Go Top
MhFM: Against Sedevacantism
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."

MhFM Against Sedevacantism: The Worm Turns

[Fair Use Notice: I present the following video and audio transcripts in an effort to clarify and advance understanding of the political, human, religious, and social issues raised in the related 1992, 1996, 2010 and 2011 videos. I believe presenting this information constitutes a “fair use” of any possible copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.]

As I have repeatedly stated on the 23rdstreet.com website and in various YouTube videos, Joseph Natale, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery (MhFM), was not a Sedevacantist.

All those “want-to-be monastics” that sought and managed to gain entry into Natale’s Berlin, NJ, “friary” were required to adopt the religious community’s position on the need to diligently work towards unifying / healing the Roman Church after its tragic break from tradition (Vatican II), and not to “fragment” it any further.

Thus, it can logically be assumed that Frederick (a.k.a. Brother Michael) Dimond agreed to abide by those terms when he joined Joseph’s "friary” in 1992 at the age of 19.

After Joseph Natale's sudden demise in November 1995, Fred (Bro. Michael) took control over MhFM, assuming the role of a Benedictine Superior which declared to the world, according to the Rule of St Benedict, that he now held: "the place of Christ within the monastery".

You can witness for yourself that Fred continued to espouse Natale's traditional Catholic ideals as seen in an excerpt of a 1996 video where he (Brother Michael) denounces 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."

Anyone familiar with Joseph Natale’s Berlin monastery will attest that Joseph did not break communion / unity with the Vatican (Rome) and had a picture of Pope John Paul II hanging in his office behind his desk as proof of that allegiance to the Church. He simply refused to accept the saying of the “Novous Ordo” Mass on his monastery’s premises.

The video excerpt you just watch is unequivocal and substantiated proof that young Fred Dimond had been instructed / formed by Joseph Natale, MhFM's founder and religious mentor, against the errors of Sedevacantism.

It is a fair question to ask what prompted Fred to eventually betray Joseph Natale and abandon his religious community's non-Sedevacantist position; transforming Joseph's traditional Catholic dream, of 30+ years, into the Sedevacantist schismatic nightmare it has become.

Fred’s younger sibling and future business partner Robert (Brother Peter) tries his despicable best to explain away that unfettered treasonous act in a 2010 video where he states:

“This is Brother Peter Dimond, vaticancatholic.com, and we wanted to address the issue: was Brother Michael always a Sedevacantist?

And, this issue becomes relevant every once in a while because you have certain individuals who, since they have nothing else to say, they bring up the fact … well … 14 years ago Brother Michael Dimond wasn’t a Sedevacantist.

And that’s true.

As we’ve pointed out, it’s a logical progression for people to go from non-Sedevacantism to Sedevacantism. Because it’s the duty of every Catholic to accept the man who purports to be the Bishop of Rome as the pope unless there’s clear evidence of an invalid election or manifest heresy.

And so, if someone is supposedly elected by the supposed College of Cardinals and installed as the supposed pope; it is a Catholic’s duty to accept and acknowledge him as the pope.

And so, it would be a logical progression for people to go from holding the position that some of these Vatican II antipopes are true popes until the come across the evidence which persuades them and convinces them that they are not popes.

And that was the case with Most holy Family Monastery.

In fact, before I entered Most holy Family Monastery, this was, as I said, about 15 years ago, quite a long time … I’ve been here about 12 years … and so, when Brother Michael entered Most holy Family Monastery it was traditionalist, but it did not hold the Sedevacantist position.

And then, not long after, he took the Sedevacantist position after learning more about the issues.

But in 1996, he gave a talk in which he discussed various traditional issues and, in fact, it was in that talk that he denounced John Paul II as an outright heretic.”

What utter nonsense. I believe a quote from W.C. Fields is fitting and sums up best what Bob went on record stating: “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.”

Bob goes on with his ludicrous defense of Fred’s 1996 “against Sedevacantism” declaration by adding:

“… At that time he was not persuaded that that [Sedevacantism] was correct. This was in 1996. So, actually, he was quite young and somewhat new to these issues …”

Well, I got news for you Bob … Fred being young and inexperienced at the time does not exonerate him from masquerading as a bonafide Benedictine Superior. For a true Superior must be:

  • at least 30 years of age,

  • solemnly professed for at least 7 years (CIC 623),

  • an ordained priest, and

  • a member of a Cenobite Congregation (under the guidance a Bishop).

So, simply put, what Bob is actually saying is that Fred (Brother Michael) was:

  • not a true Benedictine Superior

  • that he had usurped that position,

  • that he had not been instructed properly as a “novice”, and thus

  • he didn’t actually know what the hell he was talking about.

