Ngo Dinh Thuc: Archbishop Thuc Bishops and Consecrations

Facts and History

Relevant Facts
Bishop Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was born October 6, 1897 and died December 13, 1984. In
1938, at the age of 41, Father Thuc was chosen by Rome to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinhlong
in Vietnam. He was consecrated bishop on May 4, 1938, being the third Vietnamese priest raised to the
rank of bishop. On November 24, 1960, John XXIII named Bishop Thuc Archbishop of Hu. He
attended the robbers Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed its documents.

The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations

Archbishop Thuc Bishops and Consecrations. Despite the claims of some traditionalists,
especially the SSPV supporters, the fact is that the validity of the Thuc-line cannot be questioned. If it
can be questioned, then any Episcopal Consecration or Ordination performed in the Traditional Rite
can be questioned. We certainly have no bias in this matter, since we have no affiliation with the Thuc-
line whatsoever. The facts are the facts. The Ordinations and Consecrations performed in the
Traditional Rite by Archbishop Thuc and those whom he Consecrated must be considered valid,
because when the Traditional Rite is observed the intention is presumed valid, as Pope Leo XIII says in
Apostolicae Curae.

For those who dont know, the Thuc line refers to the traditionalist priests and bishops who derive
their orders from Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc (1897-1984), the Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam prior to
Vatican II. After Vatican II, Bishop Thuc took the sedevacantist position and ordained priests and
consecrated bishops in the traditional rites for the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass and in
resistance to the post-Vatican II sect. Most of the priests in the world who offer the traditional Latin
Mass derive their orders from Bishop Thuc or from Archbishop Lefebvre. We regard both the Thuc and
Lefebvre lines as valid. This obviously does not mean that we endorse all the positions held by priests
who were ordained through those lines.

Some have called into question the validity of the Thuc line based on the accusation that Archbishop
Thuc was not in possession of his mental faculties when he performed some of his Episcopal
Consecrations. We reject this false position. There is no evidence that Bishop Thuc did not possess his
mental faculties at the time of these Consecrations. The Society of St. Pius V, a heretical group headed
by Bishop Kelly, which also believes in salvation for non-Catholics (like so many other groups), is so
adamant that the Thuc line cannot be considered valid that its priests refuse the sacraments to anyone
who goes to Thuc line priests.

The Thucites
Thucites are the bishops and priests who trace their line back to Bishop Thuc and the laymen who are
in religious communion with them, such as those who belong to their sects or attend their Masses.

During the 1980s, a retired Vietnamese bishop, the late Pierre-Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc, consecrated a
number of traditionalist bishops Gurard des Lauriers (7th May 1981), Moises Carmona and
Adolfo Zamora (both 17th October 1981) were the most prominent many of whom in turn
consecrated others. These consecrations are all illicit and schismatic. The factors leading to this
conclusion include the following, some of which relate only to some of these consecrations and some
to all of them:

1) Bishop Thuc was not Catholic. He signed the Vatican II Documents.

Bishop Thuc signed the heretical Vatican II documents, at which point he was known to be a notorious
heretic with no office in the Church. He was one of the most liberal, rebellious, and heretical bishops at
Vatican II. From his own writings during the robbers Second Vatican II Council, Thuc supported the
false ecumenical movement, feminism, and women in sacred functions, such as deacons and priests.

The Thucites appeal to sentiments and other irrelevant facts to defend Bishop Thuc, while they ignore,
change, or misinterpret the relevant facts. The relevant facts are as follows:

1. Bishop Thuc was not Catholic. He signed the Vatican II Documents.

2. Ngo-dinh-Thuc was an arch-liberal at Vatican II, arguing in favour of women priests and the
participation of non-Christian groups in the Council. (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol.2 pt.3
p.573, and vol.2 pt.1 pp.358, 359 respectively; English translation available from Britons
Catholic Library)

3. Even as late as 15th April 1981 (less than a month before he consecrated Gurard des Lauriers),
he concelebrated a Novus Ordo Mass of Holy Thursday with the Conciliar Bishop of Frjus-
Toulon thus showing that he still adhered to the Vatican II sect at this time.

4. In a tape-recorded conversation in January 1982 (the month before his February 1982
declaration of the vacancy of the Holy See, and after the consecrations from which todays
traditionalist bishops derive their episcopal Orders) he told an enquirer that he was (a) hearing
confessions on the basis of faculties (invalid faculties) given to him by the bishop (the same
Councilar bishop of Frjus-Toulon), and (b) attending the Novus Ordo in Toulon Cathedral
because he liked it.

5. He never retracted those beliefs and actions and was thus not a Catholic at the time of the
consecrations. And by his declaration of the vacancy of the Holy See which he made on 25th
February 1982, long after the consecrations mentioned above, he appeared clearly to confirm
his schism, in that he affirmed that the Catholic Church appears flourishing The number of
Catholics is immense: statements that evidently imply his recognition of the Conciliar Church
as Catholic.

6. He imposed on those whom he consecrated an oath of personal fidelity acknowledging him as

leader of the worlds faithful Catholicsan act of schism not only on his part but also on the
part of those who took the oath, since he had no such authority. (Spanish text and English
translation available from Britons Catholic Library)

7. He consecrated men destined to become episcopi vagantes (wandering bishops) without any
form of see, something unknown in the Churchs history and traditionin the rare cases, in the
first centuries, where Catholic bishops were consecrated without papal mandate in urgent
 circumstances, this was always done for the needs of a particular diocese where the person
elected by the clergy was only waiting for the power of Orders in order to fulfill his office.
(Dom Adrien Gra: L'Eglise et sa Divine Constitution, Casterman, 1965)

8. All those consecrated by him or by others of his line lack the canonical mission which the
Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of
the word and the sacraments: If anyone say that those who have not been rightly ordained by
ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some
other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of
the sacraments: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XXIII; Denzinger 967).
Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation
derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church
(such as the Divine Law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-
Catholics).

Thucs Idolatrous and False Ecumenism

Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc: Concerning the attraction of non-Christians to the
Church. With great consolation I see present in these assemblies the delegates of the non-
Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and liberty. But where are the
delegates or observers of the non-Christians? The scandal coming to the whole world from
the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in
the central commissionbut in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission,
so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not
longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms
in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: The Catholic
Church is a church for men of white colour and not for coloured men. (Acta Synodalia
Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)

Thucs Heretical Feminism and Woman Priests

Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc: it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the
schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the
Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women
constitute the greater part of the laityeven of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well
know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those
ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So
why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics
today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas
in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must
obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust
discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall Why is it that in our atomic
age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it
is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations I eagerly
seek these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be
grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the
sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions [i.e. the priesthood]. (Acta
Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)
This is the man that the Thucites would have us believe will save the Holy Catholic Church. If this
evidence from Thucs own writings did not exist, it would not matter, because Thuc signed the heretical
Vatican II documents, and by that fact alone, he was known to be a notorious heretic who is not
Catholic and holds no office in the Church.

