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

Brother Peter Dimond (also known as Robert Dimond) is a self-professed traditional Catholic, Benedictine monk, and member of Most Holy Family Monastery.

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

They pray in communion with notorious heretics and receive the sacraments from them

As is a well known fact, Peter Dimond and his brother, Michael Dimond, knowingly attends Mass at “meetinghouses (churches) of the heretics” and thus knowingly prays in communion with and receives the sacraments from the very same notorious heretics that he condemns. He attends Mass at an Eastern Rite church that is under the apostate antipope of the Vatican II church. He also admits—although he tries to deny this—that the priests and most of the people in the church where he attends Mass (and in other churches where he tells his followers to attend Mass) are notorious, known heretics, as we will see.

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “Of course, we want to stress, once again, that none of these points are meant to suggest that one may attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, every undeclared heretic. As we point out, it depends on the undeclared heretic. He must meet certain conditions: he must be validly ordained, using a traditional rite, he cannot be imposing, notorious, etc.”

Peter Dimond, The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times: “In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I’ve received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces.”

Heretics very often contradict themselves and deny what they also confirm in other places, and Peter Dimond is not an exception to this rule. Peter namely teaches that a person that he knows is a bad willed, obstinate heretic (and who therefore is a notorious, known heretic) also is not a notorious heretic at the same time! that is, unless he meets the Dimonds own made up standards for determining when a person is to be considered notorious.

Almost any heretic today can easily become known as a notorious and known, public heretic. In fact, it’s so easy today to find out whether a priest is heretical or not that all one has to do is simply to ask the priest what he believes.

Precisely because it’s so easy today to find out whether a priest is heretical or not, the Dimonds tells their readers to call the priests and ask them certain questions before allowing themselves to receive the sacraments from them.

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “For example, with regard to a priest in the Eastern Rite who accepts Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope, here are some guidelines: you must call the Eastern Rite priest up and ask him certain questions before receiving Communion from him. You should confirm that he was ordained in the Eastern Rite and ask him what he thinks of praying with members of other religions, “ecumenism,” etc. If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him. Another question to ask him is whether he believes that non-Catholics, such as the “Orthodox,” need to be converted to the Catholic Faith. If he doesn’t say “yes,” then he is a notorious heretic. But if he answers in a more conservative way, then you could go to him for Communion without supporting him. But when you go to such a Mass in order to receive Communion, we recommend that you simply pray by yourself...”

Even though Peter disagreed with us in the debate when we said that a priest is a public and notorious heretic for simply making his obstinate heresy known to us, he nevertheless agrees with us on his own website when dealing with other issues, such as when it would NOT be lawful to receive the sacraments from certain known heretical priests, as we just saw above. So, dear reader, Peter and Michael Dimond do agree with us... but only when it suits their own purpose.

One could wonder then, if (as they say) the priest becomes a notorious heretic for simply admitting to his heresy, doesn’t this mean that whenever we have found out about his heresies and if he’s obstinate in them that he must be avoided for communion, even according to the Dimonds’ own standard? Of course it does.

MHFM: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him.”

Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation: “God allowed the Catholic Buildings, Seminaries and Schools to be taken away and confiscated by a counterfeit non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect), with apostate priests, perverts, a phony “Mass” (the New Mass) and an apostate antipope…”

Therefore, by Peter’s own admission, he knowingly prays in communion with notorious heretics and receives the sacraments from them and tells others they can do the same — a practice which the Church has always condemned:

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray... under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy [such as a heretical mass presided over by a heretical priest that prays in communion with the apostate Vatican II sect and its antipope], is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

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

Peter Dimond, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “But with some other “traditionalist” priests, you can go to them for confession and Communion if they are validly ordained and not notorious or imposing about their false [heretical] positions and if one doesn’t support them.”

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

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

But what does Peter do to get around the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from notorious heretics or schismatics, while not seeming to deny it? He denies the Church’s definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic. Peter believes that a priest who is an undeclared heretic cannot also be a notorious heretic unless the priest publicly teaches his heresy to his parishioners and also imposes his heretical beliefs upon them as a condition for attending his Masses or receiving the sacraments from him. The underlining is Peter’s:

Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003 version: “When priests make public announcements that are heretical, which impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then a Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from such a priest. This is not the case with a heretical independent, C.M.R.I. or SSPX priest who has not made an announcement such as this; in fact, most of the C.M.R.I, independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests (who hold to the same heresy as the SSPV) are silent about their heresies (and therefore they are not notorious heretics), and they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith. But the SSPV has placed itself in another category - the category of notorious heretics who impose their heresy upon the people attending their Masses - which puts their Masses and their sacraments off limits.”

You will find no good or bad theologian who teaches that an undeclared heretic must also impose his heresy on others to become a notorious heretic.

Furthermore, notoriety is not determined by the fact if the priest imposes his heresies upon anyone, nor by how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or schismatic or by the fact if he is preaching his heresies from the pulpit; but this is rather determined by the fact from what you can know or understand about the heretical person in question. This is also the exact teaching of the very 1917 Code itself, which Peter Dimond purports to quote to give credence to his heresy:

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2197, §3: “An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, IF IT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge, nor excused by any excuse admitted in law (i.e., both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known).”

