Former Members of the “Vatican II Sect” Now Claim
to be God’s “Chosen Benedictines”
Our Response to Their Latest Video:
“On ‘Fr.’ Gruner, the Last Days, & Lies in SSPX Book
‘True or False Pope’”
‘True or False Pope’”
After completing demolishing Peter Dimond’s latest arguments against the validity of the New Rite of Ordination in two separate articles, the Dimond brothers had to save face somehow, in front of their cult followers at “Holy Family Monastery.” They have painfully learned that they cannot rebut the theology in our book, and if they try again, they will be soundly and embarrassingly refuted, as before. So what did they do? Instead of another attempt at answering our theology, Peter and Michael Dimond pursued a new course of action. They recently released a new video in which they identify several non-theological issues from our book which they try to exploit, all the for the purpose of diverting their audience’s attention from the theological issues that they themselves cannot address, in an attempt to impugn our credibility and honesty.
Peter Dimond does this in his latest video called “On ‘Fr.’ Gruner, the Last Days, & Lies in SSPX Book ‘True or False Pope’” (published on May 25, 2016) in which he actually claims that Fr. Gruner, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are servants of Satan and even possessed by devils, while he and his brother are God’s chosen Benedictines to lead the Church through these “last times.” The video is a striking example of what we wrote in Chapter 21 of our book, not only concerning the truly bitter and demonic fruits of Sedevacantism, but also the self-delusion of many members of the sect. The Dimond brothers have taken these rotten fruits to a new level. They are desperate indeed, and this latest video shows that the laymen from New York have reached a new low in their self-delusions and diabolical disorientation.
Note well what this latest, pathetic effort means:
The Dimond Brothers Have No Answer to the Theology
of Our Book True or False Pope?
of Our Book True or False Pope?
With no theological answer to our book, the Dimond brothers have now changed tactics and engaged in a smear campaign, which includes accusing John Salza of being under demonic influence because he, in ignorance, joined a Masonic Lodge, 20 years ago, after getting permission from his parish priest. They fail to mention that he not only renounced his error, but has devoted his life to speaking out against Freemasonry, and leading many men out of the Lodge. These are the kind of desperate cheap shots the Dimond brothers have resorted to, because they cannot engage John Salza or Robert Siscoe on the theological merits of the Sedevacantist position. This is how insecure demagogues like Pete and Mike Dimond react against those who expose their errors in plain view for all to see.
Thus, the Dimond brothers employ a rule of using other people’s prior indiscretions from many years ago in an effort to discredit their current work. Unfortunately for the Dimond brothers, the same rule can and will be used against them. After all, as we prove in this feature, with a video that they themselves produced, Mike and Pete Dimond were once members of what they now call “the Vatican II sect,” and even publicly promoted “the Vatican II religion.” You read that correctly. And, in this feature, we have embedded the video presentation that Michael Dimond himself gave, a number of years ago, in which he promotes the “false Vatican II religion,” defends Pope John Paul II, and even speaks out against the errors of Sedevacantism. And he does so using arguments similar to what we wrote in our book True or False Pope?
Since the Dimond brothers believe the errors of one’s youth are relevant to his current theological positions, let them apply the same standards to themselves. If they were capable of making such a grievous theological error as joining the “false Vatican II sect” years ago, and defending it against Sedevacantism, they are certainly capable of making grave theological errors today as well (which we prove over 700 pages in our book). If the Dimond brothers were misled by devils into joining and even publicly promoting, the “demonic religion of Vatican II,” then they certainly are susceptible of being misled by devils today. Isn’t that precisely the argument they use against John Salza and others? And if they claim Robert Siscoe “is possessed” for “defending Pope Francis” (which he has never done), what does this say about Michael Dimond, who publicly defended John Paul II, a Pope who prayed with witch doctors and sorcerers, and who the Dimond brothers would later declare to be "the final antichrist"? Unfortunately for the Dimond brothers, their interest in other people’s pasts have now come back to haunt them.
Note that their current tactic in their latest video campaign is to focus on non-theological issues and create a “he said, she said,” scenario, by making claims that really cannot be definitively refuted, because it a case of our word against theirs. Since they have been soundly refuted on the theological claims (which can be definitively refuted), this tactic is part of their “save-face” strategy. For example, in our book, we claim that the Dimonds did not know or speak with Fr. Gruner. However, the Dimonds claim that Michael Dimond did know and speak with Fr. Gruner, and thus that we are “liars”. But since Fr. Gruner is dead, we cannot have Fr. Gruner refute their claims. Similarly, in our book we attribute a quotation to the Dimond brothers that their own website and others have also attributed to them. However, the Dimonds claim that the quotation came from someone else (named “Lasker”), and thus we also lied about the quotation. But since the “someone else” is a fictitious internet person they call “Lasker,” we cannot have that person refute the Dimonds’ claims.
