Refuting the Dimonds 2009 ‘No Jurisdiction Position’ Tapes

© Copyright 2012, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.

Introduction

Three years ago, Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery conducted a series of five talks on what he terms the advocates of the “No Jurisdiction Position,” namely the debate held between “recusant” apologist Gerry Matatics and CMRI follower Ken Bird. Recently Dimond posted a rehash of his tape topics, so there have been site inquiries regarding the points he makes in these talks. Therefore we felt it was important to address the issues Dimond raises, or at least most of them. It should be noted, however, in all fairness, that these points address only what he believes to be the Church’s teaching, not what the Church actually teaches. And while he sets out to address the work of others presenting in scholastic form, he not only does not follow that form himself but denigrates scholasticism and those who use it. And so Dimond sets the tenor for what he bills as his refutation of the jurisdiction position by scorning and deriding the only philosophical method the Church approves for debating points of scholastic theology, committing his first error, (DZ 1576, 1652).

In so doing he destroys all his own arguments from the outset, for they cannot stand as sound and logical in the eyes of the Church when they are founded on error. If one can demonstrate that at least an attempt has been made to follow the rules of Scholastic theology, then certain conclusions can be drawn from this. For an opponent who cannot follow these rules most likely does not possess the proofs necessary to establish a defense. As the rule of law goes, facts are not presumed; they must be demonstrated. These infallible sources themselves cannot be questioned, as Rev. J. C. Fenton explained in his work Sacred Theology. “Since the certitude of theology is from divine knowledge, it cannot be explained merely in function of the syllogistic process by which its conclusions are derived…Theological demonstration is a complex process, and the theological conclusion is not extrinsic to the body of actually revealed doctrine…The meaning of divine revelation, as it is proposed in the infallible magisterium of the Church, is so clear that demonstrations directed toward bringing out that meaning can possess a superior certitude…It was precisely the certitude of sacred theology that led to the unmasking of the various heresies which have appeared during the course of Christian history.”

Before addressing his statements point by point, it is important to note that one has to do so conditionally because if the evidence we present here is true — and it comes primarily from the one authority that Dimond cannot question, the Roman Pontiff, so canonically it cannot be refuted — then all his other arguments fail, because they miss the point entirely. Dimond enters this contest permanently handicapped, since he spurns papal authority already by his promotion of the Feeneyite heresy. Before he begins hammering home the existence of supplied jurisdiction in these cases, Dimond needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the men he is talking about have been validly and licitly ordained in the first place. If he wishes to address jurisdiction supplied for ecclesiastical acts, let him begin at the beginning and first address that jurisdiction required to administer first tonsure.

The canons teach that without the bishop’s call a vocation cannot exist. “Therefore laymen, as such, cannot be ordained unless they have received first tonsure, [and here a citation from the Sources of Canon Law is given]…Laymen as such cannot obtain jurisdictional power in matters strictly spiritual or ecclesiastical [again the Sources of Canon Law are footnoted]; neither can they obtain any benefice which is of a purely ecclesiastical nature…Moreover the nature of first tonsure clearly indicates that it arises from the Ordinary’s office as an act issuing from his jurisdictional faculties granted by the Pope, not specifically the power of Orders, since tonsure is not an order but a ceremony or rite,” (Rev. Charles Augustine commenting on Can. 118). “That first tonsure is not a sacrament and in fact not even an order is the most common opinion of theologians, both on the grounds that the Pontifical and the Code (Can. 949, 950) clearly distinguishes it from Orders, and because, according to the Council of Trent ‘who have been distinguished by clerical tonsure to ascend through the minor [orders] to the major:’ and on the ground that men have no power in virtue of tonsure but are simply assigned to divine services and to the diocese…,” (The Sacraments, Vol. II, by Rev. Jean Marie Herve). Order always grants some sort of power, but this is not true of tonsure. Tonsure is an assignment, like the assignment of bishops by the Holy Father or the appointment of cardinals; it is an act of jurisidiction.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “[Tonsure is] a sacred rite instituted by the Church by which a baptized and confirmed Christian is received into theclerical order by the shearing of his hair and the investment with the surplice. The person thus tonsured becomes a partaker of the common privileges andobligations of the clerical state and is prepared for the reception of orders. The tonsure itself is not an ordination properly so called, nor a true order. It is rather a simple ascription of a person to the Divine service in such things as are common to all clerics.” And under rite: “A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration ofsacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all,” and these involve acts of jurisdiction. Canon Law further states that unless a man is ordained a priest, which cannot happen if he never receives tonsure, he does not validly obtain the office of pastor, (Canons 154, 453). While Trads do not claim to receive the actual office, they operate as pastors nevertheless, performing all the same functions.

Now, it is precisely Rev. Miaskiewicz in his “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” who tells us what the law means when it states that, “the Church supplies jurisdiction.”  He tells us in more than one place that by “Church” is really meant the Pope, who after all enjoys the fullness of jurisdiction in the Church. But Dimond claims that during Great Western Schism true Popes did not supply jurisdiction; the Church did. So if not the Pope, then who is Dimond saying supplies it — the bishops? He can choose to believe the bishops didn’t have it at all at that time, which he accuses homealoners of believing, or he can choose to believe that the true pope supplied it, either at the time or after the fact. But if he says that he believes this occurred the way he is saying it occurred, he is guilty of heresy. Pope Pius XII infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis and Ad Sinarum Gentum that any jurisdiction the bishops possess does not come to them directly from Christ but rather comes to them only through the pope. And modern theologians at the time taught that this was a dogmatic definition. Dimond knows that beginning with Roncalli, the last four popes have been antipopes, who never possessed jurisdiction to give to anyone. But if he claims jurisdiction from “the Church,” without referring it to the Pope, he is actually claiming that it extraordinarily falls out of the skies from above, since the jurisdiction of the Pope ends with his death, as Pope Pius XII indicates in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, and there is no other way Trad bishops can receive jurisdiction.

