E-Mail Discussions

The Question of whether one may receive Sacraments in these difficult times

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

INTRO: Our website demonstrates that a Catholic cannot attend the New Mass, of course. Our website also demonstrates the unfortunate fact that almost all of the priests who are validly ordained and celebrating a traditional Mass today (whether Roman Rite or Eastern Rite) hold heretical views. Note that we said “almost” and not “all.” In other words, almost all of even the “traditional”priests either regard Benedict XVI as the pope/accept Vatican II or hold that people can be saved without the Catholic faith and without baptism by means of “baptism of desire” and/or “invincible ignorance.” Sedevacantist priests - who correctly reject Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect - are often some of the most dangerous heretics on the salvation issue. So, a traditional Catholic who is uncompromising about the Catholic faith - who wants to take advantage of the inestimable graces the sacraments provide - would have to receive sacraments from a priest who is not in full agreement with him on one of these issues, if he is to receive them at all. Is that an acceptable course of action? As will be shown in this section, we believe the answer is yes – provided that the Catholic doesn’t agree with or support the priest, and provided that the priest is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. But fewer and fewer priests meet these requirements as this Great Apostasy continues. Moreover, there is no positive obligation to receive sacraments from any priest who holds a heretical position, even if he is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position. Therefore, if people don’t want to go they don’t have to.

Many Catholics, who only have “traditional” priests who are notorious or imposing about their heresies, must stay home. But the question is: are all Eastern Rite (Uniate not “Orthodox”) priests, non-sedevacantist priests, etc. notorious heretics? Are all the chapels where they administer the sacraments “houses of heretics,” “assemblies of non-Catholics,” “non-Catholic” churches, etc.? Is it ever allowed to receive Communion from any of them under any conditions? This section will examine these issues. Some people are falling into mortally sinful schism on this issue. They are unjustifiably condemning as heretics all who go to any of the priests described above, and they are falling into schism as a result. In every case, their schism is a result of pride. There is no doubt that souls are being lost because of schismatic errors on this issue. We will show, in this section, how wrong such a position is; how it falls to pieces when examined logically; and how it leads to evil schism.

Entries/Exchanges in this file:

* March 18, 2008 – Why the position that all traditional Masses which recognize the antipope are absolutely off limits renders the New Mass pointless or drastically less significant than Jesus indicates

*March 16, 2008 – Another quote from St. Thomas Aquinas confirms our position on Mass attendance and that our understanding of this issue is the Catholic one

*Feb. 12, 2008 – Some argue that the divine law forbids Catholics from ever attending the Mass of one they know to be a heretic – completely wrong and refuted by St. Thomas and the Fourth Lateran Council

*Feb. 1, 2008 Exchange – Reader says all Byzantine and non-sedevacantist priests are “notorious” heretics - wrong

*Feb. 1, 2008 -The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism book refutes the position of radical schismatics: that one is never allowed to receive a sacrament from a priest who holds a heretical position

March 18, 2008 – Why the position that “all traditional Masses which recognize the antipope are absolutely off limits” renders the New Mass pointless or drastically less significant than Jesus indicates

There are those out there who say that no priest at all who recognizes Antipope Benedict XVI as the pope can lawfully be approached for Communion or Mass. In addition to all of the points we’ve made in our file about this issue, here’s a thought which we believe further shows that such a position doesn’t add up. This is not a strict argument, but more something to consider: If it were mortally sinful or heretical for anyone to approach any priest who is praying in communion with a heretical antipope, why did the Devil push for the implementation of a New Mass at all?

Jesus makes it clear that the “abomination of desolation” in the “holy place” (Mt. 24:15) is a major feature of the end times. It’s a major part of the spiritual deception which leads many astray. Many believe that this “abomination of desolation” is the New Mass. But no one can deny that the New Mass/the Liturgical Revolution has been a major feature of the Devil’s plan – one of the biggest. So why would the Devil have pushed for a New Mass at all, if all the people were going to be damned anyway at all the traditional Masses for praying in communion with an antipope? If they were all falling – or would have fallen – into mortal sin, heresy, etc. for staying at a traditional Mass where the antipope is mentioned, then implementing the New Mass would only serve to alert more people to the heresies of Vatican II and the true character of the antipopes. In that case, a New Mass wouldn’t benefit the Devil at all. It would only make his heretical sect and heretical antipopes easier to identify as revolutionary.