Do you see how their tactic works? They chose to challenge ancillary, non-theological claims from our book which cannot be technically be proven or disproven. It’s a matter of our word against theirs. Somehow, they think this buys them some credibility, and perhaps with their simple-minded audience, this is the case. But, unfortunately for them, they cannot use this tactic to refute our claim that they edited out 35 minutes of material from a telephone debate they had with Mr. William Albrecht since, unlike “Lasker” (who is make-believe) and Fr. Gruner (who is dead), Mr. Albrecht is a real person, alive and well, and he has come forth to substantiate our claims (thus, the Dimond brothers slipped; their anger and irrationality caused them to challenge our assertion of their dishonesty which can be proved by a living third party).
Yesterday, we had the following email correspondence with Mr. Albrecht:
Yesterday, we had the following email correspondence with Mr. Albrecht:
Salza/Siscoe: “Were we accurate to state that they (Dimond brothers) edited out about 35 minutes of your material in your telephone debate with Peter Dimond? Is this correct? They said this was a bold-face lie, but you are a living witness to this.” (May 27, 2016, 5.05pm.)
Albrecht: “That is correct. They edited out 35 minutes or MORE and BLATANTLY said this. Check it out:” (May 27, 2016, 5.17pm.)
Mr. Albrecht then provided the following link, which includes this screen shot from an e-mail he received from Peter Dimond:
As you can see, Dimond says he retains “sole Youtube rights” to the debate, and even the sole right to “delete” (as he did in the first debate) any material from Mr. Albrecht’s refutation of Dimond’s arguments!
In other words, Peter Dimond doesn’t really want to debate Sedevacantism with a competent opponent, unless he can delete the parts of the debate that don’t go his way. And he even admitted, in writing, that he does, in fact, delete some of the oral arguments of his opponents in the telephone debates that he alone records! Dimond, of course, engages in these shameful and deceptive practices because he is a dishonest person, and knows he would be soundly defeated in any debate with a qualified opponent. And we can assure the reader that every claim we made in our book against the Dimond brothers is true, and they know it – but they will continue to nit-pick at those claims which they think can be called into question, because there is little or no possibility for independent, third-party corroboration. None of this, of course, has anything to do with our book’s devastating theological refutations of Sedevacantism which the Dimond brothers cannot address. Ultimately, what all this shows is who the real liars are – the phony, “Benedictine” laymen from Filmore, New York. Let us now look at the ridiculous claims they make in their latest video.
Peter Attempts to Disclaim His Childish Attacks
After accusing us of being “servants of
Satan,” Peter begins his video by disclaiming a quotation that we attributed to
Holy Family Monastery in their exchange with Ryan Grant, in which the Dimond
brothers wrote: “I’m done talking with you moronic, blind, brute, schismatic,
heretical, modernist, neanderthal false ‘traditionalists,’ so if you want
don’t even post my reply, because this is the last email that I send to you.
Don’t even bother in responding to this email. I won’t keep wasting my time
with neanderthals like you.”[1]
Now, Peter denies that he and his brother published this statement, even though
we pulled the quote directly
from their website which attributed the statement to Holy Family
Monastery (which suggests that he has modified his website since then). Peter
even argues that he and his brother would have never used the term
“neanderthal” because that would suggest that they embrace the error of
evolution (really?). As we mentioned above, he then attributes the quote to
some unidentified person named “Lasker” (which is impossible to disprove,
and, of course, is Dimond’s tactic), and this becomes Peter’s first “he said,
she said” attempt to discredit our book – as if such an issue is even remotely
relevant to our book’s 700 pages of theological refutation of Sedevacantism, to
which the Dimonds’ have no reply.
But
we are not the only ones who concluded, quite correctly, that this quote is
properly attributable to the Dimond brothers, since they themselves presented
the quotation as their
own on their
website (only
to presumably modify it after the fact). However, the Catholic website Unam
Sanctam Catholicam also attributes the quote to the Dimond brothers, in
an article called “Sedevacantism
and the Alleged Loss of the Four Marks.” From the website, as of May 26, 2016,
the day after Dimond published the video: “This article originally appeared on
the Traditionalist blog Athanasius Contra Mundum on September 3rd, 2009. The
dispute is between Mr. Ryan Grant representing the Catholic position and one
of the Dimond Brothers, Sedevecantists.”[2] The
article goes on to provide the exact same quote that
we provide on page 657 of our book, and attributes it to the Dimond brothers.
So
Peter’s tactic is to impugn our credibility by denying a quotation that his own
website attributes to him, as well as the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website.
