B
barefoot
Guest
My wife visited a website of the Most Holy Family Monastary. She starting reading it to me and it was very alarming to say the least. Can any tell me about this place. Surely it not Catholic???
- Status
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
The Dead Horse Society rides again. 
Sorry to be so sarcastic, but it does not seem like a week or so goes by before this subject come up again.
The Dimond brothers are sedevacantists of the most vile kind and should be avoided.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Most Holy Family Monestary
I debated the Dimond Brothers!!!
Br Dimond Debate
Most Holy Family Monastery —on to something??
The Most Holy Family Monastery
Bro. Michael Dimond on the Art Bell Show
And these are just the threads where they are the main topic.
Sorry to be so sarcastic, but it does not seem like a week or so goes by before this subject come up again.
The Dimond brothers are sedevacantists of the most vile kind and should be avoided.
Code:
[Help: Heresies of the Pope?](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220350&highlight=Dimond)Most Holy Family Monestary
I debated the Dimond Brothers!!!
Br Dimond Debate
Most Holy Family Monastery —on to something??
The Most Holy Family Monastery
Bro. Michael Dimond on the Art Bell Show
And these are just the threads where they are the main topic.
J
jim28
Guest
My wife visited a website of the Most Holy Family Monastary. She starting reading it to me and it was very alarming to say the least. Can any tell me about this place.
If by “surely it not Catholic” you mean apart of the Vatican II/Novus Ordo “church”, then no, they are not that type of Catholic.
If you mean the 2000 year old Catholic Church, started by Jesus, founded upon Peter, then yes they are Catholic.
If your wife is attracted by truth, then you should not deter her from finding it, in fact you should weigh all the facts honestly yourself. It is a matter of salvation.
Thanks
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I strongly suggest that everyone avoid anything that claims to be catholic and denies that Pope. I do not know these people, and they may be most sincere, but they are not Catholic.
J
jim28
Guest
Please name a Dogma that the MHFM denies.
They would have to dissent from a Catholic Teaching to be considered outside the Church after Baptism.
Thanks
T
terillmorris
Guest
Does anyone know what Brother Michael Dimond’s real name is? Id like to do some research as to who he really is. Or is there anyone who you could point me to that may know? His real name and town and state where he is from would help.
J
jim28
Guest
I know his real name but he entered the Monastery when he was 19, his partial bio is on the site. Can’t get much info on a 19 year old. He took over the Monastery when Bro. Joseph Natale died. Then Bro. Michael moved the Monastery to upstate NY.
What is so sinister about MHFM that you feel you have to dig up dirt (which isn’t there) on them?
What do you have against them Mr. G. ?
T
teadough
Guest
Good luck with that one my friend.
WOW!!!
J
jim28
Guest
In all sincerity, what does that mean?Good luck with that one my friend.
WOW!!!
T
terillmorris
Guest
I didnt say I wanted to “dig up dirt” just wanted to know more about him–what is his real name and where is he from?
K
kleary
Guest
Well…here we go again…
In the 1950’s a man named Joseph Natale left the Benedictine monastery in PA to establish a new monastery in Berlin, NJ- called Most Holy Family Monastery. Michael Dimond was one of the brothers there in the 1990’s.
I was told that he did get permission from his superior, and also permission from the then Bishop of Camden to establish the new order of Benedictine Monks.
It was shortly after the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass that things started to go against them. They refused to allow the Novus Ordo Mass and the property became a refuge for those who chose not to attend the New Mass.
At first, as long as Mr. Natale was alive the things coming from the Most Holy Family Monastery in Berlin were not that severe. Of course there was the talk against the Novus Ordo Mass and all practices that begame associated with it, but things were in no way how they are now at the “new monastery” in New York.
The MHFM in Berlin gained popularity among many “traditionalists”. They built a new hall and new chapel. In the 1990’s the Bishop of Camden sent a communication to Mr. Natale- threatening to place the property under interdict. I do not know exactly what the order said in it but shortly after that Joseph Natale died.
I heard that after his death things really started to go haywire- a “Doomesday Attitude” was published throughout their mailings. Tension began between the lay people and Mr. Dimond from what I heard.
It got so bad Mr. Dimond threw the priest of the monastery out in the middle of the night- for failure to preach his doomesday message and “whore of babylon novus ordo church” theory.
After that Dimond and the remaining brother abandoned the propery in Berlin, NJ, leaving for the new one in NY.
Since then the property in Berlin was taken over by the lay people associated with it, the “Oblates of St. Jude”. This was done through default judgement against Mr. Dimond in civil court.
The property in Berlin was then placed into the hands of Fr. William Ashley of the FSSP. However he himself attempted to establish his own religious order, Opus Mariae- which the then Bishop of Camden refused to sponsor.