Either that or in contradiction to the Council of Trent, the Vatican Council and Pope Pius XII, he is saying that a) the priests and people can give bishops jurisdiction, which is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius VI (DZ 967, DZ 1502, Can. 147); b) the Pope does not possess the fullness of jurisdiction (DZ 1822: “To this teaching of Sacred Scriptures…are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord;…[including] those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church upon him as the minister of the Church herself,” (also DZ 1823). The truth is that “the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine right, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity. Finally by the same Divine Will, the people or the civil authority must not invade the rights and the constitution of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,” (Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII; De Ordine, Cann. 2-7; Vatican Council, Sess. IV; Canons 108-109 — taken from para. 12-13 of Ad Sinarum Gentum;); see also see also Mystici Corporis, DZ 2287.

Traditional bishops, who never received their orders with the blessing of the Roman Pontiff and under his direction therefore cannot claim it is supplied by “the Church” without denying their faith, whether that be by claiming extraordinary jurisdiction as the Protestants did, minus any manifestation of miracles, or by professing the Gallicanist heresy. And they cannot claim “the Church” supplies jurisdiction for tonsure for the same reason. For that “Church” could only be the bishops, and the supreme power does not reside in them. So please explain why we should not consider the men they have “ordained” as anything but laymen in clerical garb. Those receiving orders from Thuc and Lefebvre cannot even claim supplied jurisdiction, for in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops, Lefebvre openly declared he did not possess it; one cannot give what he does not have. He knew that what he was doing was contrary to Church law. Neither, therefore, did his V2 buddy Thuc possess such jurisdiction, even via “special faculties,” since those ceased, according to Canon Law, the minute that he signed V2 documents. Dimond adds yet another heresy to the mix here by denying apostolicity, the grant of Christ through Peter to the successors of the apostles to call men to the priesthood with His own power, as He himself did. This power cannot exist without the certain possession of jurisdiction, as explained in the article on that subject appearing on this site.

And so we have learned here that from the outset, Dimond has no real understanding of jurisdiction and its true nature according to infallible Church teaching. Jurisdiction for bishops to act, unless it persists following the death of the pope per the conditions of its issuance, ceases with his death and ceases with the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). Only clerics can receive jurisdiction, except by divine right, (the papacy), and even then they must be fit for ordination, (Pope Pius XII, Six ans se sont). According to the scholastic method Dimond eschews, he is guilty of Petitio principii or begging the question: Assuming as true that which has yet to be proved. 
Dimond assumes these men can become clerics, when the jurisdiction necessary for this is lacking entirely. He assumes that such jurisdiction (for various acts) can be supplied or granted “by the Church,” when these are propositions condemned by the Church. His arguments fail entirely because he is basing every one of them on a false premise. And entangled in these “arguments” are numerous other errors based on yet other false premises. All of these must be ferreted out and exposed for what they are.

Among the errors below, we find additionally that Dimond resorts to the fallacy of scholastic argument called Special case: Concluding what is true in a certain restricted case or cases is true generally, (arguments on consecration without mandate); also, False analogy: when an argument is drawn from another subject which only in appearance resembles the subject in question, (concerning the Western Schism). All of this could have been avoided had he educated himself in Scholastic method. As Miaskiewicz writes in his thesis on Can. 209, quoting the theologian LaCroix, a private authority can establish probability under certain specified conditions, given that they hold no false opinions, do not indulge in light or readily contestable opinions, do not teach things that are improbable or rest on false reasons, and so forth. Given his track record, Dimond miserably fails this test.

Tape One: “Jurisdiction, Quick Intro” — about nine minutes:

1. Dimond first attempts to summarize the position of those who state that since the death of Pius XII, Traditionalist clerics lack the authority — explicitly and implicitly — to act in the name of the Church.

Response: Based on Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution, “Vacantis Apsotolica Sedis,” there can be no doubt that this is the case at this particular point in time.

2. Dimond states that homealoners believe that jurisdiction is only acquired through a lawful superior. He mentions that jurisdiction is necessary for valid absolution of sins; he also quotes the Council of Trent to this effect.  He therefore concludes that this indeed is a serious matter for consideration and indicates that he believes such jurisdiction is supplied.  He also references Canon Law. Dimond states that Catholic history, Catholic sense, and even Canon Law do not claim what the homealoners state is the case.

Response: Let’s try the infallible pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, superior to all of these. Canon Law, contrary to Dimomd’s remark, DOES support everything that homealoners believe and practice. And as will be shown below, he doesn’t get Catholic history right, either.

3. Dimond says that the biggest problem with the homealoners is the following:  a failure to distinguish between ecclesiastical laws, which can change, and Divine laws, which cannot change.

Response: “By Divine institution…the hierarchy of jurisdiction consists of the supreme pontificate and the subordinate episcopate,” (Can. 108). “The Catholic Church possesses, by Divine institution, the power of jurisdiction or government,” (Can. 197). And Dimond thinks that jurisdiction is strictly an ecclesiastical matter because…? While Can. 209 can be said to be an ecclesiastical law, in the sense that it only regulates when jurisdiction can and cannot be supplied, it rests on the principle that this jurisdiction itself is supplied by the Roman Pontiff in these cases, who alone possesses it in its fullness by Divine right, (Vatican Council). What Dimond and all the others attempt to do is to ascribe the application of this jurisdiction, intended only for the Roman Pontiff, to those who cannot even prove they have been validly ordained and/or consecrated. This is absurd on its face and must be soundly rejected as such. It is a rejection of the papacy as the Supreme source of jurisdiction, and the Pope as the sole judge of who shall or shall not receive it and how.