You see, Peter creates a scenario where it’s our word against his, and he
thinks this somehow is supposed to discredit our book. And this from a man who
publishes countless childish and demeaning attacks against his opponents on his
website, which even his own Sedevacantist colleagues have lamented, such as
Gerry Matatics, who characterized the Dimonds’ work as “outrageous mortally
sinful calumny.” How about this quote from Pete Dimond, this time against a
fellow Sedevacantist, which we published on page 659 of our book (perhaps Peter
will come out with another video and disclaim this quote, and try to attribute
it to another fictitious person):
“You are a wicked, lying heretic. You
are liar and a fraud... Stop wasting our time you disgraceful heretic, headed
for everlasting damnation in the bowels of hell... We are sick of you... You
lying hypocrite phony... Servant of satan... You know nothing about the
Catholic faith... Don’t waste our time anymore, you schismatic, clueless,
demonic, loser headed for Hell... By the way, you wouldn’t call me a sissy to
my face, you punk...”[3]
Peter Dimond’s Personal Attack on Fr. Gruner
The next “he said, she said” scenario Dimond creates is claiming that we lied when we said that Pete and Mike Dimond never spoke with or knew the late Fr. Gruner, a priest that the Dimonds’ repeatedly call a “obstinate heretic,” a “false prophet” and “teacher of the devil.” Peter claims that his brother Michael did know and speak with Fr. Gruner, and thus, on this basis, our statement is inaccurate, and this, somehow, means our book is not credible (more baloney which, again, now that Fr. Gruner is dead, we cannot “disprove” by having Father rebut the claim). Of course, Peter puts aside the fact that John Salza was a close, personal friend of Fr. Gruner’s and gathered this information from the discussions he had with Fr. Gruner about the Dimond brothers and Holy Family Monastery. In fact, Salza did an extensive interview with someone who lived at the Monastery years ago and knew Michael Dimond (and this individual shared some very disturbing information about Mike and Pete Dimond that we will not publish, because it is not relevant to the theological debate on Sedevacantism). But, again, Peter creates another, non-doctrinal, non-theological “he said, she said” scenario in an attempt to discredit our book (a book to which he has no answer), and his tactic reveals that he is waving the white flag on the theology. Let the reader decide who has more credibility in regard to presenting the facts about Fr. Gruner – a close, personal friend of the Fatima priest, or one of his enemies, who even said Fr. Gruner was possessed by demons.
That’s right. Peter Dimond is so deluded about his own ability to read souls (not just the Pope’s) and the spiritual condition of others, that in this latest video he actually claims that Fr. Gruner was possessed by devils because his lip had an abnormal curvature to it! You read that correctly. Could Peter Dimond impugn his own credibility even more, by making such a distasteful assertion? Noting that Fr. Gruner’s upper lip was slanted upward, Dimond asserts that the priest’s expression “was the manifestation of the evil spirit that dominated him. God arranged that Gruner would speak with a crooked mouth because Gruner was such a false prophet of the devil.” Dimond goes on to say: “He was a false apparition from the devil. That’s why God allowed the constant facial contortion to accompany him.” Then, like the Protestant that he is, Dimond quotes from the Protestant translation of the Book of Proverbs 8:8 (NIV) to justify his accusations: “All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.” Can anyone possibly take Peter Dimond seriously after such a cockamamie assertion?
Dimond notes that Fr. Gruner’s lip curvature could have been from the disease Bell’s Palsy (some have claimed this to be the case), which results in musculature weakness in the face. But Pete Dimond’s knowledge of the spiritual condition of people he never knew has no boundaries, for he responds to this claim by saying Bell’s Palsy often happens to “people who seek out deliverance ministries; in other words, it’s something common among people with demonic problems.” So Peter concludes that if Fr. Gruner did indeed have Bell’s Palsy, it was because he was under demonic influences. Again, it amazes us that Pete Dimond evidently believes he can make such ludicrous accusations and people will not question his own integrity, if not his sanity. This demonstrates the depth of his self-delusions.
Peter Dimond also claims that Fr. Gruner was not the “gentle, priestly soul” that we described in our book, but a “ruthless man” who “viciously sued” and made “legal assaults” on his competition (based on hearsay claims of another individual Michael Dimond allegedly knew, and which Fr. Gruner can now no longer rebut) and deceived people out of “millions of dollars.” Here is another example of how the Dimond brothers attempt to stain the reputations of their opponents, with vile and unsubstantiated accusations, even against the faithful departed (and a priest, no less). The honest reader will ask the question – “What does any of this have to do with the theological arguments presented in True or False Pope?” The answer, of course, is nothing, because Pete and Mike Dimond have no answer.
That’s right. Peter Dimond is so deluded about his own ability to read souls (not just the Pope’s) and the spiritual condition of others, that in this latest video he actually claims that Fr. Gruner was possessed by devils because his lip had an abnormal curvature to it! You read that correctly. Could Peter Dimond impugn his own credibility even more, by making such a distasteful assertion? Noting that Fr. Gruner’s upper lip was slanted upward, Dimond asserts that the priest’s expression “was the manifestation of the evil spirit that dominated him. God arranged that Gruner would speak with a crooked mouth because Gruner was such a false prophet of the devil.” Dimond goes on to say: “He was a false apparition from the devil. That’s why God allowed the constant facial contortion to accompany him.” Then, like the Protestant that he is, Dimond quotes from the Protestant translation of the Book of Proverbs 8:8 (NIV) to justify his accusations: “All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.” Can anyone possibly take Peter Dimond seriously after such a cockamamie assertion?
