Author Topic: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life  (Read 2820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sedevacantist

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Reputation: +48/-101
  • Gender: Male
Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
« on: February 20, 2018, 11:02:15 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes I know, I recently apologized for exposing the so-called "monastic" life of the Dimonds, and the Moderator kindly erased the content, but with this scathing verbal attack from Peter, I think I'll go ahead and post it again - just the personal stuff this time:

    The claim by the Dimonds that their website is visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week is an illusion. Granted, they DO actually receive that many visitors. Nevertheless, the claim is an illusion. It’s a trick. You see, they drum up these visitors by buying “Google Words”. The idea behind these Google Words (from what I understand) is that when one buys a word, and that same word is typed into a search engine by someone browsing the internet, a link to the buyer's website appears on the screen. For example, if I were to buy the word UFO, then anyone who searched the internet using the word UFO would suddenly find a link to MY website on their screen. As one could imagine, curiosity alone causes many people to click on the site link. And obviously, the more words I buy, the more people are drawn to my website.

    Well, apparently the Dimonds have bought hundreds and hundreds of different words. THIS is how they drum up the astounding number of visitors to their website. As you could imagine, the vast majority of these visitors have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Dimond brothers, or in their material. They’re just curious web surfers. That’s all. Nothing more, and nothing less. In fact, I’m betting few of them even stay on the monastery’s website for more than a minute or so. This is why I protest that despite the traffic to their site, their popularity is just an illusion – because it is. 

    Based upon the traffic to their site, the Dimonds portray themselves as some great phenomenon sweeping the traditional world; when in the end, it’s all a charade. An illusion. Seriously, did you really think 100,000 Traditionalists visited the Dimonds’ website every day? Nonsense. Do the math: Statistically, there are barely a million Traditionalists throughout the world (Novus Ordo and sedevacantists combined) and well over 99% of these are advocates of Baptism of Desire. They utterly hate the Dimonds. Why would they visit the “monastery’s” website? The answer, of course, is that they don’t. 

    So how many Traditionalists actually DO visit the Dimonds’ site on a daily basis. How many fans do they actually have? Who knows for sure? If I had to guess, though, I would say no more than a couple hundred – mostly in this country. Just for laughs, let’s challenge them to find out the exact number. Let’s see if they’re honest enough to reveal the truth (though you can rest assured they won’t). Notwithstanding, we already know the truth. It is statistically IMPOSSIBLE that the Dimonds receive 100,000 Traditionalist visitors to their site every day. The numbers simply don’t add up.  And so, in the end, their supposed world-wide popularity is nothing but an illusion. Which brings up another solid argument against the Dimonds’ claim to Witnesshood: Scripture says that the ENTIRE WORLD rejoices at the death of the Two Witnesses:
    “And they of the people and kindreds and tongues, and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth.” (Apoc. 11:9-10) 

    Now I ask you: How many people even know the Dimonds exist? Again, do the math: Even if every living, breathing member of the million or so Traditionalists on earth were aware of the Dimonds’ existence, this would still only account for around .00014% of the total population of the world (that’s 14 hundred-thousandths). But let’s go a little further. Let’s imagine that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE MAINSTREAM CATHOLIC CHURCH – as well as the estimated 100,000 sedevacantists throughout the world – were aware of the Dimonds’ existence. This would still only account for around 15% of the world’s population. Fifteen. Logically speaking, however, this percentage is far beyond the pale of reality. The vast majority of people within the Novus Ordo have no earthly idea who the Dimond brothers are. Most have never even heard their names. In reality, the number of people aware of the Dimond brothers’ existence is nowhere near even one single percent. In contrast, Scripture clearly says that ALL WHO DWELL ON THE EARTH will rejoice at the death of the Witnesses. EVERYONE will know who they are. And with good reason. They will torment the whole of mankind just as Scripture says they will – not only with a world-wide drought that will imperil and even kill countless multitudes of people, but also with horrific and relentless plagues. You can rest assured; EVERYONE will know who the Two Witnesses are. God will see to it. Granted, the world may not necessarily BELIEVE they are the Two Witnesses; but the world will certainly know who it is that’s tormenting them. This is undeniable. As Scripture clearly says, ALL those who dwell on the earth will celebrate at their death. In stark contrast to the infallible testimony of Scripture, not so much as one single percent of the population of earth is even aware of the Dimond brothers’ existence. And remember again, they maintain that we are at the END of the Apocalyptic Era.

    And the illusions continue…
    The Dimonds claim that Heaven confirmed their legitimacy as Benedictine monks by finally dismissing the legal suit against them on the Feast of St. Benedict. As they mentioned on their website, the entire suit was centered on the legitimacy of their claim to be true Benedictine monks. This is what we’re told the case was all about. And, according to them, Heaven vindicated them in a magnificent show of approval. Again, another illusion.

    Now according to what I’ve read, the Benedictine Order is unique among monastic orders in that anyone who follows the Rule can legitimately call himself a Benedictine. In other words, strictly speaking, official recognition by the Church isn’t absolutely necessary for membership. Anyone can put on a habit, follow the Rule, and call himself a Benedictine. Whether or not this is true, is irrelevant. This is what the Dimonds believe. In fact, it’s how Most Holy Family Monastery was started. The founder, Brother Joseph, was NOT a recognized Benedictine monk when he founded the monastery. He was a monastic dropout. The Dimonds will admit this. From what I was told, he left a certain legitimate Benedictine monastery before taking his vows. He then went off on his own and started Most Holy Family Monastery. Anyway, the point is that the Dimonds believe that anyone who follows the Rule of St. Benedictine can truthfully call himself a Benedictine. This is the principle they use to back up their claim as real Benedictine monks. If someone follows the Rule, he’s Benedictine. If not, he’s a fraud. 

