Some will object to this by saying: “I can go to a heretical (but validly ordained) priest licitly for the mass and the sacraments as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresy or preach heresy from the pulpit.”
Answer: It does not matter whether the priest is imposing about his heresy or whether he preaches it from the pulpit, as some deceived people believe. For tell me, dear reader. Is someone who is a heretic a member of the Church even if he does not preach his heresy from the pulpit or are imposing about it? What about a "Pope" who was to become a heretic, but wasn’t imposing about his heresies; would you consider him as the Pope or go to him for the sacraments? According to these people, this heretical "pope" must be a valid pope, or at least a person that one can approach licitly for the sacraments, as long as he isn’t imposing about his heresies… But is this really so? Who would ever claim such nonsense? No, in truth, you would answer that he would not be a member of the Church, since all heretics are separated from the Church, and that he thus would consecrate the sacraments illicitly. Thus, the same logic then follows here with heretical priests, whether they are imposing or not, or whether they preach heresy from the pulpit or not. They are all to be avoided as odious heretics that undermine the Catholic Faith. (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, ex cathedra)
And if you don’t agree with this, then why don’t you go to the apostate Benedict XVI and receive the sacraments from him? He’s not any better than any of the other heretical priests you approach for the sacraments! In fact, they are just as bad as he is, they even hold to the same heresies as he do, and most of them even accept him as the pope and as head of the Catholic Church! We are not allowed to choose which heretics we can approach, as if some heretics should be tolerated. This is totally unscriptural, and contradicts numerous Catholic teachings.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”
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 aliento the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Imposing is a term some people have invented for themselves to justify their going to different priests (that they know are heretics) for the sacraments and to hear mass from them. Well, the problem with this thinking isn’t that they are unaware of the fact that the priest is a heretic… but that they in fact are fully aware of this, yet make up excuses to go to him. But has there ever been a dogma that declares anything even close to this? Can anything even be cited to give such an indication? Of course not! You will not find any Church teaching that says so! To invent one’s own doctrines to justify one’s own mortal sin in receiving the sacraments illicitly, and then to teach others to do the same, is really outrageous and scandalous to say the least! These people have no shame! Whether a priest is imposing his heresies on other people or not has nothing to do with whether the priest becomes a notorious heretic, as St. Robert Bellarmine clearly shows:
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” The point is:what Catholic dogma says that one may knowingly approach a heretical priest for the sacraments (except for the sacrament of baptism in case of necessity)? Not a single dogma have been given thus far that have indicated this; (the Fourth Lateran Council, taken out of context, will be dealt with shortly). We would gladly change our position if someone proved to us with Catholic dogma that their position was true. However, this is not the case and no such dogmatic proof has ever been presented. Only fallible saints (taken out of context) and fallible theologians can be quoted, which then reveals that their position is weak and wavering and that it is lacking a good Catholic foundation. Is this what we are to build our Faith on; namely, saints and theologians, and in view of all the dogmas and reasoning, deny what has been put before our eyes? Isn’t this exactly what the believers in baptism of blood/desire do as well? Do they not obstinately cling to fallible saints and theologians instead of the infallible dogmas? And are they not condemned for this exact behavior, maybe even from you? Why then do you act precisely in the same way here? If you can’t prove your case with Catholic dogma, then you should not obstinately defend it or hold to it as true!
Besides, how can a person claim to believe in the Lord Jesus when he without compromise - even knowingly and willfully - approach a priest whom he knows reject the necessity of believing in Him, or any of His words? Do you really love Jesus and believe in Him, or do you just say you do? Are mass attendance and illicit sacraments more important to you than Jesus Christ and the Faith itself? For by the external deed you show to other people and to Our Lord that you have no problem to approach a priest who rejects Him! Apostates, heretics, and schismatics, crucify Our Lord a second time when they presume to consecrate these sacraments, and you are helping in this deed by going to them!
Neither can you preserve your faith or please God if you approach heretical priests, as Pope Pius IX makes clear: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God.”
And you become a sharer in the heretical priest's sin as St Thomas says: “As was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.”
NOTORIOUS OR NOT
Some people also falsely claim that one factor which determines if a priest is to become a heretic that must be avoided for communion, is determined by the fact of his notoriety, or how many other people actually are aware of the priest’s heretical position, or if his heresies or sins (of which they are not always so clear to define what constitutes notorious heresy, and which they determine for themselves when it suits their purpose) are notorious. They claim this by asserting that only certain heresies can be classified as notorious (of which denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation [or obstinate denial of almost any other dogma] is not included in this category, according to them! which essentially means that no priest can ever be considered as notorious (isn’t that an amazingly convenient position that they have come up with?) and that notoriety is determined by the fact if it is well known, and that if only a few people are aware of the priest’s heretical position, then the priest must not be a notoriously heretical priest that thus one may approach for the Sacraments.
