Go Top
Ligitimacy of the MHFM
Catholics Against MhFM
Defending the Faith

The Crossroads at 23rd Street


"For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)


"When FEAR knocks on your door, send FAITH to answer it."

1917 Code of Canon Law (Can. 146) and the Legitimacy of the MHFM

1917 Code of Canon Law
Book I: General Norms (Can. 1-6)
Title IX: Ecclesiastical Offices (Can. 145-196)
Chapter I: The Provision of Ecclesiastical Office
Can. 146: "An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision".

Canonical Provision: It comprises three distinct acts - the designation of the person, canonical institution, and installation. In various ways a person may be designated to fill a vacant benefice: by election, postulation, presentation, or recommendation, resignation made in one's favor, or approved exchange. In all cases confirmation by the proper ecclesiastical superior of the selection made is required, while letters of appointment, as a rule, must be presented.

Reception of administration by a chapter without such letters brings excommunication reserved to the pope, together with privation of the fruits of the benefice; and the nominee loses “ipso facto” all right to the prelacy. Ordinarily greater benefices are conferred by the pope; minor benefices by the bishop, who as a rule has the power of appointing to all benefices in his diocese. The pope, however, owing to the fullness of his jurisdiction, may appoint to any benefice whatsoever.

Thus, the law is clear ... without legitimacy (canonical provision), without the consecrated authority to act on God’s behalf to establish an ecclesiastical office [a monastery] to preach / teach the scattered flock, even with the best of intentions, it is against the Code of Canon Law bringing with it an “ipso facto” sentence of excommunication.

Next; as found within the 1918 version of The New Canon Law: A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law; by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M.
The Second Book: Laws Concerning Persons
Part I: Laws Concerning the Clergy
Section II: Clerics Individually
Title VII: The Supreme Authority and Those who by Law Share in it

(146) The Supreme Authority alone can erect ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses, abbeys [monasteries] or prelatures nullius, vicariates apostolic, prefectures apostolic; or change their limits, divide, unite, suppress them.

The FACTs:

  • Joseph Natale (1932-1995), the founder of the “concept” MHFM, was a layman and NEVER was a professed religious.

  • Joseph Natale NEVER received permission from a Benedictine Bishop (delegated by the Supreme Authority) to establish his congregation.

  • The same applies to Frederick “Michael” Dimond.

Thus ... NO Canonical Provision.

Simply put ... the Dimond Brothers of the MHFM, as laymen, are acting outside the laws of the Church established in 1917 ... long before Vatican II was ever held.

In the Canon Law Digest, Volume 3, Can. 147 (page 71) it reads: “Excommunication as vitandus is inflicted for accepting office from a lay authority.”; which is exactly the grievous error committed by Bro. Michael when he self-declared himself, as a layman, Superior of the MHFM.

For it is clearly indicated concerning the “official” Benedictine requirements for obtaining the legitimate position of a Superior within a Benedictine monastery:

1910Declarations on the Rule of Our Holy Father St. Benedict and Statutes of the American-Cassinese Congregation” / permissu superiorum (by permission of the superiors), approved by the HOLY SEE under Pope Pius X (page 55):

No one, however, can be elected unless he has made solemn vows, is ordained to the priesthood and belongs to our congregation.

Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma

967 Can. 7: “If anyone says that ... those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word …: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].

Anathema is a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

To reiterate the FACTs:

  • Joseph Natale was a layman and NEVER was a professed religious.

  • Joseph Natale NEVER received permission from a Benedictine Bishop (delegated by the Supreme Authority) to establish his congregation.

  • Joseph Natale NEVER received “Holy Orders”, was NEVER ordained to the priesthood, and therefore had NO legitimate claim to the position / title of Superior.

  • The same applies to Frederick “Michael” Dimond.

Thus, once again ... NO Canonical Provision.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that there are a multitude of obstinate persons who do not quite, or willfully refuse, to understand that the purpose of this project is NOT an attempt to unjustly defame or denigrate the innocent; but rather it is a continued effort to keep on “sounding the alarm” concerning the fraud being perpetuated upon the “scattered flock” by a narcistic, miscreant by the name of Frederick “Michael” Dimond; posing as an ecclesiastic Superior within his secular “not-for-profit corporation”; disguised as a self-identified Order of St Benedict (OSB) deceitfully called the “Most Holy Family Monastery” (MHFM).

It's still not too late to repent Brother Michael.

Beware of false Prophets, and false Teachers, who serve the "Father of Lies"...

Pax Tecum

Faith is Liberty Espoused  •  © 2024  •  23rdStreet.com  •  Contact