According to the above Canon: a priest’s heresy or crime becomes notorious and public the moment it has been made known to others.

But how can one be excused? Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “Now if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not excommunicated [but is excused from excommunication because of the circumstances]... This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.”

So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” that Peter usually mentions as excuses. Both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but heretics like Peter throws them out anyway, as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.

Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do with how many people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or if he imposes his heresies on others during mass. Thus, the Canon law of the Church clearly teaches that a heresy of a heretic becomes public and notorious the moment it has been made known to others. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and the Popes of the Catholic Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15: “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

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

Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into receiving the sacraments from them—directly contrary to the decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived! Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering these people’s souls (of those who are fully aware of what they are doing) inflicting mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe to you, apostate children, saith the Lord, that you would take counsel, and not of me: and would begin a web, and not by my spirit, that you might add sin upon sin...” (Isaiah 30:1)

In reality, all heretics are separated from the Church whether they are “imposing” about their heresies or not. Hence, they are all to be avoided as odious heretics that undermine the Catholic Faith (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra).

We are not allowed to choose which heretics we can approach as the Dimonds are doing, just as if some heretics should be tolerated while others not. This is totally unscriptural, and contradicts numerous Catholic teachings, as we will see.

Is it an article of divine and Catholic faith that forbids praying in communion with heretics and receiving the sacraments from them?

Peter Dimond, E-mail conversations with Richard Ibranyi (RJMI) (12/29/2001): “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)... Council of Carthage, stating basically the same thing as the Council of Laodicea... Carthage, like the one from Laodicea, is not "an article of divine and Catholic faith." It is a disciplinary decree... III Council of Constantinople. "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. ... Therefore... I [do not] deny a truth of divine and Catholic faith... 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...”

Peter Dimond could not be more wrong when he said “It is a disciplinary decree... not an article of divine and Catholic faith” to avoid heretics in the sacraments, for it is a dogmatic and certain fact (and of divine and Catholic faith) – and not only a disciplinary law – that Catholics can only be in religious communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with or receive the sacraments from people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels (as we will see). Hence that it is the divine and dogmatic law that bans Catholics from religious communion with known heretics and schismatics or from entering their churches.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

To knowingly enter into a religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a heretical “church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves UNITY OF COMMUNION, IS NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE LAW).”

Here we see Pope Leo XIII explicitly teaching that “the unity of the faith” and the “UNITY OF COMMUNION, IS NECESSARY JURE DIVINO (BY DIVINE LAW)” and that this “is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful,” thus proving to anyone of good will that religious communion in the sacraments is not only a disciplinary law but of divine and catholic faith.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

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

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

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

Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: “If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes.”

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

However, Peter has also admitted that religious communion is of divine and Catholic faith in a debate with a Novus Ordite (a defender of Vatican II). They were discussing whether non-Catholics could receive the Eucharist lawfully (without sin) at a Catholic Church.

Peter Dimond, A Response to Bob Sungenis – the heretic posing as “Catholic Apologist”: “And it wouldn’t even matter if Vatican II only mentioned “danger of death,” as Canon 844.4 of the New Code does (but not Canon 844.3, the New Catechism #1401 or Vatican II’s Decree), since people who reject the Catholic Faith can never receive Holy Communion lawfully in danger of death. People who reject the Catholic Faith (or any dogma) are in a position of rejecting God (the author of the dogmas), and therefore cannot receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist worthily. The Church cannot change the divine law that heretics cannot receive Communion even in danger of death, which Vatican II attempted to change.”

So Peter do agree with the above quotations and statements (that this is of Divine and Catholic Faith) but only insofar as it suits his own purpose, since he claims it’s only of divine law when heretics receive the sacraments from Catholics, but not likewise of divine law when Catholics – or pretended Catholics – receive the sacraments from heretics.

However, there are two exceptions to this doctrine of receiving the sacraments from heretics, and that is baptism, and marriage (with the direct approval of the Church). This specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church, the Natural Law or Tradition will always make it clear when there is an exception to a dogma.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

This specific statement from Peter deals with the sacrament of marriage:

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “In the debate with Eli, I brought up the fact that the Church has permitted mixed marriages. While the Church does not recommend mixed marriages – it actively discourages them – it’s a fact that marriages between Catholics and heretics have been approved by popes on certain occasions. … In the debate, Eli switched the topic and argued that the Church never approved going to a heretical minister for marriage. That of course is true but completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the point. We agree that the Church hasn’t approved going into a non-Catholic church or seeking out a non-Catholic minister to witness the marriage. The point is that in marriage the two people exchange the sacrament among themselves, and therefore, in a mixed marriage, the Catholic is exchanging the sacrament with a heretic.”

In Matrimony, as Peter also pointed out, the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, and the priest acts only as a witness of the sacrament taking place between the contracting parties.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13; "Sacraments" (1912): “It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical “Arcanum”, 10 Febr., 1880).”