The truth is that the Devil obviously pushed for the implementation of a new and invalid “Mass” because he recognized that it had real effects of depriving souls of salvation. The Devil didn’t want the traditional Mass, even at the churches where the antipopes were accepted. He didn’t want it even at the places where the antipope is accepted because he recognized that certain people, who hold the fullness of the faith and are uncompromising about it, could be, have been and still are (in certain cases) led to salvation by the true Eucharist and true Mass at certain places where the antipope is accepted if they don’t accept his heresies or support them. The Devil, through Antipope Benedict XVI, has only endeavored to return the traditional Mass in a limited away at this very late stage of the apostasy because he knows that almost all of the “priests” who would be using Antipope Benedict XVI’s allowance are invalid anyway and/or notoriously heretical. But through the great bulk of the Great Apostasy, he made sure that the traditional Mass was almost nowhere to be found at even those places where his antipope was accepted.

Again, we emphasize that this is not to say that one can go to all traditional Masses where the priest accepts Benedict XVI. Many of them should not be attended, as explained in our file. It is merely to show how far removed from the world of true wisdom is the position that it’s a mortal sin to go to any traditional Mass where the priest recognizes Antipope Benedict XVI.

March 16, 2008 – Another quote from St. Thomas Aquinas confirms our position on Mass attendance and that our understanding of this issue is the Catholic one

In the quote below from the Summa Theologica, we see that St. Thomas speaks of heretics who are “tolerated” by the Church and heretics who have been “cut off” from the Church. He does not speak of “cut off” in the sense of membership (for all heretics lose membership in the Church automatically), but “cut off” in the sense of officially pronounced against. What St. Thomas says in this passage below is very relevant to the issue of whether one can ever knowingly receive sacraments from, or attend the Mass of, an undeclared heretic. The passage proves, once again, that our position is correct. It further refutes the position of certain radical schismatics, who say that it’s against the divine law to ever receive Communion from or attend the Mass of a priest one recognizes to be a heretic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, A.2: “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, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church…. 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, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is 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. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.”

In this passage St Thomas is discussing ordination. Those points aren’t relevant to our topic. What is extremely relevant to our topic is the fact that this quotation shows that St. Thomas (and other authors of his time) distinguished between two classes of heretics. Those who are “tolerated” by the Church are those who have not yet been specifically declared by a judge to be heretics and to be avoided. These “tolerated” heretics are automatically severed from the the Church for denying the faith, but they haven’t been declared. Those who have been “cut off” are those who have been pronounced against by a judge in a declared sentence.

Now, notice that St. Thomas says that a person who communicates in the sacraments with a heretic “who is cut off” from the Church necessarily sins. Remember, those who have been “cut off” are those who have been officially pronounced against. There is no doubt, therefore, that he is teaching that the absolute obligation not to communicate in the sacraments with a heretic applies to heretics who have been declared against: those who have been officially “cut off.”

If St. Thomas were teaching what the radical schismatics say, he obviously wouldn’t have mentioned only those who are “cut off” from the Church. Certain radical schismatics say that whoever knowingly communicates in the sacraments with anyone he recognizes to be a heretic necessarily sins, even if that heretic is undeclared and meets certain conditions. What St. Thomas says disproves their position. That should be obvious to any honest person who examines the above passage. The above passage from St. Thomas also proves true another thing we’ve said on this issue. It proves what we’ve said about the following passage in the Summa Theologica:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), 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. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. 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. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

