Yes, I've been aware of it for some time now, as the judgment was posted by the court online on the day it was entered: June 22, as I recall.  In any case, from the "video" posted on the Dimonds' , it appears that the Dimonds might be setting the stage for "recovering the damages" done to their reputation and donation potential by Eric Hoyle's lawsuit.  They indicated that they are going forward with a  counter-suit in an attempt to further elicit funds from Eric Hoyle.  

And here's the sleeper . . . If I'm reading this right, the verbiage in the video also signals that they might be contemplating filing suit against certain "false traditionalist blogs" for maligning their reputations.  Or at least rattling their sabres enough to cause online dissenters to self-censor criticism of their operation.

A few years ago, I personally interacted with the Dimonds and made a few donations shortly after I converted to Catholicism.  The content of their interactions with me, as well as their unsolicited "explanation" of their lawsuit just didn't "pass the sniff test" for me.  I stopped donating, and have not regretted the decision.  I've watched the situation from near and far, and nothing has made me change my view that there's just something that doesn't pass the Ye-Shall-Know-Them-By-Their-Works Test about receiving nearly the entirety of a man's 7-figure estate prior to taking him under one's tutelage, and then leaving that man penniless . . . regardless of the specific circuмstances.  Even if all of their accusations against Mr. Hoyle were true, (and I don't assume that a judgment issued by an American court is necessarity synonymous with truth), christian charity would have demanded the provision of at least minimal support after Eric's exodus.

The other thing that bothered me was the Dimonds' assertion that Eric's exit was sudden and completely unexpected.  For me, that raised a few questions:  

Was Michael Dimond, as superior of MHFM, so completely unapproachable that Mr. Hoyle chose not to discuss theological differences with him directly and professionally?  (I think we all know the answer to that question.)  Other than in his interactions with the Dimonds, there is no evidence that Eric was and is anything but a sincere, intelligent Catholic attempting to serve God, in command of his faculties, and that his understanding of how to do so has evolved over time.  I can't help but notice the abrupt change in the Dimonds' assessment of Eric's character at the time that Eric left the monastery.  The explanation that we're offered is that Eric came under some kind of evil influence overnight, if not instantaneously, and that he was transformed from a pious defender of the truth into a prideful liar and heretic, after exposure to Richard Ibryani's literature.  Frankly, I don't find that account credible, as it is inconsistent with all of my past experience of human behavior.  

Generally, the information that most people are able to review is limited to the Dimonds' account, and a few legal docuмents posted online, as Eric has been prudent enough not to air dirty laundry in public.  He has not thrown up a website to specifically malign or discredit the Dimonds.  If he did contact Dimond donors after his exodus, as the Dimonds allege, I find that completely understandable.  Monasteries, whether true or heretical cults, generally demand withdrawal from the outside world.  Often, that even includes nearly complete separation from family members, not to mention "friends".  The donors, the two monks who left with him, and the Dimond brothers may have been the entirety of his active support system, or at least the entirety of those who would understand his theological crisis.  He was allegedly a monk, not a hermit.

It does seem that Eric has posted his view of our current crisis in the church here, and I must say that, whether you agree with him or not, he presents as an intelligent, charitable Catholic with very strong reasoning skills.  I contrast that picture with the image that the Dimond brothers have depicted of Eric, and it seems that something is amiss.

Another thing that always nagged at the back of my mind as Michael Dimond went on about Eric's abrupt departure, was whether the failure to retain postulants and monks under his direction could possibly be just "the work of the devil" succeeding against all of the Dimonds' very pious efforts.  I tried to remember accounts of the saints that had been abbots and abbesses, and I couldn't think of anyone that was plagued by such an epidemic of heretitosis and sudden onset insanity.  Surely, I thought, there must have been some detectable clues of impending apostasy, or emotional instability, or pride, or . . . . . . I put the question to Michael, and his response was to say that he had found Eric to be "rather impressionable", but otherwise seemed rock solid prior to, and during his tenure at the monastery.  I have no reason to doubt that Michael's assessment of Eric's character was astute, right up to the point that Eric left the monastery.  After that, the account seems markedly less consistent with known human behavior, even of the demonically-possessed/obsessed type.  (Demonic possession occurs over time, "bit by bit", as Malachai Martin instructs us.)