Thus they reason, for according to them, only a notorious heretic must be avoided; and if the priest isn’t obviously known to ‘everyone’ (or most people)—or if his heresy doesn’t fit their virtually non-existent category of notoriety—he must therefore not be a notorious heretic and can thus be approached for the sacraments. However, they fail to realize that the priest in question may already have revealed his heresy and obstinacy and bad will to anyone who have made the true position known to him.
What determines if a priest must be avoided for communion is not decided by the fact how many others are actually aware of him being a heretic or if he is only guilty of certain specific heresies. This is so since the priest by being a heretic, whatever heresy he may hold, have already severed himself from the Church and communion, and because the whole of Heaven (The Holy Trinity, The Blessed Virgin and all the Angels and the Saints) also have pronounced judgment on him. Are we then (in spite of these facts), to profess external communion with him who have severed himself from the Church, and whom God already have condemned? (If the priest converts, of course, the condemnation turns into mercy.)
Obviously then, the factor which determines if someone is to be avoided for communion is what you can know about the said person in question. It is not determined by what others decide or understand about him or by the fact of how many others actually are aware of him being a heretic. You will not be judged to hell for what others knew or didn’t know about. Youwill, however, be judged to hell for what you knew about; what you did not care to know about, and what you failed to do when you had obtained this knowledge!
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."
And if you don’t agree with this, then you must hold to the opinion that one could have approached the ultra-heretical antipope from hell, Paul VI, for the sacraments, even if we knew him to be a heretical antipope and even if we had obtained knowledge beforehand on what he would (try) do to the Church (according to the logic of the heretics) if only a few people were aware of him being a heretic and if only a few people knew about his evil intentions, or if his heresies would not be considered as notorious. Yes, according to this false position, (the illogical position of the heretics), one could even have approached him for the sacraments when he had started to put all these heresies into practice.
So when Paul VI was undermining and trying to destroy the faith in the hearts of the people as much as a heretic could possibly have done in a lifetime, i.e., by approving and putting into practice all the heresies of the Second Vatican Council; by changing the Traditional Mass into a New invalid Mass; by changing the Rites of Holy Orders (thus making all Vatican II priests and bishops invalidly ordained); by abolishing the index of forbidden books (which reveals his true intention, to spread heresy and lies); and by allowing contraception or NFP, etc, etc… then, in spite of all these facts, if only few people knew him to be a heretic or if he was not considered notorious, one could have approached him for the Sacraments… This is the inescapable and illogical conclusion of the heretics’ reasoning, but none, however, would ever dare admit to it!
But if your position is the true Catholic position: namely, that one couldn’t have approached Paul VI or any other heretic like him for the Sacraments, then you must also hold the position that one cannot approach other heretical priests for the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist, that one personally knows are heretical. You cannot pick and choose what heretics to go to. All heretics are outside the Church. Therefore, all heretics must be avoided.
Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."
POPE PIUS IX AGAINST HERETICS
Pope Pius IX, "Graves Ac Diuturnae," 1875, (# 4): "You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITHwho dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieveswho come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice."
Can it be any clearer than that? We “SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS OR MEETINGS WITH USURPING PRIESTS AND APOSTATES FROM THE FAITHwho dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction…” we “should avoid them as strangers and thieveswho come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” and “THEY SHOULD TOTALLY SHUN THEIR RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS, THEIR BUILDINGS, AND THEIR CHAIRS OF PESTILENCE WHICH THEY HAVE WITH IMPUNITY ESTABLISHED TO TRANSMIT THE SACRED TEACHINGS. THEY SHOULD SHUN THEIR WRITINGS AND ALL CONTACT WITH THEM”
Further commenting on the absolute, undeniable words of Pope Pius IX above isn’t really necessary for an honest soul.
But why must heretics be totally avoided, you may ask? Pope Pius IX answers this too: “For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God...” Pope Pius IX says that your faith will be destroyed by going to heretics and that you cannot please God by doing this. How clear does it have to get? Thus, you may never approach your apostate or heretical Novus Ordo priest or your heretical and schismatical traditional “Catholic” priest, or any other heretical or schismatical priest of that sort for Confession or the Eucharist. For almost all of them, without exception, deny the necessity of believing in our Lord Jesus Christ by granting salvation to people who do not even believe in Him. Most of them also obstinately deny various dogmas of the Church when it is presented to them!
FALLIBLE VS INFALLIBLE
Heretics simply refuse to follow the teachings of the Church on these matters, but rather follow wrong and fallible statements of certain theologians or saints. Many of these saints and theologians do not even agree with their position. Yet, these heretics twist their words to fit their own heretical belief system (more on this later).
The point is: If we were to decide what constitutes the Catholic faith based on fallible saints or theologians, then we could as well deny the immaculate conception of Mary, we could believe that all unbaptized Children who die before the age of reason burns in the fires of hell, we could believe in the theory of baptism of desire and blood, etc. All these opinions, in fact, seems convincing and true in view of the respected saints and theologians, who have held these positions and taught it (which is the cause of so many believing in it), in spite of Catholic dogma saying otherwise.