We have pointed out that this passage teaches that you are not absolutely forbidden to attend the Mass of or receive Communion from a heretic in every case “until the Church’s sentence is pronounced.” Certain radical schismatics, who disagree and condemn our position, have attempted to deny that this is what St. Thomas is saying here. They have desperately tried to argue that he’s only talking about sinners, not heretics. Some of them have tried other patently ridiculous and desperate arguments. We disproved all of that by quoting the Fourth Lateran Council, which clearly teaches the same concept in the very same time period:

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… If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse 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. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”

Speaking of those who “receive, defend or support heretics,” the Fourth Lateran Council decrees that those who refuse to avoid these people, AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH, are to be excommunicated. This is another example which demonstrates that our position is the true Catholic position, and that those who condemn it are non-Catholic schismatics.

But with the new quote we have posted from Supplemental Question 38 of the Summa Theologica, all of their objections and escape tactics are further destroyed. For that passage shows that Thomas distinguishes between two groups of heretics. He clearly says that the obligation to absolutely avoid heretics in every case involves that category which has been “cut off” (declared).

So, this constitutes another smashing vindication of our position and of our understanding of all of these passages. The true position, which we have taught, has been attacked by certain blind non-Catholic schismatics. They are used by the Devil. Here’s a table which displays all of these quotes together. It’s quite clear that they are teaching the same concept. Together they prove that our understanding of this issue and the passage of St. Thomas have been right all along.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), 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. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. 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. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

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… If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse 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. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, A.2: “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… 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, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is 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. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion.”

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. But this disproves the schismatic position of those who say that it’s heretical and mortally sinful to teach that one may receive Communion from or attend the Mass of any priest one recognizes to be a heretic.

Feb. 12, 2008 – Some argue that the divine law forbids Catholics from ever attending the Mass of one they know to be a heretic – completely wrong and refuted by St. Thomas and the Fourth Lateran Council

Objection: The divine law forbids Catholics from knowingly attending the Mass or receiving Communion from someone they recognize to be a heretic. To do so is to spiritually unite with that non-Catholic person. To teach that it’s permissible to attend the Mass of such a heretic is itself heresy and mortally sinful. Proof for this position is found in the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Subj.: St. Thomas on attending Masses said by heretics

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 82., A. 9: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), 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. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.”

RESPONSE: This objection is false for many reasons. It’s another example of a “dogma” that has been invented by schismatics. They have a habit of declaring their own “dogmas,” without any proof that such things have been taught by the Church. In many cases, the “dogmas” they invent don’t even deal with subject matter proper to a dogmatic definition – i.e., matters which are inextricably bound up with truths of faith or morals which must be believed by all Christians. It’s quite interesting that they cannot cite even one statement from a pope or council which says something to this effect: Catholics may never attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, someone they recognize to be a heretic.

We will see how false their objection is when examining the rest of the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas and showing how its meaning is illuminated by a decree from the Fourth Lateran Council. The people who make this objection hold that our position – which is that people may receive Communion from certain undeclared heretics without supporting them (e.g. certain priests celebrating a traditional Mass who profess to be Catholic but aren’t notorious or imposing about their heresy) – is sinful and contradicts the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s too bad that these individuals usually only quote a part of St. Thomas’s teaching on this point; they leave out the part below which contradicts their position and confirms ours. That’s typical of schismatics. St. Thomas’s words, which they often do not include, are:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), 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. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. 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. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

People should read the bold and underlined portion very carefully. It shows that our position is perfectly in line with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. It refutes the position that receiving Communion from (or attending the Mass of) a priest who professes to be Catholic, but is a heretic, is never allowed and is always sinful or heretical or opposed to the divine law.