    Well, guess what? My source (who actually lived at the “monastery”) has assured me that aside from the obligation of wearing habits, the Dimonds don’t follow the Benedictine Rule AT ALL. Not one single word of it. Life in the brothers’ monastery is nothing but a casual free-for-all. Seculars in habits. That’s it. That’s exactly the life they live. And not only are there NO characteristically Benedictine practices, or rules, or rituals, or punishments, or laws, or traditionally held events found anywhere in the monastery, but there exists barely ANY semblance of monasticism whatsoever. Aside from the daily obligation of filling mail orders, there’s absolutely no order to be found anywhere. Everyone does practically whatever they want, whenever they want. Nor are there any specific times allotted for any kind of community gathering whatsoever. Nor are there any community prayers; nor any set times for prayer at all. Nor are there any set times for spiritual reading, contemplation, recreation, sleep, waking, or anything whatsoever. As for eating, everyone eats whatever they want, whenever they want. This is the Dimonds' idea of following the Benedictine Rule: Do whatever you want, just wear the habit.

    In their defense, I should mention that they do recite the Psalms (not the Divine Office, just the Psalms – and those, as fast as humanly possible). And, of course, they recite the Rosary. Nevertheless, even though these actions are practiced by all monastics, they are certainly not characteristically Benedictine. Remember the principle they uphold to justify their claim as Benedictines: If someone follows the Rule, he's legitimate. If not, he's a fraud. I should also mention that they kneel in adoration of what they believe is the Blessed Sacrament. I use the phrase “what they believe” because, according to Pope St. Pius V, what they kneel before is not the Body of Christ. In his Bull, “De Defectibus”, St. Pius V clearly states that if the host does not resemble NATURAL WHEATEN BREAD, then it’s not valid matter for consecration. One more time for the hearing impaired: If the host does not resemble natural wheaten bread, then it’s not valid matter for consecration. What the Dimonds kneel before, I’m told, is the standard crispy white wafer with the mysterious preservative glaze. You know the one – the wafer that for some bizarre reason never seems to mold. It’s just wheat flour and water, though. Nothing else. Just flour and water… Right. 

    You know as well as I do, that in no conceivable way does this crispy white wafer with the mystery glaze resemble natural wheaten bread – neither at a glance, nor under a microscope. Any fool can see it. In fact, by the looks of it, I couldn’t imagine there even being a trace of natural wheat flour anywhere near it. Not only does it not look like natural wheaten bread, it doesn't act like it either. Left in a dry environment at room temperature, it never, ever molds. Believe me, I used to make wheaten hosts for Mass. The only conceivable way to keep them from molding is to freeze them. Otherwise, they begin to mold within a week. On the contrary, as an acolyte, I've personally witnessed these white, crispy hosts exist for years without corruption. Welcome to the world of mass production, greed, preservatives, and… Freemasonry (one of the leading producers of these mystery wafers is “Christian Wolf”. Need I say more?).

    But don’t take my word for it. Go home, mix up a batch of wheat flour and water. Make a host as thin as you can, lightly toast it, and tell us what it looks like. If you’re feeling rebellious, you might even let it sit for a couple of weeks and watch what happens. Before long, you’ll come to realize that the reason the mysterious white crispy wafer neither looks, nor acts, like natural wheaten bread, is because it’s not. Rocket science. Anyway, although the Dimonds’ intentions have been praiseworthy in regard to their daily ritual of “Adoration”, they are nevertheless worshiping a wafer. That is, if you believe the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

    And so, just like the mystery wafer they worship, when it comes down to the question of real Benedictines, or frauds, the Dimonds are complete and total frauds. And whereas it’s true they perform a few things proper to all monastics, they are certainly not characteristically Benedictine. Again, if someone follows the Benedictine Rule, he's Benedictine. If not, he's a fraud. So, as far as their claim of being vindicated by Heaven as true Benedictine monks, that claim is absolutely worthless. The fact that the court officially ruled in the Dimonds’ favor on the Feast of St. Benedict means nothing. The Devil can easily plan things to work in tandem with important dates. The Council of Vatican II, for example, commenced on the anniversary of the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima. Just a coincidence? Was God confirming the legitimacy of the council? Really? A council which declared that Allah is God (Lumen Gentium #16); that flushed the immemorial Tridentine Mass down the toilet; that for some mysterious reason decided to “revise” all seven Sacraments, change the Sacred Words of Consecration, and declare that every man has a God-given right to worship whatever “god” he chooses? No, God was definitely not confirming the council's legitimacy. Timing certain events to coincide with important dates is child’s play for Lucifer. Heck, I can even do it. By way of example, this very day happens to be the Feast of St Benedict. No, really. I even called up the Dimonds a couple of hours ago and wished them a happy feast day. Unfortunately, I only got to talk to the foreign man who screens their calls. He may remember the conversation, as I ended it by calling him an idiot. Frankly, I was speechless by that time and couldn't think of anything else to say. During our talk, he condemned a traditional priest (whom he knew absolutely nothing about) as a heretic for NO OTHER REASON than because this priest doesn’t like the Dimonds, personally. I know it sounds ludicrous, but you have to keep in mind that the Dimonds’ loyal fans believe that they are the Two Witnesses – and, therefore, according to their reasoning, anyone who doesn’t like “God’s Anointed Prophets” must not be Catholic. Ergo, the priest MUST be a heretic. The point being, once again, the Devil can plan things as easily as you and I can. And that’s why, in the end, the so-called “vindication from Heaven” is a worthless claim. The Dimonds don’t follow the Rule. Ergo, they are not Benedictines. The very principle that they believe proves they’re legitimacy, actually condemns them as frauds.