Making fools of themselves and proving their extreme bad will, there are some Thucites, such as Fr.
Terrance Fulham, who desperately and deplorably try to give Thucs clearly heretical statements an
orthodox interpretation. They do the same thing Fr. Brian Harrison does when he makes the most
ridiculous excuses for the obvious heresies in the Vatican II documents and John Paul IIs crimes. But
these Thucites have an added sin of hypocrisy, because they admit the Vatican II documents contain
heresy; that is the bases in which they reject all the Vatican II bishops who signed any one of the
documents and the Vatican II antipopes. Yet, they exempt Bishop Thuc who signed the Vatican II
documents, arguing that he was Catholic. If that were so, then they have no right to denounce any
bishop for signing the Vatican II documents, and they have no right to denounce the Vatican II
antipopes.

2) Catholics cannot legally receive Orders from notorious apostate,

heretic, or schismatic bishops
It is of the faiththerefore, epikeia cannot justify itthat a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic
bishop cannot be a legal successor to the apostles, nor can he propagate a legal line by ordaining
Catholic priests or bishops. People ordained by heretics or schismatics are valid priests and bishops, but
their orders are unlawful and illicit, which means that they cannot exercise their order without sin.

The sin of entering into active religious communion with non-Catholics is committed when a self-
professed Catholic knowingly gets consecrated or ordained by a notoriously non-Catholic bishop. It is
of the faith that a Catholic cannot arrive at a good by an evil means. The Church has already dealt with
a similar situation in which there were no Catholic bishops in Armenia. An appeal was made to the
Holy See to allow schismatical or heretical bishops to ordain Catholic priests. The Holy See rejected
the appeal.

On the Illegality of Ordinations by non-Catholic Bishops

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: [p. 103] Clement VIII in his
Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at
the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly
consecratedthe necessary form having been observeddid indeed receive orders, but
not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV
in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII.
Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were
clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the
administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were,
upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An
appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had
previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to
renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or
secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their
 Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the
irregularity which they had incurred. [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another
response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were
available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred
Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in
no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were
irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. The prohibition to receive holy
Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against
active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit
prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to
receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis
reserved to the Apostolic See. (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev.
Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic
University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp.
103-105)

By decreeing in no way could that be allowed, the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith
that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or
schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites use for going to the
notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc to be consecrated bishops or ordained prieststhey say,
there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated or
ordained. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy
Offices 1709 decree.

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All
persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated,
suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious
apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the
Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right
to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.

Even if a heretic or schismatic bishop lied to a candidate by hiding his notorious crimes of heresy or
schism, and produced a forged papal mandate, that candidate, even though of good faith, upon
discovering the fraud, cannot exercise his orders. That is not even the case with the Thucites, because
Bishop Thucs notorious crimes could have been easily known upon a basic inquiry (he signed the
Vatican II documents, for instance), and thus, all who received orders from him while knowing he was
a heretic committed an act of communion in sacred things with a heretic, which is an act of bad faith.
Either way, good faith or bad faith, their orders cannot be legally exercised. Those of good faith incur
no mortal guilt; whereas, those of bad faith do, they become schismatics. Those of good faith would
incur guilt if they continued to exercise their orders after discovering the bishop they received orders
from was not eligible to legally confer orders.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: [p. 103] Persons ordained by
schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be
reconciled and absolved. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was
necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which
they had incurred.

These Thucites of bad will imply a good can come from an evil means: They violate the infallible
Church law that forbids them to knowingly go before a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishop
to be consecrated or ordained (Holy Office Decree, 1709 and c. 2372); they violate the infallible
Church law that forbids active religious communication with non-Catholics (communicatio in sacris)
(c. 1258, 1); they violate the natural law by scandal; and, they violate the divine positive law by
endangering the Catholic faith of perversion.

As a result of their knowingly schismatic crime, God abhors them and places them, the obstinate sinner
who refuse to convert, under the Romans One Curse. For if, flying from the pollutions of the world,
through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and
overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them
not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy
commandment which was delivered to them. (2 Pt. 2:20-21)

Do not be fooled because their immoral crimes are not manifest to you, for they are very good at hiding
these crimes so as to appear pious and holy, like the Pharisees that outwardly appeared beautiful to
men, but inwardly were full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Mt. 23: 27-28). Yet, in due time, God will
expose their immoral crimes, For there is nothing hid, which shall not be made manifest: neither was
it made secret, but that it may come abroad. (Mk. 4:22) However, sins of immorality are not the main
issue. Your main concern must be their sins of apostasy and heresy, because they deny the Catholic
faith; and, their sins of schism because they revolt from the unity of the Church. These sins are
manifest among the Thucites and others like them. And as they liked not to have God in their
knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense. (Rom. 1:28) You pay a high price, indeed, for
putting the Mass and sacraments before the Faith, and that price is punishment here on earth and eternal
damnation hereafter.

Thucites must abjure in order to enter the Church and be forgiven

If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their
sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in,
along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or
ordained them.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: [p. 103] If they had embraced
any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had
nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made
either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.

If the crimes were public, the specific abjuration must also be public. Epikeia would apply for the
penitent bishops or priests to abjure if proper Church authorities are impossible to access.

3) Bishop Thuc did not abjure his apostate and heretical errors
There is no public record that Bishop Thuc abjured from signing the Vatican II documents, or from his
association with the Conciliar Church and its apostate antipopes. He made a deficient declaration in
1982, but it was not an abjuration of his errors. An abjuration is an admission of guilt on the part of the
penitent who takes it. In it, he must admit his personal guilt, he must reject and condemn all the errors
he held and committed, along with all the errors of the sect he belonged to, along with denouncing its
leaders. With this in mind, when you read Thucs Munich Declaration against the Conciliar Church,
take special note that he is not admitting any personal guilt on his part. Instead, he refers to himself as
being a faithful Catholic.