This quote shows that it’s not ipso facto unlawful to receive Communion from such a priest or attend his Mass. Prior to an official pronouncement by the Church, there is a distinction between such a priest and the notoriously heretical groups (e.g. Protestant and Eastern “Orthodox”) – to which one can never go. Now, this is very important: there might arise situations with the priest who has not yet been officially pronounced against whereby receiving Communion from him would become unlawful. For example, this would be if the circumstances with him become such that he makes his heresy so notorious or imposing that scandal would be unavoidable. That’s why we point out that one should not go to such priests, as we have explained. But this citation from St. Thomas disproves the position of the schismatics, that it’s always contrary to the divine law or mortally sinful to receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) a priest one recognizes to be a heretic. This is further proven by the following decree of the Fourth Lateran Council. This decree proves that our understanding of the passage from St. Thomas is the correct understanding. More importantly, it shows that our understanding of this issue is the Catholic understanding.

Note this very carefully. Speaking of those who “receive, defend or support heretics,” the Fourth Lateran Council decrees that those who refuse to avoid these people, AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH, are to be excommunicated. This is another example which demonstrates that our position is the true Catholic position, and that those who condemn it are non-Catholic schismatics.

If, as the radical schismatics say, it were the teaching of the divine law that one may never receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) someone one recognizes to be a heretic, the Fourth Lateran Council would not have legislated as it did. It would have decreed that one must avoid such persons and clerics as soon as one recognizes that they receive, defend or support heretics. It wouldn’t have said “after they have been pointed out by the Church.” Those who receive, defend or support heretics are, in many cases, undeclared heretics. People don’t tend to “receive, defend or support heretics” unless they are heretics themselves, of course. Just as there are multitudes of undeclared heretics in our day, there were certainly some undeclared heretics at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, as well as in every other age of Church history. These undeclared heretics were people whom believers could recognize as heretics, prior to the pronouncement of the Church, by such actions as “support” or “defense” of heretics. Some of these individuals were clerics, as we can see in the citation above. But the Fourth Lateran Council only decreed that you are absolutely bound, in every case, to avoid them AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE CHURCH. Frankly, this destroys the schismatic position of those who condemn our perfectly Catholic position. It drives a nail in the coffin of the myth that it’s a “dogma” or part of the “divine law” that a Catholic can never knowingly attend the Mass of, or receive Communion from, an undeclared heretic.

This Council was obviously unaware of the supposed “divine law” and “dogma” – which has been invented by non-Catholic schismatics – that it’s mortally sinful or heretical to ever attend the Mass of someone you recognize to be a heretic. (Note that I describe these points in terms of “someone you recognize to be a heretic.” Since the schismatics like to assert that everyone who can be recognized as a heretic is a “notorious” heretic, describing it in these terms shows that their arguments about what “notorious” means are irrelevant.) So, to repeat the point: the Fourth Lateran Council clearly did not hold that it’s against the divine law for a Catholic to ever attend the Mass of someone he recognizes to be a heretic. If it did, it would have legislated that Catholics must avoid such persons as soon as it’s recognized that they defend or support heretics, not “after they have been pointed out by the Church.” So, contrary to the false claims of schismatics, it’s not against the divine law or “heresy” or mortal sin in every case for a Catholic to knowingly receive Communion from (or attend the Mass of) a person he recognizes to be a heretic. Some of these schismatics even assert that it’s mortally sinful to be present at a Mass where a heretic will also be present. This is even more patently ridiculous and is also completely disproven by the above.

Third, notice how the citation from the Fourth Lateran Council sheds more light on the meaning of St. Thomas Aquinas’s passage. Compare the language of the two very carefully:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp. Part, Q. 82, A. 9: “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. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

Does it sound like they were teaching the same thing? It’s quite obvious that they were teaching the same thing. It’s important to note that the two quotes come from the same century. St. Thomas wrote his Summa Theologica from 1265-1274, just a few decades after the Fourth Lateran Council.

Comparing these two quotes is very important in refuting the lies of schismatics. In response to the above quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, the radical schismatics make an extraordinary effort to read things into St. Thomas’s words which aren’t there. They argue:

St. Thomas is only talking about sinners in the above quote. He’s not including heretics in his statement that “consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.”