Now, if there ever were such a teaching that would allow for Catholics to receive any other sacrament besides the sacrament of baptism – in case of a necessity – from a heretical or schismatical minister, be sure that it would have been dogmatically defined by the Church or used by Peter Dimond in his debates and articles. However, this has not been defined by the Church and no such quote has ever been brought forth by Peter Dimond on his website, because it has never and will never be allowed for Catholics to knowingly approach a heretical or schismatical minister to hear his mass or receive his invalidly and illicitly consecrated sacraments, except for the sacrament of baptism in case of a necessity. (remember, marriage is not received from a minister but is exchanged between the contracting parties themselves).

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully [without sin] consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 9: “I answer that, As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [with one who is excommunicated, such as heretics or schismatics] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Pope Leo XIII also points out that a kind of sacrament of marriage (but not the full Christian sacrament of marriage between baptized individuals) existed from the beginning of the world, both amongst the faithful and even amongst the unbelievers.

Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum #19, Feb 10, 1880: “Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.”

All people, even the heretics and the unbelievers since the beginning of time have exchanged a kind of sacrament of marriage between each other both validly and licitly, because, as Pope Leo XIII points out, “Marriage has God for its Author,” and obviously, there can never be a sin in doing what God has approved of to take place—unless of course one knowingly acts in direct opposition to the Church’s laws. Even Peter agrees with this, for he is admitting on his website that the “sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9; "Mixed Marriage" (1910): “As to a mixed marriage contracted before a non-Catholic minister, Pope Pius IX issued an instruction, 17 Feb., 1864. He declared that in places where the heretical preacher occupied the position of a civil magistrate and the laws of the country required marriages to be entered into before him in order that certain legal effects may follow, it is permitted to the Catholic party to appear before him either before or after the marriage has taken place in presence of the [Catholic] parish priest. If, however, the heretical minister is held to be discharging a religious duty [like confecting the Eucharist] in such witnessing of a marriage, then it is unlawful for a Catholic to renew consent before him as this would be a communion in sacred things and an implicit yielding to heresy.”

Furthermore, a Catholic is only allowed to marry a heretic under the strictest of circumstances, and that only with the approval of the Church. The contracting parties must also have agreed upon to raise and educate the children in the Catholic religion. So Peter is absolutely right when he says that the sin of communication in the sacraments with heretics is triggered when you do so despite the Church’s prohibition. The Church prohibits receiving the other sacraments from heretical ministers, therefore, it is a mortal sin to presume to receive these sacraments from them.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house [at meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy [i.e, whoever eats the Lamb in the houses of heretics is unholy].’”

So the Church clearly condemns anyone who obstinately defends eating the Lamb “outside of this house” (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics, for “It is impossible for us [Catholics] to hold communion after their death with those [heretics] who have not been in communion with us during their life.” (Pope Innocent III, chapter xii, de sepulturis, lib. III, tit. xxviii)

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, p 91: “On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to them… Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” In a question presented to the same Congregation in 1839, the following reply was made: “Ethiopian converts were not to receive the sacrament of Penance from an heretical priest.” When the Congregation was asked about whether such a practice could be tolerated in a case of necessity, “the Congregation furnished the ironical if not indignant reply, ‘Nihil esse respondendum.’” Rev. Szal comments: “The answer to the question appeared so manifest that to raise the question at all branded the questioner’s action as foolhardy, and consequently as deserving no reply.” Szal notes that, “It is gravely illicit to request or receive the sacrament of Penance from a schismatic minister… The ordinary necessity which a person senses when he is in the state of mortal sin is not sufficient to allow him to confess to a schismatic priest and receive absolution... Such a person would be obliged to make a Perfect Act of Contrition as best he could…”

Now, this exception on baptism, even from the hands of a heretical minister, is really necessary since no man can ever be saved (or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church) without the sacrament of baptism. This, of course, is another proof of the explicit necessity for all to be baptized in order to be saved.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regards to heretical or schismatical ministers.

Heretics and schismatics are separated from communion with the Church

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa, #26, Nov. 21, 1873: “Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John 10-11] to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted.”

The above quote is very relevant to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests would fall under this very same condemnation and be condemned if the see of St. Peter was not vacant. First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves ‘Old Catholics’ signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them, the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#’s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “… the new heretics who call themselves ‘Old Catholics’... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction... this deplorable sect... This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church.”

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or schismatics to be outside the Church and communion and that there is no need for a further declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a “new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left in this “new church” also would fall under the same condemnation as Joseph Humbert and his followers? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or the Eucharist at all, as Peter Dimond and the rest of the heretics and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional “Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying various infallible Catholic dogmas. The old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (by for example, receiving the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them.

“We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church.” (Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#’s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately deny or reject even a single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII, the Holy Bible, and Second Council of Constantinople makes perfectly clear:

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

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

Titus 3:10: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

2 John 1:9-10: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”

If a person rejects God’s truth, he cannot please Him. To hold that one may licitly receive the sacraments from heretics, in light of all the facts, is simply to deny God.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

What makes a church non-Catholic and a meetinghouse of the heretics?