Munich Declaration

The Archbishop reading the declaration March 21, 1982: How does the Catholic Church appear today
as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II as Pope surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many
bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its
bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many
churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and
receive Holy Communion. But in the sight of God, how does todays Church appear? Are the Masses
both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundayspleasing to God? By no means,
because that Mass is the same for Catholics as for Protestantstherefore it is displeasing to God and
invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of Pius V, which is offered by few priests and
bishops, among whom I count myself.
Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that
priesthood which is pleasing to God. Besides this Mass which does not please God, there are many
other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of
bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction.
Moreover, the priests now hold to: 1) modernism; 2) false ecumenism; 3) the adoration [or
cult] of man; 4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever; 5) the unwillingness to condemn
heresies and to expel the heretics.
Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the
Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the
Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.
Here I add the principal documents:
1. The Bull Quo primum of Pius V.
2. Council of Trent, sess. XXII.
3. Letter Adorabile exharistiae Pu. VII., at Council of Florence: Decree pro Armenis (Dz. 698;
Decree pro Jacobitis (Dz. 715).
4. Missale Romanum Pius V.: De defectibus in celbratione Missarum: De defectibus forae.
5. Constitution Auctorem fidei Pu. VI.; Decree Lamentabili Pu. X.; Encyclical Pacendi
domminici gregis Pius X.
6. Council of Florence: Decretum pro Jacobitis; Encyclical Quanta Cura Pu. IX.; Unam
sanctum Boniface VIII.
7. Codex Juris Canonici, can. 1322.
8. Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio Paul IV.; Codex Juris Canonici, can. 188, n. 4.
9 Pontificale Romanum: De conscratione electi in episcopum, Forma juramenti et
Examen.
February 25, 1982 Munich +Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc Archbishop

Where is Thucs admission of guilt for signing the Vatican II documents and for his association with the
Vatican II Church and its apostate leaders? He does not even mention Vatican II. Where does he
indicate that he is outside the Catholic Church and now desires to enter? Instead of admitting personal
guilt, Bishop Thuc refers to himself as already being Catholic, among the faithful, and as being a
Roman Catholic bishop.
Bishop Thucs pre-1982-Declaration consecrations and ordinations
The Thucites admit there is no public record of Thuc abjuring or making any kind of public declaration
before February 25, 1982. Therefore, even if Bishop Thuc did abjure in 1982, which he did not, it is of
no consequence to those who were consecrated or ordained by him before his 1982 Declaration; those
who were, and appeal to Thucs future 1982 Declaration to justify their crime, admit, by implication,
that they went before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated illegally as bishops or ordained as
priests.

There is public evidence that Thuc was still in communion with the Conciliar Church in 1981. Less
than a month before Thuc consecrated Michel Louis Gurard des Lauriers a bishop on 7 May 1981, and
less than six months before he consecrated Moiss Carmona-Rivera and Adolfo Zamora Hernandez
bishops on 17 October 1981, Thuc concelebrated the Novus Ordo Mass of Holy Thursday on 15 April
1981, with the Conciliar Bishop Barthe of Frejus-Toulon, and received faculties from him to hear
confessions. Therefore, these Thucite bishops needed to have public, documented proof that Thuc
abjured sometime after he concelebrated the Novus Ordo Mass in 1981 and before he consecrated
them. No such proof exists. There is no proof that Thuc ever abjured his errors before he died on 13
December 1984; therefore, Thuc is not to be considered among the faithfully departed.

Most, if not all, of the Thucites that believe the Holy See is vacant trace their line through the Thucite
Bishops des Lauriers and Carmona.

One Thucite bishop, Louis Vezelis, realizing the dilemma and admitting to its consequences, in
desperation, lies by telling others that Thuc did not sign the Vatican II documents. But, Bishop Vezelis
is still faced with the fact that Thuc adhered to the Vatican II Church, and for that alone he is guilty of
apostasy and heresy, for that alone he needed to abjure, even if he did not sign the Vatican II
documents.

In the secular realm, most men do not buy a house without first seeing and then receiving the Title, and
without examining the condition of the house. If they were not diligent in doing this, and later
discovered there was no Title or the house falls apart because it was in bad condition, the fault is theirs
for not examining these basic things ahead of time. The same is true in the spiritual realm, the things of
God. No man would buy a car or house without a Title and no true Catholic would go before a bishop
in a time where almost no-Catholic bishops exists at all to be consecrated or ordained without that
bishop having thoroughly proved he is Catholic, and that he can legally consecrate and ordain.

Whose fault is it if a layman or a priest did not thoroughly check the faith of Bishop Thuc, who was
about to ordain or consecrate him, and demand from Thuc, in writing, a specific abjuration or
confirmation that he took one that rejects and condemns the prevalent heresies and prominent heretics
of the Vatican II Church? Whose fault is it if the layman or priest did not check if Thuc signed the
heretical Vatican II documents? Surely, this is a very easy thing to do. Is not the making of priests and
bishops one of the most serious things that men do in the eyes of God? What kind of man, especially in
these days of the great apostasy when false shepherds abound, approaches any bishop for ordination or
consecration without first thoroughly examining him, checking into his past, and demanding that the
bishop put his beliefs in writing, and if he was associated with the non-Catholic Conciliar Church, or
any non-Catholic sect, that he abjured from these non-Catholic entities?

I am sure that these same men (Thucites) are very diligent and meticulous with temporal things, such as
when they buy a home, a chapel, or a car. They would make sure they had all the proper papers, and
that the home, the chapel, or the car is in proper working order before they purchased it. They should
have done the same before they were ordained or consecrated by Thuc! They should have been very
diligent and meticulous in examining Thuc, by making sure they had signed papers from Thuc that
prove he abjured, and all the evidence necessary to prove he is currently Catholic in word and deed,
before they were ordained or consecrated by Thuc.

In The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, The Mother of God explains how a bishop should exercise
his episcopal office in order to give glory to God:

A complete explanation to the bishop from the Virgin about how he should exercise his
episcopal office in order to give glory to God, and about the double reward for having held the
rank of bishop in a true way and about the double disgrace for having held it in a false way,
and about how Jesus Christ and all the saints welcome a true and up right bishop.

Book 3 - Chapter 3

The Mother of God was speaking: I wish to explain to the bishop what he should do for God
and what will give glory to God. Every bishop must hold his miter carefully in his arms. He
must not sell it for money nor give it up to others for the sake of worldly friendship nor lose it
through negligence and lukewarmness. The bishops miter signifies nothing other than the
bishops rank and power to ordain priests, to prepare the chrism, to correct those who go astray,
and to encourage the negligent by his example. To hold his miter carefully in his arms means
that he should reflect carefully on how and why he received his episcopal power, how he wields
it, and what its effects and purpose are.

If the bishop would examine how he received his power, he should first examine whether he
desired the episcopate for his own sake or for Gods. If it was for his own sake, then his desire
was no doubt carnal; if it was for Gods sake, that is, in order to give glory to God, then his
desire was meritorious and spiritual.