Dimond notes that Fr. Gruner’s lip curvature could have been from the disease Bell’s Palsy (some have claimed this to be the case), which results in musculature weakness in the face. But Pete Dimond’s knowledge of the spiritual condition of people he never knew has no boundaries, for he responds to this claim by saying Bell’s Palsy often happens to “people who seek out deliverance ministries; in other words, it’s something common among people with demonic problems.” So Peter concludes that if Fr. Gruner did indeed have Bell’s Palsy, it was because he was under demonic influences. Again, it amazes us that Pete Dimond evidently believes he can make such ludicrous accusations and people will not question his own integrity, if not his sanity. This demonstrates the depth of his self-delusions.
Peter Dimond also claims that Fr. Gruner was not the “gentle, priestly soul” that we described in our book, but a “ruthless man” who “viciously sued” and made “legal assaults” on his competition (based on hearsay claims of another individual Michael Dimond allegedly knew, and which Fr. Gruner can now no longer rebut) and deceived people out of “millions of dollars.” Here is another example of how the Dimond brothers attempt to stain the reputations of their opponents, with vile and unsubstantiated accusations, even against the faithful departed (and a priest, no less). The honest reader will ask the question – “What does any of this have to do with the theological arguments presented in True or False Pope?” The answer, of course, is nothing, because Pete and Mike Dimond have no answer.
Peter Dimond’s Personal Attack on John Salza
As mentioned above, Dimond attempts to attack our book True or False Pope? by referring to Mr. Salza’s brief sojourn through Freemasonry 20 years ago – as if that has any relevance to our book at all. This is another obvious effort to diminish a person’s credibility and reputation because he has no answer to the person’s theological arguments. He even accuses Salza and Siscoe of being under demonic influences because he thinks we actually defend the novelties of “antipope Francis.” He then quotes St. Matthew 12:43-45 where Jesus says once an evil spirit leaves a person, it returns with seven other evil spirits more evil than itself, and the last state of the person is worse than the first. This demonic infiltration, Dimond says, is the reason why “Salza and his co-author [Siscoe] have chosen to aggressively defend antipope Francis at a time when his apostasy is totally obvious.”
First, as our readers well know, we do not “aggressively defend” the novelties of Pope Francis or any of the conciliar Popes. To the contrary, we reject their errors and speak out against them. Peter Dimond has confused our thorough refutation of Sedevacantism with a defense of the novelties of the conciliar Popes. But these are two entirely different issues. We defend the teaching of the Church, such as that from the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which forbids Catholics from formally separating from their Patriarch before a judgment of the Church (a teaching that the Dimonds’ reject), and call out anyone (like the Dimond brothers) who wilfully shun the council’s teaching. So serious did the Council consider this crime against the unity of the Church that it attached an excommunication to anyone who dared to do what it explicitly forbade.
As anyone who is capable of making simple distinctions can plainly see, our defense of the Church’s teaching is no defense of papal novelties which go against Church teaching or practice. Dimond also claims that Francis has “demonstrated unmistakable pertinacity.” However, as the unanimous opinion of all the Church’s approved theologians would hold, Francis’ pertinacity has not been “demonstrated unmistakably” according to the public judgment of the Church, who alone has the authority to establish such a fact in the external forum. Francis may be a heretic and have lost (or never had) the interior virtue of faith, but he remains Pope until the Church would find him guilty of the crime of heresy, just like Michael Dimond affirmed in the video we will show in a moment. Of course, Peter Dimond chooses not to engage in this theology (e.g., Bellarmine, the councils, etc.) because he is not competent to do so. He is a dog who is all bark and no theological bite. This is why he resorts to character assassination instead.
Since Peter Dimond has chosen to impugn Mr. Salza’s reputation by bringing up the issue of Freemasonry, he gives us an opportunity to air out his and his brother’s own dirty laundry. First, here are the facts: John Salza, a lifelong Catholic, joined a Masonic lodge in ignorance 20 years ago, after getting permission from his parish priest to do so (and how many people in their twenties ask their parish priest permission to do anything?). But, by virtue of his Catholic Faith, devotion to the Holy Rosary and the grace of God, he was eventually able to see and renounce his error, and then freely chose to publicly reveal his error as an act of reparation, and to help others from not making the same mistake (even creating an apostolate devoted to speaking and writing against Freemasonry). Anyone using their right reason would see the virtue and credibility in such a story. Peter Dimond, on the other hand, argues that Mr. Salza’s past proves he has no credibility and is even possessed by demons.