Peter Dimond “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “When the councils refer to avoiding “meetinghouses of heretics” and “non-Catholic churches,” they are, like this canon, referring to groups, buildings and sects that are notorious in law (declared) or notorious in fact (openly non-Catholic in the external forum). This should be obvious even to the Catholic sense of any person who considers this issue; for there is an obvious difference between an Eastern “Orthodox” [openly non-Catholic]... and a “traditionalist” heretic [openly calling himself “Catholic”] under Benedict XVI... Decrees concerning one’s obligation to avoid the “meetinghouses of heretics,” etc. are not referring to priests or groups who celebrate a traditional Catholic rite and profess to hold all Catholic teachings, but are actually heretical.”

Peter claims that a heretical church who professes itself “Catholic” and that celebrates the traditional liturgy is somehow different from a notorious meetinghouse of the heretics such as the Eastern “Orthodox”.

This statement from Peter is totally false yet nonetheless true in another sense. Let me explain: It is true in the sense that a church who professes itself “Catholic” at least outwardly (perhaps) don’t appear to be heretical in the same way as a Protestant or “Orthodox” church would. For example, we would know immediately upon hearing that if such and such a church was Protestant or “Orthodox” that it’s not Catholic and that it must be presumed to be heretical. The same normally don’t apply to churches who professes themselves “Catholic,” of course. For when a church professes itself “Catholic” it’s only natural to assume that it’s a Catholic Church before one sees the evidence of heresy or schism. I say normally because today we must assume that any “Church” who professes itself “Catholic” is heretical since all of them (as far as we are aware of) either denies the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation or rejects several of his dogmas.

Now the problem with Peter isn’t that he’s unaware of the fact whether the traditionalists he approach and tell others to approach are obstinate and known heretics or not, but that he in fact is fully aware of this, and yet he somehow makes them out to be “less” heretical than the Eastern “Orthodox” churches. It is totally false to make this comparison because it’s just a fact that the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are less heretical than the Novus Ordo church or even most of the traditional “Catholic” churches. So if the Eastern “Orthodox” then called themselves Catholic (which they also do), then according to the Dimonds’ warped and heretical view, so long as they’re undeclared, they would be the best option for us to hear mass and receive the sacraments from. But to go to these “Orthodox” schismatics would of course be unlawful and a mortal sin. But then again, the same applies to all other heretics as well that are perhaps worse heretics than the Eastern “Orthodox” have ever been or are. In reality, there are no kinds of heretics that are acceptable to the Church or who can be excused or accepted within Her communion, as we have seen. However, as we saw above, Peter strangely thinks that it is decided – if we have to avoid someone – based on what they call themselves and whether they claim to profess a “sound faith”.

Let’s recall the statements of St. Basil the Great, Pope Leo XIII, and the Holy Bible again that so clearly refutes Peter:

St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappodocia: “As for all those who pretend to confess sound orthodox Faith [like the “traditionalists” Peter referred to above], but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion [but who are in communion with Vatican II followers and manifest heretics], if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn [if we have admonished them once or twice but they still remain obstinate in their heresy], you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers [then we must NOT be in communion with them even if they call themselves “Catholic” or “traditionalists”].” (Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity… if any one holds to one single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic.’”

St. Titus 3:10-11: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.”

Here we can see that tradition teaches us to judge others (such as heretics) based on what FAITH THEY BELIEVE IN AND PROFESS, and NOT what they pretend to “confess”, as the heresiarch Peter is advocating.

Those who hold Peter’s heretical position must also understand that the churches which they obstinately call “undeclared Catholic churches” in fact are not Catholic Churches at all. We are too far gone in the Great Apostasy for obstinately holding to this erroneous position any longer.

Today, a traditional “Catholic” church or Novus Ordo church where most if not all priests and laymen are known, obstinate heretics or schismatics that even reject the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation or denies several of his dogmas, can in no way be likened with a Catholic Church prior to the Vatican II revolution when the apostasy was not so visible yet and many priests and laymen were still fully Catholic. For to reject even a single dogma of the faith is in fact to reject the entire Catholic faith, as explained by Pope Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

So if they don’t even hold the Catholic faith one cannot obstinately refer to them as “Catholic” or their churches as “Catholic churches” or their mass as a “Catholic mass” or their sacraments as “Catholic sacraments!” Their churches are heretical churches and their sacraments are mortally sinful and/or invalid sacraments and their mass is an illicit and mortally sinful mass, as should be totally obvious to any honest person of good-will reading this document.

Again, God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.

The Dimond brothers like to have their cake and eat it too

Observe how the Dimond brothers play both sides of the fence. How many times have we all heard from Novus Ordo people and other heretics that we don’t have the right to judge who is a heretic? That a heretic has to be formally declared by the Church? Of course we all know that’s not true and it seems the Dimond brothers would agree with this. Well, sometimes that is. You see, they sadly like to have their cake and eat it too. You see out of one side of their mouth they say that Catholics have the obligation to judge and denounce heretics, and that heretics lose authority in the church WITHOUT DECLARATION.

MHFM, E-Exchanges on various issues: “Heretics lose all membership and authority in the Catholic Church automatically.”