If the bishop would consider for what purpose he has received the episcopate, then surely it was
in order that he might become a father to the poor and a consoler and intercessor for souls,
because the bishops goods are intended for the good of souls. If his means are consumed
inefficaciously and wasted in a prodigal manner, then those souls will cry out for revenge on the
unjust steward. I will tell you the reward that will come from having held the rank of bishop. It
will be a double reward, as Paul says, both corporal and spiritual.

It will be corporal, because he is Gods vicar on earth and is therefore accorded divine honor by
men as away of honoring God. In heaven it will be corporal and spiritual because of the
glorification of body and soul, because the servant will be there with his Lord, due both to the
way he lived as a bishop on earth and to his humble example by which he incited others to the
glory of heaven along with himself. Everyone who has the rank and garb of a bishop but flees
the episcopal way of life will merit a double disgrace.

That the bishops power is not to be sold means that the bishop should not knowingly commit
simony or exercise his office for the sake of money or human favor or promote men whom he
knows to be of bad character because people petition him to do so. That the miter should not be
given up to others on account of human friendship means that the bishop should not disguise the
sins of the negligent or let those whom he can and should correct go unpunished, or pass over
 the sins of his friends in silence due to worldly friendship or take the sins of his subordinates on
his own back, for the bishop is Gods sentinel.

That the bishop should not lose his miter through negligence means that the bishop should not
delegate to others what he should and can do more profitably himself, that he should not, for the
sake of his own physical ease, transfer to others what he himself is more perfectly able to carry
out, since the bishops duty is not to rest but to work. Nor should the bishop be ignorant of the
life and conduct of those to whom he delegates his tasks. Instead he should know and review
how they observe justice and whether they conduct themselves prudently and without cupidity
in their assignments. I want you to know, too, that the bishop, in his role as shepherd, ought to
carry a bouquet of flowers under his arms in order to entice sheep both far and near to run
gladly after its scent.

This bouquet of flowers signifies the bishops pious preaching. The two arms from which the
bouquet of divine preaching hangs are two kinds of works necessary to a bishop, namely, public
good works and hidden good works. Thus, the nearby sheep in his diocese, seeing the bishops
charity in his works and hearing it in his words, will give glory to God through the bishop.
Likewise, the faraway sheep, hearing of the bishops reputation, will want to follow him. This is
the sweetest bouquet: not to be ashamed of Gods truth and humility, to preach good doctrine
and to practice as one preaches, to be humble when praised and devout in humiliation. When the
bishop has traveled to the end of this path and reaches the gate, he must have a gift in his hands
to present to the high king. Accordingly, may he have in his hands a vessel precious to him, an
empty one, to offer to the high king.

The empty vessel to be offered is his own heart. He must struggle night and day in order for it to
be empty of all lusts and the desire for fleeting praise. When such a bishop is led into the
kingdom of glory, Jesus Christ, true God and man, will come out to meet him together with the
whole host of saints. Then he will hear the angels saying: Our God, our joy and every good!
This bishop was pure in body, manly in his conduct. It is befitting that we should present him to
you, for he longed for our company everyday. Satisfy his longing and magnify our joy at his
coming! Then, too, other saints will say: O God, our joy is both from you and in you and we
need nothing else.

Yet, our joy is heightened by the joy of the soul of this bishop who longed for you while he was
still able to long. The sweet flowers of his lips increased our numbers. The flowers of his works
consoled those dwelling far and near. Therefore, let him rejoice with us, and rejoice yourself
over him for whom you longed so much when you died for him. Finally the King of glory shall
say to him: Friend, you have come to present to me the vessel of your heart emptied of your
selfish will. Therefore, I will fill you with my delight and glory. My happiness will be yours and
your glory in me will never cease.

It is our hope that the Thucites, and all those others who have been unlawfully consecrated or ordained,
are of good will when they read this and repent and abjure. The only insurmountable obstacle is mans
own pride.
4) Epikeia does not justify consecrations and ordinations by non-Catholic
bishops
The principle of epikeia allows for an exemption from Church laws that do not deal with faith or
morals in certain emergency situations. Only Catholics and catechumens can be justified by the
principle of epikeia in these emergency situations. Non-Catholics who are not preparing to enter the
Catholic Church by baptism or abjuration cannot be justified by epikeia. Therefore, the Thucites, being
non-Catholics and heretics and not catechumens, cannot justify any of their actions by epikeia. They
cannot justify, make legal, their consecrations and ordinations by non-Catholic bishops (notorious
heretics or notorious schismatics) anymore than the Greek Schismatics can. It would be of no effect if a
Greek Schismatic attempted to make his consecrations and ordinations legal by appealing to epikeia,
which is an exemption from a Catholic Church law, because he is not inside the Catholic Church. The
same applies to the Thucites.

Canon 2372 forbids holy orders from notorious apostate, heretic, or

schismatic bishops
Canon 2372 teaches the dogmatic law that Catholics cannot legally receive holy orders from bishops
who are notorious apostates, heretics, or schismatics.

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All
persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated,
suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious
apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the
Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right
to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.

Bishop Thuc was a notorious apostate, heretic, and schismatic. Therefore, he could not have legally
administered the sacrament of orders, ordain, or consecrate. Those who were ordained or consecrated
by him incur automatic suspension and cannot legally exercise their orders.

Canon 2261, 2, does not apply heretics and schismatics

Some of the Thucites, of those who admit Bishop Thuc was an excommunicated notorious heretic
when he ordained or consecrated them, appeal to the Canon 2261, 2, to justify, make legal, their
ordinations or consecrations.

The Practical Commentary: c. 2261, 2. Except as provided in 2261.3, the faithful can for any
just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there
is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may
administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request. (Practical Commentary
on Canon Law, vol. 2, p. 487)

Canon 2261, 2, applies only to excommunicated bishops and priests who are still Catholic. In a
necessity, one may receive the sacraments from a Catholic bishop or priest who are excommunicated
for something other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Hence it does not apply to heretics and
schismatics. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is also a fallible collection of laws.
Canon 2261, 2, does not include the sacrament of holy orders
Even regarding excommunicate bishops who are Catholic, Canon 2261, 2, does not allow them to
administer the sacrament of holy orders, the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops. Canon
Law is written with the assumption that there is a visible hierarchy intact, even if the Holy See or a
local see may be vacant. When a see falls vacant, in normal times, a vicar capitular or general is
appointed to run the see until a new pope or bishop is elected. For a layman to legally receive the
sacrament of holy orders (become a priest), he must first have dimissorial letters from his bishop, and
he must be either incardinated into a diocese or belong (be ascribed) to a regular religious order, thus
have a domicile, a place to legally function (c. 111-117). For a priest to become a legal bishop, he must
be certain the consecrating bishop has a papal mandate from the pope (c. 953), at least tacitly, before he
can legally be consecrated, and he must be assigned to a place in which he can legally function.
Therefore, it is not just a matter of receiving the sacrament of holy orders, but also a matter of these
other requirements that must be met in order to become a legal bishop or legal priest. Canon 2261, 2,
cannot abolish the requirements in Canons 111-117, 953; therefore, Canon 2261, 2 does not include
the sacrament of holy orders.