    And while we're exposing the inner workings of the Dimonds' Fantasyland, let's look at the “monastery” itself. One can easily find a bird's eye view of it on the internet. All you have to do is type in their address: 4425 Schneider Rd, Fillmore, New York, and click the “satellite” image box on a map. On the property, you'll notice five structures. There are two double-wide manufactured homes that make up the living quarters; and two small barns on the right used for storage. At the south end, you'll notice a large, square building with a white roof. This is the indoor basketball court. 

    You see, from what I understand, the Dimonds love basketball. They’re sports nuts in general, but their true love is basketball. So they had an indoor court built. They attempt to justify its construction by referring to it as “The Hall”, but the fact is, it's an indoor basketball court. That's what it was built for. It’s about 60’ X 80’ square, and about 45ft high (I'm just going on what I've heard, so don't quote me on the dimensions. They seem fairly accurate though, from what I can tell from the image on the internet). The building also has a heated floor and showers. A heated floor and showers? That’s right. Like I said, it was built as a basketball court, not a “Hall”. 

    One can only imagine the cost of such a structure. I couldn't conceive of it being any less than $50,000. And I think that's a fairly conservative estimate. And who paid for it? Was it from donations? Heaven forbid. Perhaps a rich benefactor offered to have it built as a gift? Even in this case, we still have to question the brothers’ approval of such a COLOSSAL waste of money (and whose idea was the heated floor?).

    But wait… it gets worse. What about the monastery's chapel? Every proper monastery should have a chapel, right? And considering the astronomical amount of money wasted on an indoor basketball court with showers and a heated floor, one would think the Dimonds would spend AT LEAST as much on a decent chapel. Right? Wrong. The monastery’s chapel is the walk-in closet of Michael’s room. That’s right – the closet. It’s about 4 feet wide and 8-10 feet long. It has two cheap folding metal chairs and a shelf with a tabernacle on it. Behold the extent of the Dimonds’ spirituality. This is how the Two Anointed Prophets honor the infinite majesty of God: tens of thousands of dollars are wasted on a nearly full-sized indoor basketball court with showers and a heated floor, while the “Son of God” is kept in a closet. How ironic. The brothers rant and rave at the irreverence shown to God in many of the Novus Ordo churches, and here they are exhibiting the same lack of reverence – if not worse. 

    And while we’re on the subject of monastic holiness, what do you think these two sports nuts do on Sundays and Holy Days? What kind of honor do they pay to God on these sacred occasions? The answer is none. According to my source, every Sunday and Holy Day is “Game Day”. And yes, that includes Easter. These sacred occasions are nothing more than excuses to sit in front of the television ALL DAY LONG watching sports and playing childish video games. This is the Dimonds’ idea of keeping the Sabbath Day holy. Granted, they sit in front of the television for hours every day, but Holy Game Days are special. These are an all-day affair. 

    And what about the internet, where horrifically immodest women “accidentally” appear on the screen every now and then? How many hours a day does Michael Dimond spend surfing through this gravely dangerous wasteland – unfiltered, no less? And for what? For the purpose of updating us all on important news stories? Such as possums living in toilet paper dispensers? Of videos of ostriches chasing people? Of people dropping basketballs off tall buildings, or dams (or whatever structure it was); and numerous people getting shot? And who could forget the all-important video of the man who cut his ears off so he could look like a parrot? Thank goodness we have the Two Witnesses to dig up these crucial news stories for us. What would our spiritual lives be without them? 

    And how many hours a day do you think Brother Michael spends surfing the internet (again, unfiltered) for this useless garbage? Three? Four? Five? Keep in mind, he previews far more videos than he posts on the website. And how many of these videos are necessary to Traditional Catholics? And do we really need help finding them? No, we don't. Michael just likes to entertain himself by surfing the internet. Call it a bit of childish self-gratification. That's all it is. There’s no mystery here. He just enjoys it. He must have somehow convinced himself that these stories are really important, so he continues surfing day after day after day. No doubt this is why we don’t hear much from him. In case you haven’t noticed, Peter seems to be the only one of the two doing anything at all. 

    Oh yes, I almost forgot, Michael DID write a book on UFO’s some years back. Even so, he managed to get that information all wrong. No, Michael, the reason some of those strange “spaceships” in the sky are able to travel at astronomical speeds, turn on a dime, multiply themselves, fuse back together, fly straight into the ground and vanish (all without making a sound) is NOT because they’re demons, but because they’re holographic projections. That’s right. They’re just holographic projections – like the mysterious city that appeared in the clouds somewhere in Asia a while back. It’s just a man with a projector. That’s all. 