In 2000 the property in Berlin was placed into the hands of the Camden Diocese and is the first ever Diocesean Staffed 100 percent TLM parish under the Ecclesia Dei Indult- and now under the MP Summorum Pontificum. The property in Berlin is now called “Mater Ecclesiae”- of which I am a registered parishoner. Presently we are a “Mission Church” in the parish of St. Edward- in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Dimond went his own way and if I were you I would not pay attention to what he says. His organization is not a Catholic one. Stay away from MHFM in NY.
Kenneth Leary
Former Director of Public Relations, and now just plain old parishoner at
In the 1950’s a man named Joseph Natale left the Benedictine monastery in PA to establish a new monastery in Berlin, NJ- called Most Holy Family Monastery. Michael Dimond was one of the brothers there in the 1990’s.
I was told that he did get permission from his superior, and also permission from the then Bishop of Camden to establish the new order of Benedictine Monks.
It was shortly after the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass that things started to go against them. They refused to allow the Novus Ordo Mass and the property became a refuge for those who chose not to attend the New Mass.
At first, as long as Mr. Natale was alive the things coming from the Most Holy Family Monastery in Berlin were not that severe. Of course there was the talk against the Novus Ordo Mass and all practices that begame associated with it, but things were in no way how they are now at the “new monastery” in New York.
The MHFM in Berlin gained popularity among many “traditionalists”. They built a new hall and new chapel. In the 1990’s the Bishop of Camden sent a communication to Mr. Natale- threatening to place the property under interdict. I do not know exactly what the order said in it but shortly after that Joseph Natale died.
I heard that after his death things really started to go haywire- a “Doomesday Attitude” was published throughout their mailings. Tension began between the lay people and Mr. Dimond from what I heard.
It got so bad Mr. Dimond threw the priest of the monastery out in the middle of the night- for failure to preach his doomesday message and “whore of babylon novus ordo church” theory.
After that Dimond and the remaining brother abandoned the propery in Berlin, NJ, leaving for the new one in NY.
Since then the property in Berlin was taken over by the lay people associated with it, the “Oblates of St. Jude”. This was done through default judgement against Mr. Dimond in civil court.
The property in Berlin was then placed into the hands of Fr. William Ashley of the FSSP. However he himself attempted to establish his own religious order, Opus Mariae- which the then Bishop of Camden refused to sponsor.
In 2000 the property in Berlin was placed into the hands of the Camden Diocese and is the first ever Diocesean Staffed 100 percent TLM parish under the Ecclesia Dei Indult- and now under the MP Summorum Pontificum. The property in Berlin is now called “Mater Ecclesiae”- of which I am a registered parishoner. Presently we are a “Mission Church” in the parish of St. Edward- in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Dimond went his own way and if I were you I would not pay attention to what he says. His organization is not a Catholic one. Stay away from MHFM in NY.
Kenneth Leary
Former Director of Public Relations, and now just plain old parishoner at
T
terillmorris
Guest
GREAT!!! I JUST WANA KNOW BROTHER MICHAEL’S REAL NAME
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I would say that stating that the Chair of St Peter is vacant is and that every thing the Church has taught since VII as heresy would place them out side the church.
K
kleary
Guest
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
It should be noted that the MHFM has “excommunicated” virtually the entire Catholic world.
Also, on the MHFM website, you’ll find numerous articles by the brothers telling you all the Traditionalist Catholic priests and bishops to AVOID because they are “heretics,” but I so far
can’t find any traditionalist priests of whom the Brothers Dimond actually APPROVE.
It must be lonely at the top.
Also, on the MHFM website, you’ll find numerous articles by the brothers telling you all the Traditionalist Catholic priests and bishops to AVOID because they are “heretics,” but I so far
can’t find any traditionalist priests of whom the Brothers Dimond actually APPROVE.
It must be lonely at the top.
J
jim28
Guest
Then every person that proclaimed that the Chair of Peter was vacant in between the death of one pope and the election of another would be outside the Church. Thank you for your new teaching.
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ upon Peter and cannot teach heresy. The VII church has there own teachings and in most cases contradict the Catholic Church either blatantly or ambiguously.
Outside the Vatican II church yes. The Catholic Church no.
We are required to condemn all heresy as Christians.
I hope this helps
Thanks:newidea:
G
Genesis315
Guest
The main issue with sedevacantists is they misunderstand both certain recent magisterial texts and past ones. They also tend to exaggerate a lot saying the “Vatican II Church” teaches almost all wrong teachings, when in reality the sedevacantist only has a beef with a few specific points.
The first point is religious liberty. But they interpret certain parts of the Council’s declaration on the matter as being metaphysical truths rather than assserting time/circumstance-specific social necessities as the official relatio and Pope Benedict XVI both state it should be read.
Second, they assume “subsistit in” was used instead of “est” to to allow multiple subsistences, rather than emphasize a perduring reality over a mere present reality–again the CDF on multiple occasions has stated the proper reading.
Third, they treat believing the entire deposit of faith in perfect detail as a necessity of means, rather than a necessity of precept.
They also deny that the grace of Baptism can be conferred extrasacramentally, which would mean Popes like Pius XII and Innocent III (not to mention many fathers and doctors of the Church) were also manifest heretics and not true popes, which of course sedevacantists do not assert.
Next, they have a major beef with ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. They look at certain actions and assume they are a means intended to further a particular end–namely religious indifferentism and a denial of the uniqueness and universality of the Catholic faith–and therefore that end is a major tenet of the “Vatican II Church.” This however contradicts the stated ends of all magisterial texts on the topic, from the Council, subsequent Popes, and the CDF. Whether one believes certain means are actually the best means or even conducive to those ends is a prudential disagreement, but not one that involves the charge of heresy on either side.
Finally they reject a particular missal and other rites associated with it. I really think this is what it all boils down to–they realize the only way they can legitimately reject this is if the authority who promulgated it was invalid. But, if one were to study a multitude of liturgies that have been lawfully used by the Church, one can find parallels for all the various elements of the missal in question.
It takes patience to seek understanding, and you’ll never get it from a website or a couple websites, but rather by going back to the primary sources, and by reading things like relatios, etc in the spirit of patient charity without rash judgment, rather than the “hermeneutic of heresy.” And it also is good to remember that the deposit faith, Scripture but also magisterial texts, etc. are not matters of private judgment.
The first point is religious liberty. But they interpret certain parts of the Council’s declaration on the matter as being metaphysical truths rather than assserting time/circumstance-specific social necessities as the official relatio and Pope Benedict XVI both state it should be read.
Second, they assume “subsistit in” was used instead of “est” to to allow multiple subsistences, rather than emphasize a perduring reality over a mere present reality–again the CDF on multiple occasions has stated the proper reading.
Third, they treat believing the entire deposit of faith in perfect detail as a necessity of means, rather than a necessity of precept.
They also deny that the grace of Baptism can be conferred extrasacramentally, which would mean Popes like Pius XII and Innocent III (not to mention many fathers and doctors of the Church) were also manifest heretics and not true popes, which of course sedevacantists do not assert.
Next, they have a major beef with ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. They look at certain actions and assume they are a means intended to further a particular end–namely religious indifferentism and a denial of the uniqueness and universality of the Catholic faith–and therefore that end is a major tenet of the “Vatican II Church.” This however contradicts the stated ends of all magisterial texts on the topic, from the Council, subsequent Popes, and the CDF. Whether one believes certain means are actually the best means or even conducive to those ends is a prudential disagreement, but not one that involves the charge of heresy on either side.
Finally they reject a particular missal and other rites associated with it. I really think this is what it all boils down to–they realize the only way they can legitimately reject this is if the authority who promulgated it was invalid. But, if one were to study a multitude of liturgies that have been lawfully used by the Church, one can find parallels for all the various elements of the missal in question.
It takes patience to seek understanding, and you’ll never get it from a website or a couple websites, but rather by going back to the primary sources, and by reading things like relatios, etc in the spirit of patient charity without rash judgment, rather than the “hermeneutic of heresy.” And it also is good to remember that the deposit faith, Scripture but also magisterial texts, etc. are not matters of private judgment.
C
cam100
Guest
Good post above, Genesis315, but I want to clarify something about the piece I just quoted here. The denial of Baptism of desire is not really an intrinsic component of sedevacantism. While Most Holy Family Monastary denies Baptism of desire, most sedevacantists do not.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I know you are not that dense. I apologize for not being being clear. It would be those that claim it is still vacant after the death of one Pope and the election of the next. Is that more clear for you?
Although I personally wish that VII had not taken place The counsel did not create a new church it is the same church post as it was pre. Now I will give you that there have been those that have abused to counsel and Pope John Paul II started the ball rolling and Pope Benedict XVI is continuing to make corrections and clarifying those errors. They do not reflect the Church or the counsel.
.
Again there is no VII church there is only the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. the Vatican 2 counsel did not create a new church. the Chair of Pete is not vacant His Holiness Benedict XVI is Pope of the Holy Catholic Church and those that teach otherwise I pray that God removes the blinders from their heart and eyes.
J
jim28
Guest
You were saying that stating that the Chair of Peter is vacant is heresy. If it is not vacant then I guess it would be heresy or schism, but if it is vacant then it is not.
The opinion that you hold that it is not vacant is just that, an opinion. The fact is that the Chair is vacant, there is no heresy there, only charitableness by telling people that they must not follow an anti-pope.
Again this is just opinion, backed by no facts.
There are a bunch of places where one can find many heresies by the anti-popes and the VII council.
Benedict is busy creating his own heresies and has no intention of fixing JPII’s.
Opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion.
I pray that God will remove the blinders from the eyes of those who can’t see obvious heresy
Thanks
- Status