The lawgiver was well aware of these facts when he wrote Canon 2261, 2, and thus, never envisioned
this canon to include the sacrament of holy orders, because of these other necessitiesdimissorial
letters, papal mandates, and domiciles. Canon 2261, 2 does not make provision for these necessities,
and therefore, it cannot apply to the sacrament of holy orders. If it did, there would be chaos in the
Church by the making of priests or bishops without the approval of proper Church authorities. There
would be no place where they can go and legally function, often conflicting with those who were given
a mission and a place to legally function by proper Church authorities. If Canon 2261, 2, includes the
sacrament of holy orders, it would undermine and destroy the hierarchic order and structure of the
Church. For instance, if Canon 2261, 2, includes the sacrament of holy orders, then bishops with
ordinary jurisdiction, those who rule dioceses, would fall prey to excommunicated bishops in their
dioceses who would be allowed to ordain priests and consecrate bishops by the mere request of the
candidate, and thus without the approval of the ruling bishop, the result in those dioceses would be
instant chaos, rebellion, and the undermining and destruction of the hierarchic order and structure of
the Church.

Also, there would be no way to stop any Catholic from receiving holy orders, from being ordained or
consecrated. All a Catholic layman or priest would have to do is ask an excommunicated bishop to
ordain or consecrate him, and the bishop is not obliged to ask him the reason for the requestin such
cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason
for the request. Thus, instead of Catholics being called to be priests or bishops, they, any Catholic man
whatsoever, can demand it from an excommunicate bishop whether called or not, that is, if Canon
2261, 2 included the sacrament of holy orders.

Epikeia, not Canon 2261, 2, justifies a Catholic bishops consecrations

The fact that there is no hierarchy in the Church in these latter days of the Great Apostasy is a separate
topic altogether that has nothing to do with the letter and the spirit of Canon Law 2261, 2, which was
written with the assumption that there is a ruling hierarchy when this canon is utilized. One would have
to appeal to the principle of epikeia in these days to justify a Catholic bishops ordinations and
consecrations. In these cases, there is no conflict with proper Church authorities, such as the pope and
bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, because there are none. The next pope would approve these
consecrations and ordinations, as long as the bishop in question is Catholic. The principle of epikeia
allows for this, not Canon 2261, 2. Epikeia exempts the Catholic bishop from the letter of Canon 953
that requires an explicit papal mandate before he consecrates a bishop.

No pope could approve, either currently or retroactively or tacitly, of a subject who knowingly went
before an excommunicated bishop to be ordained or consecrated, let alone a non-Catholic one.

St. Ansgar (A.D. 801-865) was a ninth century French missionary to the people of Denmark, Sweden
and northern Germany. He was also a Benedictine monk. Early in his life, Ansgar desired to preach the
Gospel in pagan lands. He founded the first Christian church in Sweden in 832. (The Life of Ansgar
was written by his companion and successor, Bishop Rimbert.)

It should be noted that Ansgar was appointed to the See of Hamburg in 831 by the emperor, before the
pope knew about it. The See of Hamburg was a brand new see which the emperor himself formed.
After he created it, he appointed Ansgar to the position. Ansgar was then consecrated by bishops of the
area. Pope Gregory IV confirmed the arrangement, but he did so after the fact. Hence, this is another
example of how, at various times in Church history, Catholic bishops were sometimes consecrated and
installed into even brand new territories without a papal mandate or without receiving papal approval.

6) Bishop Thuc was not stable and was religiously indifferent

Thucs religious indifferentism and instability is just more proof of the unreliable character of those
who used Thuc to further their prideful ambitions. Not only is there no proof that Thuc became
Catholic by abjuring from his signing of the Vatican II documents and from his association with the
Vatican II Church, but there is ample proof that he was religiously indifferent and was not stable. He
was religiously indifferent because he had no true regard for the Catholic faith. Religious indifferentism
is a mortal sin against the faith that was infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX:

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, on Indifferentism: This proposition is condemned:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason,
thinks to be the true religion. (Bull Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864; Densinger 1715)

Those who Bishop Thuc consecrated and ordained were free to embrace and profess that religion
which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion. Thuc did not care what they
believed in, or what religion they belonged to, he treated them all as equals, as Catholics, and proved it
by ordaining or consecrating them. Pope Gregory XVI equates this type of behavior with insanity.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos: And so from this most rotten source of indifferentism flows that
absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and
defended for anyone.

Therefore, Thucs actions of knowingly ordaining and consecrating non-Catholics prove he believed in
the heresy of religious indifferentism, and thus was a notorious heretic on this point alone.

Thuc was a bishop for hire, a fools fool, that any ambitious man could go to become a bishop or priest,
be he an Old Catholic heretic and schismatic, or even a man who wanted to start his own Church. Fr.
Anthony Cekada, now a Thucite priest, at one time wrote truthfully about Bishop Thuc in his article,
Two Bishops in every Garage:

