non-Catholics; 5) by defending the ill done, by not condemning the crime. Read any basic catechism and you will see the nine ways one shares in another’s sin. You are guilty of the five listed above. For this crime alone you are guilty of the mortal sin of sacrilege. All who follow your advice and knowingly attend Mass with notorious heretics and/or schismatics are guilty of the same mortal sin every time they attend Mass with notorious heretics and/or schismatics.

Fourth Charge: Rejection of Abjuration

By teaching that heretics and/or schismatics do not need to abjure in order to enter the Catholic Church you have denied an infallible teaching of the Church, and thus you are in heresy on this point alone. The other consequence of your not taking an abjuration is that you are still outside the Catholic Church. Being that you know the Church demands this makes you doubly guilty. The other consequence is that all those who follow you by not abjuring from the Great Apostasy are also outside the Catholic Church and thus you are a sect of pride filled non-Catholics in communion with one another, the same as the False Ecumenism of the Conciliar Church. Just because there is no hierarchy or Catholic priests available does not mean a Catholic does not have to confess his sins, and if those sins are against the faith by apostasy or heresy, or charity by way of schism, he must abjure. To deny the necessity of abjuration is to deny the necessity of confession.

Not everybody who embraced the heresies of the Conciliar Church is bound to take an abjuration if they have not leaned that they must take an abjuration. A confession of their sins against the faith followed by a perfect act of contrition would place them inside the Church, provided they hold and practice the full deposit of the Catholic faith, which means they cannot attend Mass as non-Catholic churches. The private confession of their sins against the faith would serve as an abjuration before God. That does not alleviate a subject who embraced the heresies of the Conciliar Church, either explicitly or by omission, from his responsibility to take a specific abjuration once he learns the Church teaches he must. An abjuration is only good if one abjures from all their heresies and schisms.

Peter, you have not pointed out one heresy in the abjuration I wrote. If you do not take it or a similiar one, then I must believe that you are holding one or more of the condemned positions in it. Anyone who does not put in writing what they believe in is not to be trusted in the least. Have you or Michael abjured from your association with the Conciliar Church and apostate, Antipope John Paul II? Even if you did it would be worthless because you are still a member by going to Conciliar churches and praying in communion with John Paul II?

What makes a church Catholic?

Richard Ibranyi, from our debate, page 18: “Michael and Peter, the next week when you attend Mass at what you admit is a non-Catholic church…”

Richard Ibranyi, from our debate, same page (18): “Peter, the whole premise of your argument is that the church you attend Mass at is a Catholic Church…”

Which one is it, Richard? Or do you even know? Who’s writing this stuff, the devil or Richard Ibranyi? Obviously, both. You speak like a demon who’s head is spinning around at 1000 miles an hour, going back and forth on the same page yelling: “You say it’s a Catholic church; you say it’s a non-Catholic church; you say it’s a Catholic church; you say it’s a non-Catholic church,” hoping to confuse the reader and to be able to condemn him on both counts. You contradict yourself – and attribute to us two different positions – on the very same page. This is not a slip up. This involves the very crux of the debate. If you don’t know what you are talking about (which your words obviously indicate), then shut your mouth, because you will condemn yourself by your own words.

You purposely missed the point of my questioning you as such. I was pointing out your duplicity in practice and reasoning. You and Michael do change your position, at times directly and at times by implication. In your recent response you have proved my point all too well. On one hand you say the Eastern Rite church you attend is a Catholic church, yet the priest and most of the people are heretics.

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: 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. They were Catholic churches in 1978, as you admit, and they are still Catholic churches now, since they have not been pronounced as non-Catholic churches which all must avoid under pain of damnation.

You have invented a new heresy, similar to as the Materialiter/Formaliter Theory or the Cassiciacum Thesis that was formulated by the Thucite Bishop Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. Materially the church (building) is Catholic, but spiritually it is not.

So the priest and most of the people are notorious heretics and the church is still a Catholic church. What makes a church Catholic, the building or the faith of the people who control the building? Just because a church was Catholic at one time does not mean it will always be a Catholic church, or else all the churches the Greek schismatics took over are still Catholic churches. I ask you a simple question and I want a straight forward answer; “Is the Conciliar Church, whose leader is John Paul II, the Catholic Church?” Yes or no would suffice!

You have admitted the priest and most of the people at the church you attend Mass at are heretics, “Eastern Rite churches, …are Catholic churches, even though the priests and certainly a number of the people who go there are heretics.” Yet on 12/29 you said:

Peter Dimond, 12/29/01: “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.”

You condemn yourself by your own words. On one hand you say the priest and most of the people you attend Mass at are heretics, on the other hand you say you do not go into meeting houses of heretics or pray in communion with heretics. Now do you get the drift of my questioning you as to whether the church you attend is Catholic or not, and whether you are praying in communion with heretics or not? My inquisition served its purpose. It brought out the contradiction and hypocrisy of your position.

You find yourself in yet another twist. If the church you attend needs to be pronounced as non-Catholic in order to be a non-Catholic church, then does the same apply to the heretic priest and people. That means they would be Catholic until a competent judge pronounces a declaratory sentence against them. By your reasoning John Paul II is Catholic and pope until he is pronounced a non-Catholic and apostate Antipope by a competent judge (Church authority), therefore, you would have no right or authority to call him a non-Catholic apostate antipope.

Another question presents itself. Why did you leave out Fraternity of Saint Peter and Society of Saint John churches that are ministered to by priests validly ordained under the old rite? They say the Roman Rite codified by Pope Pius V and there churches have never been declared non-Catholic by a competent judge. Can Catholics attend their Masses also? And that would also include John Paul II if he offered up the Roman Rite? Would you attend a Mass presided over by John Paul II if he offered up the Roman Rite? In reality you do, because the priest at the church you attend prays in communion with John Paul II.

Now for some facts, the Catholic Church has not condemned many non-Catholic sects or by name. That does not mean they are to be considered Catholic. There are around 27,000 Protestant and Schismatic sects that believe they are true Church and many call themselves Catholic, and that number grows every year. Only a very small portion has been condemned by name. Does that mean they are to be considered the true Church until a sentence is pronounced against them? That is why the Church has condemned in general anyone or any church that professes any heresy or schism.

There have even been new Churches that broke off from the Greek Schismatics and Old Catholics since Vatican II whom have not been condemned by name. Does that mean their churches must be considered Catholic churches until a pronouncement against them by a future pope?

We even have Churches that sprung up since Vatican II with their own popes claiming to be the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Can one attend the Masses of the St. Jovite Order of Our Lady of the Magnificant in Canada under “Pope” Gregory? Can one attend Mass at the churches controlled by the other “Pope” Gregory in Palmer de Troya Spain? No Catholic authority has declared these Churches as non-Catholic Churches.

I will present this example from Faith Before the Mass.