And finally, I was put off by the rather seedy "revelations" posted online by the Dimond brothers, using Joseph Myer's account.  This seemed to me to be a very unfair and scandal-mongering use of the sheer internet power that the Dimonds kept reminding us that they commanded, as the "Most Visited Traditionalist Catholic Website".  (I just surfed over to their site, and could no longer find that claim.  Fiat voluntas tua.)  That post, and the discrepancies in Michael's public and private accounts of the situation, were the factors that made me wary.  Eric, for all I could tell, was no where to be found.  


Sorry about the tome, folks, but I've been watching the posts about this situation for some time, and it seems like the right time to speak up.

A well known Traditional Catholic cleric said in an interview that the major problem confronting his group was that it is accountable to no one. This seems to be a major and common problem with all Traditionalist  organizations. Even, as recent events have shown, when a society has some sort of hierarchical structure, and a semblance of at least some accountability,  there seems to be an underlying push towards authoritarianism. A Crisis within the Crisis?

The former insisted that only the local ordinary could "send" someone to do apostolic work in his diocese.

Yes, TKGS noted, the SSPX absorbs what already exists and takes control of it.

I don't know, I was pretty foolish when I first converted, I don't deny it, but to give up ALL your money, that entails a bit of research, you would think. And if the Dimonds falsely represented themselves to get the money, how could they possibly have won in court?

Surely Eric, since he was sedevacantist, knew that they had no ties to the "official" Church, as he would not have believed it was the official Church anyway. He could also plainly see that they have no community of monks and that they don't get along with anyone.

Going so far as to desire to be a sedevacantist monk takes a little bit of knowledge about the situation.

His decision to give them all his money is totally mystifying to me. I can't see how, even in a burst of naivete, someone would do that. Of course the Dimonds should have given him back his money, but that isn't easy. You try getting a million dollars and then handing it back, especially if there is ANY rationalization that you think might justify it.

If a layman even says that he wants a million dollars for someone to live with him and pray with him, if the other person agrees, what legal recourse is there? They do have some sort of mesmeric power over certain people, like Rasputin; but that won't hold up in court.

This text exposes the Dimonds and is from what I understand the reason why this guy left the monastery, that is, the mortal sin of taking sacraments from/with heretics that the Dimonds do.

http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/

The cowards following the Dimonds all hide now. Please show this to other people that MHFM have deceived so that other people can see how the Dimonds lie and contradict themselves. The Dimonds actually have the satanic boldness to say that one should make others commit mortal sin in order to get the sacraments and did in the debate with Eli that this article talks about totally ignore the devastating argument Eli demolished Peter Dimond on that heretics commit a mortal sin when giving out the sacraments. This is how all liars like Peter works. They just ignore the facts and play the coward and run away and hide when they have no answer since they know they are lying.


Excerpt from the article exposing the Dimonds:

"PETER LIES ABOUT THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

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).”

The following information about the above ex cathedra decree was taken from Peter Dimond’s article “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes, and can be found publicly at his site.

Peter Dimond: “They argue that this

proves you must absolutely avoid – have nothing whatsoever to do with – a heretic who has been automatically condemned by the divine law (i.e., an undeclared heretic), even if he hasn’t been declared by the Church. This argument is easily refuted, and it would not last 30 seconds in a debate. In an e-mail to a radical schismatic who cited this passage, I responded by saying: Does that quote from Constantinople II mean, in your view, that you must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage? Does it mean that a Catholic could never marry a heretic? Answer.

“Understandably, he didn’t answer the question, even though he wrote back on other matters. That’s because he can’t provide an answer to the question that is consistent with his argument. In answering the question, he would refute his argument. The answer to the question is no: the passage doesn’t prove that a Catholic must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage. It doesn’t mean a Catholic couldn’t marry a heretic; for, as we saw above, Catholics did marry heretics on occasion with the approval of the Church. It doesn’t prove that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with an undeclared heretic. So, what does the quote prove for their argument? Nothing.