They recognize that they are in big trouble (i.e. schism) if St. Thomas was including heretics in his statement. Based on a careful reading of the text by itself, the argument that he was not including heretics in his statement is pathetically weak. It’s much more plausible that St. Thomas’s statement refers in general to all the categories of persons under discussion. His statement encompasses the various categories of persons (heretics, excommunicates, etc.), all of whom are sinners. If he were just talking about sinners who are not heretics, he would have made that explicit; but he doesn’t. He is inculcating the general principle that the obligation to absolutely (and in every case) avoid such individuals begins after the Church’s sentence has been pronounced. Any doubt about his meaning, however, is eliminated by examining the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council above.

For when we examine the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, which was clearly teaching the same concept as St. Thomas, we need to immediately ask: was it legislating merely about “sinners”? Obviously not. Its legislation clearly included, not just “sinners,” but people who are implicated in heresy by receiving, defending or supporting heretics. This refutes the false charge of schismatics and shows that our understanding of St. Thomas’s teaching is correct. More importantly, it proves that the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council is in line with what Catholics such as ourselves hold. It is opposed to the lies taught by schismatics – who have a proclivity to invent their own dogmas.

Finally, please note that the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council does say that clerics “should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…” For while you need not always avoid people who receive, defend or support heretics, a cleric cannot give Holy Communion, etc. to them. The issue of giving Holy Communion, etc. to a person who is a heretic is connected with the divine law. It’s unchangeable because it’s inextricably bound up with the defined truth of faith which we must believe: that a heretic, being outside the Church, cannot benefit from Holy Communion, etc. That’s why that law can never change or have exceptions. But the laws which govern whether a Catholic may receive from a heretic are different. They are not of the same unchangeable and dogmatic nature because it’s not a dogma that Catholics cannot benefit from sacraments administered or Masses said by those who are mortal sinners/evil/heretical. They certainly can, in certain cases. That’s why those who attempt to make the argument run both ways, and assert that both are connected with unchangeable divine law and admit of no exceptions, are completely wrong. Their error reveals that these schismatics, being outside the Church and in darkness, lack a basic Catholic sense. They lack the basic Catholic sense which warns members of the faithful about invalid reasoning and false arguments which clash with Catholic principles and common sense.

Feb. 1, 2008 Exchange – Reader says all Byzantine and non-sedevacantist priests are “notorious” heretics - wrong

Brothers,

Thanks for the reply and thanks for all your good work.

While The 1917 Code of Canon Law is reliable, it is not infallible. You know this better than I do. As such, The 1917 Code of Canon Law should be believed provided it does not contradict any infallible teachings. But below I quote an infallible teaching from the Council of Basel.

“Nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration and reception of the sacraments unless … 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.”

This is the dogmatic teaching we are obligated to believe and adhere to. Do you agree that if a priest holds a heresy "with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law", then you may not receive the sacraments, including Holy Communion, from such a priest, even if "there is no one else to give them" to you, contrary to what Canon 2261.2 teaches? If we denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic without having personaly admonished him because he holds to and teaches heresy "with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law", then any person, Eastern Rite priest or otherwise, who, after hearing the evidence against Benedict XVI, still considers Benedict XVI to be a Catholic pope is also notoriously heretical. From such a person or a priest we are obliged to abstain from communion "in the administation and reception of the sacraments". Do you agree?

Again, you have helped me out so much, I cannot thank you enough. But you do need to prayerfully consider what I say here because you are wrong when you receive of Holy Communion from a notoriously heretical Byzantine priest, whom you have already admonished regarding the notorious heresies of Benedict XVI. Also, you need to make your website more clear regarding under what conditions one may receive Holy Communion and/or attend Mass.

The following quotes were taken from your website under the section "Where to go to Confession or Mass?".

(1) "... but other priests of the Eastern Rite (such as Ukrainian “Catholic” priests) are an option for confession, if they have been ordained in the Eastern Rite (as mentioned above)." --> This is misleading. You need to state that Eastern Rite priests are only an option if they are not notoriously heretical and do not recognize Benedict the XVI as the pope.