4. As examples of changeable laws he mentions that at one time, monks were forbidden from hunting; no new founding of religious orders. He then states that ecclesiastical laws can be revoked, modified or can cease to exist altogether in case of necessity.

Response: The law can cease to exist in certain rare cases, but the following canon explains the Church’s teaching on this matter: Can. 23 teaches: “In doubt, the revocation of an already existing law is not presumed…Recent laws should be adapted to older laws, and insofar as is possible, made to harmonize with them.” General principles concerning the revocation of law state: “If no serious reasons can be found to prove or directly disprove that a certain law has ceased or been abrogated, the principle to be followed is: ‘In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption.’ In this case the presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance,” (St. Alphonsus, as quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan in their Moral Theology). “In doubt about the validity of a positive law, the law is presumed to be valid for the sake of the common good and to preserve the certain right of authority,” (Summary of Scholastic Principles, Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J.) “Positive law is true law only when it is an act of legitimate authority, is just, is physically and morally possible of observance and is properly promulgated. The lawgiver and law enforcer must have jurisdiction over the subjects and over the matter and content of the law, and no higher law may be contravened.A positive law is not binding in particular instances where its observance entails difficulties disproportionate to the importance and purpose of the law,” (Ibid). The only body that can interpret the law is the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code and only the lawgiver, (the Pope) can revoke or modify the law. According to Pope Pius XII’s infallible 1945 papal election law, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,” during an interregnum Canon Law must be observed as written, and not even the cardinals can violate it, far less usurp the jurisdiction enjoyed only by the pope. This is the higherlaw, for as Dimond admits, Can. 209 is only an ecclesiastical law.

In his work “Canon Law,” Rev. Amleto Cicognani writes under Can. 7 that in a conflict of law, “the more important law prevails.” This is a rule of law. Another rule of law states that a certain obligation cannot be satisfied by a doubtful fulfillment, (Rev. Gury). The salvation of souls, which Dimind says give Traditionalist priests the right to administer the Sacraments, is a certain obligation, but it cannot be accomplished by providing doubtfully valid Sacraments, and the Church teaches that souls may be saved outside the Sacraments, (even Baptism, by Baptism of desire or blood). The salvation of souls may be the Church’s primary mission by Divine decree, but it is a matter not of whether this mission is to be accomplished but HOW it is to be accomplished. It most certainly cannot be accomplished by disobeying other Divine laws, and by contradicting in fact the very divinely established means provided us by the Church TO save souls. We know that we are bound under the Divine Law to follow the dictates of conscience and Pope Innocent XI (DZ 1151) teaches that we can never use a probable opinion concerning the validity of the Sacraments, (primarily Penance, in this case, but any Sacrament). Popes Pius XI and XII tell us the same concerning ordination, teaching that the “safer course” — refusing to ordain a candidate for the priesthood if any doubt of fitness whatsoever exists — must be the course followed to protect the Sacrament.

5. Dimond says that Canon Law, especially Canon 209 supplies jurisdiction, which refutes Barbara Linaburg’s contention that the Apostles would be appalled at what has been added to supplied jurisdiction. He says other advocates acknowledge that the Church does supply jurisdiction but that they place severe restrictions on it.  They may say that supplied jurisdiction is not granted to someone who hasn’t been given jurisdiction in the first place (i.e.,SSPX, SSPV, etc.)

Response: It is not just homealoners who say that those who have never received valid and licit jurisdiction at all cannot possess it, but in reality it has nothing to do with jurisdiction itself. In order to grant jurisdiction validly, which cannot be done today, you must first have an unquestionably valid priest upon whom to bestow it. The burden of proof lies on these men to prove both their valid ordination and their possession of jurisdiction; it is not up to the faithful. Canon 200 states that: “He who claims to possess delegated jurisdiction has the burden of proving the delegation,” and such delegation is usually granted to priests. It is impossible to prove this because signed documents of the Holy See trump all proofs in Canon Law. Those decisions concerning the law entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered authentic, (Can. 9; “Humani Generis”). They are binding in conscience and are to be held with at least a firm assent, (Can. 9; Rev. J.C. Fenton, J.C.L, Rev. Billot and Rev. Connell as well as others). Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted,” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith). “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Cicognani, ibid. p. 626, ft. note). Documents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819). “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis” is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and it states that during an interregnum, the jurisdiction exercised by the Roman Pontiff cannot even be granted the cardinals, and that if it is even attempted to be exercised, it is null and void. This is a signed papal document entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Traditionalist bishops, then, have received no jurisdiction and cannot themselves validly tonsure “subjects,” who therefore cannot be ordained. Moreover for their communion with schismatics and heretics, they are forbidden to act owing to the irregularity known as infamy of law. Proof to the contrary cannot be admitted by anyone against Pope Pius XII’s law.

6. Dimond mentions Canon 882 which allows all priests, even those not approved, the ability to absolve in danger of death. Dimond says that some homealoners state that the church cannot supply jurisdiction to those that never had it; others say that it can supply…but only to those who at least at one time had it; others say that it only supplies in danger of death., but not to regularly hear confessions [outside of danger of death].