Now, since Pete and Mike Dimond believe that a person’s prior theological errors (from 20 years ago) are somehow relevant to that person’s current theological positions and even spiritual condition, let’s use the same standards against them. As you can see in the video below, Michael (and Peter) Dimond was a member of what he and his brother now call the “demonic Vatican II sect.” They even publicly promoted the “Vatican II religion” through public speaking and video productions (while Mr. Salza never publicly promoted his error). As you see in the video, Michael Dimond not only defends the “heretical Vatican II sect,” but also condemns the errors of Sedevacantism! (and he does a decent job of pointing out the many errors and contradictions of Sedevacantism, which he himself, and his little brother, would later embrace).
After all, according to the Dimond brothers’ own standards, if John Salza’s joining a “false religion” 20 years ago (although he never publicly defended his error) is relevant to his current theological positions, how much more relevant is Michael and Peter Dimonds’ joining a “false religion” (the “Vatican II sect”) 20 years ago, an error which they publicly defended in speeches and videos, and now call completely evil and demonic? And, how much more relevant to the issue of credibility is it that, while Mr. Salza owned up to his error by publicly confessing it, the Dimond brothers are in denial about their own past, and even threaten people with lawsuits for showing the video (about their membership in the “Vatican II religion”), which they, at one time, offered to the public and promoted? If Mr. Salza is susceptible to demonic influences for an error that he never publicly promoted and has publicly and sacramentally renounced, how much more so are the Dimond brothers susceptible to demonic influences, according to their own standards, for joining the “false Vatican II Church,” an error they publicly promoted but now wish to keep secret, at all costs?
Who, dear reader, has the more questionable background? A lifelong professing Catholic who sought permission from his parish priest to join a Masonic lodge, only to realize the error and make it public so that others would not make the same mistake, or the Dimond brothers, who went from being agnostics, to becoming members and promoters of the Catholic Church, only to later reject their own arguments in defense of the Church and publicly defect from her for the Sedevacantist sect? And, further, to publicly proclaim to be prophets of God, even after having been proven to be false prophets by claiming that Pope John Paul II was “the final antichrist”? And, still further, to be God’s chosen Benedictines, even though not a single Benedictine monastery in the world recognizes them as legitimate Benedictines? Who, dear reader, has the credibility problem?
First, as our readers well know, we do not “aggressively defend” the novelties of Pope Francis or any of the conciliar Popes. To the contrary, we reject their errors and speak out against them. Peter Dimond has confused our thorough refutation of Sedevacantism with a defense of the novelties of the conciliar Popes. But these are two entirely different issues. We defend the teaching of the Church, such as that from the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which forbids Catholics from formally separating from their Patriarch before a judgment of the Church (a teaching that the Dimonds’ reject), and call out anyone (like the Dimond brothers) who wilfully shun the council’s teaching. So serious did the Council consider this crime against the unity of the Church that it attached an excommunication to anyone who dared to do what it explicitly forbade.
As anyone who is capable of making simple distinctions can plainly see, our defense of the Church’s teaching is no defense of papal novelties which go against Church teaching or practice. Dimond also claims that Francis has “demonstrated unmistakable pertinacity.” However, as the unanimous opinion of all the Church’s approved theologians would hold, Francis’ pertinacity has not been “demonstrated unmistakably” according to the public judgment of the Church, who alone has the authority to establish such a fact in the external forum. Francis may be a heretic and have lost (or never had) the interior virtue of faith, but he remains Pope until the Church would find him guilty of the crime of heresy, just like Michael Dimond affirmed in the video we will show in a moment. Of course, Peter Dimond chooses not to engage in this theology (e.g., Bellarmine, the councils, etc.) because he is not competent to do so. He is a dog who is all bark and no theological bite. This is why he resorts to character assassination instead.
Since Peter Dimond has chosen to impugn Mr. Salza’s reputation by bringing up the issue of Freemasonry, he gives us an opportunity to air out his and his brother’s own dirty laundry. First, here are the facts: John Salza, a lifelong Catholic, joined a Masonic lodge in ignorance 20 years ago, after getting permission from his parish priest to do so (and how many people in their twenties ask their parish priest permission to do anything?). But, by virtue of his Catholic Faith, devotion to the Holy Rosary and the grace of God, he was eventually able to see and renounce his error, and then freely chose to publicly reveal his error as an act of reparation, and to help others from not making the same mistake (even creating an apostolate devoted to speaking and writing against Freemasonry). Anyone using their right reason would see the virtue and credibility in such a story. Peter Dimond, on the other hand, argues that Mr. Salza’s past proves he has no credibility and is even possessed by demons.
Now, since Pete and Mike Dimond believe that a person’s prior theological errors (from 20 years ago) are somehow relevant to that person’s current theological positions and even spiritual condition, let’s use the same standards against them. As you can see in the video below, Michael (and Peter) Dimond was a member of what he and his brother now call the “demonic Vatican II sect.” They even publicly promoted the “Vatican II religion” through public speaking and video productions (while Mr. Salza never publicly promoted his error). As you see in the video, Michael Dimond not only defends the “heretical Vatican II sect,” but also condemns the errors of Sedevacantism! (and he does a decent job of pointing out the many errors and contradictions of Sedevacantism, which he himself, and his little brother, would later embrace).