R.J.M.I., “Faith Before the Mass”: It could not have been Pope Martin’s intention to allow Catholics to attend the Mass of a tolaratus (undeclared heretic) priest who is a public (notorious) Satanist, who preaches Satanism from the pulpit and all obscenities. It could not have been Pope Martin’s intention to allow Catholics to attend the Mass of a tolaratus priest who brings witches into his church every week to teach Catholics witchcraft and then proceeded to perform their ritual on a table in the sanctuary, offering up an animal sacrifice side-by-side with the priest who is performing a valid Transubstantiation using the Roman Rite codified by Pope Pius V. Well, the liberal heretics who are misleading many confused Catholics would have us believe Catholics could attend such a church and Mass because no Church authority has declared the notorious heretical priest and his congregation as heretics. As a matter of fact, the liberal heretics would tell Catholics they must attend theses blasphemous and idolatrous services to fulfill their Sunday obligation, and if they do not receive the Holy Eucharist at all costs, even if they must commit sacrilege, they shall spiritually die. These examples are the same in the eyes of God if the non-Catholic church only held one public heresy, schismatic position, or commited one act of idolatry. All rebellion against God is the same in His eyes. “Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch, therefore, as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee...” (1 Kings 15:23) The more seductive (Catholic in appearance only) the more dangerous it is, much more dangerous to souls than outright Satanism. The end result of both is eternal hell and the one that is Catholic in appearance can lead more souls to hell.

Spiritual support OK but not Financial

Now for more hypocrisy, Michael tells others that they commit mortal sin if they financially support the churches you mentioned above. That means he implies they are not Catholic churches, whereas you have said they are Catholic churches. A basis of the teaching of no financial support for a non-Catholic sect is found the following commentary.

A Practical Commentary, On Canon 1258, vol. I, p. 65: “It has been declared that a Catholics may not contribute money towards the building of an heretical church, or give his work gratis”.

Michael does not give money to the Eastern Rite church you both attend. Therefore, he does not believe it is a Catholic church. If it is a Catholic church as you propose then you are in schism for not financially supporting it and enrolling in it.

There is an even worse hypocrisy in your position. Michael is teaching that Catholics can spiritually support and patronize non-Catholic churches and non-Catholics by praying in communion with them, but they cannot financially support or patronized them. Which is the worse sin? Michael teaches and practices that spiritual fornication (praying in communion with notorious heretics and receiving Holy Communion with them) is acceptable to God but not physical fornication (giving of money to support the church and priest).

Those who know those who do not (Padre Pio)

Peter, you imply that if just one Catholic happens to ignorantly attend Mass at a non-Catholic church that makes the church a Catholic church and thus other Catholics can attend. If an unsuspecting Catholic attended Mass at a non-Catholic church, as happened quite often in the early days of the Great Apostasy, that does not make the church Catholic. Although the unsuspecting Catholic is Catholic the church is not, nor are the priest and people Catholic who are heretics and/or schismatics, unbeknown to the unsuspecting Catholic. There are many truths in this following example.

R.J.M.I., “Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, Objective and Subjective Violations”: An Eastern Rite Catholic—those who are united to the papacy—whom we will call Cyril, mistakenly enters a Greek Schismatic church thinking it is a Catholic Eastern Rite church, and attends the Mass of the Greek schismatics. Cyril is not subjectively (truly) guilty, although by appearance (objectively) he looks guilty. Cyril, is not guilty nor in error in any way, but only made a mistake. Cyril could not remain long in the Greek Schismatic church without recognizing his mistake. As soon as he either heard something wrong in a sermon, or the Liturgy, or detected something that should have been said that was not (omitted), or spoke to the other parishioners, or read some literature from the church, he would know he made a mistake and leave the church immediately. If another Eastern Rite Catholic, we will call Methodius, saw Cyril going into the Greek Schismatic church it would be his duty to admonish Cyril and accuse him of falling into schism and of being a schismatic. Methodius would then discover that Cyril only made a mistake and drop his accusation against Cyril. Cyril would thank Methodius for informing him of his mistake. If after the truth is presented to Cyril, either by the evidence before him without a warning from a Catholic, or by way of admonishment from a Catholic, and he remained in the Greek Schismatic church then it is certain that Cyril is not a Catholic and is a schismatic. Now, what would we say of Methodius, if he did not admonish Cyril and warn him, but went into the Greek Schismatic church himself to attend the Mass and pray in communion with those whom he knows to be in heresy and schism? If Methodius was Catholic it would be his duty to avoid any religious communion with non-Catholics, and admonish, instruct, and call to conversion all of those who attend the Greek Schismatic church if the opportunity arises, and if he discovers a Catholic mistakenly attending such a church, such as Cyril, then he has done his brother a service by warning him, and if his brother does not listen to his warning and continues to attend the Greek Schismatic church, then his brother is not truly his brother because he is not Catholic. (See: my book “Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, Objective and Subjective Violations” for in depth study)

In the early days of the Great Apostasy the crimes and criminals were not manifest to most and were very evasive. This was the case with Padre Pio, as well as many others in the early days of the Great Apostasy when the crimes were not yet manifest to them. The guilt or innocence of a person who is in communion with a criminal depends on his knowledge that a crime had been commited and knowing whom commited the crime. Canon law, as well as Civil Law, teaches this (canon 2197).

“Inquire carefully and diligently, the truth of the thing by looking well into it, and if thou find that which is said to be certain, and that this abomination hath been really committed…(Deut. 13:14) Before thou inquire, blame no man: and when thou hast inquired, reprove justly.” (Eclcus. 11:7)

A subject may be a notorious heretic, but that fact may not been known to people in all locals, especially if the heretic is careful not to divulge his heresy to the people of a different local. The very instant the bishops signed the Vatican II documents they became known as notorious heretics and apostates. But that fact was not known by most. Therefore, in the early days of the Great Apostasy, many were not culpable for attending Mass at the Conciliar non-Catholic churches. No so in these latter days when the crimes are manifest to all.

Padre Pio and Mass in the Vernacular

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: Was Padre Pio’s church Catholic? You say Padre Pio was Catholic. You even say that he was saintly and will probably be canonized. Did you know that the priests at Padre Pio’s monastery celebrated Mass in the vernacular? Did you know that Padre Pio even got special permission not to celebrate Mass in the vernacular ? It is heresy to celebrate the Roman Rite in the vernacular. Pope Pius VI solemnly condemned it. … How, then, was Padre Pio Catholic? He was, according to your standard, in religious communion with non-Catholics, was he not? How were the people who attended the Roman Rite Mass of Padre Pio not in communion with non-Catholics, since you preach that anyone who attends a Mass of one who is in religious communion with non-Catholics, also is a non-Catholic?

Padre Pio’s local church would have been a Catholic church if the head of his church was not a notorious heretic. But, the Conciliar Church was not Catholic. Padre Pio was Catholic because the crimes where not manifest to him, and he had no reason to suspect the corruption originated in the highest levels in Rome. One cannot condemn a criminal until they first have indisputable (notorious) evidence that a crime was commited and know who the criminal is that commited it.