MHFM, E-Exchanges on various issues: “Catholics have an obligation to judge and denounce heretics when they manifest their rejection of Catholic truth by their words and actions.” (Archive 1)

Then out of the other side of their double tongued mouth they say that it is lawful to receive the sacraments from a heretic so long as he is an “undeclared” heretic, meaning that he has not officially been declared a heretic by the Church. Now can anyone please tell me how they are going to be officially declared a heretic when the see of St. Peter is vacant?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “CATHOLICS MAY RECEIVE SACRAMENTS FROM SOME PRIESTS WHO ARE UNDECLARED HERETICS in this time...”

Peter Dimond, Sacraments From Heretics Debate: “And what we’ve pointed out on our website, we’ve not said that unless someone’s imposing he cannot be considered a heretic. No what we’ve said is, that WITHOUT A DECLARATION, FOR THERE TO BE A POSITIVE ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO AVOID AN UNDECLARED HERETIC, he would either have to be an imposing heretic, impose his false views on you, or be so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused in anyway in law.”

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

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “If he’s not opposed to it, but is in favor of the Vatican II ecumenism, then he is a notorious heretic and you should not receive Communion from him.”

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

But to prove that Peter and Michael Dimond are heretics and liars from their own words, we will look at three quotations from their website.

First quote:

Peter and Michael Dimond, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “But with some other “traditionalist” [heretical] priests, you can go to them for CONFESSION and Communion if they are validly ordained and NOT NOTORIOUS or imposing about their false positions and if one doesn’t support them.”

Note: Their position in the first quote is that we may receive the sacraments from heretical priests as long as they are not notorious.

Second quote:

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “The problem is that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the (correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions. Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/”invincible ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every single “traditionalist” priest today. … BUT MAY ONE GO TO SUCH A PRIEST FOR COMMUNION, IF THE PRIEST IS VALIDLY ORDAINED IN THE TRADITIONAL RITE OF ORDINATION AND IF ONE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIM? YES, ONE MAY GO SOME OF THESE “TRADITIONALIST” PRIESTS IF THEY MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS.”

Note: Their position in the second quote is that we may go to a notoriously heretical priest that has admitted or made known his heresy of denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation as long as one doesn’t support him. (The Dimonds actually argues that this priest is not a notorious heretic even though he has admitted to his heresy and is obstinate in it!)

Third Quote:

Michael Dimond, Can Catholics go anywhere to receive sacraments today: “While we would say that the notoriously heretical priest may not be approached for Holy Communion, we believe that those priests who are notoriously heretical because they like ecumenism and praying with and respecting other religions may be approached for confession, if you cannot find any better options for confession within a reasonable distance. If he is a notoriously heretical priest who doesn’t think you are a Catholic because of what you believe, WE WOULD SAY YOU MAY ONLY GO TO HIM FOR CONFESSION IN DANGER OF DEATH.”

Note: Their position in the third quote is that we may go to them even if they are notoriously heretical. (By the way, the Dimonds only claim that the priests they deem notorious are notorious! Every other priest, like the priest mentioned above that denied the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation, according to them, is not notorious.)

So, according to the Dimonds, one can go to them for the sacraments if they are not notorious and one can go to them for the sacraments if they are notorious and have admitted to their heresies. Which one is it, Dimonds, can we or can we not go to them if they are notorious, known heretics?

While they like to claim (or rather only appear outwardly as if they have as opinion) that one may not approach a notoriously heretical priest at all for the sacraments, yet, as we could see above, they don’t really believe that this is true – at least not in regards to confession or any other of the heresies they are excluding from the notorious category – and in so doing they are refuting themselves, showing themselves to be complete liars by their own words.

But one may wonder then, why is Peter even claiming that one must avoid “all notorious heretics absolutely,” when he doesn’t even believe that this is true?

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The “heretics” and clearly non-Catholic “meetinghouses of heretics,” WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED ABSOLUTELY, are: 1) those that have been declared or 2) THOSE THAT NOTORIOUSLY REJECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [OR FAITH] WITHOUT “CONCEALMENT” – NOTORIOUS IN LAW OR NOTORIOUS IN FACT.”

Do they contradict themselves? Of course they do. All heretics contradict themselves and are confused, and the Dimonds are no exception.

It’s as if the Dimonds actually seem to believe that their self made list of what constitutes a notorious heresy is applicable to the rest of humanity! Their view actually have the boldness to claim that some heresies can be tolerated or excused while others may not. The Catholic Church however condemns all heresies and heretics and shuns communion with them. How MHFM decide which heresies can be tolerated or excused or not is of course impossible to understand. As all honest people can see, it’s just the imaginations of the Dimonds’ own made up claims without any dogmatic proof whatsoever to back up their words.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. … St. Augustine notes that ‘other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity… IF ANY ONE HOLDS TO ONE SINGLE ONE OF THESE [HERESIES] HE IS NOT A CATHOLIC’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).”