THE PALMAR FIASCO - The three-day journey by car took Mgr. Ngo to Palmar de Troya, a
 Spanish village 25 miles south of Seville. In 1968, tales of apparitions there began to
circulate. Among the early enthusiasts was a young man named Clemente Dominguez Gomez
who organized devotions and set up a shrine in the little town. When Mgr. Ngo appeared in
Palmar, Mr. Dominguez asked the prelate to ordain himself and several other laymen to the
priesthood, and then to consecrate him and a few others bishops. If Mgr. Ng had any doubts,
they were dispelled after Dominguez gave him the news that Paul VI had appeared to him by
means of bilocation to give his approval to the project. Pause for a moment to consider what
Mr. Dominguez was saying: both the Blessed Virgin and Paul VI (by bilocation) were telling a
Catholic bishop that he should ordain laymen to the priesthood (whom he had just met, and who
had done no ecclesiastical studies) and then consecrate them bishops-all in three weeks time.
Where anyone else would have laughed the proposal off as absurd, Mgr. Ng showed a truly
colossal lack of common sense and agreed OLD CATHOLIC CONNECTIONS - Mgr. Ngo
moved to Toulon, France. There, in 1979, he raised to the episcopate (for the "umpteenth
time") Jean Laborie, leader of a schismatic Old Catholic sect, the Latin Church of Toulouse.
He also ordained another Old Catholic from Marseilles named Garcia, and a certain ex-convict
named Arbinet who went on later to become a Palmar bishop. Nor were Mgr. Ngos activities
limited to the consecration and ordination of schismatics. A French newsletter which supports
him states that on Holy Thursday, April 15, 1981, he concelebrated the New Mass with Mgr.
Barthe, the bishop of Toulon Mgr. Ngs actions from 1975 onward do not inspire a great
deal of confidence in his judgment or in his prudence: the Palmar affair, the promises made and
promises broken to the Vatican, the involvement with Old Catholics, concelebrating the New
Mass while claiming he really wasnt, then consecrating someone [Gurard des Lauriers] who
believes the New Mass is invalid. While everyone is entitled to a few mistakes, one is forced to
say that those made by Mgr. Ng were very grave indeed given Mgr. Ngos track record. The
prelate seems to be rather quick to make bishops-the Palmar affair comes to mind-and not
particularly fussy. In light of this, one suspects that any priest to show up on Mgr. Ngos
doorstep could get himself consecrated with very little difficulty and few questions asked. in an
age of instant coffee, there are now instant bishops One theme which dominates the affair
from beginning to end is a gross and dangerous lack of prudence regarding the transmission of
Apostolic Succession-a matter in which the slightest lack of prudence is inadmissable. St. Paul
reminds us: Lay not hands lightly on any man -he does not say: Lay hands quickly on
anyone. The story will not end here-it is probable that instant bishops will continue to
multiply exponentially, as among the Old Catholics. Our missionary friend in Mexico offers us
his opinion on this rather gloomy prospect: We should have within a few years hundreds or
thousands of bishops... without true vocations, the one more ignorant than the other, and an
unavoidable cause of more division among traditionalists. (Fr. Anthony Cekada, Two Bishops
in every Garage)

Fr. Cekada now finds himself in the same company he once denounced, with bishops and priests who
have no true vocation, who are frauds, schismatics, and heretics, like a freak show in a multiple ring
circus. That is because Fr. Cekada was and is a heretic himself, of the pre-Vatican II type that led to the
Great Apostasy, raised and imbibed with poison from an erroneous and heretical theology that is found
in bad books with imprimaturs many years before the robbers Second Vatican Council.

Fr. Anthony Cekadas is a notorious heretic on several counts. He denies the Salvation Dogma. He
heretically believes that certain men who live and die worshipping false gods and practicing false
religions can be in the way of salvation and be saved. He publicly denounce Feeneyites (i.e., those
who believe that only baptized Catholics can be saved) as guilty of mortal sin. He is also a notorious
heretic for teaching Catholics can knowingly attend mass at non-Catholic churches and pray in
communion with notorious heretics or schismatics. He is also a notorious heretic for teaching the
contraception heresy of Natural Family Planning, also known as the Rhythm Method.

Fr. Cekada is proof that a hereticand he believes in several heresiesif he does not repent and
abjure, only falls deeper and deeper and gets blinder and blinder. He eventually joined the Thucites and
now is one of their ardent defenders. He deceives his readers by only talking of the validity of Thucs
consecration, while ignoring the main issue, the legality. In so doing, he puts the validity of the
sacraments before the Catholic faith and the Churchs laws, and in effect, since he is a heretic, has
denied the Catholic faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: 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).

THE LAW OF THE CHURCH PRESUMES PERTINACITY IN HERESY

UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVEN
In addition to the undeniable facts which demonstrate that the Vatican II antipopes are definitely
formal heretics, and that most if not all the traditionalist priests and bishops are heretics, the
presumption of the law is also against them:

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: When an external violation of the law has been
committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states:

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some
doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient
ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity excusing circumstances have to
be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has
given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are
presumed not to exist.

Another canon law manual states: If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for
mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at
least crass and supine His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic
theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Churchs attitude
towards heresy was imparted to him. (G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies
77. Washington: 1932)

Not only have the Vatican II antipopes made literally hundreds of statements contrary to revealed and
defined dogma, but they have also explicitly declared themselves to be in communion with in the
same Church as schismatics and heretics. To a lesser extent, essentially all of the more known
traditional priests and bishops also hold similar heresies of salvation for pagans through a so-called
baptism of desire or blood etc., as well as the heresy that one can lawfully commune with non-
Catholics or heretics, and this of course makes it a mortal sin to be in religious communion with any of
them or receive the sacraments from them since they are heretics and outside the Church and Her
communion. The antipopes have, furthermore, confirmed these statements with acts which further
manifest their adherence to heresy, such as communicatio in sacris (communication in sacred things)
with non-Catholics and heretics and various other members of false religions. It is not, therefore, the
law or the spirit of the Church to exonerate someone publicly spewing heresy, but rather to presume
him guilty.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245: The civil law declares that those are to be
regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who
even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the
Catholic religion.

St. Robert Bellarmine explains why this must be.

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.

A simple illustration will also demonstrate why this must be.

Suppose you had some sheep and you appointed a shepherd to watch over them. Suppose one day the
shepherd became a wolf and began eating the sheep and tearing them to pieces. Would you, looking
after the welfare of these sheep, maintain the wolf as head of the sheep? Would you demand that the
other sheep not yet eaten subject themselves to the wolf, and thus place themselves in proximate danger
of being eaten? Of course you wouldnt, and neither would God.

God could never allow one who is promulgating manifest heresy in the external forum to maintain
authority in the Church or be able to demand the submission of Catholics, regardless of what his
intentions are. Remember, heresy kills souls. Suppose the wolf in our story is just hungry, or having a
bad day. Does this change the fact that the sheep are being eliminated? No.

Furthermore, what wolf who was trying to deceive people would openly declare himself to be a non-
Catholic or an enemy of the Church?

Matthew 7:15: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in clothing of sheep, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves.

There is no more effective way to assist a false prophet than to insist that he, despite his public
profession of heresy, maintains authority in the Church. Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms
the principle that we cannot regard a public heretic as a person with authority when dealing with
the case of the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, began to preach the heresy
that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful reacted by breaking communion with him, having
realized that since Nestorius was preaching public and notorious heresy he could not have authority in
the Catholic Church. The following quote from Pope St. Celestine is found in De Romano Pontifice,
the work of St. Robert Bellarmine.
 Pope St. Celestine: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop,
cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his
followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or
excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot
depose or remove anyone whatsoever.

Pope Pius IX confirms this principle by teaching that one is considered a heretic or a schismatic even if
one has not yet been declared as such by the Holy See.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873: Since the faction of Armenia is like this,
they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic
authority.