    Oh yes, and Michael did something else a few years back – a video on the Papal Prophecies of St. Malachy. And here he deserves a big round of applause for making, arguably, the single dumbest statement ever uttered from the “monastery”. What statement, you ask? In the video, Michael is discussing the last papal prophecy – that of “Peter the Roman”. Everything is going relatively fine until he makes one astoundingly idiotic statement: that “since the first pope was named Peter, ST. MALACHY DECIDED to name the last pope Peter.” One more time: ST. MALACHY DECIDED to name the last pope Peter. When I first heard this, my jaw hit the floor so hard I chipped a tooth. I’ve never had much respect for Michael anyway, but this statement ended it once and for all. Imagine, one of the Two Anointed Prophets of God, and the head of a “monastery” which boasts to have uncovered the secret meanings of Apocalyptic prophecy, doesn’t even understand the simple concept of prophecy itself! It’s astounding, to say the least. Honestly, a four-year-old can grasp the concept of prophecy. MY DOG can grasp the concept of prophecy. How is it possible the great Anointed Prophet of God can't? I’m dumbfounded. No Michael, St. Malachy didn’t decide anything. He wrote exactly what he was instructed to write. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST." (2 Peter 1:21). That’s what the concept of prophecy is all about, Fred. So once again… congratulations to you. That was arguably the dumbest public statement in the history of your so-called “monastery”. 

    And should we really be surprised at this? He spends countless hours a week surfing the internet, watching sports, and playing childish video games with his brother. What can one expect? Honestly folks, are these the actions of holy monks? Much less those of the Two Anointed Prophets of God? No. These are the actions of grown men who just can’t seem to grow up; men who parade themselves in front of the world as monks, yet secretly live as seculars. I believe the Biblical term is “Hypocrite”. 

    And what can be said of their asceticism? During the entire time my source was at the “monastery”, Michael would make a pilgrimage two or three times a week to Rochester, New York for fast food from the Boston Market (mind you, this was a two-hour round trip from Fillmore). Granted, this was many years ago, and things might have changed by now. Even so, who can imagine their lifestyle having changed much? They’re still living out the same fantasy, aren’t they? They’re still arrogantly defiant of Church teaching, aren’t they? And doesn’t Michael still surf the internet for countless hours every week, giving us glimpses into his own private little fetish? No, their lifestyle hasn’t changed much. This is the Dimonds' version of monasticism. They don't fast. They don't mortify themselves. They haphazardly blow their money on luxuries. And they spend countless hours a week in front of the television watching sports and playing childish video games. No doubt, if the great St. Benedict were to visit them today, he would rip their habits off, shove their inflated heads through the television, and drop kick them both out the window. I sure would. They're a disgrace to the Order, and to the monastic life in general. But there’s more to this condemnation than a simple case of hypocrisy, or spiritual immaturity. The problem goes much, much deeper. How deep, you ask? 

    Are you familiar with the Law of Thelema? The Law of Thelema is the one, single law that exists in Satanism: “Do As Thou Wilt.” That’s the entire law. Do whatever you want. Follow your own will. Martin Luther’s religion was founded upon the Law of Thelema, only with a subtle twist: “Do As Thou Wilt, JUST BELIEVE.” Just believe. Right. Sin as much as you want, just believe. “If a man commits a thousand murders and fornications a day", says Luther, “he can never lose his salvation." No wonder so many people followed him. The sect of Calvinism was founded on the same law, only with a deeper twist: From the very moment of his conception, each and every man is already destined to either Heaven or Hell. It makes absolutely no difference what he does during his life. Therefore, “Do As Thou Wilt”. The theology of Seventh-Day Adventists quietly implies another twist on the same law. They don’t believe that anyone will go to Hell. Ergo, the silent implication is that mankind is free to sin as much as he likes during his life. He will never suffer eternally for it. Again, “Do As Thou Wilt”. And the list goes on and on and on. 

    The point being, do you see where the Dimonds’ anarchistic self-willed free-for-all version of “monasticism” originates? This self-indulgent attitude (or whatever you want to call it) is a clear sign that something emanates from Hell. It’s the signature of the Devil. The Law of Thelema, “Do As Thou Wilt” is the ideal of Satanism; and, it would seem, the spirit of the Dimonds' monasticism. The true monastic ideal, on the other hand, is self-denial. This is what monasticism is all about. A real monk consecrates his life to following nothing but the Rule of the Order and the will of his Superior. His personal life is over – forevermore bound to the vow of Holy Obedience. This is both the ideal and essence of true monasticism. Consider this: The great mystic, St. Theresa of Avila, was once asked by her nuns if they could keep food in their cells. Aghast at their question, she replied that it would prove the utter ruin of their monastery. And she was absolutely right. Seculars can get away with such things, but not monastics (nor even those pretending to be). Self-denial is the very essence of the monastic life. When a monk begins indulging his own will, and seeking his own pleasures and gratification, he is on the road to ruin. And unless he comes to his senses, he will wind up in Hell (according to St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard, and other masters of the spiritual life). 

    This is not to say that the Dimonds are bad monks. No. They aren’t monks at all – neither Benedictine, nor otherwise. Again, the very essence of TRUE monasticism is self-denial. The Dimonds, on the other hand, practice the exact opposite: indulgence in self-will. And they do so on a daily basis. This is why, as I said a minute ago, they’re a disgrace to the monastic life in general. They don't live up to a single monastic ideal whatsoever. Much less are they characteristically Benedictine. Ergo, their “vindication from Heaven” is completely and totally worthless. 