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

More on Peter Dimond’s illogical and heretical teachings on notorious-in-fact heretics

What follows is more evidence of the Dimonds’ illogical and heretical teaching regarding who is a notorious-in-fact heretic. They present evidence which proves that Bishop Mark Pivarunus and the priests of his heretical CMRI sect are undeclared obstinate heretics for denying the Salvation Dogma; yet, Peter teaches that Catholics are allowed to attend Mass at CMRI churches and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from CMRI priests.

Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “The priests of the CMRI are one of the only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today… However, we have pointed out in our newsletters and magazines the unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests of the CMRI are heretics (as will be shown below). The priests of the CMRI are heretics first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.’ The article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching. In fact, the title of the article ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church’ is a word for word denial of the Catholic dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” It is equivalent to publishing an article entitled: ‘The Original Sin of Mary.’”

Every CMRI priest that Peter spoke to denied the Salvation Dogma:

Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “This heresy was so blatant that I called the headquarters of the CMRI in Washington and spoke to one of the priests about the article. He told me that he had ‘no problem with it.’ A priest from the CMRI’s seminary in Nebraska and a nun from the CMRI convent in Washington told me (when I questioned them over the telephone) that non-Catholics who die in their false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith. This has been the response of every priest of the CMRI that I have questioned about this issue.”

Notice that Peter clearly denounces the CMRI priests as obstinate (meaning formal) heretics but nevertheless teaches that “their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today.” Therefore, while Peter believes the CMRI priests are undeclared obstinate heretics, he also believes they are not undeclared notorious heretics because if they were he would not say Catholics are allowed to attend their Masses because he correctly believes Catholics are forbidden to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with notorious heretics. Hence Peter denies the very definition of an undeclared notorious heretic. An obstinate undeclared heretic whose heresy is in the public domain is a notorious heretic, by the very definition of a notorious-in-fact heretic.

According to the Dimonds, no matter how much and how certain the public evidence is against the CMRI priests for teaching heresy, these priests cannot be notorious heretics unless they also impose their heresy on others. That is why the Dimonds teach that Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of CMRI priests in spite of the fact that the Dimonds have denounced them as obstinate heretics. Peter says that “The priests of the CMRI are one of the only sedevacantist priestly societies in the world, and their Masses constitute the only legitimate option for valid sacraments for some people today… However… the priests of the CMRI are heretics first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.” Again, although Peter teaches that these priests are obstinate heretics, he does not believe they are notorious heretics.

Peter Dimond, The Heretical Society of Pius V, 2003: “When priests make public announcements that are heretical, which impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass, then a Catholic must not attend the Mass or receive Holy Communion from such a priest. … This is not the case with a heretical independent, C.M.R.I. or SSPX priest who has not made an announcement such as this; in fact, most of the C.M.R.I, independent, SSPX and Byzantine priests (who hold to the same heresy as the SSPV) are silent about their heresies (and therefore they are not notorious heretics), and they don’t impose them upon anyone, so that receiving Communion from them (as long as one does not support or agree with them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith.”

Peter says the CMRI priests are silent about their heresies! If so, then how does he know they teach heresy so that he could denounce them as obstinate heretics? If they were truly silent about their heresies, then they would be occult heretics; and hence no mere man on earth, and that includes Peter, would know about their heresies.

But why does Peter say we can approach some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests who accepts ecumenism, or that “impose the heretical belief upon the people attending the Mass”, that we may not approach them?

Peter’s dishonesty here is that he excuse the heretics’ crimes of heresy (that murders people’s souls) by claiming that they are not notorious about their heresies. He claims this even though he knows and even admits that the priests he approaches (and tells others to approach) are notorious, known obstinate heretics. Peter makes this distortion by misapplying and misinterpreting the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The Code of Canon Law contains the distinctions between public, notorious in law, and notorious in fact...

To summarize the Definitions:

Public = commonly known or can be commonly known

Notorious in law = declared

Notorious in fact = public and so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused

“Since the meaning of notorious in law (declared) is obvious, we must continue to focus on notorious in fact. As we see above, the lack of “concealment” or “evasion” is the key in rendering something notorious in fact. The crime of the person who is notorious in fact cannot be concealed. While there are numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern “Orthodox” rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one. There is no concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They openly and without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious in fact. Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

His above commentary was on this following canon:

Canon 2197.1-4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

(2) Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an abjudicated thing, or after a confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750;

(3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse;

(4) Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known]…”

Note carefully the bolded and underlined portions above. Canon law No. 1 & 3 clearly states that a crime is public if “it can and will easily become so”, and notorious, “if it is publicly known”.

Canon 2197.1-4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; (3) Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known...”

So even the EXACT SAME CANON LAW that Peter uses to “prove” his heretical doctrine, actually condemns his own position! How ironic.

But to prove this even further, consider the following. Is not the different traditional societies’ heretical literature publicly available and easily accessible for anyone at anytime today? Of course they are. So their heresies are public, and in the public domain, and are commonly known, or will easily become so to anyone who just looks into it.

Here follows some public and commonly known heretical literature from two priestly societies’ that Peter and Michael Dimond teaches one can receive the sacraments from under certain conditions:

Peter Dimond, The Heretical CMRI: “The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, ‘The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.’ The article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching.”