This is why the saints, theologians, doctors, canonists and popes who speak to the issue of a heretical
pope avoid the terms material and formal heresy, for these are terms that imply a judgment of the
internal forum. Rather, they use the words public, manifest, notorious, etc. terms corresponding to the
external forum.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman
Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power
of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church

Canon 192, 1917 Code of Canon Law: A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed
from, an office, either by operation of law or an act of the lawful superior.

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent)
resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law,
and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are (4) if he has publicly
fallen away from the faith.

What is a public defection from the faith?

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

Thus, we have shown in great detail why its utterly false to assert that the heretical traditionalist
priests and bishops or the Vatican II antipopes are merely material heretics. They cannot be material
heretics because 1) they know very well of the dogmas which they deny since they have even been
rebuked for their heresiesthe heresies which they still adhere to and even defend and maintain in
their public teachings and literature; 2) they are bound to know the Catholic Faith as bishops,
especially the dogmas which they deny; and 3) they, the Vatican II sect and the antipopes especially,
lack and contradict the essential mysteries of Faith which one must hold to be a Catholic.

Read more: Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS
AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION
The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of
something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be
meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line
with Catholic teaching: All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or
schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: For not every sin, however
grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as
does schism or heresy or apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: The practice of the Church has always
been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as
outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD
RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY
HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches
that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication
or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore,
sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any
actual effect false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics
without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic
Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very
fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin
Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This
should be obvious to a Catholic.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): As therefore in the true Christian
community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be
only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered so the
Lord commands as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith
or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of
its one Divine Spirit.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: for men are not bound, or able to read
hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL
WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN
HIM AS A HERETIC. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and
from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is
based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is,
after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication
or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are
excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves
and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.
As weve already shown, its a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that
a heretic is automatically excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a dogmatic
fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or govern the Church, since he is not a member of it.
To state that Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no process against him
had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR AVOIDING HERETICS

Now, the doctrine that people can never pray in communion with heretics, receive the sacraments from
heretics or enter their churches, are taught from the beginning of the Church, and its foundation is of
course from the Bible.
Titus 3:10: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.
The infallible word of God commands us to avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition.
2 John 1:9-10: Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come
to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed
you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics,
communicateth with his wicked works. This means that those who have dealings with heretics have
a part of and share in their sins.
However, there is one exception to this doctrine of receiving the Sacraments from heretics. This
specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church
will always make it clear when there is an exception to a doctrine.
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 exception on baptism is really necessary since no man can ever be saved or by any other means
enter into the bosom and unity of the 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 Church made this specific exception in regard to heretics since everyone - young as well as old -
must receive the water of regeneration to be saved. However, the words of Pope Eugene IV, in the
Council of Florence, do not allow a person to receive the sacrament of Baptism from heretics in all
cases, but only in an extreme necessity. One example would be when the danger of death is imminent,
and the person in question might risk dying without the sacrament of baptism. (This exception would
also of course be valid if you dont know any Catholics in your area and need baptism. If you have no
Catholic friends or family members and need baptism you may be baptized by a heretic as fast as
possible. See Baptism; the Steps to Convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith; the Steps for Those
Leaving the New Mass; and Conditional Baptism). In such a situation, as described above, 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. And so, it is clear why God made this exception through the Pope. Again, when there
are exceptions, it will always be mentioned and made clear.
The point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the
sacraments in regard to heretics or schismatics. According to the teachings of the Church, heretics and
schismatics must be avoided under pain of mortal sin. You may thus not have friendly relations with
them, e.g., playing sports together, or doing other activities like this, or even meet with them as one
would meet with a real Catholic friend. The only exception to this would be if youre trying to convert
a heretic or an unbeliever. In such a case you can meet with him, play sports with him and talk with
him. However, if your intention is wrong and you know that you keep contact with atheists or heretics
for the wrong reasons, and not for the purpose of really converting them (or even if your intention is
right but the sinner, heretic or schismatic is obstinate and non-convertible and refuses to listen), as all
too often happens with heretical family members, then you must cease all contact with them. For doing
otherwise might be the cause of your eternal destruction. How many people have not forfeited God to
please other men more? How many have not lost God because they spent too much time trying to help
others whilst overlooking themselves? Beware of men, Jesus Christ warns (Matthew 10:17).
Catholics must realize that few are Saved; most adult Catholics are damned. Not even Jesus Christ,
who is God, could convert all the hardened Jews.

AGAINST HERETICS AND PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with heretics or receive the
sacraments from them as Pope Leo X and the following dogmatic Councils makes clear. These
quotations, of course, also condemn the Vatican II sects false ecumenism, as well as their false
prayer meetings or gatherings with the false religions of the world.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: And since truth cannot
contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is
totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those
who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly
condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics
and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.
All false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith, of whatever race or
nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers,
are to be totally excluded from the company of Christs faithful and expelled from any
position, especially from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty
The Pope just said infallibly that all heretics should be avoided in every way. Note that you can only
know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question.
Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way, and may not
approach him for the sacraments. This same authoritative language can be seen in Pope Vigilius ex
cathedra decree from the Second Council of Constantinople.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: The heretic, even
though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema
on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can
 such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after
admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a
person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).
Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical parents, even though Ive tried to convert
them?
Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite yourself with heretics purposely (outside
of what the Church approves of), or be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them.
Thats whats condemned here. The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live with a
heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the Church has approved of it), who buys food or do
business with heretics, or who work under a heretic or take orders from him, etc.
Moving on:
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].
The Third Council of Constantinople just defined infallibly that any person who prays in communion
with heretics are to be excommunicated and refused communion for praying with other heretics. Now
lets look at some other quotes:
Council of Laodicea, 4th century, (#Canon 6): "No one shall pray in common with heretics
and schismatics It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue
in heresy.
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.
Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): That Christians
and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what
is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with
heresy, is absolutely impossible to tolerate!
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or
schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any
active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10): So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this
Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics:
for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true
Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily
left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to
remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
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.
For people then to claim (in spite of all the quotations above saying otherwise) that one may pray at
heretical churches or receive the sacraments from them or that an assembly presided over by heretics or
an assembly that prays in communion with other heretics, to somehow be the Church of God or the
Church of Catholics, is simply to deny Gods revealed infallible truth.

COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN

ABSOLUTION IN CONFESSION
The following information will be quite devastating to the Dimonds heretical position on
receiving the sacrament of Penance from heretical ministers. Even though the Council of
Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and many others (as we will see) clearly
teaches that heretics cannot give an absolution in confession or have any jurisdiction
whatsoever, Peter still has refused to accept this position. Wonder why?