    In the end, they don't worship God at all. They worship themselves, wallowing in luxury and self-indulgence; blowing tens of thousands of dollars on a nearly full-sized basketball court with showers and a heated floor, while relegating the Son of God to a tiny closet. Moreover, they not only waste His Sundays and Holy Days in front of the television watching sports and playing childish video games, but massacre His Sacred Word while at work. And if this weren't enough, they also publicly defy their own interpretation of Ecclesiastical Law; and obstinately maintain a position on birth control that has been condemned under threat of Anathema by the Council of Trent - and this, after having been shown their error!. Nor, as I mentioned in the beginning of this long tirade, have the Dimonds fulfilled a single, solitary prophecy specific to the Two Witnesses. Not one. 

    And so, when all the evidence is weighed; and logic, common sense, and the teachings of Holy Mother Church are considered in the balance, what are we to ultimately think about these two idiots? Is it even remotely conceivable that they are the long-awaited chosen Prophets of God - destined to lead us through the hidden web of errors and deceptions plaguing the world today - deceptions so profound as to even lead the Elect astray were it not for the direct intervention of God? Honestly, they can't even lead themselves to observe a simple a monastic life! What are we to think? As for me, I think the truth is obvious. And I also think that these two clowns need to be exposed as the frauds, hypocrites, and heretics that they are. I also think they need to be humiliated before the eyes of the world. This is why I ask all who have read this post, and who agree with my assessment, to send this information out to others. Spread the word. The Brothers deserve to be humiliated. And they need to be exposed publicly. As Christ said, there's nothing hidden that will not be brought to light. Let's put His words into action, and end this stupidity once and for all. 
    Thank you

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17812
    • Reputation: +9972/-4471
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #1 on: February 20, 2018, 11:17:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know.  Whenever I received a verbal attack from one or another of the Dimond Brothers, I just clicked "delete" and went on with my day.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17812
    • Reputation: +9972/-4471
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #2 on: February 20, 2018, 01:25:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see a lot of pride in your posts and it seems you are a person who perhaps thought at one time they were the Two Witnesses;

    He admitted the last time he posted (and then retracted and apologized for) this attack that he was motivated by emotional reasons, a contempt for the Dimond Brothers ... who hurt his feelings with personal attacks.  I know the kinds of attacks he's talking about, and they can be extremely harsh.  But he needs to develop a thicker skin.  They attacked me very harshly as well, but I'll still listen to things they have to say ... and make a judgment about whether or not I agree with them, irrespective of any "feelings".  That's how men are supposed to react to such things.

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #3 on: February 20, 2018, 02:09:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As for the issue of the Dimonds' personal life, I originally posted this info because I believed it was necessary that people see just how much of a farse their so-called monastery was. Yes, my bias toward the Dimonds played a part in my decision, but it was not a deciding factor by any means. The vast majority of those who follow the Dimond Brothers believe everything these two say without question. This is a cult mentality, and it's dangerous - particularly in matters of doctrine such as the birth control issue. Their position on this topic is so evidently heretical, and their attitude so rebellious against the teachings of the Church, that they need to be both refuted AND discredited. 

    As for the birth control issue, since 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary has thrice judged the Rhythm Method to be perfectly acceptable. It was taught in every seminary on earth for 80 years prior to Pius XI's statement in Casti Cannubii. This information was axed by the Moderator along with the personal info, so I'll post it again in it's entirety. This is important because it proves the Dimonds to be in heresy on this issue. The statement in question contradicts the Dimonds’ long held belief that ANY AND ALL forms of birth control are absolutely forbidden by God. Have a look for yourself. The following quote is taken directly from the Dimonds’ website. I’ve capitalized the area in question (and take note that Pius XI is specifically talking about regulation of offspring):

    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    There you have it. In the very quote used by the Dimonds to “prove” that all forms of birth control are forbidden, Pius XI tells us that Christian law PERMITS “Continence” as a means of regulating the birth of offspring. Read it again. Anything that “frustrates the marriage act” is clearly forbidden, but Church law permits “Continence”.

    No doubt the brothers will try and attribute the statement regarding “Continence” to those whom Pius XI is condemning. In other words, they’ll try and claim that the persons condemned by Pius XI are the ones telling us “Continence” is allowable under Christian law. Frankly, they have no other defense. Nevertheless, as you will see in a moment, “Continence” was a perfectly acceptable method of natural birth control during the reign of Pius XI. In fact, generally speaking, it has been officially accepted since the days of Trent.

    For those who don’t already know what “Continence” refers to in the above quotation, it means the practice of avoiding marital relations during the woman’s fertile period. This is the modern understanding of the concept. Prior to the modern age, “Continence” meant the avoidance of marital relations IN GENERAL as a means of natural birth control. This ancient method was officially approved of as early as Trent, although it clearly reaches back to Biblical times. In fact, the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph made use of this method in order to avoid the conception of any children other than the Son of God. Since their day, numerous married Saints, such as Melania, Cunagunda, and King Henry II have done the same. It’s a perfectly legitimate (and perfectly natural) form of birth control.

    It’s also a perfectly acceptable method in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In fact, Trent solemnly threatened with anathema anyone who denied this teaching. But I’ll get to that in a few moments. Anyway, as I thoroughly explained to the Dimonds, the modern method of “Continence” was first approved of as a legitimate form of natural birth control as early as 1853 by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary (one of the three tribunals of the Roman Curia).