Saying Mass in the vernacular is not of the faith. It is a disciplinary matter that can be changed by the pope. This is easily proven, because Masses are said in the Catholic Church in the vernacular, such as in the many Eastern Rite churches. Thus, if it was of the faith that Masses can never be said in the vernacular then these churches have violated a dogma and popes have allowed it. Changing the language of the Mass does not essentially alter the Mass; it is not the same as changing the prayers and rubrics in the Mass. The New Mass, Novus Ordo, has overturned the prayers and rubrics of the Roman Rite and in so doing have denied dogmas by way of omission, for removing prayers that profess certain dogmas.

Communion in the hand is also a disciplinary matter. It is admittedly a bad law that led to abuses. It was a bad law allowed by popes that has since been abolished.

A pope also condemned the Jesuit Order in perpetuity with the same language you read in Pope Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, but a future pope lifted the condemnation. You must learn the difference between disciplinary matters that can change and matters of faith and morals that can never change. If you do not the Vatican II apostates will make fools out of you in a debate. That is only fair, because at this moment you and Michael are fools. You will never convert a good willed person unless you diligently study the Catholic faith, which means you must persevere in prayer, penance, mortification, self-denial, which will help you conquer your pride and sloth, and only then can you hope to become Catholic.

Praying in Communion with Notorious Heretics

1) You misinterpreted Thomas.

2) You misinterpreted the Fourth Lateran Council

It is an infallible truth that Catholics are forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics.

The Fifth Lateran Council, 1513, Session 8: “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.”

The same does not apply to occult heretics and schismatics or those whose crimes are more than occult but less than notorious. A crime can be notorious in two ways: One, by a declaration from a competent judge or by a confession from the perpetrator in a competent court: Two, without the need of a warning or declaration from a competent judge if the crime is public and was commited in such a way as to remove all doubt. A crime is occult if none or very few know of the crime.

A Practical Commentary, Canon 2197:

(2) an offense is notorious by notoriety of law after a sentence of a competent judge which has become irrevocable (res judicata), or after a confession of the delinquent made in court in the manner described in Canon 1750;

(3) an offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and commited 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);

(4) an offense is occult if it sis not public…

In every circumstance an offender, whose crime of heresy or schism is less than notorious-in-fact, must be pointed out by a competent judge in order to be accused of being a heretic or schismatic and treated as such.

In every circumstance an offender, whose crime of heresy or schism is notorious-in-fact, does not need to be warned or pointed out by a competent judge in order to be accused of being a heretic or schismatic and treated as such.

Question 82 Articles 7 and 9

All of Thomas’ teachings on a topic must be considered before the truth of the matter can be known if there seems to be a conflict. This is true of the Holy Bible, Papal Decrees, as well as the writings of any author. Heretics are very good at taking teachings out of context so as to seduce their readers. You, Peter, have done just that in order to justify praying in communion with notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics.

Peter Dimond 1/25/2002:

Thomas Aquinas also clearly teaches that one can receive the Holy Eucharist and attend the Mass of a heretic who has not been pronounced against (declared) by the Church.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Quest. 82, Art. 9, “Whether it is permissible to Receive Communion form Heretical, Excommunicate, or Sinful Priests, and to Hear Mass Said by Them.”: “…Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: CONSEQUENTLY, UNTIL THE CHURCH’S SENTENCE IS PRONOUNCED, IT IS LAWFUL TO RECEIVE COMMUNION AT THEIR HANDS AND TO HEAR THEIR MASS.”

This quote crushes your position and condemns you like a sword of truth from heaven. Thomas stands with us, he does not stand with you. You have literally tried to “jump-through-hoops” to explain this one away – but to no avail. You have tried to do the most ridiculous mental gymnastics to rewrite what Thomas actually says – but to no avail. And you have claimed that I have taken this quote out of context – but to no avail. I challenge anyone of good will to get a copy of the Summa Theologica, read the whole ninth article, and you will see that there is no doubt that Thomas is teaching that “until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful” to receive Communion at the hands of heretics AND to hear their Mass. Your attempts to claim that this is not what he is saying remind me of the implicit faith heretics who claim that outside the Church there is no salvation doesn’t really mean outside the Church there is no salvation. It’s startling and despicable bad-will on your part; similar to, but even worse than, your ridiculous assertion that canon 2261.2 doesn’t allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist at the time when the Eucharist is received 99% (at Mass), but doesn’t bother to tell us that at all.

Thomas is clearly speaking about heretical and excommunicated priests. He points out that heretical and excommunicated priests are forbidden by the Church’s sentence to perform the Eucharist Rite. Hence, he is speaking to those who have pronounced against publicly, not merely ipso facto excommunicated. Catholics cannot attend the Masses of such priests – who have been denounced in pronouncement and “forbidden by the Church’s sentence,” as Thomas explains. But then, he remarks, that not all who are sinners have been pronounced against or sentenced. In other words, not all heretical, excommunicate or sinful priests (all of whom are sinners), have been pronounced against by the Church. Even though they are “suspended by the divine sentence,” that is to say, ipso facto excommunicated by virtue of their heresy (or forbidden to say Mass by the divine law prohibiting mortal sinners to say Mass), etc., yet “they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence,” that is, they have not been declared to be avoided: “consequently,” says Thomas, “until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands and to hear their Mass.” Our position is exactly that described by Thomas here. You condemn us and therefore you condemn the Thomas the Angelic Doctor, and are a schismatic.

The fact that 99% of the people receive the Holy Eucharist at Mass means nothing. It is also a fact the one can receive the Holy Eucharist outside of the Mass, at home, the hospital, or by requesting it from the priest when Mass is not being said. 99% of the time, in normal times, Canon 2261.2.3 is not needed, and I do not believe it is ever needed. All the canonists and theologians agree that if a Sacrament is to be received according to Canon 2261.2.3 it must be done in a way to avoid perversion of the faith and to avoid scandal, meaning in private with no other persons present other then the Catholics appealing to the Canon and the excommunicated priest. I will not extrapolate on that here.

In Saint Thomas’ day Catholics were not allowed to receive the sacraments, except for baptism, from heretics. Liberals promoted the bad law of receiving sacraments from heretics in the 19^th century. However it is of the faith (a dogma), that has always been taught at all times and all places, that Catholics are forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics and schismatics, even those liberal taught that.

In Question 82, Article 7 Thomas teaches heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates are outside the pale of the Church.

Part Three: Question 82. Art. 7: I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. (Contra Parmen.)

Note carefully heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates are outside the Church’s pale. The heretics and schismatics are automatically cut off (excommunicated) from the Church; they are cut off by the Church. The Church cuts them off by latae sententiae penalties (c. 2314.1). An automatic excommunication is a Church sentence.