After all, according to the Dimond brothers’ own standards, if John Salza’s joining a “false religion” 20 years ago (although he never publicly defended his error) is relevant to his current theological positions, how much more relevant is Michael and Peter Dimonds’ joining a “false religion” (the “Vatican II sect”) 20 years ago, an error which they publicly defended in speeches and videos, and now call completely evil and demonic? And, how much more relevant to the issue of credibility is it that, while Mr. Salza owned up to his error by publicly confessing it, the Dimond brothers are in denial about their own past, and even threaten people with lawsuits for showing the video (about their membership in the “Vatican II religion”), which they, at one time, offered to the public and promoted? If Mr. Salza is susceptible to demonic influences for an error that he never publicly promoted and has publicly and sacramentally renounced, how much more so are the Dimond brothers susceptible to demonic influences, according to their own standards, for joining the “false Vatican II Church,” an error they publicly promoted but now wish to keep secret, at all costs?
Who, dear reader, has the more questionable background? A lifelong professing Catholic who sought permission from his parish priest to join a Masonic lodge, only to realize the error and make it public so that others would not make the same mistake, or the Dimond brothers, who went from being agnostics, to becoming members and promoters of the Catholic Church, only to later reject their own arguments in defense of the Church and publicly defect from her for the Sedevacantist sect? And, further, to publicly proclaim to be prophets of God, even after having been proven to be false prophets by claiming that Pope John Paul II was “the final antichrist”? And, still further, to be God’s chosen Benedictines, even though not a single Benedictine monastery in the world recognizes them as legitimate Benedictines? Who, dear reader, has the credibility problem?
Watch Michael Dimond Speak Against Sedevacantism
Before He Converted to the Sect
Before He Converted to the Sect
If the Dimonds claim that a person’s prior theological error is evidence of an ongoing diabolical influence, when that person never publicly defended the error, how much more diabolical is it for a person to publicly defend a position, in a video-recorded conference, with sound and cogent arguments, only to later completely reject the same irrefutable argumentation, and embrace the opposite position? Well, this is exactly what Mike and Pete Dimond did. You can see for yourself in the following video, in which Michael Dimond defends “the Vatican II sect” and highlights the errors of the Sedevacantist position.
Following is a synopsis of the argumentation that Michael makes in his video presentation.
Dimond goes on to say: “And you have the example of St. Peter, where he denied Our Lord to the point of cursing and blaspheming, but he didn’t lose his position.” That’s right, Michael, he didn’t. A Pope can blaspheme Our Lord, just as Pope Francis has done, and still “not lose his position,” in your own words. Dimond goes on to say: “And, by the way, also, Padre Pio told John Paul II when he was a priest, he said one day ‘You will be Pope.’ Now, he didn’t say he would be a good Pope. He just said ‘You will be Pope one day,’ that’s all he said (he smiles). So that’s even a strong indicator in itself that they (the Sedevacantists) are definitely wrong.” Here, by the way, is an indication of how Mike and Pete, even when they were Catholics, used private revelations (and not theological analysis) to defend their positions.
In completely exposing the Sedevacantist error, Dimond further says: “In a word, there is no divine promise that the Pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructful [sic] ways. Such a Pope, however, despite all and any manner of unholy action, would not lose his own legitimacy, his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of infallibility so that, should an avowed conspirator [Salza/Siscoe: Like Francis!] become the Roman Pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had inflicted on the Church, without needing to be re-elected, reinstalled, or reconfirmed in his office.” Well said, again, Michael!
To put another stake in the Sedevacantist coffin, Dimond then says: “The widespread notion that anyone who incurs ipso facto excommunication is thereby out of the Church, no longer a member, and therefore loses all ecclesiastical offices, dignities, etcetera, is based on a fundamental misconception – ‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic,’ is a valid principle. A valid excommunication does not mean that the Church thereby excludes the person altogether. But the subject may not participate in the life of the Church, that is, receiving any of the sacraments of the living, or participate in liturgical ceremonies, or take part in Church functions, etcetera. As regards any offices, they are lost through a canonical condemnation only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon the declaration of quote ‘excommunication’ and ‘to be avoided,’ by the Pope himself. Obviously, the Supreme Pontiff cannot incur the censure.” In other words, Mike Dimond correctly maintained that the Pope remained the Pope (he remained a Catholic), even if he were “an avowed conspirator” who “inflicted damage on the Church” – that is, until a general council or a future Pope declared otherwise.
And to see how far the Dimond brothers have fallen from their previous position, Michael goes on to say the following: “But, at the same time, no one may justifiably blame even an errant Pope for his sins; the failure of any person, even the Pope, to keep God’s laws or persevere in his own faith does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same.” And, now, the same Michael Dimond not only “blames the Pope for his sins,” but he incorrectly concludes that the sin of heresy (privately judged by Mike and Pete Dimond) results in the Pope’s loss of office. Dimond concludes his exposition of the errors of Sedevacantism by stating: “The main thing…is to keep the Catholic Faith, to uphold what has always been taught.” Unfortunately, Michael ended up rejecting his own advice. He and his little brother Peter publicly defected from the Catholic Church, and now have become her most bitter persecutors.
