Well, let's be fair.  Benedictine Monastic practice tends to have monks spending most of their non-labor time in their cells (aka the bedrooms), and they do not have the Blessed Sacrament there.  So advantage they might have from a "chapel" is to get together to say the Office in common during the designated hours.  Sure, if they had the Blessed Sacrament, certainly they would want to do better for a chapel, as presumably it would also need a sanctuary, an altar, etc.  But without the Blessed Sacrament, it's just a place to sit together to say the office.

Let's also consider the source of this diagram in terms of whether there's exaggeration here, as based on that it barely looks like one person could fit in there at at time.

Guy who put this out there has a massive ax to grind against the Brothers, so it's to be taken with a grain of salt.

And I find nothing wrong with a basketball court.

Yeah I agree about the basketball court. Everybody needs exercise. If I had a full building like that, I would definitely make a gym at least (not a basketball guy personally, though). Plus, if they ever have to move for whatever reason, that building adds value to the land, no matter what it contains.

Honestly, people that criticize the basketball court almost seem jealous. It's like, what's next? We are gonna criticize religious for having refrigerators instead of cooling cellars?

.

The chapel is half the size of the BATHROOM??!

1) This diagram is from Hoyle, who ended up in the huge dispute with them.  Hoyle's main argument in court was that they weren't "Real Benedictines" to demonstrate that he was defrauded of his donation, so I doubt there was no bias at work here.  Hoyle of course knew their status FULL WELL when he went in (as demonstrated quite clearly in court).  He just decided that he was more radical than even the Dimonds, and denounced the Dimonds of heresy and compromise ... and that he wanted his money back.  Of course, this guy that the Dimonds rightly characterize as a "radical schismatic" ... except that a lot the guy's attitudes that eventually led to him to that point were in fact fostered by the Dimonds themselves, who could be accused of the same ... except that Hoyle became a BIGGER radical schismatic than the radical schismatics who formed him.

2) Again, no Blessed Sacrament, the main point of a chapel.  Other than that, the only use for a chapel (that you can't do in your room) is for the 2 or sometimes 3 of them to get together to pray the office when they're supposed to pray in common.

3) Whether they're living "properly" as monks should is between them and God, doesn't really impact what they have to say, and is just a cheap ad hominem.

If someone wants to criticize them for bitter zeal, for schismatic attitudes, etc. ... there's more than enough legitimacy to those criticisms, but all this "Fake Monk" stuff is just petty.  Many groups of Traditional Religious are "Fake".

1) This diagram is from Hoyle, who ended up in the huge dispute with them.  Hoyle's main argument in court was that they weren't "Real Benedictines" to demonstrate that he was defrauded of his donation, so I doubt there was no bias at work here.  Hoyle of course knew their status FULL WELL when he went in (as demonstrated quite clearly in court).  He just decided that he was more radical than even the Dimonds, and denounced the Dimonds of heresy and compromise ... and that he wanted his money back.  Of course, this guy that the Dimonds rightly characterize as a "radical schismatic" ... except that a lot the guy's attitudes that eventually led to him to that point were in fact fostered by the Dimonds themselves, who could be accused of the same ... except that Hoyle became a BIGGER radical schismatic than the radical schismatics who formed him.

2) Again, no Blessed Sacrament, the main point of a chapel.  Other than that, the only use for a chapel (that you can't do in your room) is for the 2 or sometimes 3 of them to get together to pray the office when they're supposed to pray in common.

3) Whether they're living "properly" as monks should is between them and God, doesn't really impact what they have to say, and is just a cheap ad hominem.

If someone wants to criticize them for bitter zeal, for schismatic attitudes, etc. ... there's more than enough legitimacy to those criticisms, but all this "Fake Monk" stuff is just petty.  Many groups of Traditional Religious are "Fake".

What do you think of MHTS, Bishop Sanborn, and their whole cassiciacuм thesis? I find it very... contradictory.

Yeah I agree about the basketball court. Everybody needs exercise. If I had a full building like that, I would definitely make a gym at least (not a basketball guy personally, though). Plus, if they ever have to move for whatever reason, that building adds value to the land, no matter what it contains.

Honestly, people that criticize the basketball court almost seem jealous. It's like, what's next? We are gonna criticize religious for having refrigerators instead of cooling cellars?

Agreed. There are things to criticize the Dimonds about, but having a basketball court is not one of them. I do remember in one of their videos that Peter Dimond mentioned that his high school played against Kobe Bryant's high school (and Peter was on his school basketball team), which is pretty cool.

Cardinal Siri Thesis and after that no worries.