(2) Your section on Cardinal de Lugo is also misleading: "So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places." --> This is not only misleading but wrong. Firstly, this quotation is misleading because the quotation only expressly mentions the two conditions of "declared excommunication" and "striking a cleric" as preventing reception of the sacraments. It fails to state what the "other grounds" are. Clearly, per the Council of Basel, these "other grounds" must include heresy "with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law." Secondly, this quotation is wrong because nowhere does the Council of Basel make the exception for "necessity" as Cardinal de Lugo does. As we know, non-dogmatic and fallible sources of Catholic teaching like Cardinal de Lugo or The 1917 Code of Canon Law can never validly insert an exception into an infallible dogma taught by an Ecumenical Council.

I await your response. Should you disagree with the above arguments, I would very much like to hear your response. If you choose not to respond and ultimately not to correct your position which wrongly permits the receiption of the sacraments, including Holy Communion, from notoriously heretical Byzantine priests, then please remove my name and my endorsements of the Most Holy Family Monastery from your website.

Again, you have help my family so much. I am only looking to return a favor.

Francis Pagnanelli

MHFM response: Francis, we appreciate your interest, but you are erring gravely. And while your e-mail carries a soft tone, your accusations are very strong. You categorically declare that we are wrong, and you imply that we are not Catholic unless we agree with you. I will demonstrate how you are wrong.

YOUR FIRST ERROR

There are a number of significant errors in your letter. Let’s first talk about the Council of Basel. This was a quote I brought out in an issue of our magazine; since that time some others have quoted it. (It’s ironic that people attempt to use this quote against us when we were the ones who made people aware of it.)

In regard to this quotation, you state: “This is the dogmatic teaching we are obligated to believe and adhere to.”

This is completely wrong. This error on your part speaks to the bigger issue involved with those who are erring as you are on this and related issues. This error is the failure to appreciate and understand the difference between the nature of ecclesiastical laws and dogmatic pronouncements. The Council of Basel’s decree is not a dogmatic decree, contrary to what you state. It’s an ecclesiastical law.

Since it was promulgated by a general council – certain sessions of Basel (such as Sess. 20 from which this quote comes) are ecumenical – this law does carry a negative infallibility (I will explain), but it is not “dogmatic.” Universal ecclesiastical laws carry infallibility in the sense that such laws promulgated by the Church are safe.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.”

These laws cannot be evil in the context in which they are promulgated. But they are not dogmas because they can be changed later on and they can have exceptions in circumstances not envisioned by the lawgiver. That’s made clear with other examples in my article on Jurisdiction [pdf]. In fact, Basel’s law is actually a later version of essentially the same law which was promulgated by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance’s law is called Ad evitanda scandala. And here’s the point which refutes what you have said. Ad evitanda scandala (which is essentially the same thing as Basel’s law) was itself a modification of earlier laws, as The Catholic Encyclopedia notes (1907, vol. 5, pp. 680-681). This demonstrates, again, the fact that we’re talking about ecclesiastical laws, not dogmas. Dogmas, of course, cannot be changed or have exceptions; but this law has been modified. So you have completely erred in understanding the main point you are trying to make.

Since you imply that we are heretical if we don’t agree with you; since you don’t even understand the main point you’re talking about; and since you have been obstinate on this issue (as demonstrated by our past communication), I must say that you are very blinded by your pride and are on the verge of schism. By the way, I must also say that there is a current of hypocrisy in your letter, for while you craft your letter in the form of questions which gives it the appearance that you are searching, you simultaneously declare in strong terms that we are wrong. You also imply that, unless we amend our position, we are not true Catholics. Hence, the appearance that you are searching is in fact a mirage. Your approach would have been more honest and less phony (though equally wrong) if you hadn’t worded it in this way, but rather dropped the question marks and stuck with your categorical statements. Let’s move to your next error:

YOUR SECOND ERROR: YOU SAY CANON 2261.2 CONTRADICTS THE COUNCILS

You write: “As we know, non-dogmatic and fallible sources of Catholic teaching like Cardinal de Lugo or The 1917 Code of Canon Law can never validly insert an exception into an infallible dogma taught by an Ecumenical Council.”

