The Logical Progression Towards Sedevacantism

Transcribed from: Most Holy Family Monastery’s youtube channel, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY 14735, (800)275-1126 or (585)567-4433. Email: mhfm1@aol.com / www.vaticancatholic.com

 

QUESTION.- Was Brother Michael O.S.B Always A Sedevacantist?

RESPONSE.-  This is Brother Peter Dimond, vaticancatholic.com, and we wanted to address the issue “was Brother Michael Dimond always a Sedevacantist”? 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 that, 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 is 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 the 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 catholic popes are true popes until they 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 fifteen 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. He condemned the New Mass as invalid. He rejected and clearly set for the evidence that “Baptism of Desire and Blood” are not consistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism. And he also spent a few minutes on the sedevacantist issue. And at that time he was not persuaded that that (sedevacantism) was correct. This was in 1996 and so he was actually quite young and somewhat new to these issues. But he had read Father James Wathen’s book “Who Shall Ascend?” and he eventually met Father Wathen and spoke with him. And he had a lot of respect for Father James Wathen, at the time, because Father Wathen was one of the only priest in the world, in fact, who had never accepted the New Mass. He condemned the tenets of 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 who were ignorant of the Gospel and ignorant of the faith can be saved, in any religion; which even the few sedevacantist priests, at that 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 NFP. And so he really deferred to Wathen and he thought that Wathen understood the issue of sedevacantism, and he’d been studying it for years. And he had been a priest for many decades and a traditional priest. Wathen was correct on almost everything but the air that he held was this idea that heretics don’t lose authority in the Church, don’t lose membership in the Church (“Once a Catholic always a Catholic”) and applying that to the man who claims to be the pope.

And so that’s what Brother Michael believed was the catholic teaching at that time. And at that time he had not studied the teaching of the Church on loss of Papal Office through heresy. And that’s why he did not believe in sedevacantism. But it was shortly after that, about a year later, that after studying the issue more, and understanding more, about Church teaching, especially as it applies to heresy, loss of office, Church membership that he changed his position and became a sedevacantist.

And so you have these pathetic heretics and some of them are just obsessed with us, frankly, we had to disable comments. We disable comments for a number of reasons because we believe, as we said in the other video, it can be counterproductive, because you have people wasting their time being corrupted by liberalism, etc., of other people. But also because we have people who will literally create e-mail addresses and YouTube channels and pages every day to try to spread lies about us posted on our channel.

Okay … we had a guy who created 3 different YouTube channels in the space of 24 hours just to try to post lies; first – so that as many people as possible would see the lies about us. And so, the devil is really upset with what we are doing. You have all kinds of wicked people who, to the point of obsession, are trying to attack us. And so, with some of these heretics they can’t refute anything so the best thing they can do is to try to bring up something Brother Michael had said in one talk, 14 years ago, on a video we haven’t offered for over a decade. And the often do it, in fact, sedevacantists even do this just because they’re either jealous of what we are doing, because they’re Schismatic, cause they’re evil and in fact the people who do it, the sedevacantists, weren’t even sedevacantists themselves at that time. And in fact they do it, some of these people, in such a way that they give the impression that Brother Michael was actually defending John Paul II, when he was a non-sedevacantist. No! In fact Most Holy Family Monastery was doing more to condemn him as a heretic, even when it was non-sedevacantist, than basically anyone. Basically the whole talk is condemning him as a heretic. It also condemned NFP.

And there is also the lie that is promoted that Brother Michael kicked someone out of Most Holy Family Monastery for holding the sedevacantist position; which is not true.

And this brings up a crucial difference, and it’s something we’ve pointed out many times, is that the real measure of bad will, okay, is if you don’t denounce these guys as heretics once you see their activity, once you see clearly that they believe in salvation outside the Church, once you see that they endorse false ecumenism; okay, that is a sin, a mortal sin. It demonstrates bad will, okay. And so even when Brother Michael was not a sedevacantist because he was unaware of Church teaching of loss of office, how heresy effects the loss of Church membership, how that applies to a claimant, etcetera, the true meaning of “no one can judge but the Holy See”, he was still condemning John Paul II as a formal heretic. And so the people who see the evidence and say that he is not and actual heretic are just lying. And the people who are honest enough, who are honest period, and admit that he is a heretic, well, it should only be a short time after that, that they, once they see the evidence on what the Church teaches on the implications of heresy, that they realize that he can’t be a legitimate pope. And with our material we’ve laid it all out, we’ve answered all the objections. So we’ve made it quite easy for people. And we’ve produced all the evidence for their incredible amount of heresies. So that’s why most of the people that are sedevacantist today became sedevacantist through our work. Because we’ve handled all the stuff, they don’t have to be searching through, you know, these dishonest Society of Saint Pius X publications where you get almost no truth. And they’ll hide the “loss of papal office” quotes. They’ll hide all this truth and they’ll distort, okay, and that’s how so much misinformation has been spread through these non-sedevacantist publications; which don’t present the truth. And so with our material that’s why people now are getting to see the actual pure truth and they can sift through all the lies the false arguments get right to what the Church teaches. And that’s why so many of them have become sedevacantists.

And it’s rather interesting to note that you have a lot of these speakers who have converted from anti-Catholic Protestantism. You have them. You have people who have changed their positons multiple times on these issues. We haven’t changed any position at all on an issue of core faith except from going from non-sedevacantism to sedevacantism many years ago; which is logical. And these people bring this up over and over again but they never bring up the fact that these people were anti-Catholic Protestants, etcetera. You also have people saying, who don’t know us saith that we were raised as Protestants. We were not raised as Protestants. We were born into a non-Catholic family that is basically completely secular. And we don’t like to talk about ourselves much because frankly we’re not relevant. What’s relevant is what we put out, what we produce … the teachings of the Church. And so the family we were raised in was not Protestant. We never had an aversion to the Blessed Mother. In fact, when my brother introduced me to Catholicism, before I was even converted, when I was still in middle school, I was wearing the scapular and praying the rosary. I never had any aversion to the Blessed Mother. And so you have all these lies spread. We were raised in a completely secular family where religion wasn’t even a concern. And our parents were not Atheist, someone else said that. They were people who would claimed to believe in God but didn’t practice any religion whatsoever. It was all about being successful and happy in life, period.

And he converted to Catholicism in high school with fierce opposition from parents who considered that and especially to join religious life a complete waste and worthless. And I converted when I was in high school. And it’s important to point out that there is no analogy between the progression I’ve being describing from non-sedevacantism to sedevacantism for someone who is simply unaware of what the Church has taught on loss of office. To those who would resist this evidence once they are presented with it, and furthermore, for instance, there are individuals who are now prominent speakers, etcetera, whom we tried to convince of sedevacantism. We would bring up examples of the joint declaration, John Paul II’s commemoration of a synagogue, and they would say … “No, this is not heresy. No, this is not heresy. This is not proof of heresy.”

That’s an example of bad will. Because there is absolutely no excuse to say that those things, once you see them, are not heresy. That is not analogous to being unaware of what the Church has taught on ”loss of office”. And once someone sees that teaching, as we’ve pointed out, then there is no excuse; because, as our material makes it quite clear, a heretic is not a member of the Church. Popes must be members. Okay, and so to persist in the position that, once you’ve seen the evidence on “loss of office” is to sin mortally and it is to deny the faith.

The Logical Progression Towards Sedevacantism

Los comentarios utiliza la tecnología Disqus

About the Author

Credo in unum Deum
This is our profile for editorial posts.