Response: None of this is correct. If a true pope lived, even those who never had jurisdiction could be supplied, as Miaskiwicz states, (p. 195). Rev. Szal however, makes note in his work, “Communication of Catholics With Schismatics,” that some theologians teach that even in the danger of death case where certainly valid and licit priests may be used, the dying are better off reciting a Perfect Act of Contrition. This is certainly true today since even those few who were rightly ordained (not ordained by second-generation Trad bishops), are excommunicated for communicatio in sacris. They have incurred this censure and its attendant irregularity by communicating with either the NO and/or schismatic bishops, (such as Lefebvre and Thuc, who were indisputably members of the NO both before and after their ordinations/consecrations). This involved something that was supposed to be a sacred rite, and some indeed believe it to be a sacred rite, when these men consecrating were non-Catholics and could not convey the Sacrament because they were never tonsured. Because they also incurred the irregularity of infamy of law as stated above, these men basically are incapable of a valid ecclesiastical act and can never be ordained, (Can. 2294-2295; 2314 §1,2). They can be absolved and abjured only by the Roman Pontiff canonically elected, if indeed he so inclines. We are instructed to eject them from liturgical functions.

Tape two

1. Great Western Schism: there was only one true pope, but two (and for a brief time three) claimants. St. Vincent was a supporter of anti-pope Clement VII who was excommunicated by the true pope Urban VI.  He was ordained by Cardinal DeLuna, (a bishop and cardinal who was not a lawful superior; he also later became an anti-pope.)

Response: Gregory XII could have supplied jurisdiction; we do not know that he did not. No one KNEW whether or not DeLuna was a lawful superior; there was true doubt in this matter, unlike today, and Can. 209 supplies jurisdiction in a doubt of law or fact. There is no doubt he was VALIDLY ordained. The majority of historians agree that those during the Western Schism truly were in error; therefore Can. 209 certainly would have supplied in error as well, at least in retrospect. For those following the false popes were truly confused about who was pope and believed the one they followed was the correct one; no one knew who was the true pope OR which one was validly elected. Also, the false set of claimants possessed colored titles, having received them from their “pope.” Rev. Miaskiewicz tells us in his “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” (Catholic University of America, 1940) that the Church began applying the principle of supplied jurisdiction in the 12^th century. So certainly this principle was already known and used. Seeing that there was a true pope all along, it is probable and actually likely that these popes supplied the entire time, for the good of the faithful. And it seems that Pope Gregory XII did so when he convoked the Council of Constance, calling for the resignation of John 23, deposing DeLuna and absolving and reconciling everyone prior to his own resignation, (see /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/the-truth-about-the-western-schism-and-supplied-jurisidiction-the-truth-about-the-western-schism-and-supplied-jurisidiction/ ).  This would have cleared up the excommunications for anti-pope Clement and his followers. Miaskiewicz distinguishes between the supplied jurisdiction in Can. 209, which renders the act placed as valid at the moment it is placed and the convalidation or radical sanation of acts, “which are remedies applied only after the performance of acts which were invalid from the beginning up to the very moment of the convalidation or radical sanation,” (p. 27). Regardless of which method the popes chose to use, the Sacraments received by the faithful were validated and the problem rectified.

2. According to homealoners, St.Vincent was not ordained by a lawful superior in the Catholic Church. He was not sent; not given jurisdiction. All confessions heard by St. Vincent were not valid, (but this is a straw man; we’ve never said that — Ed.). St. Vincent would be a renegade because he did not possess jurisdiction.

Response: All Traditionalist “clerics” are presumed not to have jurisdiction because unlike the Western Schism, no pope at all has reigned for almost 54 years. When St. Francis de Sales talks about this matter do you really think that he was insinuating that the Protestants could have had extraordinary jurisdiction? No; he was speaking generally, about “anyone,” to be exact, who would come along. This argument is beside the point because these Traditionalists never received tonsure. As Miaskiwiecz is careful to note, a man not validly ordained cannot possess jurisdiction by virtue of Divine law, and Rev. Kearney in his “Principles of Delegation,” (Catholic University of America, 1929) tells us: “The Church can supply only that power, the disposition of which is entrusted to Her. She cannot consequently supply confessional jurisdiction to an agent who is not a priest…” (Kearney, pg. 121; Miaskewicz, pg. 194). In St. Vincent’s case, the true pope could have supplied jurisdiction or the acts involved could have been “fixed” by radical sanation. In any case, he satisfied the requirements for extraordinary jurisdiction.

3. Dimond says the homealoner conclusion on St. Vincent Ferrer is wrong because he is a canonized saint and performed many miracles.  He says St. Vincent Ferrer had jurisdiction because the Bull for his canonization relates that Our Lord told him that he is the Angel of the Apocalypse.

Response: This proves the point of many homealoners; he HAD extraordinary jurisdiction as this Angel who could work miracles. No homealoner we know of is so rash as to say that St. Vincent had no jurisdiction and the Sacraments he gave were invalid. No one excommunicated him or gave him a warning that is recorded in history. No one questioned his orders as defective, something which surely would have shown up in the course of his canonization process.  This is quite enough about St. Vincent.

4. Dimond says that St. Vincent proves the Church supplies jurisdiction for repeated acts of Confession. Even if priests are not properly approved; and if priests act in good faith. He preached without having been approved…directly from Our Lord Himself.

Response: To lay the St. Vincent matter to rest: as long as the Pope is alive to supply, the Church does supply given the right conditions. But it is the Pope who alone can supply jurisdiction; Miaskiewicz states this twice in his work, on pages 28 and 194.”Without the usual test of the candidate, and the subsequent approval by a responsible superior, the code simply states that under the circumstances of common error or of positive and probable doubt of fact and law the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction,” (p. 28). And from p. 194: “When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person.” When the pope is dead, and he has been dead a long time, there is absolutely no reason to believe he supplies. And in fact Pope Pius XII says that during an interregnum he DOESN’T supply and all such attempted acts are null and void. As Rev. Kearney says in his above-quoted work, “The Sacraments are the usual, not the exclusive channels of grace.  God, who knows the hearts of men, can provide in the unusual way for the unusual case. Penitents frequently make acts of Perfect Contrition.”