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases:
Wherefore, since the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on
subjects, the Church of God has always maintained and this council confirms it as most
true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he
has neither ordinary nor delegated jurisdiction ought to be counted as of
no effect... But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously
observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in
danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all
penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance
priests have no power in reserved cases, let them strive to persuade penitents to do
this one thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of
absolution.

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word Catholic and that it
explicitly mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the
heretics. True, the Council never mentioned the word Catholic, but it doesnt have to for
three reasons.

First, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that the nature of a judgment requires that
sentence be imposed only on subjects. Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical
or schismatical priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not!
This fact is of course also backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church:
For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge
them that are within? (1 Corinthians 5:12). So, then, its perfectly clear that those who are
outside do not command on the inside, for it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside
can command in the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).
There are three parts contained in the sacrament of Penance, that is 1) Contrition, 2)
Confession, and 3) Satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3). Every time the priest
tells a person what kind of satisfaction he must make in order to be absolved from his sins, the
priest makes a sentence (or command) over him that requires a satisfaction (or penance) on
the part of the penitent. However, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that the nature of a
judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects, and Pope Leo XIII it is
absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.

Now if a Catholic had been an eastern schismatic and confessed his former heresy or schism
to an eastern schismatic priest, the priest would tell him that he did no sin at all when he was
an eastern schismatic and that he would get no absolution unless he repented of his sin of
separating from the eastern schismatic church. And that is why no non-Catholic priest can
absolve a Catholic because the Catholic Church could never allow a non-Catholic priest to
make a sentence or judgment on other Catholics when he cannot even judge right from wrong
himself. That is not to say that heretics cannot know right from wrong in many cases, for they
do. It rather means that as long as they remain outside the Church of Christ and lack the
Catholic faith, they cannot have jurisdiction over Catholics or command them to do something
that has to do with them receiving forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Penance.

Second, the Council of Trent ordered the Priests (who was among ALL THE PRIESTS
MENTIONED) that if they did not have this necessity in danger of death for granting a
valid absolution in confession, they then must strive to persuade penitents to do this one
thing, betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of
absolution. But I ask you, since when does the Catholic Church endorse heretical or
schismatical priests, their superiors or their churches? Never! Therefore, this statement
cannot have referred to heretical ministers, obviously.

Third. The Council of Trent affirmed that this teaching of jurisdiction has always been upheld
and maintained in the Church of God, and this council confirms it as most true, thus
proving to everyone that its not simply dealing with ecclesiastical laws that can be changed,
but specifically with dogmatic laws that can never be changed.

Conclusion

These three points, then, totally excludes all heretics, schismatics, and apostates from ever
being able to grant a valid absolution in confession or from ever being able to receive supplied
jurisdiction in case of a necessity since they are outside the Church and Her jurisdiction (de
fide).

ST. THOMAS TEACHES THAT HERETICS CANNOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTION

IN CONFESSION
Peter Dimond, Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics Debate The Important
Quotes: A few schismatics will quote St. Thomas in Summa Theologica, Supplemental
Pt., Q. 38, A. 2, Obj. 1, in which the objection (not necessarily St. Thomas) says that a
heretic cannot absolve. However, the schismatics dont quote St. Thomas reply to the
objection, in which he states that hes referring to those who are cut off.
Heretics who have been officially cut off or suspended in regard to others by a
declaration cannot have jurisdiction, and thus cannot absolve.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2, Reply to
Objection 1: The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins
which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither
can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give
absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut
off from the Church has not.

To refute Peters argument, we will simply quote from another passage of St. Thomas that he
simply cannot explain away or deny.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3:
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWER OF JURISDICTION... DOES NOT
REMAIN IN HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS; AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY
NEITHER ABSOLVE NOR EXCOMMUNICATE, NOR GRANT INDULGENCE, NOR
DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND, AND IF THEY DO, IT IS INVALID.

As we can see here, St. Thomas clearly teaches that heretics lose their jurisdiction
independently of any declaration and that they lose it from simply being in heresy. This if
anything should be the final nail in the coffin on the myth that St. Thomas is agreeing with the
Dimonds or that he teaches that we may receive the sacraments from certain undeclared
heretical ministers. We wonder if Peter will accept this information, or simply ignore it as
usual.
As an aside note, Peter do agree with the above statement, at least in regards to
excommunication, for Peter admits on his website that heretics and schismatics cannot
excommunicate and that their excommunication would be worthless, invalid, and of no effect
(excommunication requires jurisdiction too)! Nonetheless, even though he claims they cannot
excommunicate, he nevertheless argues that they can absolve. His position is truly a
contradiction from beginning to end.

Question: But what then does St. Thomas mean when he is referring to them as cut off?

Answer: When St. Thomas is referring to heretics or schismatics as cut off, he is simply
referring to them as automatically excommunicated. For as we could see above, St. Thomas
does not consider heretics to have any jurisdiction independently of any formal
excommunication. St. Thomas thus based his conclusion on the Divine Law, and not on
any formal excommunication, as explained by St. Robert Bellarmine:

THE HOLY FATHERS AND SAINTS TEACH UNANIMOUSLY THAT HERETICS AND
SCHISMATICS ARE IPSO FACTO [BY THAT VERY FACT] DEPRIVED OF ALL
ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION AND DIGNITY

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are
outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto [by that very fact]
deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist.
6) says: We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right...
St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca.
2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St.
Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately
lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any
jurisdiction will be null.

those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human
law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on
the basis of the very nature of heresy. while heretics already before being
excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.
For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches
 (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church
without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms. (St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

So while Peter teaches to his followers that they are right in seeking an absolution from a
heretical minister, St. Thomas teaches that we sin if we knowingly seek an absolution from
them.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 6, Whether those who
are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of
the keys?: On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the charity of the
Church forgives sins. Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members.
Since therefore the above are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have
not the use of the keys in remitting sins. Further, no man is absolved from sin by
sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the
above, for he disobeys the Church in so doing. THEREFORE HE CANNOT
BE ABSOLVED BY THEM: and so the same conclusion follows.

Therefore, when St. Thomas refers to heretics or schismatics as cut off, excommunicated
or separated etc. in context of receiving an illicit sacrament, he is not referring to them for
any other purpose than to denote their automatic excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7: Accordingly, such
as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through
being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it
improperly if afterwards they be SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY
HERESY, SCHISM, or excommunication. And since the consecration of the
Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are
SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH BY HERESY, SCHISM, or
excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated
by them contains Christs true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by
doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a
spiritual sacrifice.