Author Topic: the diamond bros (Read 8105 times)

steelcross · « **on:** February 05, 2015, 09:11:26 AM »

I heard and seen some of brother Michael diamond's videos and written material. Some of the things he says are interesting. However, does anyone know if he is a real brother, and if so what order does he belong to? God love you. †

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2015, 10:54:49 AM »

Some of what the Dimond Brothers publish is very good. Some of what the Dimond Brothers publish is rubbish. This is why the Dimond Brothers cannot be trusted. Like EWTN, they mix the good with the bad and pronounce it all Catholic. One has to know his faith very well to listen to them, otherwise one is likely to fall into the pit. They are very vocal and claim an air of theological competence that is simply not present.

Are they "real" brothers? They claim to be Benedictine (I think) monks and have a monastery (which is their house). I have never heard of authority under which they have established their monastery or taken vows, though their claims to this cannot be discounted due to the crisis in the Church.

I would not use them as an authority.

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2015, 12:14:45 PM »

The Dimond brothers were my introduction to traditional Catholicism so I owe them a great debt of gratitude. I may have found out about traditional Catholicism without them but I don't know if I would have. I do not agree with them about everything but I think they are good at pointing out the errors of Vatican II and the recent popes.

Just yesterday I read their book on Padre Pio again which is not bad. My former SSPX priest liked their book about Padre Pio so much that he got many copies of it and gave it out to us at Mass, even though he opposes the Dimond Brothers on many issues.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2015, 01:07:09 PM »

Yes, the Dimond brothers are a mixed bag.

Some of the work they do is tremendous. Their biography of Padre Pio has to be one of the best I've ever read. They wrote this pamphlet "How the Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church" that's a masterpiece of apologetics. Their stuff on UFOs was tremendous. They have done absolutely terrifc work showing the problems with evolution ... from a scientific standpoint. Their video on "Hell" is very motivational. And they practically give their materials away (most of it is available free online, while the rest they must be taking a loss on). I consider them to be right on a number of issues, e.g. NFP and MOST of their thinking on EENS.

Where they crossed the line, however, is in having gone dogmatic both with regard to BoD and with regard to Sedevacantism. To call even CLASSIC BOD such as held by St. Thomas Aquinas "heretical" and to label non-sedevacantists as non-Catholics crosses a very dangerous and very serious line ... into a schismatic mentality. Sometimes they fail to make the appropriate distinctions and make everything a dogmatic black-and-white. It's this dogmatic stuff (which they have more in common with the dogmatic SVs than the classical Feeneyites, most of whom are R&R or in communion with Rome) that has caused them to go off the rails.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2015, 01:11:32 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Are they "real" brothers? They claim to be Benedictine (I think) monks and have a monastery (which is their house). I have never heard of authority under which they have established their monastery or taken vows, though their claims to this cannot be discounted due to the crisis in the Church.

No, they're not brothers in the strict canonical sense, but then a LOT of Traditional Religious groups lack the same canonical approval. So that's neither here nor there. People who despise their positions tend to use that as an ad hominem. If they live according to the rule of St. Benedict, they're at least informal Benedictines; there was some link to a former Benedictine but it wasn't very strong. Yet that part is neither here nor there. Anyone can decide to live like a Benedictine.

steelcross · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2015, 04:47:52 PM »

Thanks to all who commented, and all with very well explanations. I once called them to place an order, and whomever I spoke with, seemed rude. I seen one of their videos on YouTube that explained purgatory in scripture, pretty good there. And it seems I am not the only one who sees this. Its good to know there are Catholics out there such as everyone here on this site, that see and call things as theyare. Again, thank you my bbrothers and sisters in Christ. God love you. †

Croixalist · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2015, 10:02:26 PM »

Ah yes. Frederick "Michael" and Robert "Peter". The same "Home Aloners" who regularly attend a VII Rome-aligned Eastern Rite church in plain clothes. They also claimed that JPII was the Antichrist and Benedict was the False Prophet... then Bergoglio happened. lol.

I've seen commercials for their website about a year ago on late night CNN (it's always on where I work). They've been sued by a naive man who joined their "monastery" thinking they were true Benedictines and gave them his life savings... only to find out who they really were and left without being able to get his money back. Their videos don't require a lot of overhead, where does all the money go?