5. Gerry Matatics claims there is a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary mission. (St. Vincent had extraordinary mission.) That would be the only exception. He quotes St. Frances de Sales’ work, “Catholic Controversy.” Dimond responds:  St. Frances de Sales was speaking of Protestants, not Catholics. They have no approval.  We are talking about a priest who is trying to be Catholic.

Response: Well actually we are not talking about priests at all here. But for the sake of argument, read Catholic Controversy. St. Francis de Sales states: “The pretended reformers…have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said they were sent extraordinarily by God…” Shades of Cekada, Pivarunas and others. Cekada uses the same argument as Dimond to “refute” DZ 967 from the Council of Trent, stating that Catholics who believe that those not rightly sent can actually be lawful pastors are condemned as heretics.  He pretends that because this was levied at Protestants, it cannot apply to us. Such has never been the practice of the Church, for She constantly refers us back to things condemned in the past and reminds us that already the Popes and Councils, at different times and under different circumstances perhaps, has nevertheless condemned this or that heresy. In fact St. Francis himself does not apply what he says only to the Protestants in his work, for he writes: “First I say that NO ONE should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof…If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them.” Priests should not have to “try” to be Catholic. The problem is, these men are not priests.

6. The only priests in the Great Western Schism who could have been true would be priests who were under the true pope OR priests who performed miracles.  What about all of the other priests under the different anti-popes?  According to Matatics, they would all have to be invalid, (Dimond’s induction from Matatics’ argument.) But this is not true, because the Church would have had to re-hear the confessions and the other acts which were performed under the unlawful superiors.  But the church didn’t do that at all.

Response: This is not the general consensus of historians dealing with the Western Schism. The Church either retroactively supplied jurisdiction (via convalidation, sanation) for all of these things or the true pope supplied it at the time. The principle was well known and understood, as explained already above. The Church reabsorbed clerics of the different obediences following Martin V’s election and while they were considered antipopes once the issue was settled, the clergy who served them were not stripped of their dignities and their acts were not annulled. This was the case in the past however, as will be seen below, so this alone indicates something was different here.

7. Dimond says that homealoners say: No, the church could have supplied jurisdiction to these persons who were not performing miracles, had no truly lawful superiors, etc. etc. (like Trad priests today).  But such an admission cuts their argument entirely, according to Dimond.

Response: We do not actually know what the Church did, but we know She remedied the matter. We know that by the time they elected Pope Martin V, everyone electing was absolved and back in the Church. More likely than not the popes in the line of Urban VI DID supply jurisdiction, as they were convinced that theirs was the true line. Urban VI may have excommunicated antipope Clement, but this does not mean that he did not supply his bishops with the jurisdiction to function for the sake of the people, or that his successors did so. The Church did it for the Orthodox for 100s of years — why not their own? It does not matter if the jurisdiction was supplied at the time or after the fact; the matter was most certainly addressed in some fashion by the Church. Dimond fails to grasp the fact that homealoners say the Church could have supplied then, because there was a true pope, but can’t supply now without one.

8. When laws impede the salvation of souls, they cease to bind.

Response: Who decides what is most conducive to the salvation of souls? We have not had a pope for 54 years now and the existence of a Supreme Pontiff is what is most conducive to the salvation of all souls, since all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. What you say here is refuted by St. Alphonsus, scholastic theologians and Rev. Miaskiewicz, among others as demonstrated above.

9. Alexander V, an antipope, gave permission to his religious to hear confessions wherever they went, in every parish.  According to homealoners, these confessions were invalid.

Response: This is not just according to homealoners. The Third Lateran Council in 1179 A.D. invalidated the orders and sacraments given by several men serving as antipopes in those times; no doubt they rectified this in some way. This would also apply to Alexander unless the Church supplied for his acts, which She can choose to do or not to do. The Lateran Council decreed in the case of the 12th century antipopes:

“Although clear enough decrees have been handed down by our predecessors to avoid dissension in the choice of a sovereign pontiff, nevertheless in spite of these, because through wicked and reckless ambition the church has often suffered serious division, we too, in order to avoid this evil, on the advice of our brethren and with the approval of the sacred council, have decided that some addition must be made. Therefore we decree that if by chance, through some enemy sowing tares, there cannot be full agreement among the cardinals on a successor to the papacy, and though two thirds are in agreement a third party is unwilling to agree with them or presumes to appoint someone else for itself, that person shall be held as Roman pontiff who has been chosen and received by the two thirds. However, as a result of this decree, let no prejudice arise to the canons and other ecclesiastical constitutions according to which the decision of the greater and senior {1} part should prevail, because any doubt that can arise in them can be settled by a higher authority; whereas in the Roman church there is a special constitution, since no recourse can be had to a superior.

“Renewing the decision taken by our predecessor of happy memory, Innocent, we decree that the ordinances made by the heresiarchs Octavian, Guidoand also by John of Struma (antipopes Victor IV, 1159-1164; Paschal III, 1164-1168 and Callistus III, 1168- 1178) — whoever followed them, and by those ordained by them, are void; and furthermore that if any have received ecclesiastical dignities or benefices through the foresaid schismatics, they are to be deprived of them. Moreover alienations or seizures of ecclesiastical property, which have been made by these schismatics or by lay persons, are to lack all validity and are to return to the church without any burden to it. If anyone presumes to act against this, let him know that he is excommunicated. We decree that those who of their own accord have taken an oath to remain in schism are suspended from sacred orders and dignities.” The priests and bishops during the Western Schism do not seem to have been thus condemned. But that is because there was true doubt of law and fact; also either a pope to supply or a subsequent pope to validate/sanate.