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine [on no salvation outside the Church], however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Notice that the SSPV writer “simply refuse to believe” in the Church’s dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. This is the SSPV’s public teaching (and all of these heretical priestly societies teaches their heresies publicly, as anyone can easily see for themselves by consulting MHFM’s own articles on the subject!). Yet Peter goes on to teach that Catholics are allowed to attend the Masses of and pray in communion with and receive the sacraments from these obstinate heretics.

Peter Dimond, Important Update on the Heretical Society of Pius V: “… This is why we have taken pains to strenuously point out to those who attend the Masses of the SSPV (or the C.M.R.I., Society of St. Pius X, Byzantine churches, and almost all independent ‘traditional’ priests, etc. who believe the same way) that they cannot give them any financial support under pain of mortal sin, for this would actually constitute a denial of the faith by donating to a heretical organization.”

But what did the 1917 Code mean with excused that Peter mentioned?

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

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “Notorious in fact = public and so notorious that it cannot be concealed or excused... AS WE SEE ABOVE, THE LACK OF “CONCEALMENT” OR “EVASION” IS THE KEY IN RENDERING SOMETHING NOTORIOUS IN FACT. THE CRIME OF THE PERSON WHO IS NOTORIOUS IN FACT CANNOT BE CONCEALED [OR EXCUSED]. While there are numerous examples we could consider, the Eastern “Orthodox” rejection of Vatican I is an excellent one. There is no concealment: they don’t accept the Papacy. They openly and without evasion reject it. They are, therefore, notorious in fact. Such a priest is openly non-Catholic and must be avoided.”

Let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 60, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “Now if the husband strike a cleric whom he found with his wife he is not excommunicated [but is excused from excommunication because of the circumstances]. … This does not prove that it is lawful simply, but that it is lawful as regards immunity from a particular kind of punishment, since excommunication is also a kind of punishment.”

So the 1917 Code of Canon Law is referring to a LEGITIMATE legal defense, not some false argument like “I can’t judge the pope”, or “Vatican I requires perpetual successors” that Peter usually mentions as “excuses” (as we will see below in more detail). Both of these are false arguments and do not constitute concealments or excuses in law, but heretics like Peter throws them out anyway as though the Church was granting license to commune with criminals who pervert the laws and doctrine of the Church.

Notorious or public heresy has thus nothing to do with how many other people actually are aware of the priest being a heretic or if the priest “imposes” his heresies on others during mass. Thus, the Canon law of the Church clearly teaches that a heresy of a heretic becomes public and notorious the moment it has been made known to others, or can and will easily become known so. This fact is of course also backed up by both the Saints and the Popes of the Catholic Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Hence the Catholic Church condemns the Dimonds and anyone who teaches that an undeclared heretic becomes a notorious heretic only if he imposes his heresy on others during mass. By pretending that priests who are undeclared notorious heretics are not notorious heretics or schismatics but only undeclared heretics whose heresy or schism is less than notorious, the Dimonds deceive their readers who are inclined to put the Mass before the Faith into receiving the sacraments from them — directly contrary to the decrees of the Church. In this way the Dimonds, speaking for the Devil, have deceived their readers into knowingly attending the Masses of and praying in communion with and receiving the sacraments from the worst kinds of notorious heretics that may ever have lived! Thus, the Dimonds assist the Devil in holding fast and murdering these souls (who are fully aware of what they are doing) inflicting mortal sin upon mortal sin on them: “Woe to you, apostate children, saith the Lord, that you would take counsel, and not of me: and would begin a web, and not by my spirit, that you might add sin upon sin:” (Isaiah 30:1)

PETER’S “CONCEALMENT” AND “EXCUSED” IN LAW HERESY REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE

Ever wondered why Peter says we can approach some priests that we know are heretical when he says about other priests who accepts ecumenism etc., that we may not approach them?

Couldn’t the Dimond brothers warped Canon Law principle of excused and concealed in law likewise excuse the heresy of the Vatican II ecumenism, if we play after the Dimonds’ own standards? Of course it could. For so long as the heretic could divert the attention elsewhere and say something like: “Look, the Vatican II ecumenism is only about bringing the false religions of the world back into the bosom and unity of the Church again, and, Christ wants all to be Saved! Therefore, since the Church is His Body and the Church hierarchy approves of this, I have to accept it, even if I don’t agree with it or understand it. And, we must be in subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and obey him—that’s a dogma—and so we cannot deny it; therefore, we must accept it. Neither can we judge the Pope, or the Church, and, Christ promised that the Gates of hell can never prevail against it! And there must be perpetual successors to St. Peter and so on and so forth; and so the Church cannot be wrong on this, etc.”

Couldn’t all of these above mentioned excuses make up a concealment in law or an excuse in law even according to Peter Dimond’s own demonical and heretical standard? Of course it could. But Peter only follows his own principles when it suits him!