Michael begins his presentation by pointing out that one of the “prevalent errors” in the Church is Sedevacantism. Indeed, it is. Without making necessary distinctions, he says that “manifest heresy automatically or ipso facto effects an excommunication for any person in any office, and the Church has a right from God to separate itself from a heretical Pope.” But then he, quite correctly, explains: “But, in the case of the Pope, the determination that the person has lost his position would have to be made by the universal Church, most probably by the declaration of a general council, or stated by a future Pope, before Catholics could arrive at such a conclusion.” Well said, Michael!
In completely exposing the Sedevacantist error, Dimond further says: “In a word, there is no divine promise that the Pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructful [sic] ways. Such a Pope, however, despite all and any manner of unholy action, would not lose his own legitimacy, his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of infallibility so that, should an avowed conspirator [Salza/Siscoe: Like Francis!] become the Roman Pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had inflicted on the Church, without needing to be re-elected, reinstalled, or reconfirmed in his office.” Well said, again, Michael!
To put another stake in the Sedevacantist coffin, Dimond then says: “The widespread notion that anyone who incurs ipso facto excommunication is thereby out of the Church, no longer a member, and therefore loses all ecclesiastical offices, dignities, etcetera, is based on a fundamental misconception – ‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic,’ is a valid principle. A valid excommunication does not mean that the Church thereby excludes the person altogether. But the subject may not participate in the life of the Church, that is, receiving any of the sacraments of the living, or participate in liturgical ceremonies, or take part in Church functions, etcetera. As regards any offices, they are lost through a canonical condemnation only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon the declaration of quote ‘excommunication’ and ‘to be avoided,’ by the Pope himself. Obviously, the Supreme Pontiff cannot incur the censure.” In other words, Mike Dimond correctly maintained that the Pope remained the Pope (he remained a Catholic), even if he were “an avowed conspirator” who “inflicted damage on the Church” – that is, until a general council or a future Pope declared otherwise.
And to see how far the Dimond brothers have fallen from their previous position, Michael goes on to say the following: “But, at the same time, no one may justifiably blame even an errant Pope for his sins; the failure of any person, even the Pope, to keep God’s laws or persevere in his own faith does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same.” And, now, the same Michael Dimond not only “blames the Pope for his sins,” but he incorrectly concludes that the sin of heresy (privately judged by Mike and Pete Dimond) results in the Pope’s loss of office. Dimond concludes his exposition of the errors of Sedevacantism by stating: “The main thing…is to keep the Catholic Faith, to uphold what has always been taught.” Unfortunately, Michael ended up rejecting his own advice. He and his little brother Peter publicly defected from the Catholic Church, and now have become her most bitter persecutors.
Peter Dimond Misunderstands the End Times
Next, Peter Dimond claims that we contradicted ourselves because we wrote that we are not currently in the “last times,” but we also say that the times we are living in now were revealed in Marian apparitions (Fatima, LaSalette and Akita), which are about the “last times.” Once again, it is Peter Dimond who is confused, not us.
First, the New Testament writings refer to the Church age as the “last days.” For example, St. Peter says that the birth of the Church at Pentecost has occurred during these last times. Quoting the prophet Joel, St. Peter says: “And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord), I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh…(Acts 2:17). Thus, St. Peter says the “last times” began during the age of the Catholic Church. Before Dimond accuses us of contradicting ourselves on the last times, he needs to define what he means by “last times.” So, on the one hand, one can say that we are in the “last times.”
But secondly, and on the other hand, one can say that we are not in the “last times” insofar as the antichrist will not appear until after the intervening period of peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima occurs. This is precisely what we meant when we said we are not in the “last times,” even though we are living the chastisements prophesied by Our Lady of Fatima. Our reference to the “last times” refers to the period of antichrist, which we maintain follows the period of peace, when the devil realizes that his efforts to destroy the Church from within have failed, and he will now attempt to destroy the Church from without.
The major problem with Peter’s false accusation of our alleged contradiction and his understanding of “last times” (which he bases on his own private interpretation of Scripture, as do all Protestants) is that he does not consider Our Lady of Fatima’s promised period of peace, which must happen before the reign of the antichrist in the end times. Why not? Because Peter has created the completely novel theory (which almost no one believes) that Pope Pius XII did a valid consecration of Russia in 1952, even though he did not have participation of all the Catholic bishops, and even though Lucia always maintained that no Pope, including Pius XII, had consecrated Russia in accordance with Our Lady’s instructions (and Russia has not converted to the Faith). Peter created this theory to exonerate Pius XII from his failure to do a valid consecration, since Peter believes Pius XII was the last true Pope (but how does Peter explain why Pius XI, who he believes was also a true Pope, did not do a valid consecration?)