10. Pope Martin V never mentioned anything about the problem of lack of jurisdiction. This demolishes Matatic’s argument that the Church only supplied jurisdiction to those who were working miracles.

Response: It does not demolish anything. Before Martin V was ever elected, this problem was rectified, at least for the purposes of election. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Council of Constance. All these arguments are based on Traditionalists’ consistent distortion of history concerning the Western Schism, which amounts to a false analogy. This falsehood has been perpetrated for decades, and it is time it was abandoned as any kind of argument or parallel situation.

Tape Three

1. Epikeia — Dimond says that epikeia applies to Can. 209; (it may ordinarily to some extent but there is no pope to supply, so really it is a moot point). However:

Response: The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, by Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, Copyright 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, INC.  Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing.  D.D., 7 May, 1948: “Epikeia is not to be identified with interpretation, dispensation, presumed permission, excusing cause, or popular acceptance of human law…Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws… In regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded.”And Fr. Riley was properly trained and duly approved, unlike Traditionalists.

2. Those excommunicated for heresy and schism need not be avoided unless they are vitandus.

Response: This does not apply to communicatio in sacris, as the faithful are told to eject the infamous and even the tolerati if they feel they are a danger, (Can. 2259 and Can. 2294; also Can. 1935). Pope St. Gregory the Great said: “Rather ought everyone to submit to death, than to receive the Sacrament of Communion from the hand of a heretic.”   But Dimond would have us tolerate these infamous lay people and “supply jurisdiction” to them, so they could simulate the Sacraments!

3. Bishops were consecrated without papal mandate in the Middle Ages.

Response: An old, tired argument long ago refuted. “Jurisdiction itself dwells at all times in the heads of the Church, and is always transmitted according to the canonical rules in force at the time. Consequently, whosoever, therefore, has not received jurisdiction according to those rules…does not possess it, and although he may have received Episcopal consecration HE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY. Having neither see nor subjects, it is evident that HE CANNOT BE ONE OF THE HEADS OF THE CHURCH, AND HAS NO CLAIM TO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION,” (Revs. Devivier and Sasia, Christian Apologetics, Vol. II, 1907.) This goes back to Can. 147: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” Canon 145 defines an office in its broadest sense — which is the only thing that could possibly apply to Traditionalists — as any employment legitimately practiced for a spiritual purpose. Traditionalists do not practice legitimately so have no offices.

4. Traditionalists possess a colored title or putative title.

Response: Because they are not even clerics — having never received valid tonsure — they have no title. Titles refer to offices or stature in a religious institute and no Traditionalist has ever possessed an office or belonged to a validly established religious institute. They have no titles but even if they did, they could not be colored because the bishops ordaining them were not legitimate; they were schismatic. Both Revs. Miaskiewicz and Kearney, citing several other authors, require a legitimate superior to convey the colored title. Nor could they possess even a putative title, which assumes that the one pretending to possess a power he does not actually possess is validly ordained but not appointed by a legitimate superior. Even if Trads possessed all these things and were validly ordained, which they are not, they could not obtain supplied jurisdiction until a true pope is elected.

5. The laity commits a “fatal” error concerning Can. 209, which is an ecclesiastical law.

Response: This has been answered above under Tape 1, no. 3 and Tape 2, no. 4.

6. Probability only is used to supply jurisdiction.

Response: There can be no probability that anyone save the reigning pope could ever supply the jurisdiction envisioned in Can. 209. Probability that bishops without jurisdiction could confer tonsure is not obtainable, either. For those not tonsured to acquire delegated or supplied jurisdiction probability cannot be established, so therefore it does not exist. This is a matter of Divine law, not ecclesiastical law, as both Kearney and Miaskiwicz observe, and the deficiency cannot be supplied. This refers back to Can. 107, which states that “by divine ordinance” the clergy are distinct from the laity. Tonsure makes a man a cleric and thereby distinct, therefore the clerical state as such a distinction issues from divine law.

7. According to Miaskiewicz, the burden of proof lies on those claiming priests or bishops do not possess jurisdiction

Response: Can 1812 admits as no. 1 documetns of the Roman Pontiffs in authentic form as public documents. Can. 1814 PRESUMES public ecclesiastical documents are genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments, and Revs. Woywod-Smith comment that according to Can. 1816, once such public ecclesiastical documents are admitted as evidence, “no further proof is required, and the judge must pronounce in the favor” of the one presenting the documents. We have a presumption of law under Can. 1825: “Presumption may be…a presumption of law, which is stated in the law itself.” And the presumption about public ecclesiastical documents being genuine is stated in the law itself, (Can. 1814). The same men who have used these very papal documents for over two decades can hardly call them into question now and it is presumed the judge would uphold them as public documents. Can. 1827 reads: “he who has a presumption of law in his favor IS FREED FROM THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS THUS SHIFTED TO HIS OPPONENT. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” Those presenting papal and conciliar documents which clearly and irrefutably condemn a practice or command something be done under pain of anathema not only have this presumption in their favor; one believes them or is excluded from the Church. One cannot call into doubt a papal document containing clear wording, and supported by other documents written by the same lawgiver, when at least a firm assent is due that document until clarification or a second opinion can be obtained.

We are dealing here with Divine law, natural law and infallible law, which are absolute proofs. As Can. 1758 states, no one can be judge, jury and witness all at the same time. “Popes” and “bishops” cannot be summoned before a General Council or ecclesiastical court to be judged because they are defendants in their own case; a judgment implies that it is far from certain they even are who and what they say they are, making them defendants.

7. Dimond points to early developments in the application of supplied jurisdiction furnished by Miaskiewicz in his work and tries to apply these early applications to the present situation. He does not delve into the cumulative developments in Miaskiewicz’s work to see Miaskiewicz’s final conclusions; in fact he says Miaskiewicz does not arrive at any conclusions!