“It’s simply a re-statement of Titus 3:10, and it means that heretics must be rejected as outside your communion and alien to your Church and faith, once it’s clear that they’ve incurred the divine automatic excommunication. We of course agree: anyone you know is a heretic must be considered condemned. He must not be endorsed, supported, or regarded as within your communion. However, it does not address or pertain to the precise question of whether it is absolutely necessary to avoid an undeclared heretic in every case, especially a necessity. In fact, the context of the decree quoted above wasn’t addressing that issue at all. It dealt with rejecting heretics as damned and separated from God. As we saw already in the Church’s decrees that do address the issue of avoiding heretics in every case, the absolute obligation to avoid people in every case kicks in with the Church’s declaration, or when he is so notorious that it cannot be concealed in law.” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

Let us now examine his lies and refute them thoroughly.

Peter Dimond’s first statement (or perhaps lie):

“Understandably, he didn’t answer the question, even though he wrote back on other matters.”

We don’t know for certain that Peter was referring to Elias here since he might have had this exact same conversation with another person. However, Elias did respond to Peter’s question, but Peter just didn’t like his answer. Elias refuted his argument by telling him the truth, namely: that the Church has allowed for mixed marriages in certain citations—and that only with the approval of the Church! Obviously, there can be no sin in what the Church has approved of to take place. So while the Church has approved of marriages between Catholics and heretics in certain situations, they have nevertheless never allowed for the reception of the sacraments of the Eucharist or Penance from a known heretical priest!

Likewise, the Church has never taught anything else but that a heretic always commit a mortal sin while he is celebrating mass or consecrating or administering the sacraments (excluding baptism, in case of a necessity). The Dimonds also admit this fact on their website:

MHFM, E-Exchanges: “This is true even in the case of evil heretics, such as Benedict XVI. Thus, the presumption when he celebrates the Latin Mass is that it is valid, although he is obviously sinning mortally in doing it as a heretic; and no one should go to his Latin Mass because he is a notorious heretic.”

When neither the receiver of a sacrament nor the giver of it commits any sin, then the Church doesn’t prohibit it to take place but even sanctions it in a necessity. But whenever a priest gives out a sacrament to people against the Church’s prohibition, then both commit mortal sin (unless ignorance excuse the receiver) and the statement of Pope Vigilius in the Second Council of Constantinople, applies to them both. Even Peter agrees with this, for he is admitting on his website that the “sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...” (“Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes)

Peter, in his dishonesty, actually dares to compare a lawful situation where a person partakes of the sacrament of marriage in full accordance with Church laws and without any sin committed by any person, to a situation where the Church has always forbidden and condemned all heretics, schismatics or apostates from either consecrating or receiving the other sacraments. To compare the mortal sin of receiving a forbidden and illicit sacrament (which the Church never approves of) with marriage (which is fully approved of by the Church and which has no sin in itself), is not only demonic, but a direct proof that we are dealing with a dark and loathsome individual who sees no difference between lawful and unlawful, between mortal and non-mortal sin. How blind must one not be to see the priest consecrate the host and know that he commits a mortal sin of sacrilege at that very moment, and yet continue to go to him, receiving the fruit of his sacrileges, mortal sins and profanations of our Lord? Peter confesses that he understands that the heretical priest commits a mortal sin when he confects the sacraments, as we saw above, yet he couldn’t care less about the mortal sins of sacrilege and profanation of our Lord that are enacted in front of him.

When we now have seen Peter admitting to the fact that heretics sin and commits sacrileges and profanations of our Lord when they are presuming to consecrate the sacraments, let’s now look at his second lie:

“It doesn’t mean a Catholic couldn’t marry a heretic; for, as we saw above, Catholics did marry heretics on occasion with the approval of the Church. It doesn’t prove that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with an undeclared heretic. SO, WHAT DOES THE QUOTE PROVE FOR THEIR ARGUMENT? NOTHING.”

What does it prove, Peter? It proves that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with a heretic except for what the Church has approved of or allowed in certain situations — and that is marriage, and baptism.

Never has any pope or council ever approved of receiving or exchanging any other sacraments with/from a heretic, except for the sacraments of baptism and marriage.

