Frederick Dimond: Against Sedevacantism (1996)
Fair Use Notice: This website may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
In 1996 Frederick Dimond (a.k.a. Brother Michael) the self-annointed Superior of the self-identified Benedictine community (MhFM) gave a speech at a conference held at the Berlin, NJ, monastery in which he denounced Sedevacantism.
At the begining of 2018 the Dimond Brothers filed a complaint with YouTube against the Crossroads at 23rd Street, claiming "copyright infringement", for placing that video into the public arena (YouTube). As a result YouTube terminated the Crossroads at 23rd Street and the video disappeared along with it.
In viewing Frederick Dimond's speech aginst sedevacantism one can see that Frederick was defending the position held by Joseph Natale (1927-1995), the founder of the MHFM, who was ademantly opposed to Sedevacantism.
Frederick "Michael" Dimond Against Sedevacantism
|
|
|
Frederick Dimond (a.k.a. Brother Michael) said the following "Against Sedevacantism":
One of the errors that is prevalent is Sedevacantism which I want to cover that area
Sedevacantism which means a vacant seat or the “Seat of Peter” which a true pope sits upon is vacant. There is no question about it. The Seat of Peter has been vacant in different times of the Church and is always vacant when a new pope is being elected; after a pope has died or in a conclave. The sedevacantist line is that there has been no pope since Pope Pius XII. Manifest heresy automatically or ipso-facto effects an excommunication for anyone in any office. And the Church has the right from God to separate itself from the heretical pope and consequently to apply all of the means that are in and of themselves necessary for such a separation. But in the case of the pope the determination that the person has lost his position has to be made by the Universal Church, most probably through a declaration from a general council or stated by a future pope before Catholics could arrive at such a conclusion.
You have the example of Saint Peter, for he denied Our Lord three times to the point of cursing and blaspheming but he didn’t lose his position. And by the way Padre Pio told John Paul II, when he was a priest, he said “one day you’ll be pope”. Now he didn’t say that he’d be a good pope … he just said “you’ll be pope one day”, that’s all he said. So that’s even a strong indicator in itself that they (sedevacantists) are definitely wrong.
Sedevacantists claim simply that there is no pope anywhere in spite of the fact that there hasn’t been anything to keep the real pope from coming out in the open. Most sedevacantist cannot and do not even try to come up with anyone who may be the pope. ???? In a word there is no divine promise that the pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructful ways. Such a pope, however, despite all and any manner of unholy action, would not lose his legitimacy, his all-encompassing jurisdiction or the divine prerogative of infallibility. So that should a devout conspirator become the Roman Pontiff he might be reconverted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage that he himself had inflicted upon the Church; without needing to be reelected, reinstalled or reconfirmed in his office. Only his private confession and absolution from censure; which means any penalty he might have incurred would be required.
The wide spread notion that anyone who incurs ipso-facto excommunication is thereby out of the Church, no longer a member, and therefore loses all ecclesiastical offices, dignities, etcetera … is based on a fundamental misconception. “Once a Catholic always a Catholic” is a valid principle. A valid excommunication does not mean that the Church excludes the person altogether; but the person may not participate in the life of the Church (that is receive any of the Sacraments of the ??? or participate in the liturgical ceremonies or take part in Church functions, etcetera).
As regards to any offices their laws are for canonical condemnations only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon a declaration of “excommunication” and to be avoided, by the pope himself. Obviously the Supreme Pontiff cannot incur this censure but at the same time no one can justifiably blame even an errant pope for his sins. The failure of any person, even the pope, to keep God’s law or persevere in his own faith does not excuse any other for his failure to do the same. And if they do not convert they will surely perish. And we know this is predicted so the thing is we know this is predicted by ”Our Lady of the Salette” on September the 19th 1846 that Rome would lose its faith and become the Anti-Christ. So the main thing of all these things is to keep the Catholic faith and to uphold what’s always been taught.