The excommunicates Thomas is referring to are also excommunicated by a Church sentence, but by a condemnatory sentence from a competent judge, known as a ferendae sententiae excommunication; this also includes declaratory sentences against those who have already been excommunicated, as is the case with heretics and schismatics. Thomas clearly teaches that after they are separated from the Church either by heresy, schism, or excommunication they cannot use the sacraments rightly. He also teaches below that they can only lawfully confer the sacrament of baptism.

Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.

Thomas makes no distinction between automatically excommunicated heretics and schismatics who are declared by a competent judge and those who are not declared. He teaches all heretics and schismatics cannot lawfully confer the sacraments, excepting baptism.

The first part of Thomas that you quoted above applies to automatically excommunicated heretics, schismatics, and to excommunicates. He makes no distinction as to what type of heretic they are, and says Catholics cannot hear their Masses.

Q. 82, Art. 9, I answer that: “…Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But…”

Not that not just excommunicates, those who incurred a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, are forbidden by Church sentence, but also heretics and schismatics, those who have not yet been declared as excommunicates, are forbidden by a Church sentence. The “But…” that follows refers to a different class of sinners from those whom he just mentioned, the heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates.

Q. 82, art. 9, I answer that: “… But not all who are sinners are debarred by the church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive communion at their hands and to hear their mass.”

What sinners is Thomas referring to? Not all who are sinners are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicates. It is clear he is referring to other sinners. He is referring to the sinful priest here, in particular one who is guilty of the sin of concubinage as he makes clear in his other comments in this same article.

What follows is all one needs to know the mind of Thomas on this topic. As just pointed out Question 82, Article 9 Thomas clearly makes a distinction between heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates as separate from sinful priests. He first mentions them together and then makes a distinction. He teaches that the Church must point out the sinful priest by an ecclesiastical sentence, unless the sin is notorious-in-fact. In the case of the sinful priest he refers to a priest guilty of the sin of concubinage, which at that time excommunicated the priest and made his acts illicit and no one could receive the sacraments from him or hear his Mass. Q. 82, Art. 9, On the Contrary: “The Canon says (Dist. 32): ‘Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine.’ Saint Thomas agrees with this statement. If the priest’s sin of concubinage is notorious-in-fact then he does not have to be pointed out—sentenced by a competent judge—in order to be avoided in religious matters.

“Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?” (Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 82, Article 9)

Objection 3. Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise. Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge.

The underlined and bold clause is the crux of the matter in which one can easily interpret Thomas. He teaches that no one can hear the Mass of a priest guilty of the sin of concubinage, even before an ecclesiastical sentence, if that sin is notorious-in-fact. In such a case the sinful priest does not need to be pointed out by a competent judge because his crime is notorious-in-fact—“being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge.” Sins of heresy and schism are much worse than the immoral sin of concubinage, therefore, the same would apply, even more so, for notorious-in-fact heretics and schismatics. Unless you would have us believe Thomas taught that sins of immorality are worse than sins against the faith (apostasy and heresy) and charity (schism). I have given the reader a simple way to understand what Thomas is actually teaching. (See: my book, “Faith Before the Mass,” and go to “Supplement”)

Priests whose sins of concubinage have not yet been pointed out by an ecclesiastical sentence and whose sins are less than notorious-in-fact are indeed guilty and under the Divine suspension, just as are less than notorious-in-fact heretics and schismatics, but Catholics can receive sacraments from them and hear their Masses until they are either pointed out by an ecclesiastical sentence or their crimes become notorious-in-fact. Thomas also teaches Catholics may not receive the sacraments from or hear the Masses of priests whose sins of concubinage, heresy, or schism are notorious-in-fact. In these case the offender does not need to be pointed out or sentenced by a competent judge. “…lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage... of one who is notorious… from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge.”

Thomas was only confirming the infallible teaching of the Council of Basle, which clearly teaches that offenders whose crimes are notorious-in-fact do not need to be pointed out by a competent judge, and that Catholics must shun them in religious matters.

Council of Basle, Session 20, 22 January 1435: “To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence, prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated, suspended, interdicted or prohibited.”

This infallible teaching is also found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

A Commentary on Canon Law: “c. 2259 b) Active assistance must be denied not only to vitandi, but also to any one who is excommunicated, even though tolaratus, after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been issued or the excommunication has become notorious.”

A Practical Commentary: “c. 2259 b) From active assistance, which entails some participation in celebrating the divine offices (services), not only an exommunicatus vitandus is to be barred, but also every excommunicated person whose excommunication was inflicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or whose excommunication is otherwise notorious.[5]” And the Commentary: “The sentence here spoken of makes the excommunication notorious by notoriety of law; the public knowledge of the excommunication makes it notorious by notoriety of fact (cfr. Canon 2197).”[6]

Question 38 Article 2

Peter, you have also taken out of context Thomas’ below teaching. This question deals with the validity of Orders conferred by a bishop who has been cut off from the Church. The title of the question is, “Whether heretics and those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders?” What you quoted is not clear and you have taken it out of context.

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: That is why Thomas speaks in another part of the Summa Theologica of heretics who are tolerated by the Church (ipso facto, latae sententiae excommunicated) and heretics who have been cut off from the Church (ferendae sententiae excommunicated). He is not speaking of “cut off” in the sense of membership, but “cut off” in the sense of having to be avoided.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp. Quest. 38, Art. 2: “I answer that, On this question four opinions are mentioned in the text. For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like…. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who has been cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity.” [Supplement]

While I did not quote much of this article since the other parts our not relevant to this debate (Thomas is proving that even heretics cut off from the Church confect the sacrament validly), the fact that Thomas distinguishes between two classes of heretics, one of which is tolerated by the Church and one of which is cut off from the Church, is undeniable. Furthermore, Thomas is not affirming that tolerated heretics are members of the Church (which would be heresy), but rather he is denoting that they fall within a different category vis-à-vis reception of sacraments from them and hearing Mass said by them. That is why he says explicitly, “the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who has been cut off from the Church, he sins” which implies that one could communicate in the sacraments with a heretic who has not been cut off from the Church; namely, the tolerated heretic. This is perfectly in line with his teaching in Pt. III, Quest. 82, Art. 9, where he says that “until the Church’s sentence is pronounced,” it is lawful to receive sacraments from them and to hear their Mass; that is to say, until they “have been cut off from the Church,” the language he uses to describe the very same concept in Supp. Quest. 38, Art. 2. All of this serves to confirm how dead wrong you are, Mr. Ibranyi.

On the last point, I will untwist again your false interpretation of Quest. 82, Art. 9. The question is: whom does Thomas refer to when he says, “it is lawful to receive sacraments from them and to hear their Mass”? Who is the “them” he refers to? The “them” are priests guilty of the immoral sin of concubinage and he even qualifies that statement with the exception that if the sin is notorious-in-fact then no sentence needs to be pronounced by a competent judge. A pronounced sentence also does not apply to notorious-in-fact apostates, heretics, and schismatics.

