I read the article by Salza posted by Nishant on MHFM and Pete and Mike, and thought it was excellent in showing what sort of liars these men are. You like their videos? No problem; I think some are good too like the Death and the Journey to Hell one, and the Crusades one and others. But their detestable attitude is infectious to those with clay minds. Its their non-Catholic attitude that bothers me most, because its what many, especially those new to tradition who are still figuring out what orthodox Catholic spirit is, end up mimicking; thats how you know who these people are- they sound like MHFM parrots. Here's the article:

...
I have never given much attention to the Dimond brothers, as my fellow Catholic apologists have sufficiently refuted their errors. After all, how much attention should we give to men who publicly declared that Pope John Paul II was the anti-Christ and the world was going to end during his reign? (This means the Dimond brothers are also false prophets.) Nevertheless, after I discovered Peter Dimond’s rebuttal to my article (he never notified me of his rebuttal; one of my patrons sent it to me), I did a bit of investigation into him and Most Holy Family Monastery (including interviewing people who lived at the monastery and with their founding member, Joe Natale, for many years). As a result, I discovered many surprising facts about what a Benedictine monk recently communicated to me in an email as their “fraudulent racket.”

In addition to the many questions surrounding their claim to be recognized Benedictine monks, I also discovered a blatant inconsistency in the Dimond brothers’ position that bears directly upon this discussion of divine and ecclesiastical law: Peter and Michael Dimond regularly attend a non-sedevacantist, Eastern Catholic Rite parish in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, whom they claim is an anti-pope. That’s right, Peter and Michael do not actually practice sedevacantism in their spiritual lives (true sedevacantists would never attend a Mass with a priest who prays for and is in communion with Pope Benedict XVI), and yet they condemn nonsedevacantists for precisely what they do: worship in communion with the current pope.

Therefore, according to their own standards, Peter and Michael Dimond are self-condemned reprobates because they regularly participate in “blasphemous” worship with “non-Catholics” and the “sacrilegious” reception of Holy Communion with “heretics” and “apostates.” Moreover, the Dimond brothers attend these Masses in layman’s clothing, even though they claim to be “Benedictine monks.” Hence, not only do they condemn the popes and the faithful for activities in which they themselves engage (worship with “heretics” and “apostates”), they go about it in cognito by disguising their identity. But don’t take my word for it. Ask many in their own  sedevacantist circles who have also pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of their position. Many sedevacantists have even expressed their public embarrassment of the Dimond brothers’ conduct (more on this issue and the application of canon law to the Dimond brothers’ conduct is provided later in this response).

Here's a link to the full article. Read it; make a video if you like.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_Salza%27s_rebuttal_of_Dimond_on_sedevacantism_%282%29.pdf

The problem here is NOT that "true sedevacantists would never attend a Mass with a priest who prays for and is in communion with Pope Benedict XVI".  This is an incorrect statement.  

A "true sedevacantist" believes that Benedict 16 is not the pope.  That is the extent of what being a "true sedevacantist" means.  Period.  Everyone needs to stop establishing what it means to be a "true sedevacantist".  It is not for this writer or for any other person in the universe to establish special doctrines, practices, requirements, etc. that one must fulfill or abstain in order to be a "true sedevacantist".  Sedevacantism is not a movement, a group, a cult, or anything other than the recognition that the Holy Catholic Church is currently in an interregnum.  Even Conciliar Catholics will become sedevacantist when Benedict 16 dies.

There are "true sedevacantist" who worship in independent chapels, indult chapels, SSPX chapels, CMRI chapels, etc., etc., etc.  One may point out what he considers to be an inconsistency with his belief that Benedict 16 is not the pope, but one may not declare him to be a "false sedevacantist".

The problem with the Dimonds is that they have indeed condemned in others what they do themselves, that is, worship with so-called "una cuм clergy".  By their own standards they condemn themselves.  Salza does make a number of good points.  It is a shame that he undermines them all by seemingly basing his entire arguement on a faulty premise (i.e., his distorted definition of a "true sedevacantist").