    You see, it was about this time (1850’s) that medical science finally came to understand the woman’s ovulation cycle. That is to say, they finally learned when the “fertile period” of her cycle occurred. Naturally, this medical breakthrough opened the door to moral questions: “Is it permissible, for virtuous reasons, to abstain from marital relations during the woman’s fertile period IN AN EFFORT TO PREVENT CONCEPTION?” This was the question posed to the Sacred Penitentiary in 1853, and the method was given approval – again, for VIRTUOUS reasons only. The basis of the decision rested upon the fact that God never positively obligates married couples to engage in relations at any specific times. This being the case, the Penitentiary ruled that, for virtuous reasons, the couple could refrain from relations during the fertile period in an effort to prevent conception. The question was submitted again a second time in 1880, and a third in 1932. Each time, the Sacred Penitentiary gave the same answer.

    So then, on account of its official approval by the Roman Curia in 1853, the old “Rhythm Method” (as it later came to be known), was made an integral part of seminary education. The method was likewise taught in books of moral theology, such as Fr. Dominic Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology (1921), and Fr. Tanquerey’s "Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis" (1933).

    In his "Handbook of Moral Theology", Fr. Prummer states, “To make use of the so-called safe period (i.e., to refrain from the conjugal act during the period when the woman is fertile) has been declared lawful by the Sacred Penitentiary, but it is not a certain means of preventing conception, since there is no infallible way of determining the safe period.”

    And in his "Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis", Fr. Tanquerey states, "Totally different from onanism is the practice of having conjugal relations only at those times when conception rarely occurs... Such a practice is not sinful, according to the Sacred Penitentiary (June 16, 1880)."

    Incidentally, Fr. Tanquerey was author of some of the most widely used and universally approved seminary textbooks of the early 20th century. As such, his opinion in this regard is highly significant. Moreover, notice that both he and Fr. Prummer referenced the response of the Sacred Penitentiary as their source for this teaching.

    Now, because this teaching had been around since 1853, and introduced at that time into universal seminary education by virtue of its acceptance by the Roman Curia, we can only assume it was taught to Pius XI while a young man in the seminary. After all, he was born in 1854 – just a year after the initial decision. One thing is for sure, the method was most certainly accepted by his immediate predecessors: Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV. Ergo, we know that this was the universally accepted teaching during the writing of Casti Cannubii; and therefore it is without question that this method is EXACTLY what Pius XI referred to when he spoke of "Virtuous Continence".

    All this to say, the argument that Pius XI’s statement regarding “Continence” should be attributed to those whom he is condemning, doesn’t hold a drop of water. What Pius XI is simply doing in the above quote is reiterating the teaching of Holy Mother Church – a teaching which was expressly and officially approved of by the Roman Curia and taught in every seminary on earth for 80 years prior to Casti Cannubii: Christian Law permits “ virtuous Continence” as a legitimate form of natural birth control.

    On a side note, the fact that Pius XI didn't use the precise term "Rhythm Method" means nothing since this term was only just coined in 1930 – a few months prior to the promulgation of Casti Cannubii. During his reign, the method was universally referred to as “Continence”. And yes, all of this was explained to the Dimonds, and yet they continue parading their condemned position on the website in arrogant and open defiance of the Church’s clear teaching.

    So then, not only have they been dead wrong in their blanket condemnation of ALL forms of birth control – and this, for well over a decade – but even after being shown their error, they continue in open and public defiance. I even showed them the canon from Trent that soundly condemns their position (under threat of anathema, no less), and yet they continue in obstinate public defiance. Below is the canon in question:

    Council of Trent, Session 24, Dogmatic Canon VIII: "If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema."

    As you can see, the Church has accepted “Continence” as a perfectly legitimate and lawful means of natural birth control since at least the time of Trent. Medical breakthroughs in the mid 1800's merely allowed for a more refined method, which consideration prompted the moral questions to the Sacred Penitentiary. All this to say, the old archaic “Rhythm Method” of natural birth control is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Catholic Church, as long as it’s practiced for virtuous reasons.

    But let me clarify here that this Rhythm Method is NOT the same as NFP. The two are quite different – both on practical, as well as on moral grounds. Natural Family Planning was first given implicit approval by Paul VI in “Humanae Vitae”, wherein he called for MORE REFINED methods of “natural” birth control to be studied. As a result of these studies, medical science has nearly perfected the art of determining EXACTLY when the safe period occurs – taking the possibility of prevention to heights never intended by God. Today, the various methods of NFP are so exacting that they put nearly the entire decision of conception into the hands of the couple. Such precision is NOT what God intended. In fact, some of NFP’s methods are so efficient that they’re praised by Planned Parenthood – and even said to be better than any method THEIR godless pagan scientists have come up with.

    In stark contrast to these more refined methods, the old Rhythm Method is so “outdated” and “inefficient” that it’s practically obsolete today. Most couples don't even consider it on account of its high failure rate. Remember what Fr. Prummer said: “…it is not a certain means of preventing conception, since there is no infallible way of determining the safe period.” What today’s couples fail to realize is the fact that this high failure rate was intended by God in order to make sure that He still has a hand in the conception of offspring. Natural Family Planning, on the contrary, puts that decision fully into the hands of the couple. Again, this is not what God intended.