You continue here with your false analysis of the Council of Basel. You argue that the Council of Basel is itself in contradiction to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. You are referring to canon 2261.2. I had quoted canon 2261.2 to demonstrate that receiving sacraments from certain priests who hold heretical positions can be an option under certain conditions.

Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “… the faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2)… But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).”

Before I point out where you have erred again, I must note that the people who advocate your position on this issue have no cogent response whatsoever to this canon. Now, you argue that the teaching of the councils contradicts this canon. You say that this canon has inserted an exception where the councils have left none. What you fail to realize is that, in the original Latin version, the 1917 Code of Canon Law provides footnotes to the sources for many of the canons it is promulgating. The 1917 Code of Canon Law gives none other than the Council of Constance’s decree Ad evitandi scandala as its sole source for canon 2261.2. [Below I have scanned in a page showing the canon and the footnote. I have put arrows (which hopefully show up) where footnote “2” appears at the end of canon 2261.2; it's the faint number “2” after the word "percontandi." And the arrow near the bottom shows the corresponding footnote citing Ad evitanda scandala of Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance.]

Remember, Ad evitanda scandala is essentially the same thing as the Council of Basel’s decree discussed above. Ad evitanda scandala is a decree from a council which is certainly a general/ecumenical council. Therefore, the authors of the Code of Canon Law saw Ad evitanda scandala not as something that’s in contradiction to its allowance in canon 2262.1, as you falsely claim, but as the very source for what is allowed in canon 2261.2. Let’s move to your next error:

YOUR THIRD ERROR: FALSELY APPLYING THE TERM NOTORIOUS HERETIC

You write: >>>Do you agree that if a priest holds a heresy "with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law", then you may not receive the sacraments, including Holy Communion, from such a priest, even if "there is no one else to give them" to you, contrary to what Canon 2261.2 teaches? If we denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic without having personaly admonished him because he holds to and teaches heresy "with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law", then any person, Eastern Rite priest or otherwise, who, after hearing the evidence against Benedict XVI, still considers Benedict XVI to be a Catholic pope is also notoriously heretical. From such a person or a priest we are obliged to abstain from communion "in the administation and reception of the sacraments". Do you agree?>>>

We agree that a Catholic should not receive the sacraments from a priest who is a notorious heretic. So the crux of the issue is whether all Byzantine priests are, in fact, notorious heretics. (I’ll stick with this example of Byzantine priests because we believe that such priests, distanced from the issues, are sometimes much less dangerous or notorious than many “traditionalist” priests who are celebrating the Latin Mass.) Your argument is: Benedict XVI is a notorious heretic; if a Byzantine priest hears about the heresies of Benedict XVI and still considers him a Catholic, he’s also a notorious heretic. The first part is correct: Benedict XVI is a notorious heretic; the latter portion is where your argument falls to pieces.

The falsity of such an argument becomes clear when one understands the meaning of “notorious heretic” and also extrapolates your understanding of what constitutes a notorious heretic to other scenarios. Are all heretics notorious heretics? Of course not. If all heretics were “notorious,” then there would be no point in distinguishing between a regular heretic and a notorious heretic. There’s also a difference between a “public” heretic and a notorious heretic. A notorious heretic is an extreme form of a public heretic. We see them distinguished in the following canon law commentary:

Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy: “The same canon 2258, §2 [also Canon 2259], imposes a different and stricter obligation on those in charge of divine offices, if a heretic seeks to participate actively in the celebration of the office. In this case they are required to repel not merely the vitandus, but likewise all notorious heretics, whether the notoriety be in law or in fact. There is no mention of occult heretics, nor those whose offense is public but not notorious.”(The Delict of Heresy, In its Commission, Penalization, and Absolution, A Dissertation, Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L., of the Archdiocese of Boston, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series, p. 58.)