No one should quote Salza, ever.  He doesn't have enough knowledge of what he writes about to even be writing about it.

I'm no fan of the Dimonds, but calling them false prophets is absurd.  Even Catholic saints who were real prophets were sometimes tricked by the devil.  What prophecy do you know of that is 100% accurate?  This guy is such an amateur, just like almost everyone who sets themselves up as a pundit.  

I wonder what God thinks about all these pundits.  There is nothing wrong with laymen apologist, but what concerns me is when one of these laymen becomes a public voice through the media and the impression is somehow given that he is more important than other laymen -- and he's not.  I will go on record as saying that Raoul76 has a thousand times the Catholic insight of John Salza -- and that is being conservative - yet no one pays me a cent for my thoughts.  Who is this guy?  Why should I listen to him?  When he tells the truth, that's when I'll listen to him.  Just being on the tee vee means bubkes.  If anything, being famous through the media is something that someone would have to go to great lengths to prove hasn't made them a compromiser and a wet noodle.  Because they almost always are.

We have not only too many pundits today, but they are the wrong people to be pundits.  Something that has really been hitting me lately, is what St. Louis de Montfort said in True Devotion to Mary, that there is more grace in Mary moving her needlework than in everything else that any human ever did.  Why is that?  Because when she moved her needle, her mind was totally focused on God, and this gave such grace to her actions.  Can you imagine St. Augustine acting like a complete clown like Michael Voris, talking like some kind of pro-wrestling announcer, pointing his finger at the screen and barking at the camera like some Protestant?  We have lost our sense of how Catholics should behave, just like we have lost our sense of what true Catholic art should look.  People today, especially in America, are graceless.  We are arrogant, insulting, rude, self-involved, and it shows in our clown-like physical gestures, the way we speak, our grandstanding.  Those who give honor to God give it in everything they do, in their every smallest gesture.  So "style" DOES count -- because the way you carry and present yourself shows how conformed you are to God.  It is graceless to carry on like some carny barker, or pose like a pompous ass.  Notice how priests when they give sermons are usually restrained, it is very different from the "charisma" of the pundits.  That "charisma" is what Protestant preachers trade on, it's personal charm, having nothing to do with true love of God.  

By the way, something is always hitting you lately; and there's no more reason to believe you than anyone else. Are you any less of a pundit than Salza? Not around here at least. I would say this is a pretty important and noticed forum too. The guy made good points. You don't like him because he's influential to different opinion than yours. You do this all to often. Relax. People agree with you more times than not (at least I do) without you having to go on a mission to make sure everyone knows someone you disagree with should be discredited.

Quote from: Raoul76

No one should quote Salza, ever.  He doesn't have enough knowledge of what he writes about to even be writing about it.

I'm no fan of the Dimonds, but calling them false prophets is absurd.  Even Catholic saints who were real prophets were sometimes tricked by the devil.  What prophecy do you know of that is 100% accurate?  This guy is such an amateur, just like almost everyone who sets themselves up as a pundit.  

I wonder what God thinks about all these pundits.  There is nothing wrong with laymen apologist, but what concerns me is when one of these laymen becomes a public voice through the media and the impression is somehow given that he is more important than other laymen -- and he's not.  I will go on record as saying that Raoul76 has a thousand times the Catholic insight of John Salza -- and that is being conservative - yet no one pays me a cent for my thoughts.  Who is this guy?  Why should I listen to him?  When he tells the truth, that's when I'll listen to him.  Just being on the tee vee means bubkes.  If anything, being famous through the media is something that someone would have to go to great lengths to prove hasn't made them a compromiser and a wet noodle.  Because they almost always are.

