You know, that's great and all, but you can't lie and make stuff up while doing it.  Then why don't you call out their public personal sins, as you see them, instead of making garbage up about "Fred and Bob".  That's tantamount to going after Bishop Fellay by calling him Bernie and calling him a fake bishop, even though he's Bishop Fellay and perfectly valid.  Go after the things you're going after instead of hurling sidewinder shit in their direction.  If your charges are valid, they can stand on their own, eh?

...
Just because you don't like their (alleged) public personal sins doesn't entitle you to lie and make shit up.

So, until you either refute what I wrote about their "status" and how it's no different than that of any other Trad religious out there, or else start calling the SSPX sisters you run into "Marge and Nancy", then just stop it with the Fred and Bob crap, since it's dishonest and slanderous.

1. I am not lying. Nor am I making "shit" up, as you so eloquently put it.

2. You are clearly being emotional about the Dimond Bros. Considering your background, age, etc. that is pretty sad. You can do better.

3. I have already gone into detail about my problems with the Dimond Bros. Dividing the Catholic remnant, causing thousands? of Catholics to stay at home rather than attend Mass due to THEIR rhetoric -- that is not a small sin. I'll say it plainly: it's not a venial sin, it's a pretty grave mortal sin. Here's a thought experiment: imagine how many souls have gone to hell because they failed to get the necessary grace, sermons, guidance, good influence, sacramental Confession from a valid priest. If even ONE soul is lost, Our Lord will require it at the hand of these "brothers" whose teaching was to blame. Think of all the souls who were isolated -- like stray sheep -- and then picked off one-by-one by the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. "Thank you, Dimond Bros!" (I'll give you a hint which fallen angel said that!)

4. Personally, I don't go for the "Bob", "Tony", "Frankie" schtick. It strikes me as stupid. The most I would respect would be a sedevacantist calling a Pope by his last name (Prevost, Wojtyla, etc.) Calling a Pope by a diminutive (nickname) of his first name is just childish and disrespectful.

5. I don't care if anyone can claim to be a Benedictine. Even if they are valid Benedictines, then they are examples of Religious on the way to hell. They are a scandal to the Catholic Faith and a huge scandal to Tradition. How many souls have rejected Tradition after confusing Tradition with the Dimond Bros! Only God knows. It is still best, from a spiritual, intellectual, and moral point of view to COMPLETELY ignore and avoid the "Dimond Bros". You will only win by doing so. The truth can be found in many better places, WITHOUT the bitter zeal, poison, schism, and Pharisaism.

I don't call Bishop Fellay "Bernie" just because I don't like what he does or stands for, or refer to Father Cekada as "Tony" simply as a form of insult because I don't like much (or most) of what he has to say.  That's dishonest, a lie, implying that he's not a priest somehow ... and if I have problems with him (and I do), then I call out those problems specifically and don't distract with personal insults.

Because the Dimond's are not Benedictine Monks, they are simply self-proclaimed monks, no different than the biological males who claim to be women

• Because the Dimond's are not Benedictine Monks, they are simply self-proclaimed monks, no different than the biological males who claim to be women

This is actually an extremely vile thing to say.

What is the current population of the MHFM "monastery" in 2026?

Is it still just the 2?

OK.  So?  This is what I'm talking about.  So what?

What was the population of Broadstairs toward the end of Bishop Williamson's life?

And so what?  What of it?

If you want to call out their bitter zeal, that's fair game, even if somewhat subjective.  If you pay attention, though, they've actually softened a fair bit in recent years.  I've actually written to them about this, and I have prayed for them, and still do ... and you'll notice a softer-gentler version of MHFM in recent days.

But, still, OK ... that's fine if you want to criticize them for that, or for some of their positions (I don't agree with them on some things either).

Why the need for these sidewinder attacks that are irrelevant, and that could come back in anyone else's face also.  So what if they're 2 people (I think there's at least one or two now)?  Who cares?  What does that have to do with whether they're right or wrong.  If they're right, then the fact that there are 2 of them makes no differnce, nor does it make a difference if they're wrong.

This simply isn't a fair form of argument, it's a distraction by way of personal attack, and it's unfair ... regardless of what you think of them otherwise.

This is actually an extremely vile thing to say.