Bob (Brother Peter) goes on in his toxic video by trashing traditional Catholic Father James Wathen (1932-2006) as a “heretic” for professing the “Once a Catholic Always a Catholic” position; which devastated their unique version of Sedevacantism:

“… he [Fred] had read Father James Wathen’s book ‘Who Shall Ascend’ and he eventually met Father Wathen and spoke with him and had a lot of respect for him, Father James Wathen, at the time; because Father Wathen was one of the only priests in the world, in fact, who had never accepted the new Mass, who condemned attendance in the new mass as mortally sinful.

Wathen also rejected Baptism of Desire and upheld the absolute necessity of water baptism. And he condemned this idea that souls that are ignorant of the Gospel and ignorant of the Faith can be saved, in any religion; which even the few Sedevacantist priests at the time all believed; which was an additional reason Brother Michael had almost no respect for them at that time.

Wathen also called John Paul II an outright heretic not a material heretic and condemned NST.

And so he [Fred] really deferred to Wathen and he thought that Wathen understood the issue of Sedevacantism and he had been studying it for years. You know he had been a priest for many decades and a traditionalist priest.

Wathen was correct on almost everything. But the error that he held was this idea that heretics don’t lose authority in the church and don’t lose their membership in the church (Once a Catholic always a Catholic) and applying that to the man who claims to be a pope.

And so, that’s what Brother Michael believed was the Catholic teaching at that time.”

What a deliciously wicked Enchanting Lustful Lie to feed his base. Shame on you, Bob.

Let’s first hear what Fred had to say in 1996 about “Once a Catholic always a Catholic”:

"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 living 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, just out of curiosity, what did Father Wathen actually have to say on the subject?

"The main argument of the Sedevacantists is that an heretical pope has incurred the censure of excommunication. By excommunication, he has been expelled from the Church. As a non-Catholic, it is impossible for him to be the head of the Catholic Church. He may, therefore, occupy the Chair of St. Peter, but he most certainly does not have his authority. He can rightly be called a 'usurper'.

I do not know why it is so difficult to impart the idea that the word 'excommunication' does not mean expulsion. It is impossible for anyone for any reason to be expelled from the Church; the indelible mark of Baptism makes it so. Excommunication means that an individual who has received this censure is, by reason of some specific sin, rendered incapable of participating in the communal life of the Church, and forbidden to try and do so. He may not, therefore, act as usher, sing in the choir, be a witness at a marriage, etc. Due to this censure, if he is a cleric, he is forbidden to exercise whatever office he may hold, whether he be pope, a bishop, a pastor, or whatever. Whether the individual actually loses his office, depends upon what kind of sin he committed and what the law says about this censurable infraction.

What is important in this context is that it is not the business of the ordinary Catholic priest or lay person, or anyone who has no authority over such an individual to concern himself with the legal status. No matter what is the said individual’s status, the religious obligations of his subjects are in no way altered thereby."

I can assure you that Bob (Brother Peter) lied when he said that Father James Wathen said that John Paul II was an outright “heretic”. For, Father Wathen was adamant when he wrote:

"Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. This is Canon 1556 ... These words mean: “The First Chair is judged by no one,” which means that none of the pope’s subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the throne of St. Peter. We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone which whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is a legitimate pope.

Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them."

In fairness to Father Wathen, may he rest in peace, you may be curious to know what he had to say about the Dimond Brothers, after they publicly denounced him as being a “heretic”?

I'd like to share with you 4 of the 13 points Father Wathen raised in his article:

A Note About the Dimond Brothers.

  1. They call themselves “Brothers”, but neither of them has made the standard novitiate, which the Code says is strictly necessary for professed religious. They call themselves “Brothers” because this lends prestige to their opinions.

  2. The two brothers do not pretend to live a monastic life. Their vocation, as they see it, demands that they busy themselves in controversy. They think that the Church is better served by their spending their time producing various kinds of works of theological criticism, than in prayer and contemplation, which is the traditional obligation of monks

  3. Neither of the brothers has had the opportunity for normal catechetical instruction, let alone theological training. They imagine that this does not matter, and it does not to the uninstructed. To those of us who have “taken all the courses” their inadequacy is a glaring reality.

  1. The two “Brothers” Dimond are two worrisome little men. Without any authorization and without proper theological training, they have endeavored to establish themselves as teachers of the faithful and ‘certifiers’ of all priests in this country. They make a lot of money with their misleading publications, tapes, etc., and they spend much time on the phone persuading people to stay away from the Masses of non-Sedevacantist priests.