    Furthermore, I should mention that Breast-Feeding is a perfectly natural and legitimate method of birth control as well; though, to my knowledge, it was never mentioned in the annals of moral law. Nevertheless, this method was so evidently designed by God that no reasonable argument against it is of any value. When a woman exclusively breast-feeds her newborn, her ovulation cycle is suspended; meaning her body will not release another egg. In other words, during the time a mother exclusively breastfeeds her newborn, she cannot get pregnant (that is, 99% of the time). This is nothing more than God’s way of giving the mother a well-needed break as she tends to her little baby. As any fool could imagine, waking several times a night – every night – to feed a crying newborn, is hard enough on a mother. The last thing she needs during this great physical and emotional trial is a miserable three-month long bout of nausea and vomiting that accompanies a new pregnancy (that is, Morning Sickness). Ergo, God has designed her system so that she cannot get pregnant while intensively caring for her newborn. Thank goodness we have a God of such compassion and mercy.

    The Dimonds, however, would have us believe that if the woman’s intention for breastfeeding is to prevent conception, then she commits a mortal sin. It’s preposterous. If she uses it for the very reason God designed it, she will be condemned BY HIM to Hell? Right. Indeed, if these two clowns had their way, they would condemn God HIMSELF to Hell for creating this wonderful method of birth control. Granted, when the time of intensive nursing and hardship is over, the mother needs to assume her fertility again. But while the trial continues, she is more than welcome to use this wonderful method of natural God-given birth control to her advantage.

    As the Church teaches, there are many legitimate and virtuous reasons for a couples’ decision to suspend childbearing – from dire financial straits, to psychological difficulties, to life-threatening dangers. Such decisions are perfectly compatible with sound reason and good Catholic moral theology. Life is full of hardship. Welcome to earth. Sometimes a newborn baby is the last thing a married couple needs during a difficult trial. Sometimes what is really needed is time for the husband and wife to get back on track – to insure the proper rearing of the children they might already have, not to mention the proper care of a newborn.

    And if Trent’s threat of Anathema sounds overly strict, consider the grave hardships suffered by couples who are mistakenly refused this Divine allowance; not to mention the strain put on their existing children, and their marriage in general. This is no small matter by any stretch of the imagination. It could literally ruin a marriage (and consequently, the future lives of the existing children). That’s why the Dimonds’ position is condemned so harshly by the Church.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #4 on: February 20, 2018, 02:12:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!5
  • Quote
    Council of Trent, Session 24, Dogmatic Canon VIII: "If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema."
    This clearly means abstinence. Not birth control. Sex is solely for the purpose of procreation. 


    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #5 on: February 20, 2018, 02:22:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They never claimed to be the Two Witnesses. You'd be better off making actual arguments instead of repeating the same slanderous, unproven talking points. Making claims based off of anonymous sources is not an exposure either.
    I never said they claimed to be the Two Witnesses. I merely stated that this is what they believe. In fact, I even said in my OP that they never claimed this. 

    And my arguments are solid. The trouble is that most people don't seem to be able to add two and two. How else would you explain their preposterous interpretation of the tiny blackout in Brussels? The Apocalyptic Fifth Vial? That's absolutely ridiculous. No one in his right mind would have interpreted that rinky-dink event as "Apocalyptic". No one. The ONLY reason they believed it was something epic was because it followed their radio broadcast. That's why they believed it was "Apocalyptic". Two plus Two. And what of their interpretation of the Seven Kings? Putting themselves in the place of St. John? C'mon. Use the brain God gave you. Test the spirits.

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #6 on: February 20, 2018, 02:34:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This clearly means abstinence. Not birth control. Sex is solely for the purpose of procreation.
    Yes, "Continence" means abstinence from marital relations. But what you're not seeing is that Pius XI clearly refers to this method of continence as a means of REGULATING BIRTH:

    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    Moreover, had you read the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary which I just listed, you would have realized that this method of "Continence" is perfectly acceptable as a means of regulating birth. It's a form of birth control. Like it or not. The couple is permitted to refrain from relations in an effort to regulate the birth of offspring. And the Dimonds knowingly deny this teaching.

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #7 on: February 20, 2018, 02:45:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The key word is man. This guy seems like a boy with a larger than normal vocabulary. I've been rebuked by them before as well. Were they correct? Yes.  Did I respond by attempting to discredit them? No. I took a look at what they were saying, and yes, I needed to change.

    That being said, I don't think I disagree with them on anything. EENS, Sedevacante, NFP are the majors though. Like I said before though, this guy is talking to about 4 or 5 people on this forum, he's not going to accomplish anything.
    Do you consider the butchering of the Apocalypse such a small matter? God doesn't. At the very least, those who alter it are punished with the plagues written in the book. At the very most, they are punished with eternal damnation. How is this such a small matter in your eyes? 

    Moreover, because their fans believe they are the Witnesses, they swallow everything these two tell them - without question. They need to be warned. And who cares if there are only three or four of their followers on this site? Should I just let it go? 

    I think the problem here is that you don't comprehend the gravity of what these two "monks" are doing. But God does - and I have an obligation to Him. That's why I'm exposing them.