Yeah, see ... the more we call them out on it, the more they expose themselves and their true agenda.

So, now, living a religious life because according to their standards it's not canonically regular, they're going to now accuse them of doing the same thing as acting contrary to nature.

It is incredibly vile.

I also find it laughable to accuse them of "bitter zeal" where here we have this guy calling them transgenders because, oh, they're in a canonically irregular situation like all Trads are.  How "bitter" must the "zeal" of their adversaries be if they stoop to equating them to people behaving contrary to nature.

Will this clown accuse SSPX sisters of also doing the same thing as transvestities?  No, because he doesn't hate them for completely unrelated reasons.

Even with regard to the bitter zeal, to which I do believe they did succuмb ... there's almost nobody out there who's been as hated, as slandered, as reviled from nearly all quarters, at least in the beginning for doing nothing more than holding a position they didn't agree with.  Now, later, they did become more and more bitter over time in the face of these attacks, but it's hard to blame them really.  I mean, who wouldn't be tempted.

I noticed this also ... and I wrote to them about it, and I prayed for them.  If one actually CARES about that, that is what one does, not just smear them on the interwebs.

In fact, I would wager that these attackers LOVE the fact that the Brothers have exhibited behavior that might be characterized as bitter at times over the years, since they enjoy having that to use as a weapon with which to (attempt to) discredit them.

I liken this to how the SSPV keep attacking CMRI and other +Thuc line groups as having invalid Orders.  I bet they LOVE the fact that they can use this against them.

Now, what would an actual Catholic, motivated, you know, by charity, do?  If I knew that there were thousands of souls out there with (what I truly believed to be) invalid Sacraments, I would find that heartbreaking, and if I were convinced that I had valid Orders, I'd call them up and offer to conditionall ordain and consecrate them.  I would say that "whether or not we agree on your Orders, there are some people who have questions about it, and let's put everyone's conscience at peace, and it'll help you also, since it would no longer be a deterrent for people to assist at your Masses.  We could announce this in such a way that you don't have to even tacitly admit that your Orders are doubtful, but just say that there are SOME out there who consider them doubtful, and given the vacuum of competent authority able to make a decision that could quiet consciences, we're going to do this so that everyone it at peace.  Since it will be the CONDITIONAL form, there's no risk of sacrilege in repeating a Sacrament."

Simple enough.  THAT is how I would react to a group whom I thought might have invalid Orders.  And, guess what, even though I think the CMRI stink in terms of their theology, especially on EENS and on NFP, and a few other things ... like ruthlessly attacking the privationists, stalking the all over the internet ... I would do it ANYWAY, though I consider their Orders valid ... since the faithful at their chapels shouldn't be punished with some might consider invalid Sacraments just because I have a different opinion that I cannot in fact impose on anyone else.  Simlarly with NFP, even though I have strong opinions, if I were a priest / confessor, I might admonish the faithful that i personally consider it wrong and that Pius XII was mistaken, but I cannot impose my conscience on them, since not only Pius XII but also many theologians hold otherwise ... and I would not refuse absolution to them merely based on my opinion.

While I'm not a follower of the Dimond brothers, they were the reason I even began looking into Catholicism due to their Steven Anderson docuмentary (which I found shared on one of the cesspools of the internet). In a vacuum, they have a lot of good material on apologetics, especially against the Eastern Schismatics. If not for their material, I would have continued looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and would have probably stumbled upon someone like Jay Dyer. There's a lot of young men being seduced by Eastern Orthodoxy (I've witnessed two Catholics fall victim to this), and it's not being addressed as comprehensively as it should by most Catholics (to be fair, the average Latin rite Catholic knows next to nothing about the Eastern churches). For all their faults, the Dimonds with their videos were able to pull me out of the anti-Catholic biases I was raised with, so I have an admittedly irrational soft spot for them.