Because the Dimonds argue that Pius XII’s consecration satisfied Our Lady’s command, they falsely conclude that all the Fatima prophecies have been fulfilled, including Our Lady’s prophecy of the annihilation of nations (which they claim occurred with the geopolitical restructuring in the East). Thus, the Dimonds are forced to conclude that we have already experienced Our Lady’s promised period of peace, even though the world is at perpetual war and is more dangerous now than during the reign of Pius XII. In doing so, they consequently argue that we are in the “last times” and the very end of the world. Unfortunately for them, not only is their theory about Pius XII’s consecration erroneous, but so was their “prophecy” that John Paul II was the final antichrist of the “last times”! The Dimond brothers are poster children for how one grievous error leads to many others.
Third, the Dimonds attempt to prove we are in the “last times” by referring to statements made by Sister Lucia and Fr. Gruner. Of course, these are more desperate appeals to justify their completely novel and false theories. Sister Lucia never said we are in the times of antichrist, since she always maintained Russia would first have to be consecrated and convert to the Catholic Faith and a period of peace granted to the world, before the end times (which is precisely what we said in our book). Similarly, Fr. Gruner obviously rejected the Dimond brothers’ absurd theory that Pius XII’s consecration satisfied Our Lady’s command and that we have experienced the blessings of the Fatima prophecies. For the Dimonds to appeal to the “faithless heretic” Fr. Gruner in support of their pet theory, which Fr. Gruner himself rejected, shows just how desperate the laymen from New York are in trying to discredit their opponents.
The Dimonds Claim They are God’s Chosen Benedictines
to Lead the Church through the Last Times
to Lead the Church through the Last Times
If you thought Peter Dimond’s arguments could not get any crazier, think again. Dimond ends his video by actually claiming that he and his brother are God’s chosen Benedictines to lead the Church through these end times! That’s right! Even though not a single Benedictine monastery in the world recognizes the Dimond’s operation as legitimate (and we even have correspondence from a true Benedictine monastery that refers to their “fraudulent racket”), Freddy and Bobby (their real names) Dimond not only claim they are true Benedictines (who, according to those who have lived with them, do not even live the Benedictine rule), but are the fulfillment of God’s promise to St. Benedict that his order would help preserve the faith. Such self-delusions must come from the Kool-Aid over at “Holy Family Monastery,” since Richard Ibranyi, who also lived at the Dimond’s compound for a while, claims he is one of the two witnesses revealed in the Apocalypse.
What is the basis for Peter’s divine claims? By way of background, Mike and Pete Dimond were defendants in a civil lawsuit in which they were accused of federal racketeering, mail fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful enrichment, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, and conspiracy in connection with defrauding a postulant named Eric Hoyle, who evidently turned over $1,500,000 in cash and stocks to the Dimond brothers in exchange for becoming a Benedictine at their “monastery.” Apparently, the Dimond brothers were able to afford a top-rate legal defense (where did they get the money to pay attorneys’ fees?), and the case against them was dismissed.
Now, because the clerk of courts filed the judge’s decision on March 21 (the feast of St. Benedict), Peter proudly notes that “nothing like this has happened in Church history” (What? People defrauding other people out of money? Or two laymen who claim they are sons of St. Benedict and declare that the last six Popes of the Catholic Church are antipopes?) Even though every single Benedictine monastery in the world says Peter and Michael Dimond are not true Benedictines, the Dimond brothers are content with holding themselves out as Benedictines, because some clerk of a secular court in New York filed their case decision on the feast of St. Benedict.
According to Peter, “it is a clear sign from heaven about the work we are doing for those with eyes to see.” He then says: “God promised St. Benedict that his order would exist at end of world in the final battle, and that there would be Benedictines who would play a special role in preserving the faith. Do we believe that we [Holy Family Monastery] are that order? Yes we do!”
According to Peter, “it is a clear sign from heaven about the work we are doing for those with eyes to see.” He then says: “God promised St. Benedict that his order would exist at end of world in the final battle, and that there would be Benedictines who would play a special role in preserving the faith. Do we believe that we [Holy Family Monastery] are that order? Yes we do!”
There you have it. The brothers who claim to read souls, who reject the Church’s condemnations of Sedevacantism at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, who reject the unanimous opinion of the Church’s theologians on how a Pope loses his office, who falsely predicted that John Paul II was the final antichrist, who are denounced as wicked and abominable even by their own Sedevacantist colleagues, and we could go on and on…they actually claim that their “monastery” is the order that God has chosen to lead the Church through the end times! Need we say more? No, we need not. Not unless Pete and Mike Dimond make another attempt at addressing our theological arguments against Sedevacantism. However, given the beating they took with their first attempt (on the New Rite of Ordination), this is extremely unlikely. And “those with eyes to see” know why.
28 May A.D. 2016
Feast of St. Augustine of Canterbury
Son of St. Benedict
Son of St. Benedict