So what’s the definition of a notorious heretic? The 1917 Code of Canon Law doesn’t give a definition for the precise term notorious heresy, but it does give a definition of a notorious crime. Canon 2197.2 defines a crime as notorious by notoriety of law if a judge has declared it or a confession has been made. Of course, no one could argue that all non-sedevacantist priests, etc. are notorious based on that definition. Canon 2197.3 gives a gives a definition of a crime as notorious by notoriety of fact:

Canon 2197.1, 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…”

Canon 2197.3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “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 opinion could excuse [the act].”

A Catholic Dictionary by Attwater provides a helpful definition of “notorious” as it would apply to these questions. It sheds some practical light on the legally framed definitions given above.

A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater, Notorious: “Acts or facts are said to be notorious when they are so public and manifest as to require no proof in law.”

From these definitions, we can form a better idea of the meaning of “public” heretics and “notorious” heretics. A heretic is simply a person who obstinately believes in heresy. A public heretic is a person whose obstinate belief in heresy is commonly known. What is commonly known? It depends on the size of the community. The number of people who must know rises with the number of people in a church, a town, etc. Notorious heresy is even more extreme than public heresy. It’s so public and manifest that it requires no proof in law. In other words, it’s so obvious that no clever evasion even covers it up; anyone who sees it cannot deny that the perpetrator has committed the act and no law or other facts are required to prove it. An example of this is a priest who goes into Protestant churches, who publicly says that the Church’s dogmas have changed, who goes to the synagogue to worship with the Jews, who preaches in favor of Protestantism in an aggressive way, etc. You don’t even have to pull out your theology books to prove that this person believes in something that equates to heresy. This kind of heretic is not trying to cover it up under the cloak of falsely applied or misinterpreted teachings, nor is he trying to evade it by cleverly attempting to conform it to tradition. It’s so public and manifest and admitted that no evasion is possible. Benedict XVI, John Kerry, “Cardinal” Kasper, Hans Kung, etc. are examples of notorious heretics that immediately come to mind.

But would all priests who regard Benedict XVI as the pope be notorious heretics? No. A Byzantine priest or some other priest who obstinately recognizes Benedict XVI as a Catholic after hearing of his activity would be a heretic, but he would not be a notorious heretic unless he emulated the conduct of Benedict XVI or promoted similar heresies or did and said similar things in an aggressive and open way.

EXAMPLES WHICH PROVE THE POINT

Let’s look at an example which demonstrates my point.

You’ve probably heard of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston prior to Vatican II. Cushing mocked the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and persecuted Fr. Feeney for preaching it, as my book on that topic covers. Cushing was the one who encouraged the people in Rome to act against Feeney. We have denounced Cushing in our book. He certainly was a heretic. If you and others are going to say that every Byzantine, non-sedevacantist priest, etc. is a notorious heretic, you would certainly have to say that Cardinal Cushing was a notorious heretic. Now, let’s follow this through logically and take your argument to its absurd conclusion:

Your argument is thus: If a person is aware of the things which make a person a notorious heretic and still regards that person as a Catholic, then that person is also a notorious heretic. Note very carefully: you don’t say that the person has to emulate the things which make the person a notorious heretic, but must simply be aware of them and still regard that person as a Catholic.

Therefore, according to your argument, every priest in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949, who heard of Cushing’s persecution of Fr. Feeney and still regarded Cushing as the Catholic bishop, would have been a notorious heretic. He wouldn’t have had to do the same things Cushing did to be a notorious heretic, according to you; he would simply have had to know about them and still regard him as a Catholic. Well, that would mean that basically every priest in the Archdiocese of Boston before Vatican II (and countless others all over the world before Vatican II) were notorious heretics. Most of them, if not all of them in Boston, knew what was going on. Thus, according to you, their chapels were what those of your ilk would have to call “false churches,” “assemblies of non-Catholics,” etc. According to your logic, basically everyone who went to church i