The Dimonds and Most Holy Family Monastery
Recently I have received several reports of people protesting the doctrinal errors of Peter and Michael Dimond. One correspondent said they are a cult, and having experienced my fair share of Traditionalist cults, I am sure this is probably true. At any rate, cult or not, it is time to tackle the Dimonds and others who are so busy spreading errors these days.
The Dimonds are quite fond of tapes and this is what we will be refuting in the article to be posted soon under Traditionalist heresies and errors, Sec. 10 in the articles list. They began attacking the No Jurisdiction Position (NJP) many years ago, but these tapes were recorded in 2009. They recently came out with a newer tape rehashing all their old arguments and attacking Gerry Matatics (again) so we figured it was time to set the record straight.
Nearly everyone of the Traditionalist persuasion is unhappy that most of what is refuted here uses Canon Law as the yardsick, but that is what the Church gave us. The Dimonds also are Feeneyites so be sure to read the site article on Baptism of Desire (Sec. 9f) if you are unfamiliar with this heresy. The refutation of what these men teach is long overdue and I am sure I will end up on their “black list,” but this is unimportant. What IS important is truth, and the article will prove it cannot be found in the Dimonds’ teachings.
Please let us hear from you concerning this article.
Every blessing,
T. Benns
If supplied jurisdiction and/ or epekeia(sp?) so obviously permit priests to act lawfully, why then did the elderly priest in “Madness” and I can add three more of my own acquaintance feel it necessary to explain where their jurisdiction came? Remember these cases are not mistakes, but rather tales told to seem legitimate. Why go through the trouble and risk, nay sin? Whatever motivates the Dimonds, they cannot ignore that elderly priests knew otherwise and acted as they did.
We will be posting an article soon on why “epikeia” and “supplied jurisdiction” don’t apply to illicit and invalid traditionalist ministrations. We appreciate your support for the True Religion.
They break Dogma defined at Vatican I by running a Monastery with no Governance from Rome:
Vatican Council of 1870, Session 4, Chapter 3: On the … Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, Part 2 — Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by Divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a **pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church**, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both **episcopal and immediate**. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of **hierarchical subordination** and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the **discipline and government** of the Church throughout the world.”
No Pope = No Monastery
Daniel,
You are right about this, and Canon Law of course forbids it based on this teaching. Sorry I did not mention it, but was addressing particular questions raised by the Dimonds on jurisdiction and other issues in their tapes.
T. Benns
These people seem to want to hide their identity. Most of their Youtube videos have disabled comments. On one that had comments, I asked them twice if they were Catholics as they seemed to be extremely anti Catholic. On both occasions they deleted my comments.
By their fruits we know where they are coming from!
I am extremely confused. Why would Brother Dimond lie? What seems apparent to me is that when Sister Lucy died at 97, I was upset that very little media coverage was given on this. Can you explain why her passing was virtually ignored?
Why does anyone lie? We never really know the motivation always, do we? What I replied to Doug applies here. MHFM teaches heresy,ergo they cannot be Catholic. As for the Sr. Lucy business, no one will ever really know what happened to the real Lucy; some say she died in the 1940s, others in the mid 1960’s. Looking at photos of the woman who died not long ago I cannot see how she could possibly be the same woman. it is really immaterial as Fatima was important of course, but not a matter of faith or morals.
T. Benns
Doug G,
I have listened to several of their videos and I believe they are trying to preserve the catholic faith which existed prior to Vatican II council.
What you think really doesn’t matter; what the Church teaches matters. The Church (the Council of Trent) teaches that we can be saved by Baptism of blood or desire. MHFM does not. Ergo, MHFM cannot possibly be trying to preserve the faith.
T. Benns
Can you please tell me or reference where does the Council of Trent teach that we can be saved by baptism of desire or blood?
This quote was taken from one of the oldest editions of the Council of Trent documents, one which states in the forward that it is free from errors found in other editions.
The Council of Trent — Session 6, Chapter 4:
“By which words a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, — as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God (Romans 8:15) through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration (canon 5 Session 5), or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3:5).” 32
The Council of Trent — Session 7: “If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them, or without at least the desire for them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema,” (DZ 847).