Response: In Miaskiewicz’ table of contents we count no less than fives sets of preliminary conclusions and a page and a half of final conclusions. Moreover, Miaskiewicz says something so profound, and so specific to what Traditionalists are doing it is a wonder that Dimond would have the gall to even quote anything else from this work. For Miaskiewicz writes: “It is definitely not the Church’s wish that anyone should dare to presume any jurisdictional powers when he is certain that he is deprived of them or even as long as he is plausibly uncertain that he is in possession of them. And thus all light, negative and therefore improbable doubts do not become beneficial factors for the supplying of jurisdiction, for they are all, taken singly or even collectively, juridically inadequate to make any rightful demands upon the jurisdictional favors which Can. 209 is ready to bestow.” Does not the lack of a Roman Pontiff and irrefutable testimony from pontifical documents; the existence of commonignorance, not common error; lack of a truly colored title and lack of any doubt of the law or facts in this case make  a probable case for truly plausible uncertainty?!

In his final conclusions, Miaskiewicz clearly shows that Traditionalists cannot be the intended recipients of supplied jurisdiction.

• “The Church in all probability probably does not supply in common error about a clear and certain law.

• “The rules set down in Can. 6, nn. 2-5 are to be followed in the interpretation of Can. 209, (in a doubt of law adhere to the old law and interpretations accepted by approved authors are to be followed. This would apply in our situation to the need for a colored title if we had validly ordained priests, created by legitimate superiors and a true pope reigned from Rome.)

• “Common error must be about the existence of a particular office or about the validity of the possession of jurisdiction by some particular person or persons. Common error must, then, be particularized. (Many Trads will tell you they don’t possess jurisdiction OR offices, and in reality they cannot. So common error could scarcely exist, far less be particularized.)

• “Though common error in the strict, traditional sense is possible, it is not verified as easily as many authors are wont to think. For the suppletory principle is for emergency situations. Canon 209 is not intended as a ubiquitous law nullifying the force of all invalidating laws.” (The code legislates for what usually occurs. Our situation is no longer an emergency but the status quo. We have clear laws on what we are to do in these times but no one wishes to follow them.  Neither Can. 209 nor Can. 2261 § 2 apply to these times since we are not speaking here of men who were ever validly ordained. The Church can supply nothing without a pope and even with a pope could not supply for men who never became priests or the very few who received ordination but not consecration, and incurred infamy of law for communicatio in sacris.)

Tapes four and five

1. The Dimonds begin with a diatribe against the “no jurisdiction” advocates, condemning them for being hypocrites by violating the canons against preaching, (NJP advocates say bishops cannot be consecrated without a papal mandate but they themselves preach without episcopal permission).

Response: All these arguments are answered from Canon Law and FROM THE ROMAN PONTIFFS themselves, who, as we have pointed out above have the final say in any matter pertaining to faith, morals or discipline. These can be found here: /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/introduction/where-is-your-imprimatur/ What Dimond, Pivarunas, Cekada, or anyone else says has no meaning unless it falls in line with these teachings. And contrary to Matatics’ claim, it has nothing to do with using any legitimate precepts of epikeia since the lawgivers themselves have granted the laity permission by way of commanding Catholic Action. In total point of fact, these “priests” are laymen too, since they were never validly tonsured, never received valid orders and remain in the lay state. So who are the hypocrites here?

2. No one ever received Matatics back into the Church.

Response: Matatics is in the same boat as all the rest of us: he must enter the Church by membership of desire. This by way of analogy to what Rev. J. C. Fenton wrote in the 1950s on Baptism of desire, (/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/the-church/are-traditionalists-members/). Anyone who has ever gone to a Traditional mass center for any length of time then left; or who, having remained there have access to materials questioning the jurisdiction of their ministers but have ignored these arguments, has committed communicatio in sacris. There are no Traditionalist clergy, period, and no pre-eminent lay people here. No one is “in” the Church, so to speak, since they were censured for this crime, were never certainly absolved or abjured, and were never dispensed from their infamy by a true pope.

3. Dimond says that Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis concerning the necessity of a papal mandate to consecrate bishops is disciplinary, not dogmatic. He then quotes Pius IX’s Quartus Supra to prove that bishops were consecrated without this mandate in the past.

Response:  Dimond conveniently omits an important part of Pope Pius IX’s Quartus Supra to make his point. He cites this: “#34: “The Apostolic See has at times tolerated elected patriarchs using their power before being confirmed by the See. It has done so because their districts were so distant or because the journey was dangerous or because of the reverses threatening more and more frequently from the predominance of schismatics of the same rite.” But then ne neglects to include the next sentence:

“This dispensation has been granted even in the west to those who are very far away because of the needs and benefits of the churches.[50] But it is fair to remind you that such reasons are no longer valid since travel is much easier and since the Catholics have been delivered from the civil power of the schismatics by the kindness of the supreme Ottoman emperor. By following this procedure, safe provision is made for the preservation of the Catholic faith which could be disturbed at will by one who is unworthy of such high office occupying the patriarchal see before the Apostolic confirmation which might arise when an elected Patriarch is rejected by the holy Apostolic See and has to relinquish his place will be forestalled.”

Three years after writing “Quartus Supra,” we also hear the following from Pope Pius IX, in “Quae in patriarchatu”: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (emph. mine — Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) This should end any controversy on the matter.

4. Dimond says Ad Apostolorum Principis does not apply to these times since we have no true pope and the situation in the Church is no longer normal, as it was then.