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “For example, a priest who offers a traditional liturgy under Benedict XVI, who has seen the evidence that Benedict XVI cannot be the pope, cannot “excuse” his adherence to him. He is guilty of heresy for obstinately adhering to him. BUT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO “CONCEAL” HIS CRIME AND REJECTION OF CATHOLIC TEACHING UNDER AN ALLEGED FIDELITY TO VATICAN I, AN ALLEGED FIDELITY TO THE TEACHING THAT “NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE HOLY SEE,” ETC. WHILE THIS “CONCEALMENT” DOESN’T EXCUSE HIM – HE IS STILL GUILTY – IT COULD RENDER HIM NOT NOTORIOUS IN FACT [WHICH THEN MEANS, ACCORDING TO PETER, THAT ONE MAY COMMUNE WITH HIM!].”

Even though Peter claims above that he don’t believe that the priest can be “excused” for his heresies etc., the fact is—whether he ever will admit to it or not—that he in fact are excusing their heresies by concealing them for them! However an obstinate crime or heresy that is known to a person cannot be concealed, since it is known. Therefore, Peter has no excuse for “concealing” a known obstinate priest’s heresy because Peter certainly KNOWS that the priest is guilty! Peter is truly the devil’s advocate who, instead of pleading guilty sentences for criminals who spit at and reject the laws of God, is searching for ways to acquit them from a guilty sentence! A criminal could of course try to conceal his own guilt in a court of law and so be acquitted of the charges if it was not known that he was guilty or if evidence was lacking. But for Peter to “conceal” a known heretic’s crimes when he even knows he’s guilty, is so incredibly stupid and evil that one can only marvel at his evilness.

They can excuse a priest who rejects our Lord Jesus Christ and the necessity of believing in Him, but seems not to excuse people who believe that the Vatican II ecumenism is acceptable? How does that make any sense? What is a more evil heresy, 1) to reject that it’s necessary to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation with obstinacy and without concealment; or 2) to accept ecumenism obstinately and without concealment? Obviously #1 is a much worse crime to be guilty of and to commit since to reject Christ is to reject the entire Christian Faith.

If MHFM did not excuse some of the major heretical beliefs that the validly ordained heretical priests believed in, then, there would be virtually no priests left in the entire world that they, or their followers could go to for mass and the sacraments. That’s how bad the situation has become today, as even the Dimonds are forced to admit.

Peter Dimond, An Unanswered Letter? Our letter “debate” with Bishop McKenna on Baptism of Desire: “They hold that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic Faith and are complete heretics. It is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their priests, that the priests of the CMRI adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49 and believe that invincible ignorance can save members of false, non-Catholic religions and persons who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. This heresy is held by almost all priests today.”

MHFM, Where to Go to Mass or Confession today? Traditional Options for the Sacraments: “The problem is that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests who are offering the (correct) forms of traditional Mass also hold to heretical positions. Almost all of the priests who are offering traditional forms of Mass either... hold that certain people can be saved outside the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire”/”invincible ignorance”). This unfortunately applies to almost every single “traditionalist” priest today. No priest who... believes that souls can be saved without baptism or the Catholic Faith (by “baptism of desire” or “invincible ignorance”) can be supported... That means that almost every “traditionalist” priest today cannot be supported, since he is holding a position at variance with Catholic teaching.”

MHFM, A Warning about Certain Heretical “Traditionalist” Priests and Chapels: “The problem, however, is that almost all of the priests celebrating these traditional and valid Masses hold to one or more heresies. Almost all of them either... deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation in its true meaning – that is, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. Many of them hold to other heresies as well.”

If MHFM would be consistent with their own teaching, they would have to excuse the priest who accept the Vatican II ecumenism as well. They would not only excuse the priest who rejects all other dogmas or even the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation, but would further have to excuse the Vatican II ecumenism or the heresy that the Eastern “Orthodox” doesn’t need to be converted.

THE DIMOND BROTHERS ENTERS INTO COMMUNION WITH THE GATES OF HELL!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “…we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics).”

To knowingly receive a sacrament from a heretical person despite the prohibition of the Church, means, to be in religious communion with that person, and he who does this culpably has, in reality (unless ignorance excuse him), broken off his communion with the Church by uniting himself with those who are outside, with those who are THE GATES OF HELL!

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art 2: “An excommunicated person is banished from communion. Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the Church [commits schism]: and hence he seems to be excommunicated.”

That Peter and Michael Dimond (who claims to be Catholic) actually enters into communion with known heretics, schismatics, and apostates, thus entering into communion with the GATES OF HELL, is quite revealing, and it proves how the Church’s indefectibility is not effected by obstinate heretics like Peter and Michael Dimond, since they are not Catholic. So their heretical position is in no way affecting the true faithful Catholics or the true Church of Christ since no true Catholic is in communion with apostates from the Faith.

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

St. John Damascene: “With all our strength, therefore, let us never receive communion from or grant it to heretics; ‘Give not that which is holy unto dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,’ (Matt. 7:6); lest we become partakers in their dishonor and condemnation.”

This evidence should be enough for anyone who is not suffering from the mortal illness of bad will and pride. If you have fallen for this heresy, we pray with tears that God may lead you out of this outrageous and scandalous position which has forced you to profess external communion with the most abominable, apostate, heretical or schismatical priests and laymen that may ever have lived!

Home