Stubborn was right 

This is the first time I ever saw the OP video, there are others tho. In one recording of a video I have he goes on and on quoting popes who taught against the whole idea. But those are hard to find online because when the bruthas find out about it, they make the host take them down or threaten to sue them.

He actually sounds like he's a step away from Sedeprivationism in terms of how he articulates it.  Interestingly, at one point he quotes directly from a paper I wrote in 1995 that was printed in The Angelus, a paper that I wrote for a friend and that I never intended for publication, nor did they ask my permission before publishing it and making edits to it.  They even spelled my name wrong, since I hadn't written my name on it as it was just sent to a friend as if it were a long e-mail or what would today be like a post on CI.  In any case, the paper wasn't anti-SV as much as it was pointing out some problems with SVism, that eventually led to my taking a more Sedeprivationist view.  They kept my original title, "Pope-Sifting:  Difficulties with Sedevacantism".  It was not meant as an endorsement of R&R.  Basically, the bottom line is what principle there is to prevent someone like Father Cekada's famous "Aunt Helen" from waking up one morning and deciding that the Pope is a heretic an therefore a non-pope.  There's nothing in the straight SV position to preclude that.  At some point the authority of the Church does have to figure in, I just couldn't put my finger on exactly how, until I became acquainted with the material-formal distinction, and SPism.

Father Cekada, in his response to it, said that my "article" was written in response to his pamphlet.  Only indirectly.  I had not so much as read his pamphlet and it wasn't addressing anything in its contents.

Here's how it went.  I had just left then-Father Sanborn's seminary and started attending Fr. Ringrose's chapel in Washington, DC (Fr. Ringrose now also more SV/SP).

Friend:  "I read this pamphlet by Father Cekada.  Since you used to be a sedevacantist, can you give me your reasons for why you backed away from it?"

I:  "Sure.  When I have a minute, I'll write it up for you."

I:  Spent a couple hours writing this out and send a copy to my friend.

TWO MONTHS LATER.

Friend #2:  "Congratulations on your article."

I:  "What article?"

Friend #2:  "The one in the current issue of The Angelus."

I:  "What?"

Then I go to pick up a copy and read it, seeing my name mis-spelled, numerous edits made without my approval, some English translations inserted (some of which were wrong and for which Fr. Cekada attacked me), etc.

Father Cekada issued a rebuttal since this article was said to have been written in response to his pamphlet.  It wasn't, except indirectly since my friend's reading of it is what prompted him to ask me to write my own perspective.  I didn't every bother with any kind of refutation, since I wasn't interested in getting into that arena.  Never was.

Yes.  That's the one.  It had been a while since I've seen it.  I almost thought it was in another larger video.  Thanks for sharing.

No.  You're way off base here and likely jumping to emotional conclusions.  I actually agree with 90% of what Dimonds produce, but I also call them out when they're off about something.  They're not infallible and neither am I or you.  I even used to be a Dimondite. 

I don't trust R.I. (which is why I don't even use his full name and don't want to give that imbalanced maniac any exposure or traffic) but from what I can tell is that he's correct about this (being kicked out for the Sede position.)  Just because someone is wrong some or most of the time doesn't mean they're wrong all of the time.  You might as well use that same criteria for Dimonds as well when they're wrong about something.   

Yes.  I still have some human respect I need to be rid of but I can assure you this is not one of those times and you don't even know my positions to make a claim like this.   

Repeating a claim made by a confirmed liar and self-styled prophet is nothing short of calumny.

I made my accusation about you because I have an idea about who you are, there aren't that many people who have nothing better to do than to dig up things on MHFM to start threads about.

Tis Peter. Michael is camera-shy.

Not so. Michael was always out in front. Then cometh Peter, and Michael hath taken a back seat. Only recently hast Peter shown his face on camera. Tis Michael in the 1996 video.