Response: Perhaps Dimond would like to view a document more pertinent to these times. That would be Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, and he won’t like the verdict in that document either. “While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope.And thus we decree that whatever power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, while he is alive (unless in as far as it is expressly permitted in this, Our Constitution) the meeting of Cardinals itself may have taken for exercising, is null and void. “Likewise we order that the Sacred College of Cardinals is not able to dispose of the laws of the Apostolic Seat and the Roman Church in any manner it wishes…“Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; nor is anything able to be taken away or added, nor is there able to be made any dispensation in any manner concerning the laws themselves or some part of them. This is very evident from pontifical Constitutions [on]…the election of the Roman Pontiff. But if anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void.”

What is needed here is not bishops disobeying the laws of he Church to create other bishops. The bishops were never the head of the Church and were not commissioned by Christ to rule His flock unless under one Supreme Head. What was needed long ago was for those bishops claiming to be true bishops and wishing to continue the Church as She was constituted by Christ to gather and elect a pope. This could have been done only in the days shortly after Vatican 2, and there was no one willing to do it. Having denied the need for a Supreme Head and having missed the golden hour open for them to elect a pope in the early 1970s, they denied the supremacy and jurisdiction of the pope and continue to deny it every time they attempt to consecrate a new bishop in his stead.

5. Dimond mentions the canon law which requires Catholics to receive Holy Communion once per year (Easter duty) or risk being outside the Church.

Response: One cannot commit a sin to receive any Sacrament, particularly that of the Eucharist. Since no priests have true jurisdiction, there is no true confession, and Holy Communion cannot be received on the strength of a Perfect Act of Contrition unless the sins of the penitent are venial only. One rule of law cited above tells us that a certain obligation cannot be satisfied by a doubtful fulfillment, (Rev. Gury). Here a moral impossibility excuses, and there is always Spiritual Communion. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that even the sacraments given by an illicit priest cannot be received and if so received are sacrilegious. We are not talking illicit priests, we are talking invalid priests only simulating the Sacraments, since they could never become priests without first tonsure. And in any case, any ordinations or consecrations outside the necessary papal jurisdiction required to validate them are automatically null and void per Vacantis Apsotolica Sedis.

6. Dimond says one may not administer private baptism unless a person is in danger of death.

Response: Here we must go back to the teaching of Pope Pius XII on this matter. “The initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy…Personal initiative plays a great part in protecting the faith and Catholic life, especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible. In such circumstances, the Christians upon whom this task falls must, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities… Even so, nothing can be undertaken against the explicit or implicit will of the Church, or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals, or ecclesiastical discipline,” (“The Mission of Catholic Women,” Sept. 29, 1957, The Pope Speaks, Vol. IV). Dimond quotes Can. 759 but neglects to quote Can. 742.  This canon states that, “Private Baptism, as spoken of in Can. 759, can be given by anyone who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention.” In their commentary on this canon, Revs, Woywod-Smith write that The Holy Office declared that Private Baptism “may be administered when the infant cannot without danger be brought to the church on account of the distance, stormy weather, or other serious reasons…A Catholic lay person is to be preferred to a priest who is suspended, personally interdicted, or excommunicated by declaratory or condemnatory sentence of the ecclesiastical court, for Can. 2261 desires that the people do not request them to administer the Sacraments if there is anyone else at hand who can do so.”

On July 30, 1934, a response of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code…state(d) that the declaration of fact is not necessary in order that a religious be considered as ipso facto legitimately dismissed… The religious must be considered dismissed even before the declaration of the fact takes place,” (Ipso Facto Dismissal of Religious, Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, 1948, Volume 34, Number 7, page 743-4, April 1934).  Therefore in our situation, where many are excommunicated as heretics and schismatics by ipso facto condemnatory sentences and no ecclesiastical courts exist, these men cannot say that they are able to give sacraments just because there is no declaratory or condemnatory sentence by the courts. Pope Paul IV, whose bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the old law listed in the Fontes to the canons on excommunication for heresy, apostasy and schism, also states in Cum ex… that no declaration is needed in these cases. By invoking Can. 2261 §2, all Trad “clerics” readily admit they have been excommunicated, so the laity have the obligation to baptize their children rather than take them to a Traditionalist minister, who in all reality, is only an excommunicated layman himself!

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes in his Dogmatic Theology: “In case of necessity, anyone who has the use of reason can baptize, even licitly. This is certain: first, from the declaration of the Lateran Council IV (‘The sacrament of baptism, rightly performed by anyone in the form of the Church, is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults’ — DZ 430); from the Council of Florence (“In the case of necessity, however, even…a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan or a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does.’ —DZ 696); also Canon 742; secondly, from the practice of the Church…thirdly, it is most fitting that Baptism, so necessary for salvation, be able to be easily conferred — hence that it be able to be conferred by all.” Danger of death is not mentioned here, and certainly there is the necessity Can. 742 foresees concerning excommunicates.

6. Dimond states that homealoners, blinded by the Enemy, allow violations of the Divine Law: (i.e., Feeneyism’s water-only baptism belief, Natural Family Planning) and overemphasize things which do not apply in these times.

Response: Natural Family Planning was allowed by the Church and is supported in Holy Scripture, although it should be used with caution, only temporarily, if possible, and with great discretion. Feeneyism is a heresy (disciplinary decrees bind, as St. Pius IX taught above) and so we are not surprised that Dimond scorns the Church’s discipline. Some Feeneyites do not even believe we have had a pope since Gregory XVI. This knocks out the Vatican Council and its decrees on papal infallibility and papal supremacy. So why would we ever think the Dimonds would believe the Church must have a pope to even exist (Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII et al)? Because they champion and excommunicate Leonard Feeney, who defied the pope, and deny the Roman Pontiff’s supreme jurisdiction on earth, the Dimonds are nothing more than Gallicanists and Gallicanists are heretics. End of story.