TV commercials?

Fred's narrative style oozes with the malice and arrogance of an obnoxious high school debate team member. Seeing the sheer amount of trads who mirror their beliefs now, I just can't justify straining out all their garbage to get a kernel of truth.

Avoid them like the plague!

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2015, 10:17:48 PM »

If I ever manage to save my soul, I will have the dimond brothers to thank for it as much as anyone else because they enlightened me in this world of shame. Even though I now disagree with them about some things I will always be grateful to them for starting me on the road to (hopefully) salvation.

TheKnightVigilant · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2015, 10:52:59 PM »

I credit the Dimond Brothers (along with Bishop Williamson) for bringing me to the Catholic faith. Without their influence I'd probably still be either an atheist or some kind of Calvinist. When I was in the initial stages of my conversion to Christianity, I was mainly exposed to Calvinist videos and writings, partly because they have a much larger internet presence than traditional Catholics and are regrettably much more involved in evangelizing. But it was, somewhat ironically, through the conduit of anti-Catholic Calvinism that I found the Catholic Church. I was researching some kind of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories when I stumbled upon the Dimond Brothers material. The things they were saying about Christianity and about history just made so much more sense than any of the Prottie claptrap I'd been reading up to that point. Unlike most trad Catholics, they make themselves heard. They have a forceful style which compels you to listen. They proselytize.

I don't agree with all of their positions now. Hell, I'm not even sure if I'd call myself a sedevacantist at this point. But I still think they do some great things. Peter Dimond's debate with the rabid Calvinist Keith Thompson is simply the best refutation of Protestantism I've ever heard. He literally obliterates their religion.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2015, 07:12:03 AM »

The Dimonds do some things right but their very "us-vs.-them" attitude can be kind of jarring. If they weren't both Feeneyite and dogmatic sedevacantist, they'd be brilliant.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2015, 07:42:04 AM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

The Dimonds do some things right but their very "us-vs.-them" attitude can be kind of jarring. If they weren't both Feeneyite and dogmatic sedevacantist, they'd be brilliant.

No, if they weren't DOGMATIC "Feeneyite" and dogmatic sedevacantist, they'd be brilliant. They do struggle with their syllogisms and their logic (an inability to make appropriate distinctions when warranted) and their grasp of Latin, due to lack of formal theological training, but they make a great contribution in a lot of ways.

Croixalist · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2015, 09:18:31 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Croixalist
they've been sued by a naive man who joined their "monastery" thinking they were true Benedictines and gave them his life savings... only to find out who they really were and left without being able to get his money

Quote
They won that lawsuit, by the way.

That's not the point.

Of course, if they want to say they're Benedictine, there's very little recourse to secular law. They can't be punished by the Church because they're already operating outside of it. Like I said, the man was naive. Once he left their monastery his money stayed in their pockets. Was it moral for them to do so after it's obvious he wasn't aware of their history? I'd say no.

They're swindlers on top of being frauds, false prophets, and raving home-aloner hypocrites.

Quote
I know that a lot of the information that they provide is hard to take in sometimes, but blanket statements like these are just ridiculous. They have a wealth of information that they've made available for people to look into, for free.

It wasn't a blanket statement, it was a piece of advice coming from someone who doesn't believe a good portion of what they teach is true.

Quote
If you know that they're wrong about something, prove it. Challenge them to a debate and prove that they're wrong.

That won't be necessary. If JPII was the "Final AntiChrist" and Benedict was his "False Prophet", then what pray tell, is Bergoglio? Just another VII antipope? An evil "Peter the Roman"! You tell me. I'm not wading through one more of their screeds. Any version of the Final Antichrist that does not naturally conclude with the return of Christ Himself doesn't fit in with anything I've ever read on the subject. It also doesn't help that JPII died as an old man from natural causes after a very long decline.

Quote
It really makes me laugh sometimes that individuals like Siscoe, Sungenis, Ferrara, Salza, et al, claim to be these modern day lay theologians - but NONE of them will debate the Dimonds....why is that?

I remember Salza saying that they were ducking him. I guess we'll just have to trust in their angelic personalities and hope they'd never mislead their throng of dedicated YT subscribers and paypal donators!