Camilo,
The diamonds attack the novus ordo church, as they should, but after much research I decided to ask a traditional catholic priest regarding the matter of baptism of desire or blood, and the dimonds are wrong in their interpretation. You can read a very concise explanation in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by a seminary professor in Germany named Fr. Ludwig Ott. You can find the same information in any standard work on the Catholic Faith written pre-Vatican II, or as was written here from the author of this blog.
It is dangerous to ask these men anything — they are not priests and they are often ill-educated and wrong. While in this case the right answer is given all the research was provided for them by people like myself — please point to any substantial research on anything any of these men have done. ALL the theological manuals (not just Ott’s which has problems) also all the catechisms reflect baptism of desire in their teachings. We don’t need Traditionalists to tell us what to believe.
The Dimonds refuted this point. Also, we know there is only ONE baptism. Not three.
The Dimonds are wrong and have not done their research. Please look for two new articles soon that will tell the REAL story behind the Feeneyite heresy.
Your citation proves the Dimonds to be correct, and they have thoroughly and completely destroyed arguments to the contrary, which should be clear to any honest person.
Camilo,
I feel as you do, I suppose, seeking clarification in church teachings and laws. So I reread Bro. P. Dimond’s explanation on why they refute baptism of desire. If you wish to get a clearer understanding, as I have, he fully explains all the details in his video number15: “baptism of desire buried”, and article “baptism of desire refuted, 11th down the list under the title: recent featured videos and articles (website: mostholyfamilymonastery.com).
Nothing the Dimonds say — regardless of the convoluted reasoning they use — could ever refute the popes and the Council of Trent. Either you believe the representatives of Christ or mere men. I have gone through all this at length in my site article and will not repeat myself here. They reject the integral teaching of the Church overall and therefore are simply not Catholic. End of story.
T. Benns
Sorry to hear this comment. Sounds to me that you aren’t open to discussion. Sad.
Once the Church has made a decision on any given subject, NO ONE is allowed to discuss the matter again. Holy Mother Church has clearly taught what Her position is on BOB/BOD and Outside the Church… I have demonstrated this AT LENGTH and so have many others. What is truly sad is that HFM and the Feeneyites have succeeded in leading others astray on this clear teaching of the Church, and they remain willing dupes.
So you will see no discussion here. For Rome has spoken and the matter is closed.
Trent proves that Baptism of desire cannot possibly exist…
I do not respond to Feeneyite arguments on this site. You are simply wrong and all the proofs necessary to determine this are available here.
You’re incorrect. Pope St. Siricius closed the matter in 385. And not in your favor. There he emphasized the necessity of quickly administering WATER baptism “lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those DESIRING it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and Life.”
We do not pit the popes one against the other but take the teaching of the continual magisterium as one undivided whole. Please see the article on Integralism under Most Recent Articles.
I am more concerned with the issue of Pope John Paul II being designated by the Dimond Brothers as being the Antichrist. Though I can certainly see, from their evidence, that he is an antichrist, with a lower case “a,” as have been several characters in history, I cannot see how he could possibly be “the” Antichrist, with a capital “A.” This is because a dead man cannot possibly fulfill some of the prophecies for the end times. This requires a living entity, with terrible charisma, who will rule the nations of the world for a time. He will betray Israel with a false peace treaty. After he receives a wound in the head and recovers, many will bow down to him as a deity.
Please comment on this. I figure the Dimond Brothers are definitely mistaken on this. –Sincerely, Mary Lee Maloney
Dear Mary Lee,
There are many misconceptions concerning THE Antichrist. As to who he will really be, please read the annotated Cum ex…, The Mystery of Iniquity and the pieces on John 23 on the site. He has already come and gone, in my opinion. See if you do not think that there is compelling proof for this by reading all the titles on the site containing mention of Antichrist, the last days, etc. Or do a site search on thee topics. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that after his reign, people would be looking around and saying, “See, he came and nothing happened.” They would cry peace and security and that is when the chastisement or perhaps even the consummation would come upon them. Catholic thinking and belief on this topic has been contaminated with Protestant ideas and we need to purge ourselves of these false beliefs. All I do is present the information I have discovered on this matter from minds far wiser and knowledgeable.