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)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by communicating with them despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

Therefore, since baptism is the only exception that one may receive from a heretical minister, it is a mortal sin to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance from them.

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

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

So the Church clearly condemns Peter for eating the Lamb outside of this house (the Catholic Church) at the meetinghouses of the heretics.

Peter has also admitted that it’s a mortal sin for heretics to receive the Catholic Sacraments in a debate with a Novus Ordite (a defender of Vatican II). They were discussing whether non-Catholics could receive the Eucharist lawfully (without sin) at a Catholic Church.

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

Precisely because it’s a divine law that heretics cannot receive the sacraments without committing a mortal sin, Pope Pius IX teaches that heretics profane the sacrament while receiving it as non-Catholics:

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

Therefore, the Catholic Church likewise condemns Peter for his outward approval of the sacrilegious receptions of the sacraments by the heretics at the heretical Church where he attends.

Even though Peter understand that non-Catholics sin mortally whenever they are receiving, administering or consecrating the sacraments, he has no problem with receiving the fruits of their sin. He is thus complicit in all the mortal sins that are committed in front of him, both for culpably being present at mass when non-Catholics receive the sacraments unlawfully despite the prohibition of the Church, and for approving heretics to consecrate the sacraments to him unlawfully, blasphemously, and in state of mortal sin despite the prohibition of the Church.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, AD 1245: “...to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity...”

Pope St. Felix III (483-492): “Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325§1, Obligation to Profess the Faith: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”

Catechism Question: “In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another’s sin?” Answer: “We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways: …6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence.”

Peter acts just like the man who sees another man commit pedophilia in front of him, but does nothing about it. The priest murders Christ anew by crucifying Him through his heresies and sins – him that Christ died and suffered grievously for – and yet the Dimonds do nothing to hinder it! Instead of helping or advising the priest to cease committing mortal sin and sacrilege, the Dimonds and their followers actually encourage, approve and increase the priest’s mortal sin, guilt and eternal punishment when they culpably receive the illicit, sacrilegious sacrament from him—thus being a part of his sin! This is a kind of evil that is breathtaking to behold!

Now we shall look at a truth that Peter said but which he sadly do not follow.

“It’s simply a re-statement of Titus 3:10, and it means that heretics must be rejected as outside your communion and alien to your Church and faith, once it’s clear that they’ve incurred the divine automatic excommunication. We of course agree: anyone you know is a heretic must be considered condemned. He must not be endorsed, supported, or regarded as within your communion.”

His countless heresies and many mortally sinful receptions of illicit, blasphemous, sacrilegious sacraments from the hands of known heretical, schismatical apostate priests has sadly blinded him. That’s why he cannot see that he is contradicting himself. Even though Peter claims that he agrees with the bolded portions above, the fact is that he does not!

Now we shall look at Peter’s third lie:

“The debate concerned whether it’s lawful to receive sacraments from certain undeclared heretics during this crisis and apostasy... It should also be emphasized that while we are pointing out that Catholics may receive sacraments from some priests who are undeclared heretics in this time, no Catholic may agree with or support such a priest in any way... HOWEVER, IT [POPE VIGILIUS’ DECREE] DOES NOT ADDRESS OR PERTAIN TO THE PRECISE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO AVOID AN UNDECLARED HERETIC [PRIEST] IN EVERY CASE, ESPECIALLY A NECESSITY... In an e-mail to a radical schismatic who cited this passage, I responded by saying: Does that quote from Constantinople II mean, in your view, that you must “have nothing to do” with a heretic in marriage? Does it mean that a Catholic could never marry a heretic? Answer.”

First, Peter lies when he says Pope Vigilius’ decree does not pertain to the precise question of whether it is absolutely necessary to avoid a known obstinate heretic for the sacraments.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual... 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).”

As all can see for themselves, the Pope infallibly and explicitly defined that we must have “nothing more to do with him [the heretic],” in direct contradiction of Peter’s statement. This obviously includes religious communion with them."

Read the whole article here to see how the Dimonds lie and deceive people:
http://www.catholic-saints.net/most-holy-family-monastery-peter-and-michael-dimond-sacraments-from-heretics-article-debate-refuted/