Peter, heretics are not ferendae sententiae excommunicated. In every case they are latae sententiae excommunicated. The heretic can later on be declared as a heretic by a competent judge. This is known as a declaratory sentence, and in strict terms it is not an excommunication.

A Practical Commentary, Commentary on Canon 36.2, Vol. 1, p. 31: “In the condemnatory sentence the court itself inflicts the penalty of the law, and for that reason the penalties are called ferendae sententiae (penalties to be inflicted by sentence of the court. In the declaratory sentence, the law itself has already inflicted the penalty immediately on the breaking of the law, and the court in which the offender is arraigned merely declares that it has found the person guilty, and that therefore he has incurred a certain penalty of the law. These penalties are called latae sententiae (sentence already pronounced).

An apostate, heretic, or schismatic is automatically excommunicated and cut of from the Church, without the need of a declaration. If this were not true then John Paul II, even though he is a notorious apostate and heretic, would still be a member of the Church; he would still be Catholic, because no competent authority had declared him to be an apostate and heretic. For the common good a competent judge can declare that the heretic has indeed been cut off from the Church. As stated above this is known as a declaratory sentence, which does not actually cut off the perpetrator from the Church, because he was already cut off when he fell into heresy. A heretic can also incur a condemnatory sentence by a competent judge that labels him as infamous, making him a vitandus. (See: my book Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, Excommunications: Latae and Ferendae Sententiae.)

The proper interpretation of Question 38, Article 2 is as follows. Thomas’ first opinion in “I answer that” distinguishes between a heretic bishop who has not yet been declared as such by a competent judge, and one who has. His comment only relates to the validity of conferring orders.

I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains…

Thomas is not teaching a tolerated heretic is not cut off from the Church also, only that he has not been declared as such by a competent judge. This you agree with “[Peter Dimond] Thomas is not affirming that tolerated heretics are members of the Church (which would be heresy).” Thomas is not teaching tolerated heretics are members of the Church. All Thomas is teaching here is that a non-declared heretic (tolerated) bishop, as well as one who has been declared, can validly confer orders. Thomas answers that even the declared heretic bishop can validly confer orders. That is all he teaches here: nothing more and nothing less. You have also taken the second part you quoted out of context. You left out the proposed question. You only quoted the answer.

Q. 38, Art. 2, I answer that: “…But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who has been cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity.”

What follows is the proposed question you left out.

Q. 38, Art. 2, I answer that: Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible…

This question only deals with declared heretic bishops and admits that even they can confer orders, but also adds that they can also confer grace. Thomas answers that they validly confect but do not confer grace. The proposed question only relates to the declared heretic bishop, it does not concern those who were not. Thomas’ answer does not mean Catholics can approach the sacraments and hear the Masses of non-declared heretic priests whose crimes are notorious-in-fact. He does not address this topic at all in the above question and answer. It is like someone who sells apples and oranges and the question is, “Are the apples ripe?” and the vender says, “Yes, the apples are ripe?” He says nothing about the oranges whatsoever. One would not know if the oranges are ripe or not based upon this question and answer.

The fact is that Thomas teaches elsewhere in this same Question 38, Article 2 that all heretics cannot legally confer the sacraments and exercise offices, although they do validly confect the sacraments.

Q. 38, Art. 2, Objection 1. It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off from the Church cannot confer Orders. For to confer Orders is a greater thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose or bind. Neither therefore can he ordain.

Reply to Objection 1. The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.

In this reply Thomas clearly teaches that “a heretic cannot absolve” or “confer grace in the sacraments,” although he validly confects them, and that that a heretic is also cut off from the Church. He makes no distinction as to types of heretics in this response. He teaches the same in his answer to question 3.

Q. 38, Art. 2: Objection 3. Further, in no community can one who is expelled there from dispose of the offices of the community. Now Orders are offices of the Church. Therefore one who is outside the Church cannot confer Orders.

Reply to Objection 3. Those who are ordained by heretics, although they receive an Order, do not receive the exercise thereof, so as to minister lawfully in their Orders, for the very reason indicated in the Objection.

Again, Thomas makes no distinction between types of heretics. Both types of notorious heretics are included, those who have been declared as such by a competent judge, and those who have not yet been declared and whose crimes are notorious-in-fact. This coincides with his teachings in Question 82, Articles 7 and 9, as already proven above. As a side note, this above teaching that heretic bishops illegally consecrate and ordain condemns as illegal the Thucites and all others who got consecrated or ordained by heretic bishops.

Suspicion of Heresy

There is a difference between a notorious heretic or schismatic and one who is only suspect of heresy or schism. Notorious heretics or schismatics are beyond suspicion. Suspicion of heresy or schism only applies to those who have not explicitly or implicitly (by way of omission) fell into heresy or schism but are in religious communion with those that do. Keep in mind these two separate cases.

1) Notorious heretics and schismatics

2) Those only suspect of heresy and/or schism

The charge of suspicion of heresy or schism does not apply to notorious heretics and schismatic because their crimes are already notorious.

Peter Dimond, 1/25/2002:

So the position we hold at Most Holy Family Monastery is the position of Thomas Aquinas. This same position is also reflected in the most authoritative decrees of the Councils.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution (# 3), On Heretics, 1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony… If anyone refuses to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the Church (postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint), let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.”

Here, Pope Innocent III and the dogmatic Fourth Lateran Council are referring to a person who has been excommunicated for receiving, defending or supporting heretics. He says that Catholics who refuse to avoid such persons, “AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH,” will be excommunicated. What part of AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH don’t you understand? This decree eliminates any credibility to your schismatic position, for you teach that Catholics are bound under pain of damnation to avoid all those who receive or defend heretics, before they have been pointed out by the Church (or pronounced against, or “cut off”, as Thomas described it). It’s quite obvious that Thomas was teaching exactly the same thing that Pope Innocent III teaches here. You and your schismatic buddies would have to give this decree of Lateran IV an unequivocal ranking of HERETICAL.

First things first, you and Michael are not just suspect of heresy. You are beyond suspicion. You have implicitly denied the faith and thus are notorious heretics for not professing the faith when the situation demands it and for not taking, or teaching the necessity of, abjurations. You are also guilty of the mortal sin of sacrilege. (See: Above) If anyone follows you in these mortally sinful teachings and practices they will be guilty of the same crimes. Catholics must condemn you as heretics on two of the crimes and avoid you in religious matters, and they must also condemn you for committing mortal sins of sacrilege. These three crimes of yours are separate from any consideration of your praying in communion with notorious heretics and suspicion of heresy.

There is a difference between those who pray in communion with notorious heretics and those who teach that Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics, thus encouraging them to break a Church’s infallible law and fall suspect of heresy. The latter are heretics for teaching it, the former are only suspect because they are only committing the act without teaching others they can do it. In the same way a bishop can commit an act of fornication, which makes him guilty of a mortal sin of immorality, but if he teaches fornication is not a sin then he is guilty of heresy for denying a dogma of morals, which is part of the deposit of faith. The bishop who commits the mortally sinful act, but teaches it is a sin, does not have to be avoided, but the bishop that teaches fornication is not a sin is a heretic and must be avoided. Peter, you and Michael, not only pray in communion with notorious heretics, you teach others that the Church teaches they can pray in communion with notorious heretics, and that makes you heretics. The Church does not teach Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics. She teaches that if any one does then they automatically become suspect of heresy. You are teaching others they are allowed to be suspect of heresy.