Ave Maria
May Almighty God bless the reader.
The prophecies about the end times are very interesting indeed and there seems to be quite a difference of interpretation both in Catholic circles as well as in Protestant circles.
Many Saints have mentioned the Three Dark Days after which there is to be a period of peace under the Great King (of Bourbon royalty) and the Holy Pope (e.g. Pope Gregory XVII — of which St. Pius X said that he was not worthy to use that name when elected …).
Mr. Yves DuPont has made quite a study of these prophecies and I seem to hold by what he discovered. The Antichrist [with capital A] is to come at this time and will kill the Holy Pope as well and Enoch and Elias but will find his end when trying to copy Our Lord’s Ascension to heaven.
So contrary what has been said above that the Antichrist has already been and gone seems not to stroke with what Saints have prophesied.
One can find Y.DuPont on the Internet.
God bless you all.
Synthia
As Catholics, we do not grant to the prophecies that certainty we grant the teachings of faith. They are to be accepted or not, Catholic teaching tells us, according to the dictates of conscience and reason. Truths of faith, on the other hand, are to be accepted with a firm and irrevocable assent.
Not all the prophecies agree about the Monarch, or Enoch and Elias. Scripture commentators, who possess a higher standing than most of those to whom the prophecies were given, are very divided concerning how the end-times events will fall out. Also, many interpret the prophecies only spiritually, as the biblical commentators advise concerning the Apocalypse (with a few exceptions). There are some misprints and mistranslations in Dupont’s works that have been pointed out on various forums. At the time he wrote, he accepted John 23rd/Paul 6 as true popes, and this distorts some of his commentary.
I base the conclusion that Antichrist has already come and gone on proofs offered in the article, “The Mystery of Iniquity.” No less than St. Bernard of CLairvaux, Pope Paul IV in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (see annotated version on site) and Henry Cardinal Manning have made it clear that Antichrist will be a false pope who suspends the Sacrifice and destroys the Church. Who else could thus be but Montini?
When such teaching comes from the infallible bull of a pope and a great saint and doctor of the Church, we must choose to believe this, not what the prophecies say. All the signs that Montini filled this prediction are there.
Thank you for commenting.
Thank you for warning people about the Dimond brothers. They really have some convincing arguments, but, they are definitely wrong when it comes to Baptism of blood and desire. I’m told by our friends in Europe that this is an American heresy- Catholics in Europe have never had an issue with it.
Dear Anne,
Thank you for your comment. I regularly receive comments from Dimond supporters bashing me for not rejecting BOD, but I refuse to post any of these NOT because they contradict my own position but because they contradict the infallible decisions of the Holy See concerning who are heretics and who are not. Feeney was a heretic, and Pope Pius XII had good reasons to excommunicate him. He was not excommunicated for “disciplinary reasons” vs.but for dogmatic errors, as seen below. The Popes reserve the right to issue binding decrees on these matters and have from the earliest times. That these people do not choose to educate themselves is not my concern. I cannot post heretical drivel to my site that will confuse others just to please them.
You are right; Feeneyism is a peculiar outgrowth, in many ways, of the Americanist heresy, which really affects only America. It was an overreaction to what later became the abuses of Vatican 2, that everyone can be saved. Those who take the time to research this subject however will see that it was far from Pope Pius XII’s intent to weaken EENS or to “pave the way”for the neo-Modernists to throw the door open to any and all comers. The real issue here is how grace is dispensed, as I have tried to explain in some of the site articles. The Church has historically upheld Christ’s right to act solely on His mercy, and She must. For how is it that anyone dare to regulate how He deals with sinners?
(From the Canon Law Digest)
The Priest Leonard Feeney is Declared Excommunicated
“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience towards church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.”
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Volume XXXXV, Page 100.”
Sir, My initial reaction to you, is that your mind is full of vacuous dribble, There is no comparison to your theological education, and that of the Brothers of Most Holy Family Monastery. If you were sincere, you would glean their sites, and find the beautiful, Catholic, answer to every question you have. “The truth will set you free,” on the other hand, once the gates of Hell close, they do not open again. Sincerely, with hope and prayer, Susan