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #8 on: February 20, 2018, 03:01:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!6
  • Yes, "Continence" means abstinence from marital relations. But what you're not seeing is that Pius XI clearly refers to this method of continence as a means of REGULATING BIRTH:

    Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 53), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through VIRTUOUS CONTINENCE (WHICH CHRISTIAN LAW PERMITS WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

    Moreover, had you read the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary which I just listed, you would have realized that this method of "Continence" is perfectly acceptable as a means of regulating birth. It's a form of birth control. Like it or not. The couple is permitted to refrain from relations in an effort to regulate the birth of offspring. And the Dimonds knowingly deny this teaching.
    Sexual intercourse performed without the intent of conceiving children is a venial sin. Sex is for the purpose of creating offspring, the pleasure you receive is a reward for that. It's like how we are meant to eat, and eating is pleasurable, but gluttony is a sin. Just as eating solely for pleasure is a sin, having sex solely for pleasure is. We must not submit to blind lust. If you do not want to conceive, do not have sex. It is not as serious a sin as using physical contraception, which is a mortal sin. But sex without the intent of conceiving children is still a sin all the same. 
    Pope Pius XI's quote there is referring to total abstinence, that is abstaining from sex altogether for a good reason rather than just abstaining during periods of fertility for the purpose of contraception. 

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #9 on: February 20, 2018, 03:20:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Pius XI's quote there is referring to total abstinence, that is abstaining from sex altogether for a good reason rather than just abstaining during periods of fertility for the purpose of contraception. 

    No, your wrong. What he's referring to is exactly the "Continence" which the Sacred Penitentiary judged permissible. It's exactly the same practice which Fr. Prummer and Fr. Tanguerey spoke of - and which had been taught in the seminaries for 80 years prior to Casti Cannubii. The ancient version you're speaking of became the more refined "Rhythm Method" with the medical breakthroughs in the 1850's, and the subsequent judgment of the Penitentiary. This is why he refers to it in the same context as the use of forbidden methods - because it is a means of directly regulating birth.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #10 on: February 20, 2018, 04:11:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!7
  • Pope Pius XI's quote there is referring to total abstinence, that is abstaining from sex altogether for a good reason rather than just abstaining during periods of fertility for the purpose of contraception.

    No, your wrong. What he's referring to is exactly the "Continence" which the Sacred Penitentiary judged permissible. It's exactly the same practice which Fr. Prummer and Fr. Tanguerey spoke of - and which had been taught in the seminaries for 80 years prior to Casti Cannubii. The ancient version you're speaking of became the more refined "Rhythm Method" with the medical breakthroughs in the 1850's, and the subsequent judgment of the Penitentiary. This is why he refers to it in the same context as the use of forbidden methods - because it is a means of directly regulating birth.
    Sex is for the sake of procreation. 


    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #11 on: February 20, 2018, 04:12:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • O ye of little faith....  

    Only God determines such things.  Married couples must be united to the will of Almighty God and accept any and all tribulations that may come to pass...that includes the blessing of a child during "difficult" times.

    Children, no matter when they are brought into this world, are not burdens...  They are given to us by Almighty God and He tasks us with the responsibility to raise them to know, love, and serve Him.  Moreover, we are required to carry out these heavenly duties no matter the situation.  

    Difficult trials??  Thank God for them!!  Difficult trials are opportunities given to us by Almighty God to sacrifice, to do penance, and to pray for help.  God does not command the impossible from us, and He will never give us more than we can handle.  
          

    No, your position in this case is directly contradicted by the Council of Trent.
    There are MANY reasons to separate from the marriage bed. This is perfectly in line with reason and logic. This is precisely why God gave a break to the woman who is breastfeeding her newborn child. Why? Because it would be too much for her to suffer Morning Sickness at the same time she's getting up in the middle of the night to feed the child. It's too much for her. Ergo, God designed her system in such a way that she would not ovulate during this time. And are we to imagine that she is not allowed to continue breastfeeding as long as the trial continues? That's absurd. God created the system, and gave her the obligation of using it wisely. Like I said in the OP, once the trial is over, she needs to resume her fertility - but while it continues, God has supplied her with a means of regulating her fertility.

    The Church merely follows the same line of wisdom and prudence as God when it declares that there are MANY reasons to postpone children - and threatens anyone who would argue otherwise with Anathema.

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #12 on: February 20, 2018, 04:14:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sex is for the sake of procreation.
    Right. What's your point?

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1485
    • Reputation: +592/-891
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #13 on: February 20, 2018, 04:42:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!6
  • Right. What's your point?
    Using the rhythm method you are having sex without the intent of procreation, and are in fact hoping that procreation does not occur. That goes against natural law and is a venial sin. 

    Offline sedevacantist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 140
    • Reputation: +48/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Exposed: Dimonds' "monastic" life
    « Reply #14 on: February 20, 2018, 05:09:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Using the rhythm method you are having sex without the intent of procreation, and are in fact hoping that procreation does not occur. That goes against natural law and is a venial sin.

    You don't seem to understand the Rhythm Method. It involves abstaining from marital relations during the time of a woman's fertile period. The Sacred Penitentiary ruled (three times) that this is permissible for virtuous reasons as a means of preventing the conception of offspring.

    And as far as the intent during the infertile times, one necessarily has to be open to the possibility of conception during relations. I don't argue that at all. But to argue that a couple's use of the Rhythm Method means that they have no intention of conceiving at all other times, doesn't follow reasonably at all. 

    Finally, I'll repeat again that there's a clear difference between NFP and the old Rhythm Method. The old Rhythm Method is not a sure means of preventing conception. In fact, its high failure rate is why no one considers using it today (God still has a hand in the choice, you see). But with NFP, the method is so precise, that the choice is solely in the hands of the couple. If this was God's will, then He wouldn't have designed the rhythm of a woman's ovulation cycle with such a high failure rate.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16