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2015, 10:38:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: JezusDeKoning
The Dimonds do some things right but their very "us-vs.-them" attitude can be kind of jarring. If they weren't both Feeneyite and dogmatic sedevacantist, they'd be brilliant.

No, if they weren't DOGMATIC "Feeneyite" and dogmatic sedevacantist, they'd be brilliant. They do struggle with their syllogisms and their logic (an inability to make appropriate distinctions when warranted) and their grasp of Latin, due to lack of formal theological training, but they make a great contribution in a lot of ways.

This is probably the best characterization of the Dimond Brothers so far. Good analysis, Ladislaus.

I've read the final court decision on the lawsuit--the Dimond Brothers posted it to the internet. Not sure if it's still available. The court found that the Dimond Brothers fully disclosed to the postulate their status, their doctrine, etc., etc., etc. They did not hide anything from the individual nor did they make untrue claims about themselves. They did not require the individual to give them anything other than a customary dowry but the man determined to donate a great deal of money which he wanted back. It is this great deal of money, I think, that has enabled them to provide many of their materials at or below the cost of production.

I really do wish they would eliminate their dogmatism on Feeneyism and sedevacantism as well as brush up on logic. They could be a great resource. While they do open doors to tradition, I think they slam even more doors shut.

Malleus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2015, 12:11:24 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

They also claimed that JPII was the Antichrist and Benedict was the False Prophet... then Bergoglio happened. lol.

Make that claim.

They still say he is the antichrist!

Croixalist · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2015, 01:26:10 PM »

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: Croixalist
They also claimed that JPII was the Antichrist and Benedict was the False Prophet... then Bergoglio happened. lol.

Make that claim.

They still say he is the antichrist!

Hah, well okay then! The Final Antichrist has been dead of natural causes for 10 years and Christ hasn't come back. Does that sound right to you?

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I was merely pointing out that just because there was a lawsuit, it doesn't necessarily qualify as reason to discredit them.

The lawsuit wasn't my only reason to discredit them. It's there to give you an idea of who they like to recruit and how they conduct their affairs. They do have a proven ability to separate fools from their money.

Quote

Right.... But when confronted about providing proof, you answer like most who cannot provide an adequate answer, such as:

Quote from: Croixalist
That won't be necessary.

That was the introductory sentence to a paragraph where I did provide an argument. You neglected to address those points... unless you thought I needed to post it on their website first or something.

Quote from: Croixalist
I remember Salza saying that they were ducking him.

That was in response to why there aren't any debates with these people. There's other reasons outside of being too scared. Though they do enjoy a certain amount of notoriety, they aren't authoritative on anything. Their habit of declaring all Catholics who don't agree with them as heretics couldn't help matters. They also could be using unreasonable demands to mask an unwillingness to debate. If you go by William Albrecht, he said they insisted on exclusive rights to the debate on YT. Now, I don't agree with William on all things, but he did provide screenshots of the conversation. Who knows, their rep might have been shot on that alone.

Quote
Doubtful, but certainly within the realm of possibilities. The point, however, is that if you're going to accuse them of being frauds, debate them in a public setting and prove it. Saying that they're frauds on an internet forum doesn't do your accusation any justice.

I'm not trying to hold you to anything here on the forum, but if you believe they are truly frauds, then expose them in a debate setting so we can all have proof.

There's plenty of proof to be had in the way of unsubstantiated claims. "Most" Holy Family Monastery is a spinoff of a spinoff who neglected to actually become a monk. If they have a stronger tie than Joseph Natale, I haven't heard of it. They're self-declared Benedictine monks until someone can prove otherwise.

Their Feeneyism is another proof that they are in error, but I think I know the audience I'm speaking to. If Feeney couldn't be bothered with Pius XII, why should I bother with his spiritual successors?

I'll debate anyone on this forum and if the Dimonds want to sign up and go to town, they're welcome to. Until then, I'm going to continue to follow my own advice on the subject. However, if you disagree with what I'm saying, feel free to provide your own reasons instead of inventing an imaginary arbiter of internet argumentation.

Ultimately, I would put as much distance as possible between myself and any home-aloner who goes out of their way to declare virtually all Catholics, trad or not, as heretics.

That's just me though!