If a subject prayed in communion with notorious heretics, but did not teach and encourage others to do the same, then he does not have to be avoided under normal circumstance until he is pointed out. Such a one is still guilty of mortal sins of scandal and perversion of the faith if he knowingly prays in communion with notorious heretics, but under normal circumstances he is not considered a heretic to be avoided until a competent judge points him out. That does not mean he is not a heretic, only that he has not yet been pointed out as such for remaining under suspicion.

I will now consider those who are only suspect of heresy for praying in communion with notorious heretics, but do not teach others they can do it. Anyone who follows their example by praying in communion with notorious heretics will also be suspect of heresy. Catholics are to avoid all suspicion of heresy. If those “suspect of heresy” are knowingly praying in communion with notorious heretics then they are also automatically guilty of the mortal sins of perversion of the faith and scandal. So what if future judge has not yet condemned them as heretics to be avoided in religious matters? One surely will. Even though that sentence has not yet been pronounced they are nevertheless in a state of mortal sin until they repent of their crime of knowingly praying in communion with notorious heretics that made them “suspect.”

Peter, you have even misinterpreted the Fourth Lateran Council’s decree. The Fourth Lateran Council had stricter penalties for those suspect of heresy than the 1917 Code. The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that those suspect of heresy were automatically excommunicated and must be avoided in religious matters, even before being pointed out by a competent judge. Only after a competent judge points them out were they then to be labeled as infamous heretics who must then also be avoided in temporal matters.

The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that heretics are automatically excommunicated without the need of a declaratory sentence. It condemns all heretics no matter what names they go under, meaning they do not need to be pointed out and condemned by name.

Fourth Lateran Council, 3. On Heretics: We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride…”

All heretics are condemned no matter what names they go under. They do not have to be named by a competent judge to be condemned and excommunicated and to be avoided. The following part of the decree deals only with those suspect of heresy.

Fourth Lateran Council, 3. On Heretics: …Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics…

We clearly see that this part of the decree is not dealing with notorious heretics and schismatics but only those “suspect of heresy.” It is clear that the Church does not look upon those who are suspect of heresy kindly. A Catholic is to do all in his power to avoid being suspect of heresy. At the time of this Council those suspect of heresy were automatically excommunicated and to be avoided in religious matters, before being pointed out by the Church. “…Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema … Let such persons be avoided by all… If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics…” The pointing out by the Church labeled them as infamous heretics (vitandi), which means they must then also be avoided in temporal matters. The part you quoted teaches this.

Fourth Lateran Council, Ibid: …Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous

First note that we are dealing only with those “suspect of heresy,” those “who receive, defend, or support heretics.” Second, that they are automatically excommunicated. “...we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics.” Third, in order for a man suspect of heresy to be branded with infamy, which is the worst penalty of all, he needs to be “designated as excommunicated,” meaning by a declaratory sentence, and fourth, if he does not repent within one year after he has been “designated as excommunicated” he “branded as infamous.” The instant a subject became suspect of heresy he became automatically excommunicated by minor excommunication and was to be avoided in religious matters, all without the need to be pointed out by a competent judge. The pointing out by a competent just, the designation of excommunication, labeled the offender as a heretic and then infamous if he did not repent in one year.

The last part you quoted from the Council deals with clerics who are “suspect of heresy.”

Fourth Lateran Council, Ibid: …If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after the church has pointed them out, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.

This pertains to a cleric who is only suspect of heresy, who receives, defends, or supports heretics.

The Fourth Lateran Council does not teach Catholics can pray in communion with notorious heretics. Quote the opposite. It is the praying with notorious heretics that makes a subject suspect of heresy in the first place. You and Michael not only knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics, you teach others that the Church teaches they can and that is heresy.

Under the current law of the 1917 Code the penalties for those suspect of heresy have been lessened, but that does not alleviate guilt. A Catholic is forbidden to act in any way that would make him suspect of heresy.

Canon 2315: A person who is suspected of heresy, and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, shall be forbidden to exercise legal ecclesiastical acts; if he is a cleric, and after repeated admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divinis. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties here stated, and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy.

Canon 2316:A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy.

Peter, you and Michael, teach Catholics can violate Canon 2316 and that is heresy, because it is an infallible truth that Catholics are forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with notorious heretics. It is one thing to commit the sin of adultery and quite another to teach adultery is not a sin, or that one can violate that law against adultery and not be guilty of violating it.

Another fact is that the lack of a competent judge does not get those who are suspect of heresy off the hook. The lack of a competent judge is not license to sin. Those who are suspect of heresy for knowingly praying in communion with heretics and/or schismatics only await the sure sentence from a future competent judge who will retroactively point them out as already being condemned as heretics if they remained suspect for six months. Besides that, those who are suspect of heresy for knowingly praying in communion with heretics and/or schismatics are automatically guilty of three other mortal sins; one, exposing themselves to danger of perversion of the faith; two, for causing scandal; three; for witnessing and being a partner in the crime of sacrilegious receptions of Holy Communion; and an additional mortal sin that renders them heretics if they do not profess the faith to the heretics they are praying in communion with. The lack of professing the faith in this situation is an implicit denial of the faith. Sins of omission make the offender equally guilty of the crimes and criminals they do not condemn when the situation demands it. None of those mortal sins need to be pointed out by a competent judge for the offenders to incur guilt.

Summary of points

What follows is a quote from a book, “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics”, by Rev. Ignatius J. Szal. Rev Szal makes teaches that whatever applies to schismatics also applies to heretics, and that almost every, if not every schismatic is also a heretic. The schismatics are of special interest because they have valid orders and sacraments. He also makes it clear the schismatics he is referring to are not vitandi. Two key points to note is the danger of perversion of ones faith and scandal are of the natural and divine positive laws, therefore, Catholics are always forbidden to commit acts that would endanger his faith, or cause scandal which would also endanger the faith of others.

Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics”: Article I—Active Participation (Canon 1258, §1): The Catholic Church is intolerant of the dogmatic errors of non-Catholics, for the opposite attitude is nothing other than indifferentism, and this is condemned by the Church. The truth is one, and the Church, which has been given the commission of preserving that truth, cannot tolerate errors in faith. …Communication with non-Catholics cannot be carried to the point at which Catholics would expose themselves to the danger of perversion from the true faith. Hence any communication with non-Catholics which involves a danger of perversion or offers and occasion of scandal remains inherently illicit in consequence of the unchanging divine law, which cannot but disapprove of all voluntary risks for one’s own true faith and of all direct occasioning of scandal for others.