We have not only too many pundits today, but they are the wrong people to be pundits.  Something that has really been hitting me lately, is what St. Louis de Montfort said in True Devotion to Mary, that there is more grace in Mary moving her needlework than in everything else that any human ever did.  Why is that?  Because when she moved her needle, her mind was totally focused on God, and this gave such grace to her actions.  Can you imagine St. Augustine acting like a complete clown like Michael Voris, talking like some kind of pro-wrestling announcer, pointing his finger at the screen and barking at the camera like some Protestant?  We have lost our sense of how Catholics should behave, just like we have lost our sense of what true Catholic art should look.  People today, especially in America, are graceless.  We are arrogant, insulting, rude, self-involved, and it shows in our clown-like physical gestures, the way we speak, our grandstanding.  Those who give honor to God give it in everything they do, in their every smallest gesture.  So "style" DOES count -- because the way you carry and present yourself shows how conformed you are to God.  It is graceless to carry on like some carny barker, or pose like a pompous ass.  Notice how priests when they give sermons are usually restrained, it is very different from the "charisma" of the pundits.  That "charisma" is what Protestant preachers trade on, it's personal charm, having nothing to do with true love of God.  

Half of this post is among the most stupid, hypocritical, useless, self-contradictory farcical nonsense ever penned by the author and the other half is very good.  I'll leave you to decide which is which.

The amount of slander that those with truth receive from you so called Catholics is remarkable.

Raoul has more truth in 4 words of his than you could muster in 10 paragraphs of classic Caminus sophistry. If only Belloc were still posting on these forums, you'd have lost as the undisputed rambling champion.



Salza is a crock, its been proven. He's been debunked. I really thought this case was over. I don't fully support MHFM obviously, in all they do or say, but I will say that for the coverage they provide on traditional Catholicism and more importantly exposing Vatican II and Rome today, they may become saints somehow some day. Many many many have been drawn to the traditional Catholic front due to them. Unquestionable.

From the Dimond boys website:

Since Sanborn is not only is a heretic, but also one who imposes his heresy upon his church-goers, no Catholic should receive the sacraments from him or any priest who holds the same position (i.e., who imposes his heresy upon the people).  This would include Fr. Cekada, Bishop Dolan, Bishop McKenna, SSPV, etc., etc.  Those who support such priests after being aware of these facts sin mortally.

It is all about the cash.

If a person knows full well that a priest is a schismatic and receives the sacraments from him, that person is indeed guilty of mortal sin.

The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).

The celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation by a schismatic priest is invalid because he no longer has any faculty to do so, either by universal Church law or the granting of the faculty by the diocesan bishop (cf. can. 882). Baptism and the Anointing of the Sick are conferred validly but not licitly (cf. cann. 862; and 1003, §§1-2).

The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin.
 

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/12/the_schism_of_s.html

Heretical or schismatic ministers

The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in cases of necessity the Church grants jurisdiction necessary for Penance and Extreme Unction (see EXCOMMUNICATION: V, Effects of Excommunication).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

I'm no fan of the Dimond Brothers, but I'm not crazy about John Salza either. I think he spends too much time trying to "refute" sedevacantism. Why can't he spend his time speaking out against Vatican II the Bogus Ordo instead?

I am also no fan of the Dimonds.  Here is what I just posted in another thread --

______________

All heretics and quasi-heretics tell the truth some of the time, all affect a pious air... All the better to lure in their bait.

That's still no reason to endanger yourself by watching their videos. I have no need of spiritual advice from the Dimonds. These are people who, while not being monks, actually took a million dollars from some guy to be part of their "monastery." I wouldn't be surprised if that is a mortal sin right there. It's one thing to say "Okay, we want to live holy lives in a kind of unofficial way, like Augustine at Cassiciacuм, so give what you have to the poor." But for THEM to take the million dollars? A MILLION DOLLARS?

No, there is a serious ethical problem here, just like there is a serious ethical dilemma in how these people call themselves monks and they're not. It shows you something very sinister about the way they behave, a lack of integrity that is frightening.