I just purchased the MHFM complete $20 package with all their videos and books. One of the books is called "Outside The Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation."

He makes some very interesting points. But yet I  have talked to traditonal clergy and they disagree with MFHM so I really do not know who to believe.

Many who read what is available on this site comment that while they do not agree with the position held by Michael and Peter Dimond, operators of what is known as Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), they often visit their site because these purported “monks” have good information. A “position,” i.e., an allowable opinion by Church standards would be one thing. But here we are dealing with heresy, and heresy condemned as such by Pope Pius XII, (Feeneyism). It is not “okay” to visit the sites of known heretics, even if they present some things that are interesting or even unique, lest we cooperate in their heresy. While sometimes it is necessary to the truth to include some of these sites in research pieces, they should always be disavowed (and are on this site) and never recommended.

Yes. Keep your mouth shut unless you are asked to do something immoral.
 There is a time and place for everything.

But if you look into the history of the Benedictines, they are actually TRADITIONALLY a non-centralized and non-hierarchical order, unique among religious Orders in that regard, where the individual houses actually maintain a certain amount of autonomy outside of submission to the Holy Father, which all Catholics must do anyway (as per Vatican I).  If certain congregations join up or coalesce or have some working relationship, it's voluntary, and there's no Benedictine "Superior General" or any other semblance of hierarchy.

In fact during the Hoyle lawsuit, the Benedictine Mother House in Rome was consulted, and the representative reiterated the Traditional view that per the nature of the Benedictine Order anyone who professes to follow the Rule of St. Benedict can call themselves Benedictines.

Brother Joseph Natale never having formally professed does not preclude him from having started another Benedictine Congregation, and his initial intention was to found one that accommodated men with disabilities, and then later it transformed into a Traditional house after the Council began to ravage the Church.  He went off to do this, in the spirit of the Benedictine Order, on his initiative and with no required formal relationship with his original monastery or permission from his "superior" at his original house.  He did this during the Vatican II era and before the Modernistic "reforms" had actually made their way out to impacting the lives of average Catholics.

...but even in a worst-case, it would still be better than being a Dimondite.
Specifically, even as a "schismatic" you would have a better chance of salvation than someone who follows the Dimond brothers.

Now we get to the real impetus for slandering/smearing the Dimond Brothers, the poster's hatred for the "heresy" of Feeneyism.  Feeneyism is no heresy, and, although this took place technically during the "reign" of Roncali, the men who conducted it were in place during the time of Pius XII already, and they examined the work of Father Feeney and absolved him from any heresy.  No one has ever demonstrated that believing that those who lack Sacramental Baptism could be justified but not saved is heresy, and there's no Catholic dogma or even teaching that is contradicted by that position.

Post-Tridentine theologians, including the highly-respected and approved Dominican Melchior Cano, held that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved, and the Council of Trent dealt with JUSTIFICATION, not salvation in the passages that the Cushingites rely on for their slander of heresy.

We have a bunch of ignorant buffoons out there hating on the Dimond Brothers largely out of hatred for Catholic EENS dogma.

Bottom line is that any Trad Catholic who holds that non-Catholics can be saved (regardless of the question regarding BoD proper) is a schismatic, since the entire Vatican II theological system, the ecclesiology, the subjectivist soteriology, they are all the logical consequences of such an ecclesiology, and you'll note that this question has nothing to do with BoD, and the only reason it factors in at all is because many EENS-haters constantly use it to deny EENS and hide behind it to justify their rejection of this thrice-defined dogma.