However, be it the opinion of a theologian or a saint (or even both), it really holds no weight at all in comparison with infallible Catholic dogma. Real Catholics (not fake Catholics) base their Faith on infallible Catholic dogma, and not on the opinions of saints or theologians. That should be clear to anyone. When people stop believing in the infallible Magisterium of the Church and instead choose to base their faith solely on the theories of saints and theologians (or even on themselves and what they deem to be of the faith), then one knows that their case is doomed, and that their position is not the Catholic one.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives."
As we see above, it’s an infallible dogma (that one are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin) that all heretics are outside the Church and thus outside the bounds of licitly administering the sacraments. Therefore, you can never knowingly receive the sacraments from a heretical priest (licitly) without sinning mortally [unless ignorance excuse, such as if you didn’t know it was heretics you approached or that it was wrong to approach them]. You could, however, receive them licitly from a heretic, if you were unaware of him being a heretic. This is the only exception, but this exception doesn’t work if you know the priest to be a heretic or if you know the Church forbids religious communion with them.
However, if we were to say, (for the sake of argument) that it were true that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments without sin (which it isn’t); but let's theorize that it is so that we can refute this position further. If there were any such teaching by a saint or theologian that allowed such a thing, namely, that one could approach a heretical priest for the sacraments; and even if they held such a position, (which they don't) they were still not talking about approaching the kind of heretical priests that exists in our day, in the Great Apostasy. Examples of this would be a priest who rejects the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ or who believes in salvation for people who even reject Christ, such as pagans, Jews and Muslims. Would anyone dare to say that this is what the theologians and saints actually believed if they had theorized that one could go to a heretical priest for the mass and the sacraments? Absolutely not! Then don’t try to make it look as if they do!
Nevertheless, this is the exact same straw man argument the baptism of desire/blood advocates use. Don’t these people just love to stress (lying through their teeth) that "all the saints and theologians believed in baptism of desire and blood; so it must be true", and by it trying to imply that they (the saints and theologians) also believed in salvation for pagans, Muslims and Jews; (even though, in truth, their version of baptism of desire/blood only applied to people who already believed in Jesus Christ and who were catechumens, and not pagans, Muslims and Jews). See the difference?
Why then do some people try to make it look like as though the theologians had as opinion that one could go to the worst kind of abominable, apostate or heretical priests that may ever have existed, for the sacraments? They who hold this position even make it appear as though one are perfectly free to go to a heretic even after one have found out about his Christ rejecting heresy. It must also be pointed out that the only saints and theologians these people even try to quote to defend their position (of receiving the sacraments from heretics), do not even agree with their heretical position (except for one theologian); however, except for this one theologian (John de Lugo), the rest actually refutes their sacrilegious position (as we will show).
But according to these sad heretics, one can freely go to a priest who believes in universal salvation for everyone, and to a priest who obstinately defends, supports and accepts as "Pope" the most vile and abominable heretics to have ever lived in the history of the world! Yes, according to their view, one could even go to that priest after one have presented him with the proof about the Novus Ordo Church, Benedict XVI and Vatican II, that proves them to be heretical. Yes, one could go to him even after that priest obstinately rejected that undeniable proof you presented to him (according to their heretical logic), just as long as he isn’t preaching his heresies from the pulpit or are imposing about them! Such are their words, then you can go to him. Anything goes it seems for these people, anything but Catholic sense and Catholic dogma! The bad will of these people are truly remarkable and sad.
So then, what are we to do when we have presented our priest with the information about Benedict XVI and Vatican II, and he yet obstinately adheres to Benedict XVI as the pope and the Novus Ordo church as the true Church? Are we then to avoid him as the heretic he has manifestly shown himself to be? The answer to this question is of course yes!
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.”
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
Therefore, it’s both a dogmatic and biblical fact that you cannot approach any heretical priests for the mass or the sacraments.
GOD WANTS OBEDIENCE RATHER THAN SACRIFICE
God wants obedience, rather than sacrifice. In other words, if you accept heretics or reject His dogmas, all your spiritual works will be worthless in His sight.
1 Kings 15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed?For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath also rejected thee from being king.”
If a person rejects God’s truth, he cannot please Him. To hold that one may licitly receive the sacraments from heretics, in light of all the facts, is simply to deny God.
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS
It is also of divine law and not only a disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are heretics, schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a religious house that is heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a “church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law. Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:
Pope Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896:“For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”
Pope Pius XII, MysticiCorporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Pope St. Clement I, 1st Century: "If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes."
III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Pope Pius IX, EtsiMulta, #26, Nov. 21, 1873:"Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicateand hold as anathema Joseph Humberthimself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to themand belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church.They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John10-11] to associate and have social exchangeto such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted."