Monday, March 12, 2018

The Malice And Snares Of The Devil

As you're reading this post we are now in the fourth week of Lent. The First Sunday and Third Sunday of Lent show us the reality of Satan expressed in the Gospel; when Christ was tempted by Satan in the desert, and when he cast out a demon from a man who was mute, respectively. My spiritual father, the late, great canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw, used to preach that there were two errors when it came to belief in the Devil: (1) those who believe in him too much, and (2) those who deny his existence.

In the former category fall our malevolent, misfit "monks," Fred and Bobby Dimond, who claim that Protestant minister, the anti-Catholic Dr. James White, is possessed. What is their proof for this claim?

  • A video of a talk wherein the face of White is alleged to have "demonic facial movements" and the upper-left side of his mouth "moves unnaturally"
  • Another video where White gives "the devil's horns" sign with his hands while pointing
  • A still shot where White is looking down and you can "see what look like horns starting from his eyebrows and going up to the sides of his head"
  • He is seen in front of a band with cymbals, hence a reference (they claim) to 1 Corinthians 13:1-2- "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing." This is not offered as "direct evidence" but allegedly shows him to be without charity. 

That James White hates the Catholic Faith (the True Church--and the false Vatican II sect insofar as it keeps any of the true beliefs, at least on paper) is not in question. However, are we to ascribe demonic possession to all such people? One need not be possessed to hate the One True Church. The "evidence" for this "possession" in facial expressions, the curve of his bald head, and holding his hands as "devil horns," is laughable. (See

On the other hand, we have atheist Dr. Phil Zuckerman writing in Psychology Today, "How can people seriously believe in the devil? The year is 2015, not 1315. And yet, the fact remains that tens of millions of Americans continue to believe that there is a magical, wicked, evil — oh, and smart — being out there doing magical, wicked, evil deeds and presiding over a fiery realm, where demons crawl and witches cackle. Oh, wait. No cackling witches. Just demons, right? (See  This man is merely a pompous pseudo-educated dolt, who makes light of things he obviously doesn't understand.

Fr. DePauw understood well the Latin aphorism, "In medio stat veritas" ("in the middle lies the truth"). Not everyone is demon-possessed, and yet Satan is very real, going about like a roaring lion, seeking those he may devour (See 1 Peter 5:8).  This post will attempt to lay out Church teaching regarding the power of Satan and his demons, and how to avoid opening yourself up to their influence.

Satan and his influence
What, exactly, can Satan do? Satan and his demons are fallen angels. As such, they are pure spirits with intellect and will. They are capable of things people cannot do, as humans are both body and soul. The Devil and his demons can hurt humanity in the following ways:

  • Temptation. According to theologian Pohle,"Satan and his demons...continually strive by lies and false pretenses to seduce men to commit sin and thereby incur eternal damnation." (See Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Company, [1945], 3:345). 
  • Physical injury. According to theologian Ott, "The evil spirits also seek to hurt mankind physically also, through the causing of physical evil (e.g., Tob. 3:8, Job 1:12, 1 Cor. 5: 5)."
  • Possession. Once more, from theologian Ott, "In some cases people are possessed, in which case the demon takes forcible possession of the human body, so that the bodily organs and the lower powers of the soul, but not the higher powers of the soul, are controlled by him. The possibility and reality of possession is firmly established by the express testimony of Christ, Who Himself drove out evil spirits and Who bestowed power over the evil spirits on His disciples (Church's power of exorcism---St. Mark 1:23; St. Luke 10: 17 et seq)." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , The Mercier Press, [1955], pgs. 121-122).
In addition, there is diabolic obsession, in which strong disturbances are imposed on the mind, e.g., thoughts of suicide, committing serious sins, or gender dysphoria. It can also take the form of an "infestation" in the house (e.g., hearing mysterious footsteps, bad odors with no cause--and all experienced by more than just the one primarily afflicted). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "But the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without [obsession], or assume control of it from within [possession]." (See  

According to theologian Delaporte, "Although very rare in ordinary life, obsession is very frequent in the heroic lives of the Saints...Persons of a nervous temperament and lively imagination, imagine themselves haunted by the  Devil, when there is nothing of the kind. People should not believe in obsession without the most convincing proof." (See The Devil, Does He Exist and What Does He Do?, [reprint from 1871], pgs. 129-130).  We must be on guard against Satan, yet not ascribe anything to direct demonic activity without ruling out natural causes, which will be the subject of the next section. 

Ruling Out the Natural Causes

 All Traditionalist priests, like those before Vatican II, must rule out natural causes if someone claims to be "obsessed" or another person is "possessed." As to the subject of "obsession," here are some natural explanations:
  • Sleep disorders. Many times people attribute demonic activity in their lives because of things they experience when falling asleep or upon waking. Humans pass through a state of consciousness where they dream while partially awake, and problems may occur in those who experience it longer than most. This  is called hypnopompic hallucination when going into a full sleep state, and hypnagogic hallucination when coming out of a fully asleep state. These hallucinations seem real and may appear to be supernatural in origin to the one experiencing them
  • Overactive imagination. Considering the amount of occult themes that completely pervade today's movies, TV, books, Internet sites, and music, there are people who are unusually sensitive to any sound or passing image, and will ascribe to it an other-worldly origin
  • Medication. People (usually the young or the aged) have bad side effects to medications that can make them "see" and/or "hear" things
  •  Neurological disorders.  One who seriously fears demonic activity must go to a neurologist and psychiatrist to rule out brain tumors, dementia, the onset of some psychosis, epilepsy, etc.
  • Head or Eye injuries. These can cause people to "see and hear" things out of the ordinary
Once all of the above has been ruled out, then a priest may intervene with the Church's prayers for deliverance. It may consist in prayers over the person combined with an intensified prayer and sacramental life, and not necessarily the Rite of Exorcism.  

Signs of Demonic Possession

The Church has always recognized three (3) signs of authentic diabolic possession. Contrary to Fred and Bobby Dimond's contentions, it does not include facial expressions, hand gestures, or "looking like your head has horns." According to theologian Sagues, the signs of someone possessed are: (1) to speak a foreign language never studied or to understand someone speaking it; (2) to know things hidden far away; (3) to possess strength beyond one's age or natural condition. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B:221; these signs are also mentioned in the Rituale Romanum.). 

Possession, in most cases, involves sin. Some innocent children may be possessed because their parents were Satanists and cursed them. However, this is much more rare than those who allow Satan in by their personal sins. Any one who is in a state of mortal sin (or Original Sin), does not have God dwelling in them, and are ---already and in a real sense---a slave of Satan.  Fr. Gabriel Amorth (d. 2016, ordained 1954), was an exorcist in Italy, and the author of several books on demonic possession. He called the revised Rite of Exorcism "promulgated" by Wojtyla (JPII) in 1999 to be "useless" against demons. He continued to use the Traditional Rite of 1614. Unfortunately, he never saw the biggest helper of demons; the Vatican II sect from which he never separated himself; this is a complete mystery to me.  Fr. Amorth was validly ordained, yet the revised Rite was useless. Think of the invalidly ordained Vatican II clergy. No matter what Rite they use, they are not priests and it wouldn't be efficacious. 

The Vatican II sect helps Satan by taking away the Faith, morals, sacraments, Mass, and spiritual help everyone needs. Secondly, it helps the cause of Hell by not merely failing to warn people of grave spiritual dangers, but by actually incorporating them and promoting them. Fr. Amorth noted that there was more demonic activity than ever before. Here is but a partial list of things that can allow Satan into your life. See also how many are either used or never condemned by Vatican II sect clergy.

  • Ecumenical services that, by their very nature, spit on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church no salvation").
  • Yoga
  • Reiki "healing" (Bergoglio uses it!)
  • Buddhist and other pagan forms of meditation
  • Astrology
  • Ouija boards
  • Tarot cards
  • Mediums and so-called psychics
  • Pornography
  • Joining the Masonic lodge 
The list is not exhaustive, as I stated, only partial. I must also warn you to stay away from influences that, although not necessarily a direct cause of possession, can lead you to hold erroneous ideas. Those ideas can lead to further actions which, in turn, can open the door to possession. These influences include:

  • Horror films. They have gratuitous sex and violence, which desensitizes you to sins against the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Many also depict evil as good, or blur distinctions between them.
  • Rock and pop music. The repetition of evil messages can subconsciously change the way you think, and alter the way you view life. (See my once per moth posts on rock and pop music published the first Monday of the month). 
  • Fantasy and science fiction books and TV/movies. Many contain the idea that there is "good magic" and witchcraft is harmless (e.g. The Harry Potter franchise), or promote pagan ideas, such as pantheism ( The Star Wars franchise). 

Against the errors of atheists and Modernists, we know the Devil is real. However, we must not come to hasty conclusions that anything that goes wrong is the direct work of Satan. The fallen nature of humanity is inclined to evil. The temporary things of the world tempt us to sin. These are all too real as well. To be victorious over Satan and his demons, try to always remain in the state of sanctifying grace. If you (God forbid) fall into mortal sin, make a sincere act of contrition and get to Confession as soon as possible. Stay close to Christ in the Mass and Holy Communion. Pray the Rosary, and develop a pure devotion to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. Use Holy Water, and other sacramentals, especially the Medal of St. Benedict, or the Crucifix-Medal of St. Benedict. Have your house blessed by a priest, and enthrone the Sacred Heart. If you have a relic, give it a place of honor, praying before it. If you fear evil influences, pray also to St. Michael the Archangel, and St. Joseph.

Do this, and you will be following the sage advice of St. James, "Be subject therefore to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you. " (St. James 4:7). 


  1. You have a bad tendency to complain about the Dimonds over the things they do -- yes even when they do good things -- such as their UFO book and research, which, in another post, you also complained about and made a thing out of.

    While James White may not be possessed in the sense of "real case demonic possession" in which supernatural things occur, outspoken heresiarchs or heretics like James White that deceives countless millions, is certainly influenced a great deal by the devil (Luther, also would fall into this category). I do believe people can be an a lower grade of possession where they are strongly influenced by the devil in much of what they believe and teach -- and James White certainly fall into this category. And certainly, the signs mentioned by MHFM may be a pointer to this. Many things in life don't happen by coincidence and has a deeper meaning.

    1. Jerome,
      The Dimonds are Feeneyites, frauds, and lead people into serious errors. They are heretics themselves as they deny the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium As defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

      I don’t know any teaching on a “lower grade of possession.” But if there was, wouldn’t it also apply to Fred and Bobby Dimond? When people read too much into things, they “see demonic activity everywhere.” As theologian Delaporte points out, this simply is not the case.

      God Bless,


    2. There are distinctions. Or would you say Luther was not possessed to some extent? Or James White, he is not possessed or influenced to some extent? If "possession" ONLY means the strict definition, then maybe one could argue as you do, but if one looks at it a little broader (as most people do), then one can easily apply it a little further.

      Had you not been out to criticize Dimond on everything you think you have a go at your disposal, you would perhaps have interpreted it differently or not found it worth bothering mentioning.

    3. Jerome.
      What you are referring to is a type of obsession by demonic forces. Must we think all the anti-Catholics out there are in a pact with the Satan or possessed? The theologians warn us against such judgments without "convincing proof." What "proof" have they provided? The shape of his bald head? Facial expressions? Holding "devil horns"?

      Canonists and theologians would only roll their eyes and shake their heads over such "proof" as Fr. DePauw was wont to do.


    4. Protestants from the outside and Protestants from within (modernists) are in some way in the hands of the Devil, seeing what they do and how close their hearts are to the truth. They are, like their master Masons and Kabbalists, the Synagogue of Satan, and has as father, the archdemon. (John VIII, 44)

      (Not surprisingly, Father Gabriele Amorth himself has stated that the Devil is free in the current Vatican.)

    5. I wanna add to this discussion that not ebee my proeat who is cmri and quite faithful criticizes the dimonds on everything they say. He says they have some deep seeded errors and hold some bad positions and ideas. But he does also give them credit where credit is due. he says they have good useful arguements against protestants and against the Vatican two Popes and hierarchy .
      Even though they are heretics outside the body of the Church they aren't always wrong.

      And James White can certainly be said to be heavily influenced by Satan. I err on the side of caution. It doesn't mean the devil is in every crevice. But he's more and more in power now than ever bwfore. A blind man can see that the devil and the like are possessing more people and using more people now than ever before. Don't be an atheist about it. But don't be paranoid. Not everything is devil. But look around you. A lot is the work of Satan. And James White may not be possessed. No way to know without interactions with actual holy thing. Besides they don't call every protestant preacher possessed. But I'd say something is off with James

      Also both types of sleep related hallucinations happen to me. All the time because I have narcolepsy. But I also have epilepsy. So if I were superstitious I would never have gotten treatment but I can see how both disorders combined could seem like possession.

  2. "The Dimonds are Feeneyites, frauds, and lead people into serious errors. They are heretics themselves as they deny the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium As defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870."

    Introibo - I'll go along with the Dimonds are Feeneyites and are liable to lead people into serious errors.

    Now as to being frauds, show us the proof of that please? Show malice. As to being heretics, I don't think you can categorically state that. They are confused, no doubt, and Feeneyism is nothing but a gross overreaction to false ecumenism, but I'm not prepared to label them as heretics when I see a plethora of "confused Catholics" surrounding me on all sides.

    1. Anonymous 1:18, the Dimonds make claims about themselves that are provable lies. For one thing they claim they are benedictine monks. They are not monks. Here is a website that does a good job of exposing them: I recommend you watch as many of the videos this site puts out on Fred and Bob.

    2. my friend,
      Let me begin by saying that I agree with you that we shouldn't throw around the term "heretic" lightly. I'm considered a "heretic" by some for refusing to denounce a Mass "Una Cum" (e.g., SSPX)when no other options are available.However, in this case, I stand by what I wrote, and here are my reasons.

      Proof of fraud: The Dimonds were born in the 1970s yet claim to be "Benedictines." This is impossible unless they obtained the status via the Vatican II sect they abhor, OR it is self-imposed. It is the latter.

      "Most Holy Family Monastery" was founded two years after Vatican II ended (1967)by one Joseph Natale (d. 1995), himself a phony "monk" who was a Benedictine postulant in 1960, but left less than a year later to "found" his own monastery in New Jersey. Natale never took any vows and is therefore NOT a Benedictine. After Natale's death in 1995, 22 year old Fred Dimond (who joined in 1992) was "elected superior." He moved the location to Natale's land in New York, where he now resides with his brother Bobby.

      The 1917 code of Canon Law states in Canon 147, section 1, "An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision." Section 2 says, "Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons." According to canonists Bouscaren and Ellis, "There is a penalty of ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See for occupying or retaining an office, benefice, or dignity without canonical provision (S.C. Conc., 29 June, 1950; AAS, 42-601)."

      Do the Dimonds not know of this law of the Church after all these years? Do they not know their founder was NEVER a Benedictine?

      They duped a wealthy young man, Eric Hoyle, out of his family fortune worth millions. True, he should have done his homework, but when he asked for some of the money back after he left, they refused. Hoyle sued and lost. Why couldn't they give him even $250,000 back so he could buy a house and take care of himself? Real Benedictines, pre-Vatican II, would have done so.

      This is ample proof of an INTENT TO DECEIVE--ergo, FRAUD. They hold themselves out as the last word on Catholicism, yet by what authority? They are not Benedictines, and even less so, "theologians."

      As Joann rightly points out below, they keep people away from the sacraments. That is evil, without a doubt. Do you still think they are merely "confused"? I don't.

      Lastly, while I agree that Feenyism is in reaction to universalism, it goes against the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Almost all Traditionalist clergy will (rightly) deny a known Feeneyite Communion, and even absolution in Confession, unless he abjures his error. The Council of Trent infallibly defined (and the approved theologians teach):

      "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or WITHOUT THE DESIRE THEREOF, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

      God Bless,


    3. @Anonymous 4:24
      The website, has its own problems, and I do NOT recommend or endorse it. That being said, you are on target about the Dimonds.

      God Bless,


    4. Introibo - Just a thought: Perhaps the reason the Dimonds are so adamantly opposed to traditional clergy is that they know the clergy would refuse them Communion and absolution for their error of Feenyism and also their followers. The Dimonds errors would then be exposed and their followers would then be given opportunity to recant the errors. Perhaps, I am being too cynical??

    5. No, I think you’re probably right.


  3. Good article as always.
    You wrote though that Satanic Possession can happen if somebody is cursed by a satanist. This seems to imply that satanic ritual actually have a power in and of themselves which is disturbing as I always thought they were superstitious nonsense.

    1. Ryan,
      Thank you for the kind words! Most theologians teach that possession requires at least some consent on the part of the individual. For the example I gave above, a child cursed by Satanist parents, would be possessed because of the authority of the parent over the child. That's why in Baptism of infants the parents give the child to God.

      That being said, Satanic rituals do indeed invoke the demons, and to partake or be involved in any way opens you to demonic takeover. Remember, Psalm 96:5, "For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens." This means PAGAN rites as well as overtly Satanic--Reiki, etc.

      God Bless,


  4. According to the Dimonds just about everybody who doesn’t agree with them, they label as heretics. Also, since all traditional clergy are heretics to them, they lead people away from the Eucharist by advising people to stay home alone. Satan doesn’t want people to partake of the Eucharist. What better way to keep people away from the Blessed Sacrament than label the traditional clergy as heretics and advise the people to stay home alone. To do this, in my opinion is demonic!!

  5. JoAnn,

    Just because the Dimonds go about flinging the accusation of "Heretic!" towards all and sundry is no reason to reciprocate.

    Yes, they are very problematic, but they're not the only ones. We also have the sacrament-scarcifying boors at PL doing their very best to keep souls away from all the sede clergy.

    1. You are correct about Pistrina Liturgica. I've put out at least four or five posts against them. Their sin is one of rank calumny, not heresy. I have not (yet) seen an openly heretical statement from them. Their blog is nowhere near as popular as the Dimonds. Their hatred and lies keep the two of them (I have reason to believe it's only two people--one at PL and the other at The Lay Pulpit)--keeps them in sin. Pray for them and the Dimonds to repentance and conversion.


    2. Anon: 3:54 - I am not calling the Dimonds “heretics”. I have no authority to label anyone a heretic.

      They are scaring people away from the Sacraments and promoting people stay home alone. In my opinion, that smells like the smoke of Satan.

      Just because PL are “sacrament-scarifying boors”, doesn’t mean it is ok for the Dimonds to do likewise.

  6. Introibo, once again your post contains errors and lies. That is a characteristic of someone of the Devil (which you certainly are). First, you are the fraud, not the Dimonds. The proof: you claim not to believe Jews and other members of false religions can be saved, when that’s what you believe. On your site you refused to reject as heretical the teaching of the CMRI, Pohle and McKenna who explicitly taught that Jews can be saved. That proves that you accept that heresy; yet you continue to say you do not. You are a fraud and a liar.

    Second, you are a fraud for repeatedly lying about other people while presenting yourself as someone who cares about truth. Example: you said the Dimonds hold that it’s sinful for people in marital relations to have pleasure, when they do not hold that. When you were called out on this lie, you reluctantly admitted that they don’t believe that. But you did not change your article. Also, if you know they don’t hold that position, why did you put the lie in the article which asserted that they did? The answer is that you are a liar and a fraud who thinks the ends justifies the means.

    You are also a fraud for harping on status while you refuse, like a coward who hides behind a keyboard, to put your name behind your dishonest posts. You know that you couldn’t get away with posting your lies if you put your actual name, or at least that there would be consequences which you are afraid to confront.

    With regard to the Benedictine matter, you have no understanding of the relevant issues. The first Benedictine communities were established without approval from anyone. Throughout history they were separate and independent. The Canons of the 1917 Code you cite don’t apply to this situation. But given your position, would you say that the SSPX-affiliated “monastery” of Fr. Cyprian in NM is a fraud? How about the monastery that was under Leonard Giardina? Was that fraudulent for claiming to be Benedictine?

    Further, if you want to go by the letter of canon law, then you would need to denounce the SSPV, the CMRI, Sanborn, etc. as fraudulent, for they have no permission, according to the letter of canon law, for consecrating bishops, ordaining priests, etc. So, do you consider them fraudulent?

    With regard to Eric Hoyle, as was proven in the court case, the money he gave was donated. Further, consider what Hoyle did when he left. He did not inform MHFM that he had changed his religious views and that he wanted to leave. He did not explain the situation. No, after reading Richard Ibranyi’s garbage, Hoyle abruptly changed his position on Mass attendance and left MHFM without notifying anyone. He then immediately tried to steal the monastery’s funds. When his attempt to steal the funds proved unsuccessful, Hoyle tried to have the Dimonds arrested. He was also poised, at the time, to start his own radical schismatic group, which should not have received any help financial or otherwise (especially from funds that were not his and were donated to MHFM, and some or much of it was already used by MHFM). Hoyle had inherited a lot of money, and he inherited close to one million more in 2016. Thus your characterization of the situation is once again typically errant, ignorant and dishonest.

    With regard to James White being possessed, it’s not that much of a surprise that you would find it laughable that a diabolical anti-Catholic is possessed, since you obviously have no supernatural faith. You reject Jesus Christ’s revelation and you accept heresies as taught by the CMRI, SSPV, etc. You are without question a heretic. You also lied when you argued that St. Gregory Nazianzen did not reject BOD. He certainly did. The truth is not in you, but the Devil is. It’s also interesting to see a layperson such as yourself, who defends birth control and who is also a lawyer (and almost all – if not all – lawyers are very dishonest and compromised), act as if he’s some kind of insightful authority on demonic possession and the like (while he’s afraid to put his name behind his words).

    1. Hi Fred! (Or is it Bobby?),
      So, I am “of the devil” like James White? I remember the Jews saying the same of Christ, “The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? “ (See St. John 8:48).
      I do not believe Jews can be saved as Jews. I don’t speak for Bp. Sanborn, or the CMRI, but if it is like anything else the Dimonds twist (which it is), it’s purposely misrepresented—exactly what you falsely accuse me of doing to them. As to theologian Pohle, his works were translated, and his intent in that one oft quoted passage was that Jews (as we knew them on Earth) can be saved by Baptism of Desire (BOD). Only Catholics in the state of Grace can be saved. BOD accomplishes this by a miracle of God’s grace. It’s interesting because you likewise do the same in your second accusation against me: misrepresent what was written.
      My post on Authentic NFP says the following, “Fred and Bobby Dimond, along with Ibranyi, and (among others) have spread various errors. Here is a refutation of the most egregious.” I never claimed that all of them held to each error. The Dimonds do not hold that marital pleasure is sinful. I said as much in the comments to that post the last time you commented. It is analogous to saying, “Lutherans, Moslems, and Mormons have spread various errors. Here is a refutation of the most egregious.” Am I claiming that the errors of all three sects are the same? Out of charity (not necessity) I will write more explicitly for poor Fred and Bobby to understand better. Obviously, there was no lie.
      As to my identity, I choose not to be a “public figure.” Whatever good comes out of this blog, the glory belongs to God, not me. I also do not wish to subjugate my family and friends to the attacks of the enemies of the Faith. I do not (and never have) pretended to be a cleric or theologian. I’m just a layman trying to make his Catholic way the best he can in this age of near universal apostasy. I had the benefit of many years taught be an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, Fr. Gommar DePauw. I let my arguments stand on their own strength. People who make public grandiose claims must expect to be called on the carpet. They seek notoriety, I don’t. Your puerile attempt at playground insults (“coward,”etc.) haven’t the least affect on me.

    2. You have a relevant understanding of the Benedictine issue? Are you Fred or Bobby? The Benedictines are subject to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and I’d like to see your citation to prove a canonical exemption.

      Is the SSPX monastery a fraud? They are not holding themselves out to be an established order like Franciscans or Benedictines. The monastery is a group of men living a Catholic life by choice. Just like the SSPV and CMRI, they do not claim to be canonically established, which is why when Fr. Cekada, Fr. Zapp, etc. left, they were not called “excommunicated.” They have the same status as the Sacred Heart Auto League—which is all you can get in a state of sedevacante. As to Fr. Giardina, he WAS a real Benedictine pre-Vatican II and had every right to call himself such. He claimed his monks were “Living as Benedictines” (letter to supporters) not that they were ACTUAL Benedictines—except for him. Unlike most Benedictine monasteries in the U.S., the monks at Christ the King conducted no active apostolate. They recited part of the day hours of the Divine Office in common, and performed manual labor on the monastery grounds.
      Ordaining priests and consecrating bishops by Traditionalists is necessary for the survival of the Church so the principle of epikeia applies. Not so with religious orders, which are not needed to preserve the Church. Non-canonical “congregations” suffice.

      As to the Hoyle case, the documents of the entire proceeding can be found here--- (I do not endorse the website per se, but it has all the primary documentation as well as the correct citations to Canon Law regarding the recovery of goods by someone who leaves a REAL ORDER—as I stated was done pre-Vatican II.

      As to St. Gregory Nazianzen, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Oration XXXIX, Oration on the Holy Lights: "I know also a Fourth Baptism--that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent; and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains."

      I do not defend birth control, but I am a lawyer. Yes, we all know that almost all—if not all—lawyers are compromised (except for the ones who defended the Dimonds in court of course!). We also know all Irish are drunkards, all Italians are members of the mob, all Hispanics don’t like to keep clean, and all African-Americans are rapists and murderers. I’m glad I don’t live in the same version of “reality” as you.

    3. Hi Introibo - I'm the anon who people think is defending the Dimonds. I'm not. I'm just defending a Catholic principle. But enough of that.

      I enjoyed your reply to Fredbobbie Dimond (they're one entity as far as I'm concerned lol). You straightened him out but good, and conducted yourself with dignity, which is difficult when one is dealing with Fred and Bobby who can try the patience of saints! I hope they don't stalk you like they do to so many others. I've no doubt that was the brothers Dimond - their syntax is instantly recognizable. They will probably rant and rave a bit more in which case I look forward to you disabusing them further of their many errors.

    4. Introibo, your response just proves the truth of what I wrote. To further illustrate that I’m correct and you are demonstrably wrong, let’s focus on one thing at a time. I pointed out that if you were consistent, you would need to say that Fr. Cyprian’s monastery in NM is fraudulent and that Giardina’s monastery in Alabama was fraudulent, since they both claim/claimed to be O.S.B. and Benedictine. Your astounding response was: “Is the SSPX monastery a fraud? They are not holding themselves out to be an established order like Franciscans or Benedictines.” Are you serious with this? Cyprian definitely purports to be Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B., a member of the Order of St. Benedict, just as the Dimonds claim to be. You can read him doing so here: Your claim that Cyprian’s monastery does not purport to be such is simply a lie. Since he and his monastery most certainly purport to be Benedictine and O.S.B., as the link above proves, if you were consistent at all, you would need to denounce Cyprian and his monastery as fraudulent. But you don’t. That’s because you are dishonest. You apply one standard to the Dimonds, but a different standard to other people including yourself.

      Proverbs 20:23- “Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good.”

      On the same matter, concerning Giardina’s monastery, you claimed: “He claimed his monks were “Living as Benedictines” (letter to supporters) not that they were ACTUAL Benedictines—except for him.”

      I know you are dishonest lawyer, but do you really think you can get away with making up such ridiculous lies? What you say is not true at all. Giardina’s monastery most certainly claimed to be Benedictine and he claimed that the monks in it (not just him) were ‘O.S.B.’ You can see it in one of the newsletters here: Thus once again you are proven wrong by the evidence. I could go through all of the points you raised in a similar fashion and demonstrate conclusively with evidence, as I have done here, that you are lying. Truly, it’s scary that you would make up the aforementioned lies simply because you recognized that you were pinned down on your inconsistency: i.e. applying one standard to the Dimonds and another to other people.

    5. Fine, let's take it one step at a time.

      1. As to Fr. Giardina's monastery, your citation was written AFTER he died. I have letters asking for donations, and he NEVER claims the others are Benedictines, but "living as Benedictines." According to Fr. Cekada, who knew Fr. G personally, he liked to "play both sides of the fence" with being sedevacantist and "recognize and resist" so he could receive the most donations. (See

      If he claimed that they were Canonically Benedictines, then YES it is FRAUDULENT. The same rules apply to all. The SSPX gives out fraudulent "annulments" which I've always condemned. There is no jurisdiction in a time of sedevacante, but they are not sedevacantist and believe they can "oversee" the work of "bishops" they recognize as having Ordinary jurisdiction. Wacky theology to say the least.

      2. Fr. Cyprian was taken in by a legitimate Benedictine, Dom Calvet, who was ordained a Benedictine priest in 1956, and took his vows five years earlier. Calvet returned to the Vatican II sect in 1989. They do not hold themselves to be canonically established Benedictines, but as Galarreta said,
      " Indeed, the decree specified, “since it is morally impossible to have recourse to the competent authority and since we are acting in an auxiliary way because of the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity...”.(See

      They claim to be acting in a state of emergency, unable to approach COMPETENT AUTHORITY.

      Do you see the distinction? They do not claim canonical status, but "emergency status." Every bit as crazy as their "annulments," but not fraud.

      How do Fred and Bobby, as SEDEVACANTISTS, declare themselves "Benedictines"? They can't claim inability to approach competent authority because there isn't any. Furthermore, they never even attempted that explanation, but simply claimed "Benedictines" are "separate and independent" from Church law. Not true, or you can bet the SSPX would have jumped on that bandwagon a long time ago! They don't even have a legitimate Benedictine founder such as Giardina or Calvet.

      My standards are consistent and my argument stands. Bobby and Fred are frauds, holding themselves out to be "Benedictines" WITHOUT APPROBATION and claiming that none is needed.

      I can't wait to rip down your next attempt to vindicate the Feeneyite Fiends!


    6. 1 OF 2- The only thing you are ripping down is your credibility (not that you have any credibility in the eyes of any honest person or real Catholic). You are proving that you will cling to demonstrable falsehoods and make things up when you are pinned down and exposed. It is a fact that Giardina identified the members of his community as ‘O.S.B.’ and as ‘Benedictines’ while he was alive. To assert otherwise is simply to fabricate, and of course you have no proof for your central claim. You are really making a fool out of yourself. The Speculum I cited, which was published shortly after Giardina’s death, is the one available online. It identifies Giardina as ‘O.S.B.’ and one of the monks there as ‘O.S.B.’ To assert that the monk only started to call himself Benedictine or ‘O.S.B.’ when Giardina died is absurd.

      In fact, I was told by Bro. Michael Dimond that after the death of Bro. Joseph Natale, Leonard Giardina wrote to Bro. Michael and identified both Bro. Michael and Bro. Joseph as ‘O.S.B.’ Yet you say that Giardina didn’t even consider his own monks to be Benedictines. What nonsense. Stop spreading lies. Bro. Michael also told me that he visited Giardina’s monastery years ago. MHFM also received the Speculum (Giardina’s newsletter) for years. Bro. Michael characterized your claim that Giardina’s monks did not identify themselves as Benedictines as totally false and ridiculous. Giardina’s monks claimed to be Benedictines; they took Benedictine vows; they recognized Giardina as their ‘Benedictine Abbot’; they claimed to have a ‘monastic church’, they claimed to be ‘O.S.B.’, etc., all without ‘canonical provision’ as you have defined it. Cyprian’s monks in NM also of course claim to be Benedictines, ‘O.S.B.’, etc., all without ‘canonical provision’ as you have defined it.

      Both cases would have to be fraud, according to your argument. You asserted that the ‘proof of fraud’ with the Dimonds is that they claim to be Benedictines and that Bro. Michael claims to be the Superior of a Benedictine Monastery without (according to you) ‘canonical provision’ according to the 1917 Code. But Cyprian and Giardina did precisely the same. They had/have no ‘formal canonical provision’, as you have defined it, to start a Benedictine Monastery and act as Superior. But they are not frauds, in your view. You have a double standard and unequal measures. Scripture condemns you as an abomination (Proverbs 20:23).

    7. 2 OF 2 - You also say that Giardina ‘played both sides of the fence’ on doctrinal issues. Giardina was a horrible liberal, and that of course has nothing to do with our discussion. Your reference to it is an obvious attempt to cloak the weakness of your argumentation and divert from the central point: i.e. that he and his monastery purported to be Benedictine without formal ‘canonical provision’ as you have defined it, yet you don’t denounce the operation as having been fraudulent. You like to bring up irrelevant things to distract from the discussion in which you are being exposed and refuted. As a further example of this, you don’t even dispute that Cyprian’s monks purport to be O.S.B. and Benedictine – a fact that refutes your entire point. So your insistence that Giardina’s monks did not make such a claim (which is utterly untrue) is pointless, for one doesn’t need to reference your view of Giardina’s monastery to expose your inconsistency. The case of Cyprian’s monastery suffices to expose you. He claims to be a Benedictine Superior over Benedictine monks in a Benedictine monastery. That is an absolute fact. He has no ‘canonical provision’ to do so, according to your definition. Yet you don’t condemn Cyprian and his monks as frauds, while you impiously condemn MHFM and the Dimonds. You are self-condemned.

      And for the record: let’s note that after I exposed your inconsistency, you have changed your position.

      You are now arguing that it’s NOT fraud for someone to establish a Benedictine monastery without ‘canonical provision’ (as you have defined it), claim to be ‘O.S.B’, claim to be ‘Benedictine’, receive the Benedictine vows of members, claim to be a ‘Benedictine Abbot or Superior’ with authority over a monastery, etc. as we see in the cases of Cyprian and Giardina. According to you, it’s not fraudulent for one to do all of that – except, of course, in the case of Bro. Michael Dimond and MHFM. Need one say more about your stunning inconsistency?

      By the way, even the link you included about the SSPX ‘Benedictine monastery’ further refutes you. It says: “we...decree that this monastery be established as a Priory of the Order of St. Benedict”. According to your previous argument, they cannot “establish a Priory of the Order of St. Benedict” without fraud, since they have no formal canonical provision to do so. But you don’t denounce them as frauds because you have unequal measures. I rest my case on this point (even though you will undoubtedly post another deluded and dishonest response), as your dishonest double standard and inconsistency has been exposed.

    8. Please go back and learn to read. In my previous reply, I told you how Fr. Giardina played both sides of "R&R" as well as sede, to get the most donations. Fr. Cekada expressly wrote about this. ***IF*** what you claim about them is correct, that his monks claimed to be canonically established Benedictines"--I wrote above,"f he claimed that they were Canonically Benedictines, then YES it is FRAUDULENT." You conveniently left that part out. So who's really dishonest? (Hint: It's either you or me, and it isn't me).

      2. The SSPX is NOT sedevacantist. They appeal to the inability to approach the V2 sect which they recognize as the "Catholic Church." From my citation above, "since it is morally impossible to have recourse to the competent authority and since we are acting in an auxiliary way because of the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity...”.

      Fred and Bobby cannot appeal to some "emergency provision or principle" because they are sedevacantists and have no lawful authority to approach.

      2. They claim "Benedictines" are "separate and independent" from Church law. Not true, or you can bet the SSPX would have jumped on that bandwagon a long time ago!

      3. They don't even have an ACTUAL BENEDICTINE as their founder!

      Once more, their claims are manifestly false. Holding themselves out as "Benedictines" is fraud. And any who do the same are FRAUDS.


  7. Hello Introibo,
    Thank you for the excellent and important article! I just love it when you speak of Fr. Gommar de Pauw, it is good to keep his memory and sound teachings alive. You had a privileged education with this fine priest. I would encourage you to write more of him, as any and all little insights you give us are greatly appreciated.

    1. My Friend,
      I miss Father DePauw very much. It’s hard to believe he’s gone 13 years in May. I will keep his memory alive as much as possible in my posts.

      Thank you for the request!

      God Bless,


  8. Not only was the heretic James White the target of the Inquisition' hell of the Dimonds: the late Father Nicholas Gruner - who was also accused of having labial movements - and even Bishop Daniel Dolan, of whom I attend Mass every Sunday on line - was also charged. These guys, despite good rhetoric and good technical level of their videos, are crazy and heretics.

  9. Since he mentioned Father Amorth and why he still remained in the Sept Novus Ordo, another famous exorcist priest within charismatic circles, the Spaniard Jose Fortea wrote in the first chapter of his book Summa dæmoniaca that Heaven and Hell are not places, but only states of the soul, repeating the heresy of John Paul II. And another fact of this priest is that, on the last international day of the woman, he affirmed that he agrees with feminists on the issue of gender equality. It is clear that these two men were blinded by the demons they claim to fight.

    1. “Blinded by the demons they claim to fight” is a correct assessment.

      God Bless,


  10. Thank you for the mention of St. Joseph. I wondered why one of his titles is "terror daemonum" terror of demons. Found this article which has some plausible explanations. (This is not a wholesale endorsement of this site.)

    1. Thank you for the information Barbara! The site is Vatican II, but the article seems sound.

      God Bless,


  11. JoAnn - I think you know that I'm in no wise saying that it's "ok" for the Dimonds to be carrying on the way they do. You know I wasn't defending the Dimond's behavior.

    "I have no authority to label anyone a heretic."

    Oh but you do, JoAnn. When necessary. For example: It was necessary to slap a label on JPII as a heretic and apostate. He couldn't be excused on the grounds of ignorance such as, perhaps, two unfortunate souls who may actually believe they're genuine Benedictine monks (due, perhaps, to being somewhat insane). JPII was highly educated in the pre-Vatican II Church. He was a former seminary professor and had a doctorate from the Pontifical University of the Angelicum. He couldn't possibly have been ignorant. Going against his own knowledge equates to pertinacity. The same cannot be said with the same certainty of the Dimonds.

    Introibo -
    "Proof of fraud: The Dimonds were born in the 1970s yet claim to be "Benedictines." This is impossible unless they obtained the status via the Vatican II sect they abhor, OR it is self-imposed. It is the latter."

    That is not proof of fraud. However, it's certainly proof of being deluded. IOW, they may genuinely think they're somehow real Benedictines.

    Yes, I've heard the Hoyle story. Interesting that the courts ruled in the Dimond's favor. But we know that there has been many a spat over money that has seen trads going to court. Nothing new there.

    As far as trad clergy making decisions that those (laymen) of Feeneyistic persuasion are heretics and therefore are to be refused the sacraments. How do they know that they're not just simpletons rather than heretics? I mean, the SSPV make rash decisions on SGG parishioners' statuses, and it may get to the stage where you are barred from certain churches as a heretic due to your una cum beliefs. The point I'm making is that it gets very messy indeed once it's decided that it's perfectly fine for anyone to be deeming everyday people heretics. I'm saying that for all we know God has excused/mitigated these unfortunates on the grounds of ignorance AND being somewhat insane. Has anyone read their hearts and minds?

    I'd be very comfortable with you making statements leaving out the unnecessary references to them being heretics and frauds, thus giving them the benefit of the doubt, such as: "The Dimond brothers appear to deny the OUM. To do so equates to heresy." "The Dimond brothers claim they are Benedictine monks. Whether they somehow do this in good faith/ with clear conscience I don't know, but I do know it's an insane contention." "The Dimonds are Feeneyites and lead people into serious errors." Etcetera.

    As far as the court case goes: I wouldn't even bother mentioning it because it's clearly hearsay-ridden.

    My approach is the very opposite of the Dimond's. Whereas they appear to be condemning everyone in sight and thinking the worst of people I prefer to think the best I possibly can of them, seek excuses for them (I think the ignorance and insanity plea is plausible) and, importantly, leave any condemnation of them as heretics to God.

    That's my position, but it's accepted that you think there's proof of malicious fraud and that your approach is to unequivocally label the Dimonds as heretics.

    Your observations regarding Pistrina are warranted. Lay Pulpit is a one man band, and many are aware of the name of the person who runs it. Pistrina are lately running a story that several comprise "The Reader"; in fact they've recently stated in excess of 15, from memory. But if you believe there's good reason to think it's a case of a little man pulling levers from behind a curtain, that's largely at odds with their propaganda which they're desperate for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Trad to swallow.

    But in the end we're in agreement insofar as the Dimonds and their ilk require prayers.

    1. Anon. @6:44 - I should clarify my above comment to read “everyday” persons.

      It sounds to me like you are making excess excuses for the Dimonds behavior. I used to think that the good that they did outweighed the negative, but in the end the good that they do, in my opinion, is negated by their errors.

    2. JoAnn - Thanks for the clarification.

      Unfortunately, on this occasion your hearing has failed you. I specifically was not excusing their long history of bad behavior.

      What I was demonstrating was that their level of education in no way approaches that of, say, someone learned such as the late JPII, and therefore it's my view that they cannot definitively be declared to be heretics, when the reality may be that they're just a couple of unlettered, Feeneyistic rigorists (read as ignoramuses/not too bright insofar understanding the texts from which they draw their arguments) who are loopy to boot.
      Catholics have a duty to think the best of others, and let me assure you that they being thought of as nutty simpletons is far better than the alternative in question.

      Bottom line. I can't read hearts and minds, so I'll leave others to condemn them as heretics and frauds. However, I suggest people move slowly and with caution lest we end up channeling their penchant to roar "Heretic!" at every Catholic that passes them by.

    3. There is a sucker born every minute. Ok since you wish to give the Dimond Brothers the benefit of doubt why don't YOU provide the proof that they are Benedictine monks. If they are legitimate then this should be easy to prove? Call Fred and ask him for the proof so you can vindicate them. Introibo provided an impossible scenario of their claims so do you have something to counter? Let's see it.

    4. No, rather let's see your definitive proof that they are pertinacious heretics. And I agree that they aren't genuine monks, but why don't you drill down, get them on the phone and determine they are malicious frauds and heretics?

      I'll say it again - they may actually believe in good faith that they are genuine. They may think this because they are ignorant and somewhat crazy. Now, you'd be best advised to start giving people the benefit of the doubt because that is something REQUIRED by all Catholics.

    5. @ Anonymous 6:44

      How do we know Wojtyla was not insane? (Not that it would matter, as the insane cannot attain or retain the papacy). In either case it is not necessary to discen someone's mental state (or mens rea, as we say in the law)to determine heresy. If I were to say, "Mary was conceived in Original Sin just like everyone else," I would be a heretic regardless of my education, or even mental stability. You're confusing the objective act with the subjective sin.

      If a man marries a woman with a bogus Vatican II "annulment," he is objectively an adulterer, even if he may not be held subjectively guilty by God. Likewise, the nice old Lutheran lady who lives near me is a heretic--but perhaps not guilty subjectively.

      Hence the Dimonds are at least material heretics. Moreover, they lead more souls to Hell with their Feeneyite material than most Protestant ministers.

      As to pertinacity, they have purposefully edited and twisted the words of many people, such as the doctors of the Church, Church Fathers, popes, bloggers such as Stephen Speray, and myself. When you do such things, you are not acting in good faith. There is intent to deceive.

      Check out the actual court documents re:Eric Hoyle here (a website I do not endorse for other reasons)

      The manifest weight of the credible evidence, based on the totality of circumstances, shows Bob and Fred to be heretics and frauds thereby overcoming any presumption of innocence of benefit of the doubt they may have enjoyed.

      Finally, the assertion that it is more charitable to assume mental illness than heresy or fraud is itself a dubious principle at best! Joann and anonymous @12:03 got it right!

      God Bless,


    6. Introibo - thanks. We're getting down to brass tacks. Yes, there is material heresy present. I agree. Is pertinacity present? I'm not prepared to make that call. I do think it'd be better for the Dimonds if mental illness was in the equation from a "culpability" point of view. They may be the biggest pious frauds on the planet. I don't know. They may be intellectually dishonest. I don't know. They may do it all because they're barking mad. I don't know. I wasn't ever saying that one needed to show insanity to discern heresy. What I'm saying is that despite all their obvious machinations, seeming sins, prevaricating, fraud, dishonesty they may still be Catholics and not heretics. Sinful Catholics it seems but still Catholics. Miserable, psychotic wretches, but still Catholic. Possessed for all we know, but still Catholic. I've already stated that I'm more than comfortable with statements that suggest they deny truths and that to do so is heresy. I'm just not prepared to unequivocally label them as "heretics." That's their gig. Not mine. And, again, they may actually (erroneously) believe they're real Benedictine monks.

    7. What is your problem? They obstinately deny teachings of the church and we can't call them heretics? You would rather we call them sinful prevaricating dishonest insane frauds instead?

    8. Anon @ 4:54 pm
      My problem at the moment is you putting words in my mouth. You know that I never suggested that anyone calls them anything. Btw, they don't think they're obstinately denying anything. They think you're the heretic. And btw, what type of heretics are they? They're definitely in error, but I'll leave it up to you to condemn them and strip them of their Catholicity, ok?

    9. Your problem is hypocrisy. Do you apply your rule for the Dimond Brothers to Pope Francis, Ratizinger, Saint JP2, soon to be Saint Paul VI, and Saint John 23 or have you personally judged them heretics?

    10. Anon @ 4:56 am

      Another one of your problems is that you want a debate where you *think* you ask all the "gotcha" questions while ignoring the one question put to you. I think that's called "hypocrisy," no?
      I'm not going to continue this ridiculous "conversation" with you. If you can't make the distinction between the likes of JPII and the Dimonds I doubt you can be helped. I'll leave you (because I won't be wasting any more time on you) with this.

      Ask yourself.

      Where did I learn that John XXIII was a heretic?

      What evidence can I produce to prove beyond any doubt he was a heretic?

      Do I understand what constitutes solid evidence in order to make a judgment that John XXIII was a heretic and pseudo pope?

      Am I just a cowboy who goes about shouting "Yee haw!" while slinging around the epithet "heretic"?

      Your problem is that you got used to labelling the pseudo popes as heretics without realizing the awful import of the term. To you, calling people heretics is now second nature, no big deal.

      Now if you care to review my posts you will see that I made the distinction between JPII and the Dimonds. Bp. Dolan pointed out how we can safely conclude that JP was a heretic and apostate for if one so highly educated couldn't be deemed a heretic and apostate who could? The Dimonds are unlettered simpletons in comparison to JPII. I'm not confident that we know with certainty that they are anything more than "material heretics." But as I said before, I'll leave it up to you to CONDEMN THEM AND STRIP THEM OF THEIR CATHOLICITY. I'm not going to make that judgment about them (at this stage), let alone their hapless adherents.

      Good day sir!

    11. Anon @12:50 - Your above statement “you’d better be advised to start giving people the benefit of the doubt” is what happened with the Pedophile Priests. People overlooked and gave the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrators for years before anything was done to stop them. Burying ones head in the sand is not a solution to the problem. Only the truth will set you free!!

    12. Anon @ 8:42 am

      Thanks. I actually wrote: "Now, you'd be best advised to start giving people the benefit of the doubt because that is something REQUIRED by all Catholics."

      I stand by that.

      But obviously that's not to say that one should ignore persistent, personal accounts given by individuals regarding misconduct.

      I'm talking more about imputing bad motives and intentions when, taking into consideration the person and the circumstances, to do so would require an intimate knowledge of an individual and the ability to read hearts and minds.

      But there are cases where it's just cut and dried, right? Like for example if someone spotted a fellow trad parishioner at Arby's on a Friday enjoying a juicy, delicious roast beef sandwich (the person doing the spotting was there to have the fish sandwich, of course!). Oh the scandal! That pious fraud and his long thanksgivings! That mortal sinner! Naturally, this person told others (unfortunately it happens that way all too often), and before you knew it it was spreading like wildfire throughout the parish. Speculation ran rife. Some, believe it or not, were suggesting that the perpetrator might be a crypto-Jew!

      A couple of weeks later the mother of the abstinence-breaking fiend was chatting to a friend of hers from the parish, and here's how the conversation went: "We've had some terrible news!" "Oh dear! What's wrong," said the friend. "A couple of weeks ago on Friday I walked into the kitchen and there was Junior enjoying a ham sandwich, and..." The friend cut her off, "All's not lost, we're all praying that Junior amends his life!" "What are you talking about? He'd forgotten what day it was, and we've just received the diagnosis from his doctor of early onset dementia."

      We must resist the urge to jump to conclusions (even if it seems blindingly obvious) which results in thinking not the very best of people but in fact the complete opposite. What "Junior" was doing looked damning, but had we the ability to read hearts and minds (as only God can) we'd have known he was doing nothing wrong at all - unless you consider eating at Arby's is a culinary offense.

      And then there are cases where it really is cut and dried, i.e. the inexcusable heresy and apostasy of Paul VI, JPII etc.

    13. There are more than one of us anonymous correspondences in this section. I am the anonymous who called you a hypocrite. You lectured Introibo for calling Fred Dimond a heretic. According to you we are not allowed to "strip Fred of his Catholicity." Oh well pardon me then I didn't realize Fred and his retarded brother were off limits.

      You also asked me a question: "And btw, what type of heretics are they?" My answer is the same kind as the modernist popes. So you see I am consistent.

      By the way, maybe JPII didn't mean to kiss the Koran. It is possible he thought it was the Holy Bible. So as a Catholic you should repent for "stripping the popes of their Catholicity." I won't do the same towards the Dimond frauds but I will retract my charge of hypocrisy against you.

    14. Anon @10:43: The Dimonds have been corrected in their errors and they still persist in them. How much “benefit of the doubt” do you suppose their are to receive? Also, if they truly believe they are Benedictine Monks, they are deluded and in a delusion. The author of which delusion is surely Satan. How many people do they need to deceive regarding BOD, etc., before the benefit of the doubt stops?

    15. Anon. @ 2:20 pm

      No benefit of the doubt is to be given to them insofar their abundant errors. Correct.

      They are deluded almost beyond belief. Correct.

      Their delusion is a snare of the Devil. Correct.

      We need to look as ridiculous and uncharitable as them by calling them formal heretics and by implication excommunicating them. Incorrect.

      As Catholics we are bound to think the very best of people, and make excuse of their errors and foibles as much as we are able. Correct.

      The fact that good laymen and traditional priests (whom possess no authority) have corrected the Dimond's errors subsequently makes the Dimonds pertinacious heretics. Incorrect.

      In the case of JPII, for example, there are zero
      possibilities that
      could serve as mitigating factors, thus we are forced to conclude that he was a hideous heretic and apostate. A formal enemy of Christ. Correct.

      The same applies to the Dimond brothers, whom many consider are unlettered and none too bright. Incorrect.

      All of the novus ordo adherents and adherents of the Dimonds and others similarly in grave error are to be regarded and pronounced as formal heretics. Incorrect.

    16. That you apply two sets of standards for two different groups of people makes you a hypocrite - Correct.

      So you have no authority to judge heretics and "strip them of their Catholicity" but then you turn around without authority and declare judge JPII a "hideous heretic and apostate." I'm done with you too. You're another confused individual who can't see his own contradictions. Just don't lecture people about the evils of judging heretics while you yourself judge heretics or I'll call you out on it again.

    17. Anon @ 7:29 am
      That you cannot grasp that there is a stark difference insofar education and position in the Church between JPII and the Dimonds would seem to indicate that reasoning with you is a hopeless proposition. Again, for your elucidation.

      JPII was highly educated in the pre-Vatican II Church. He was a former seminary professor and had a doctorate from the Pontifical University of the Angelicum. He couldn't possibly have been ignorant. Going against his own knowledge equates to pertinacity. The same cannot be said with the same certainty of the Dimonds.

      Are you "done with me" or are you going to keep popping up as anons without identifying which anon you are? What I understood is that you're "conditionally" done with me. As long as you've muzzled me you won't "call me out." Let me assure you that the threat of you "calling me out" isn't going to silence me.

      Are you paying attention to anything I'm writing? Why don't you take my arguments and thoroughly dismantle them rather than focusing on one aspect and taking it out of context, skewing it to attempt to show "hypocrisy" when none is present, ignoring my reasoning for why one can't put the Dimonds and novus ordo adherents in the same category as, for example, JPII?

      Are the Dimonds the Principal of Unity in the Church? Why is it crucial for you to judge them, excommunicate them, labeling them as formal heretics? Why can't you condemn their beliefs as heretical whilst remaining diffident as to their status in the Church? Why? Because, it seems, you're obviously very comfortable with taking the harshest view with people. Btw, are members of the SSPX schismatics? The short answer is that it isn't crucial. Whereas with the pseudo-popes it is crucial. What's the alternative to our judgment that JPII was a false pontiff (a hideous heretic and apostate, as a matter of fact)? That's a rhetorical question, BUT if I need to spell out the alternative I'll gladly enlighten you. I'll give you a little hint. An educated Catholic who thinks aright is *forced* to conclude that JP II was a false pontiff.

      What's the alternative to jumping straight to the Dimonds being formal/pertinacious heretics and thus excommunicated? The alternative is to take a course where insofar their status in the Church we give them every benefit of the doubt. They may be excusably ignorant, they may hold their views with good intentions, their hatred for false ecumenism may have led to a Jansenistic rigor, they may not be too bright (if it was one of the Dimonds who took Introibo to task recently, this theory has some legs). The point is: it's not at all necessary for you to act like them, hissing "heretic" back at them. But it's your decision. Mine is not to consider them or their adherents as formal heretics. Give me your opinions by all means but DON'T presume to lecture me with regards to my conscience-based decisions.

  12. Yes, despite PL's insistent claims to the contrary, it is common knowledge among the trads of Ohio that the PL blog is the work of one man, who attended St Clare mission in Columbus. In fact, he was largely responsible for the destruction of that mission, since he convinced most of the parishioners to abandon that mission when Fr Ramolla was fired, causing it to be shuttered.

    He continues his work of destroying the trad movement as much as he can on his blog, spreading slander about clergy in an attempt to convince people to stay home.

    Just recently he has started promoting the FSSP and other Novus Ordo Latin Mass venues as viable options.

    He says constantly that there are numerous good priests out there for people to avail themselves of, but has steadfastly refused to name even one.

    The whole site is a bizarro world of anger and hatred, where all he discusses is the personal merit or failing of clergy while completely ignoring the intrinsic power of the sacraments or Catholics' obligation to receive them. He claims that if you think your local trad priest is avaricious, you can and should stay home and not receive the sacraments. This is not sinful, he claims, because none of the laws are the Church bind anymore (yeah...) and, if you commit to mortal sin, you can just make an act of perfect contrition and you'll be forgiven even if you have no intention to confess it.

    Truly a caricature of Catholicism.

    1. Yes. Not to mention claiming "many witnesses" to a one-handed ordination of Dolan to the priesthood, but unable to produce one single name! It's sad that this is how he spends his time on Earth.


  13. Anonymous @ 12:27 pm

    Thank you for your post. It was very informative. I think people need to hear what you know about this guy, who makes out that there are 15+ of them who collaborate on the weekly nonsense he shoves out. You're right, and he's been pushing the Novus Ordo Eastern rites as an alternative too.

  14. P.L. just gave me a typical response.
    "There are many former Novus Ordo presbyters who have embraced the traditional Catholic faith.
    They will soon be giving these (insert various insults) traditional "clergy" a run for their money."
    (Their quotations not mine)
    It's a shame that he is so insulting & tells his readers about imaginary non-existent traditional Catholic priests & bishops.
    That blog (P.L.) could be helpful if he cut out the constant insulting,gossiping,and lying.
    He's 100% correct on pointing out that traditional Catholic clergy with no jurisdiction or office from the Church should stop with creating fake non-existent "Dogma."
    i.e. Una Cum Mass controversy.
    Its laughable yet sad considering a few American traditional Bishops with no office or mission from the church & who have received orders outside papal mandate are insisting we stay away from
    "Una Cum" masses or else be in mortal sin!
    Thank Almighty God for the SSPV,
    Fr.Emillio Fattore (Tampa Bay)
    Fr.Ronald Brown (Chicago)
    Bishop Ramolla,(Cincinnati)
    & other traditional Catholic clergy who simply keep the true faith,Holy Sacrifice,and Sacraments alive during this emergency.

  15. Can traditional Catholic clergy (Sedevacantist or SSPX types outside the Novus Ordo structure)
    perform exorcisms?
    Or,do they not perform exorcisms since they have no mission or jurisdiction from the Church?

    1. All Traditionalist clergy can perform exorcisms. Exorcist is one of the minor orders received prior to subdeacon, deacon and priest.

      God Bless,


  16. Introibo - I just stumbled across an article that stated that the Dimonds profess to be the two anointed prophets written about in Revelation. Is this true?? If so, the Dimonds are more deluded than I previously thought. Also, they must think they are very, very special, or Satan has convinced them they are special!!

    1. Really? That would be delusional beyond belief! Do you have the link?


    2. Introibo - The article is a text formatted video on YouTube.
      (The Dimond Brothers’ “Monastic Life” Exposed by Defending the Faith). The text regarding the two anointed prophets begins at 2:54.

    3. Joann,
      Thank you for the information! That video is quite an exposé of the Dimonds. It’s a “MUST SEE “!

      Thanks again and God Bless!


    4. I contacted Bro. Michael Dimond about this. He told me that the video contains lies and false statements. The guy who composed it has never been to Most Holy Family Monastery, nor has he ever met Bro. Michael Dimond or Bro. Peter Dimond. So you should stop spreading lies and defamation. But your willingness to believe apparently everything of what some anonymous person who doesn't like MHFM says reveals a lot about you.

    5. Wow! This video really "strips Freddy and Bobby of their Catholicity." Great job whoever made it.

    6. @Anonymous 12:08

      And you believe our misfit, malevolent “monks”? How do you know their not lying? The video does make some points that I know are true. In the absence of real evidence to the contrary, I believe the video.


    7. Anon@12:08 - Just what do you think the Dimonds’ are doing by making a video of James White and professing he is possessed by gestures he makes on a video? Aren’t they spreading lies and defamation? The Dimonds profess to KNOW when someone is possessed. Perhaps they should start by looking in the mirror!!

    8. @anonymous 1:47

      So very true!!


    9. With regard to the video which attacks the Dimonds, one of the first things the video presents is demonstrably false. The video argues that the Dimonds claim to receive 100,000 traditionalist visitors to their site every day. Actually they have never claimed that. (Keep in mind that the person writing those things has never met Bro. Michael Dimond or Bro. Peter Dimond, and he’s never been to Most Holy Family Monastery.) He then argues that their material is not actually widely followed, and he guesses that only about a few hundred people are ‘fans’ [i.e. followers]. So he’s basically saying that he guesses only a few hundred people really watch or take in material they publish. Well, that’s provably false.

      MHFM has over 50,000 subscribers on their English YouTube Channel and over 33 million total video views. Every new video MHFM posts receives thousands of views within a short time: Many of the videos on that channel have over 100,000 views, with some over a million. For instance, the Amazing Evidence For God in English has over two million views, to give just one example. MHFM published a documentary on Steven Anderson about four months ago and it already has about 100,000 views:

      And that’s just in English. MHFM has websites and YouTube channels in Spanish:, French, Italian, and Portuguese, among others. The Spanish channel alone has almost 70,000 subscribers and over 21 million total video views. For instance, the Spanish version of Amazing Evidence For God has over 3 million views: So, one of the first characterizations in the video, that the material published by MHFM is not widely viewed, is demonstrably false.

    10. Anonymous @ 504

      You know Because of a video presented by the Diamonds themselves?
      I’ll let my readers decide how authentic and truthful it really is—I have ZERO confidence in it.


  17. It's not looking good for Fred and Bobby, a.k.a. the "Cubic Zirconia Bros."

  18. My name is Bro. Jerome Torres. I am a member of Most Holy Family Monastery, and I have lived in the monastery for over six years with Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond. I have also made final vows. I translate MHFM’s videos and website into Spanish for the monastery. I can attest that there are lies and false statements in the video you are promoting, and it should not be promoted.

    I have also had correspondence with the person who uploaded this video and the other ones on his channel against MHFM. That person has never been to MHFM and he’s never met any of us in person. However, he has admitted that his “conversion” years ago (from a situation of fornication and heresy) was because his son (who also converted through finding out about MHFM) gave him the information from MHFM. Bro. Michael then rebuked him for something, and since that time he’s had a personal vendetta against our monastery. He has also fallen into heresy. He claims to care about truth when he doesn’t, as he promotes a book that argues for Eastern “Orthodoxy”.

    He also believes that the monastery should be operating under the local Vatican II “Catholic Bishop” and under the apostate Antipope Francis.

    I am disgusted by this, and by many of the people on this blog. I have nothing more to say on this subject.

    Brother Jerome Torres, O.S.B.
    Most Holy Family Monastery

    1. Only six months to “final vows”? Now that is impressive! I guess if David Bawden could become “pope” after getting “elected” by his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a female “theologian,” you can be a “brother” in six months with “final vows.”

      The sad thing is that David is more Catholic than the Dimonds, or anyone associated with their pernicious errors, could ever hope to be.
      I have only your ipse dixit that what you say is true. As such, I disregard it.

      Too bad Fred and Bobby don’t make vows of “perpetual silence”—-covering everything both spoken and written on the Internet or in person!


    2. Jerome Torres -

      Do the Dimonds’ profess to be the two anointed prophets in the book of Revelation?

    3. Jerome, Do you and the Dimonds always go about revealing other people’s sins as you did in the above post? Doesn’t seem like something real monks would do.

    4. Hey Jerome, how's that basketball arena working out for you guys? Heated floor and all. Great life. What's the matter you couldn't get a job in the real world so you thought you'd join the monastery and cash in on the end times business of religion? It pays well doesn't it?

    5. Anon 5:49- Excellent observation and I have to admit I noticed the same thing! That is called detraction if true and calumny if false. Either way, it was objectively a sin. Also, since Jerome took a vow of obedience and it is unlikely this was written without Fred's consent, then Fred is guilty too. Lastly, yes Fred and Bob enjoy revealing people's sins and faults. They have made a career of it. But if someone fights back they cry foul and hire a lawyer.

    6. Anon @ 1:36 pm

      What do you mean with Fred's permission? Haven't you been paying attention? There's no discipline in the "Monastery" (and apparently no real monks). Fred's shooting hoops atm and Peetie weetie is psychologically assessing the inmates...I mean...monks using phrenology (that's the cover story, he's really checking for demonic possession). Disturbingly, he just found two nubs right above his own forehead, and is praying that they aren't budding horns. They're just about to sit down with a few cans of Pabst abd barrel of KFC and watch Sean Connery in "Diamonds are Forever" on the 65" flatscreen in the rec room, so it's busy times for them. In addition to all this they're looking for fresh meat to call heretics. But don't worry Mikey will find time, I'm sure, this evening to open up a can of woop...I mean pontificate on the Net to his *cough splutter* 100,000 devotees.

  19. Hi! I've noticed you're obsessed with His Excellency Bishop Daniel Dolan. His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn and other sede clergy. Are ALL your blogs going to be about boring, inconsequential rubbish? It's the sane old same old week after week. It's all a big yawn. Can you try not to be so old and boring, please?

    1. Can you try and post comments on the correct blog? I have different topics each week. I’m far from “obsessed” with Bp Sanborn, Bp Dolan, or anyone else.


  20. My apologies. It wasn't intended for you. I'm surprised you posted it? It doesn't need to remain. Again, sorry!

  21. Dear Introibo,

    I'm writing to inform you that Bro. Michael Dimond will be here soon to refute your many lies and errors after which he will excommunicate you by bell, book and candle. Be assured that he gives top priority to vanquishing odious heretics such as yourself. He would've been here already had he and Peter not been preoccupied with their important work of surfing the Net searching for novus ordo and traditional clergy with bald heads and then assessing said bald heads to determine satanic possession.

    Brother Phileas Frogg, O.S.B.
    Most Unholy Family Monastery

    1. LOL! Thanks for the warning Brother Frogg! I might be excommunicated by the Dimonds, but at least I'm not bald, so the accusation of demonic possession won't stick!


  22. Hi Introibo, I found another good video against the Dimonds at the defending the faith channel. This one was made by Patrick Walsh:

  23. Introibo,
    What does “to know things hidden far away” mean?
    Could porn lead a person into possession?
    Also, if a person is obsessed do they need a Priest to break the obsession?
    Do obsessions get stronger the longer one has them?


    1. Joann,
      1. To know things hidden far away would mean to know what is happening to others or the location of things far away from the possessed, and of which they could have no knowledge by natural means

      2. Porn is a serious sin that leads one into very serious sin. It opens one up to the influence of Satan, but not all become obsessed or possessed.

      3. Priests would, in most cases, be necessary to break diabolical obsession.

      4. The longer someone stays under demonic influence, the greater the possibility of greater obsession.

      God Bless,


    2. Introibo, Thanks much!! Very interesting and informative!!