Communication is forbidden in virtue of the divine law, but the Church has more clearly defined what kind of communication is forbidden and what type of participation can be permitted with non-Catholics. This law of the Church which regulates religious communication with non-Catholics is stated in canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law. Paragraph 1 of this canon is in general a restatement, if not of the natural law itself, then certainly of the divine positive law. It reads as follows:

Canon 1258: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.

It may here again be noted that the present law of the Church is concerned with only that type of participation which is known as communicatio in sacris, or religious communication. The communicatio in profanes, or civil communication, is forbidden by Canon Law only in the case of vitandi. …Schismatics as such are not vitandi…

Religious communication, as considered by the present law of the Church, has reference only to acts of religious worship which are public… Active religious participation with schismatics is always intrinsically illicit.[7] 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 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…[8]

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also referred to authors in his day who considered certain types of active religious participation licit.[9] These authors did not even consider it illicit to receive the sacraments from heretics or from schismatics, although they did lay down the following conditions for such religious communication: 1) that Catholics had a very grave and urgent reason for placing such an act of religious communication; 2) that the heretical ore schismatical minister who administered the sacrament be validly ordained, that the administer the sacrament in the Catholic rite, and that there be no erroneous rite added by him; 3) that this communication be not considered as an external professing of a false doctrine; and 4) that there be no scandal given. There were many who were opposed to this opinion, and it was considered not to be safe in practice. All the conditions had to be present at the same time before the religious communication could be considered as permissible, and such a situation was regarded as practically impossible of occurrence. Hence it was that the Sacred Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Propagation of the Faith always considered this kind of communication illicit.

All types of active religious communication with non-Catholics are gravely illicit. Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil for a) if the worship is non-Catholic in form (as in the Mohammedan ablutions, or in the eating of the Jewish paschal lamb), it expresses a belief in a false creed symbolized in the ceremony, and b) 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.[10]

The obligation to avoid exposing oneself to the danger of perversion and to prevent given scandal to others proceeds from the natural divine law. The positive divine law on the other hand forbids one to perform such an action which would be tantamount to at least an external denial of faith and a quasi-profession of a false sect. This prohibition is expressed in the words of our Lord: “He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”[11]

…Even though one should simulate an active religious participation in view of some imminent grave danger, he would be exposing himself to the danger of perversion and would be giving scandal to other Catholics. This would be especially true if the actions were repeated frequently, for such a practice would soon lead to a sense of indifferentism, to a gradual alienation from the true faith, and to a corresponding attachment to the false sect. There is question not only of a personal danger to one’s own faith, but also of one’s conduct as furnishing an occasion of sin to others through the scandal which is given to the weak. The latter is especially true if the one who communicates with schismatics in their form of worship is reputedly a faithful member of the Church.

Furthermore, the question is concerned not only with the fact of probable scandal for other Catholics, but also with the fact that through a Catholic’s active religious communication with non-Catholics the latter are very often confirmed and strengthened in their errors.[12] There is a natural tendency on the part of non-Catholics, and especially of schismatics, to seek confirmation and support for their beliefs. They glory in affirming that they have the same sacraments, the Real Presence, the apostolic succession, and other similar marks in common with the Catholic Church. They realize wherein the difference lies, but it is a great boon to them if they see Catholics coming to their religious services and conduction themselves in a way which seems to indicate that they consider the schismatic church to be just as good as the Catholic Church. Consequently, to perform an act of religious communication would be illicit, for in so doing one would confirm the schismatic in his adherence to a false sect. His conversion to the true faith would correspondingly be made more difficult.

Active participation in any form whatsoever is forbidden, for canon 1258, §1…[13] By using the term acatholicorum the law of the Code comprehensively includes all those who are not of the true fold, namely, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and apostates…[14]

Remember, Peter, you did admit that the priest and most of the people at the church you attend Mass at are heretics. One of the key teachings above is that it is a sin against the natural and divine positive law to endanger the faith by perversion and to cause scandal. That is certainly what you are doing by attending Mass at a church in which you admit the priest and most of the people are heretics, whose leader is an apostate antipope, whom you believe is the Antichrist. If that is not perversion of faith and scandal then these terms have no meaning. Remember our Lord and St. Paul’s word regarding scandal.

“From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. (1Thess. 5:22) And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:41)

That is the very least you, your followers, and all those who teach and practice the same as you do can expect from Christ on your judgment days.

Out of Context: Papal Infallibility

Peter Dimond 1/25/02:

Richard Ibranyi denies Papal Infallibility

Richard Ibranyi, Faith Before the Mass, p. 14: “For example, many popes have infallibly stated that all men are born with sin, but there are exceptions, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

This is pure heresy. Pope Pius IX defined that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, operates with infallibility. No Pope could ever state as infallibly true that which is not infallibly true. Such an idea is revolting. No Pope could infallibly state that all men had sin when all men did not have sin; this would make a mockery of the protection the Holy Ghost gives to infallible decrees. In fact, if a Pope could define that all men had sin when all men didn’t, then you have no right in condemning the implicit faith heretics who merely state that there are “exceptions” to outside the Church there is no salvation for the invincibly ignorant. The problem you have is that you are misreading, misinterpreting or failing to identify the contextual language in the decrees you are referring to which excludes the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary. The very fact that no Pope could ever issue an infallible statement which defines that “all men were conceived in sin” or something of that nature is why the Council of Trent made an exception for the Blessed Virgin Mary in its decree on Original Sin.

I admittedly used poor wording, and what appears is material heresy. Anyone who has read my other writings would know what I meant. I did not mean the popes taught heresy. I have clearly taught many times a pope cannot in his infallibly capacity teach heresy.

R.J.M.I., A Notorious Heretic cannot be the Pope, Popes and Bishops can be excommunicated: “The pope admits he can be excommunicated, if he seeks to implement a teaching contrary to past infallibly defined dogmas (the orthodox faith). He obviously is not referring to teaching heresy in his infallible capacity, for this is impossible.”

What I meant to teach, what I wanted to convey was that Popes have stated in infallible decrees 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 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, 589, Original Sin, Grace, Predestination, and it never mentions any exceptions. 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.

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? Of course not, although it seems they did because they did not mention these exceptions. It is understood they did not mean to include them, because the exceptions were so well taught elsewhere.

My whole point was that just because a certain infallible text does not mention an exception does not mean there is not an exception. 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.

For the record, I have corrected “Faith Before the Mass.” No I am not being sneaky. I do not want a material heresy to remain in my work. But, I will include my mistake in a footnote. There is a lesson to be learned, as I taught in Book One on who is to be considered a heretic. Only those whom it is certain they did not make a mistake, or were not taken out of context either due to a fault of the reader or by a poor use of words.