Who knows how many Catholics of good will have been persuaded to stay home for months on end -- even years -- rather than attend Mass, confess their sins, and receive Holy Communion?

I urge everyone to give these men a wide berth; do not buy or circulate their materials, even those which are acceptable. Do not send them money.

Beware of wolves in monk’s habits."

Richard Ibranyi, though considered by many today as being a “religious Kook” himself, was a member of MhFM, living and working in the Berlin and later the Fillmore monastery, for 1 year and 5 months; until he was ordered to leave (kicked out) of the monastery in 1997 for insubordination and his support views of Sedevacantism. I wish to present a few brief excerpts from Richard’s 2011 audio entitled “Richard Ibranyi on the MhFM”.

“He surprises me the most, Peter Dimond, more than anybody.

... What disappointed me with Peter ... he became worse, to me, even than his brother.

... He’s [Bob] really is the brains of the work. Brother Michael Dimond is an idiot, he’s a parrot. He really is. Peter Dimond is the brain. Peter Dimond is the brain.

Brother Michael is a good parrot. Even John Vennari said that about him. John Vennari was right on that.

As much as I’m talking about them now, even if the convert, praise God. They’d have to do some strong penance ... but, they would need a major conversion.

First of all, God would have to give them a giant new heart, because they have no heart at all right now. They need to get true charity.

It could happen though. I see good … everyone has a good side. Talking about the guy, I see good sides in him and his brother. But right now it’s overwhelmed by pride and (Someone says) … “It sounds like he has no charity whatsoever.”

(Richard responds) … “None, zero ... zero.”

You can talk to anyone who went in there [monastery] with him. They’ll tell you, ah this kid is unbelievable.

... There is no real pastoral care there. He doesn’t care what you believe in. He doesn’t care what you’re doing. He’ll even get angry if you resist one of his points out of pride, which could be seen as some type of zeal. He has no care for an individual person’s soul; not even his own.

The Brother Michael thing, as I said to people right from the beginning, it wasn’t money. He not greedy for money. It’s "fame". He’s got it bad.

He’s addicted to Padre Pio. He’s got such a devotion to him that it’s a strange thing, man. It’s almost as though he wishes he had the “stigmata” and he wants to be a Padre Pio. He, he, he … In the beginning he was with “Bayside”, the Bayside people in New York.

His thing is "fame" and that’s all it’s about."

It is unequivocal. After the death of Joseph Natale in 1995, Fred (Brother Michael) Dimond betrayed his religious community's mentor, brought in his younger sibling Bob (Brother Peter) and together they successfully conspired to create a counterfeit MhFM in which to enrich themselves at the expense of others souls.

How can anyone possessing a “sound mind” not see the “pious fraud” that has been perpetuated over the last 20+ years by these two miscreants (religious carpetbaggers)?

Despite what they say, isn’t it evident that Fred and Bob do not actually believe what they've placed on their website; which claims that MhFM’s founder, Joseph Natale, received a “divine vocation” from God to establish his religious community?

If the Dimonds truly believed that Joseph Natale received a “divine vocation” from God in which he was told that MhFM would be: "The Beacon Light of all Catholicism," "The Forerunner of Christ's Second Coming,” and "The Final Religious Order in the World", they would be crazed or deluded to intentionally steer away from the non-Sedevacantist course Joseph had been "instructed" by God to set.

That is unless … the Dimond Brothers actually serve "another" master and have intentionally set out to thwart one of God’s contingency plans?

Joseph Natale made it clear in his 1992 interview the reason he established his religious community:

"The Church right now is fragmented. We must teach Catholics, traditionalist Catholics we may use that terminology, I’d rather use the word Roman Catholic. We must unite. We must, if we do no unite and come together and working for one goal and that goal is the Holy Mother Church, upon this rock I will build my Church, Peter. We must maintain that structure. We must uphold that structure no matter what the cost may be. We must uphold the structure of the Papacy. And we must try to unite the Church not fragment it.

Now this might sound strange, to some people that I know, we must maintain ourselves within the framework of that Church. And fight with whatever tools the Church allows us to fight with. I’d like to say as far as our day is concerned, as you just said, the darkness that we are in is not coincidence. It’s diabolical. The seed of Satan has been sowed.


As the Dimond Brothers teach that all non-sedevacantists are “heretics”, one puzzling question remains unanswered by them.

As Joseph Natale was a devout traditionalist non-Sedevacantist Catholic, for the 30 years he spent establishing and running his religious community, do they place the MhFM’s founder in the same tainted basket of “heretics” that they have placed all other traditional non-Sedevacantist Catholics until now?

- Pax Tecum


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