CathInfo.com

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"

They Call Themselves Brothers....

A Note About The Dimond Brothers (September 5, 2004 - Fr James Wathen)


I sent “Brother” Peter Dimond’s little piece containing his listing of my heretical opinions to a number of you. I was confident that everyone who might see it would regard it as a conversation piece for maybe ten, fifteen minutes, hardly more. It wouldn’t do any good to try and tell the young man anything, but usually individuals who assign themselves the task of critiquing everyone’s beliefs and theological positions are here today and gone tomorrow, carried away by arrogance and bitter zeal. A few observations about “Brother” Peter and “Brother” Michael might be helpful:


1. They call themselves “Brothers”, but neither of them has made the standard novitiate, which the Code says is strictly necessary for professed religious. They call themselves “Brothers” because this lends prestige to their opinions.

2. The two brothers do not pretend to live a monastic life. Their vocation, as they see it, demands that they busy themselves in controversy. They think that the Church is better served by their spending their time producing various kinds of works of theological criticism, than in prayer and contemplation, which is the traditional obligation of monks.

3. Neither of the brothers has had the opportunity for normal catechetical instruction, let alone theological training. They imagine that this does not matter, and it does not to the uninstructed. To those of us who have “taken all the courses” their inadequacy is a glaring reality.

4. Like all other “sedevacantists” they have an appalling hatred of Pope John Paul II, as if he alone were the main cause of the Church’s present malaise. He is not. The Church’s present condition is due to the Great Conspiracy, the World Revolution, about which we have been warned by popes of former times and by Christ, Our Lady, and other messengers from Heaven. This Conspiracy has filled the offices of the Church with its agents, all of whom are bent on converting it into the “religious“ arm of the One World Church.

5. In order to get Pope John Paul out of his office, it is necessary, as they see it, to get him out of the Church. Any theological principle which prevents them from doing this must be ignored or denied, and anyone who does not see things their way is a “heretic”, a “schismatic”, or something of the sort. I did not see whether Brother Peter considers me in or outside the Church.

6. The theological dogma which they find obstructive to their view of things is the indelible character of Baptism, which we are taught in the earliest years of our instruction. This indelible character signifies that he who has received it has been made an adoptive child of God, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and given a certain equality with Christ in the love of the Father (because he is a member of Christ). This adoption cannot be lost by any sin or renunciation; it remains for his eternal glory or shame. This is one of the chief lessons Our Lord taught us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

7. Certain texts of popes and saints seem to suggest that an individual can be expelled or can withdraw himself from the communion with the faithful. All baptized Catholics, whether they are clerics or lay people, can estrange themselves from God and Christ and their Holy Mother the Church by sin, including the sin of heresy (which is nothing more than a denial of doctrine), but they can never become “ex-Catholics”, so that they would lose the indelible mark of Baptism, and their status of adoptive children.

8. I do not want to overlook the fact that there is nothing heretical in “Brother’s” list. It is surely not a heresy, nor an act of schism, to maintain that John Paul II is the true pope, even though a bad one, or to include his name in the Canon of the Mass. Neither is it heresy to say that “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. I think sedevacantists are inclined to think that it is grave heresy to disagree with them.

9. I have repeated often enough that as Catholics and as human beings we have both the right and the obligation to judge the opinions, positions, and ideas of everyone else. Our life in this world consists in making judgements about other people – whether they can be trusted, whether they are telling the truth, whether they will repay us if we lend to them, etc.; and to judge their opinions, whether they are true or false, right or wrong. As Catholics, we must always be wary of heresy from every quarter, including him who sits in the Chair of Peter, as he is not personally infallible.

10. The law of the Church forbids us to pass judgement on the status of the reigning pope, whether he is the pope, whether we are bound to obey him in all religious matters that are not contrary to the Faith. I trust it is not necessary to repeat that the pope is infallible in his teaching office, not in his governing office. This is why we do not have to accept the New Mass, because its issuance is part of the governing office (even though there is no law establishing it as a liturgy of the Roman Rite).

11. Keep in mind also that there is a very great difference between the pope’s or any other cleric’s propounding erroneous views, which Pope John Paul does all the time, and their endeavoring to impose such views upon us as a matter of doctrine and salvation. Pope John Paul has never commanded us to believe any of his heretical opinions under pain of sin. Sedevacantists cannot comprehend this simple truth.

12. Sedevacantists also have the idea that anything a legitimate pope teaches becomes a part of the “Sacred Magisterium”. This is entirely wrong. Only those teaching that which are conformable to the body of teaching which has accuмulated through the years from the days of the Apostles, whose teaching we refer to as the “Deposit of Faith”, is part of the magisterium. Anything that is a variance therewith is not.

13. The two “Brothers” Dimond are two worrisome little men. Without any authorization and without proper theological training, they have endeavored to establish themselves as teachers of the faithful and ‘certifiers’ of all priests in this country. They make a lot of money with their misleading publications, tapes, etc., and they spend much time on the phone persuading people to stay away from the Masses of non-Sedevacantist priests. Who knows how many Catholics of good will have been persuaded to stay home for months on end -- even years -- rather than attend Mass, confess their sins, and receive Holy Communion? I urge everyone to give these men a wide berth; do not buy or circulate their materials, even those which are acceptable. Do not send them money. Beware of wolves in monk’s habits.