Now this is a proper Catholic attitude.  "While I don't agree with them on [perhaps even man] things ..." ... I'm not going to declare them to be 100% pure evil (even Satan isn't that, since he exists), nor somehow possessed by the devil, evil wicked scuм ... but as charity requires acknowledge the good they have done, and they have done much good, while not hiding my disagreements, since truth is charity.  THIS is the correct attitude.  Nobody is forced or required to agree with them on everything, nor to hold back legitimate criticisms of legitimate things you find fault with.  But to attack them as being effectively just like transvestites or try to discredit them for matters unrelated to what you actually disagree with them about?  That's just plain wrong.  I'm convinced that if they had more the same position as SSPV or CMRI, but just said, "well, we wanted to live as Religious, but couldn't find a canonical way to go about it ... even if they had never run into Brother Natale, etc." ... I doubt anybody would criticize them.  I don't hear a flurry of attacks on Bishop Kelly's "Daughers of Mary" as being "fake Sisters" or calling them "Nancy and Marge"?  Who gave Bishop Kelly the authority to start up an order of Sisters?  To whom did they make their vows?  To Bishop Kelly or, more recently, to Bishop Santay (with whom I was friends some years ago)?  I considered Joseph Santay to be a good man, when I knew him years ago ... but neither he nor Bishop Kelly had any jurisdicition to start a religious order and to receive vows.  But we all realize that everyone's doing the best they can given the Crisis, and I'm not going to attack them over this, and will bow my head and respectfully address them as "Sister", not a "how's it hanging, Marge?" ... even though as most of you know, I deplore their behavior, toward CMRI, toward +Thuc line clergy, towards "Feeneyites" (refusing them Sacraments), considering even Bishop Williamson doubtfully valid.  Despite the fact that I really don't care for them as a group, I will still respect the Sisters of the Daughters of Mary and treat them accordingly, and I would consider it a sin to disrespect them, call them "fake nuns", etc. ... just because I don't agree with them (which I don't).

Before speculating about the question ...

So, what's it to you?  If you don't find a satisfactory answer, then nobody's forcing you to go joing their monastery or religious house or whatever.  Nor, if they haven't taken vows is anyone preventing you from going to join them, choosing to live with them in their common life.  St. Benedict also started up his "Order" very informally at the beginning.

So who have the "Daughters of Mary" or the "SSPX Sisters" professed their vows to?  Certainly to no one with actual authority to receive them and therefore making the legitimate public vows as per the standards before Vatican II.

With that said, why don't you write to them and ask?  I'm sure they made vows to someone, probably to Brother Natale, or before God, or something ... which is no different than what all Trad clergy do.  You keep throwing fistfuls of excrement toward the fan, oblivious to how it's going to spatter back in your own face.

I don't really know the answer, but if it matters to you, you can write to them and ask.

But we all know that you don't really care, nor do you even have any business to know or to care, since I doubt you're considering going to join them, right?  You're simply using the implied answer to your rhetorical question to attack them for "pos[ing] as monks".  That's really the intent of this all-too-transparent bullshit.  So, the one thing about me is that I practically see the world in syllogisms, which is both a fault in certain contexts and a strength in others, and you simply can't get logical fallacies, lies, and other bullshit past me, since my bullshit detector is high.  I can deconstruct fake logic, fallacies, and rhetorical devices with the best.

What you're doing here is hurling an attack at them as "pos[ing] as monks" by disguising it in the form of an obviously insincere and therefore rhetorical question, to which you assume the answer by turning it into an attack "they're just posing as monks", assuming that the answer is that they haven't professed vows, and in fact that's the answer you WANT it to be, since it'll give you additional ammunition against them.

WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE "MONKS" BY YOUR STANDARDS ... it's actually completey irrelevant to whether they're right or they're wrong, whether they're "good" or they're "bad", in your assessment, and is only relevant if you're considering going to join their religious house.  If I were free to do so (weren't married), and I want to go start up some religious house where we lived by an adapted version of the Rule of St. Benedict, said the Divine Office, and lived a religious life ... what's it to you?  Whether you recognize it or not means absolutely nothing to me.

As you are unable to answer my simple question it nevertheless somehow sparked an emotional download. Who cares about your tolerance for bovine excrement or how good you are at deconstructing fallacies or false logic? It does matter if they are fakes or the genuine article. So far I have personally seen the bad fruits that have come from their influence on a few people. Who knows how many more have abandoned the Sacraments because of them? The "monastery" hasn't got any new members or postulants even since the early 2000s as far as I'm aware, or at least ones that have stayed.
"By their fruits you shall know them"