Popes are not heads of the beast

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: We are merely saying that due to the personal failings of Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII, they did the work of Satan and were allied with the beast, though they were Popes and their Magisterial teaching remained immaculate and undefiled. To deny, as you do, that a real Pope could ally himself with the beast and therefore be described as a head of the beast (in the sense that he is allied with him as a person) is actually heretical.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Errors of John Wycliffe, # 8: “If the pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar.” - Condemned (Denz. 588)???

In fact, you admit that 6 out of the 7 aforementioned figures are (or will be declared) Antipopes.

Richard Ibranyi, Canon Law, Infallibility and Vigilance, p. 20: “The weak and unvigilant Pope Benedict XV, who promulgated the bad laws in the 1917 Code, along with the weak and unvigilant Pope Pius XII will be condemned by the next pope in a similar manner, as was Pope Honorius by Pope Leo II…”

You have already declared in your writings that Pope Pius XII lost the Pontificate and was therefore an Antipope, something Bro. Michael and myself have already studied and agree is probably the case.

Pope Benedict XV was no more an antipope while he reigned as Pope, head of the Catholic Church, then Pope Honorius I was an antipope while he ruled the Church as pope. Pope Honorius is not recorded as an antipope. At best Honorius’ retroactive ferendae sententiae excommunication for ambiguity and lack of vigilance by Pope Leo II made him an antipope the instant before he died, but not while he lived and reigned as pope. A pope’s personal sins of immorality do not affect the way he runs the Church. A pope is the head of the Church, and as its head he cannot be referred to as of the devil, although as a private person in regards to sins of immorality he could be referred to as of the devil. Protestants refer to all the popes, in their capacity as head of the Church (pope), as heads of the beast. That is why you used the Protestant Anchor Bible commentary to try and prove your blasphemous nonsense. Your reference to popes regards their relation with the Church as its head, and thus to say a pope is a head of the beast is the same as saying the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a beast. That is not the same as saying the Pope, as a private individual not as head of the Church, is of Satan because of mortal sins of immortality. Show me one Catholic commentary that teaches a pope is the head of the beast.

Unlike Pope Benedict XV, Pius XII automatically fell outside the Church and lost his office for teaching notorious heresy, that being Natural Family Planning whose goal is to prevent conception during the marital act. When Pope Pius XII was pope it would be blasphemy to refer to him as a head of the beast.

You never did address the fact that the cowardly mysterious prophet Ed, who filled Michael’s head with this nonsense, is a salvation by an implicit faith heretic, and he believes both of you are heretics.

You are not Benedictines

Peter Dimond, 1/25/02: Who made us Benedictines? The founder of our monastery, Brother Joseph Natale, was made a Bendictine Monk at St. Vincent’s Archabbey in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. In 1966, Brother Joseph received permission from the Archabbot Dennis Strickmatter to start his own community. Hence came Most Holy Family Monastery. With the passing of Brother Joseph, Brother Michael became superior.

That is a lie. Brother Joseph was kicked out of St. Vincent’s because he refused to accept the New Mass. He never got the approval from the Archabbot to start an order or a monastery. Produce the official papers from this Archabbot that approved Br. Joseph as a Benedictine and the charter that declares Most Holy Family Monastery is a Benedictine Monastery. Whom did Br. Joseph take his final vows before? It is a known fact by everyone who knew Br. Joseph that he did not have the approval of his one time superior at St. Vincent’s. Did you forget, Peter, I was at the “Monastery” before you and know Michael has no proof. We were never able to give any proof whatsoever that we were “Benedictines,” because there is none.

A primary fact is that you and Michael are not Catholic and therefore you cannot be Benedictines. You and Michael say you are Benedictines based upon your own word, upon your own authority. That is not, and never can be the way men become Benedictines. This is a usurpation of the whole hierarchic structure and rules of the Catholic Church. It is an act of schism. A Catholic can start a new religious order and later get approval from the pope, but he may never attach himself to an existing religious order without proper approval from a legitimate superior of that order. Michael Dimond and his Most Holy Family Monastery do not have approval from a Catholic Benedictine Abbot to be part of the Benedictine Order.

Michael twice attempted to give himself legitimacy as a Benedictine. Once he took vows before a secular priest (a priest not ascribed to a religious order). When he could not justify himself as Benedictine based upon this he stopped calling himself a Benedictine for a period of time. This happened when I was at the Monastery. If anyone has some of Michael Dimond’s earlier tapes and works you will see that he stopped referring to himself as a Benedictine for a period of time. He dropped the O.S.B. at the end of his name. I stupidly keep using it, as it appears on my book, “Outside the Church there is No Salvation.” After I left the “Monastery,” Michael went to a one time Benedictine priest, who holds the sedevacante position, to take vows before him. This priest is not Catholic either, but, even if he was a Catholic Benedictine priest, that does not make Michael a Benedictine, let alone does it give his “Monastery” a charter to be part of the Benedictine Order. To obtain legitimacy he needed to get the approval of a Catholic Benedictine Abbot who has jurisdiction and authority. Peter, your brother has lied to you. Peter, who have you taken vows before? If you have not, then whom do you plan to take vows before? Is he a Catholic Benedictine Abbot? Give me his name?

You never did answer the question “Give me the names of the Catholic bishops and priests you know of?” Nor did you tell how you know someone is a Catholic so that you can treat him as one. Do you presume, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, that every one who says he is a Catholic is Catholic?

Soli Deo Gloria

Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi

“To Jesus through Mary”

[1] Woywod & Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 2, p. 487. Here after referred to a PCC.

[3] The is what a specific abjuration does, that condemns the heresies and heretics of the day by name, it sets up a brass wall, an impenetrable wall in Catholics battle against the enemy. 45 Let the Catholic (true prophet) speak, yea, it is the duty of the Catholic to speak and teach in the midst of a multitude of nonCatholics teachers (false prophets) who put themselves forward as Catholics (true prophets).

[4] Let the Catholic (true prophet) speak, yea, it is the duty of the Catholic to speak and teach in the midst of a multitude of non-Catholics teachers (false prophets) who put themselves forward as Catholics (true prophets).

[5] This is in reference to a tolaratus whose heresy is notorious. (See: Pamphlet Version, ...Manifest Heresy, p. 25-26)

[7] [FN 4] Beste, Introductio in Codicem, p. 614.

[8] [FN 5] Coronata, Institutiones, II, n. 835, p. 155, Commentarium, IV, 165.

[9] [FN 11] Benedictus XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana (2. ed., 2 vols., Parmae, 1764), I, Lib. VI, c. 5, p. 134. Pope Benedict did not condemn outright the opinion of these authors, but he stated that in practice it was almost impossible to find verified all the conditions which were set by them for the lawfulness of the act in question.

[10] [FN 12] McHugh-Callan, Moral Theology, I, p. 376, n. 964.

[11] [FN 13] Matthew, X, 33; Cocchi, Commentarium, V, n. 93, p. 179.

[12] [FN 17] Wrenz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, Tom. IV, Vol. I, n. 347, p. 435; Sipos, Enchiridion Iuris Canonici, p. 699.

[14] Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,” Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 42-48.