Open Letter to The Dimond Brothers

Brothers Peter and Michael,

I have repeatedly asked you to respond to my assertion that you misrepresented the truth in our debate(last October 2006) on sedevacantism. One of my main arguments, during the debate and in later conversations, was that there are no Cardinals alive that were appointed by Pius XII (the person you believe was the last Pope). This creates a problem for you because the conclave of Cardinals elects the Pope according to Church law. This law has been in effect for over 500 years. Since there are no more Cardinals, then how are the People of God to know who the next Pope will be? This situation has never ever occured in Church history and there is no teaching that has a resolution to this problem.

During our debate you asserted that there is a precedent for this in Church history.  You brought up the scenario concering Pope Martin (649--653) and Pope Eugene (654-657). You stated that Pope Eugene was elected Pope when Pope Martin was still alive.  You further stated that it is not clear how that occured since Pope Martin was still alive and  still Pope.  At the time I was not aware of this situation.  However, your example clearly does not at all refute my argument above. One only has to look at the dates of both Popes' reigns to see it does not even correlate to my argument.  Pope Martin only reigned for roughly four years, and Pope Eugene only reigned for roughly three. Your  argument would only make sense if in between Popes the Roman clergy (the electors at the time) all died and there were no electors alive at the time of the death of one of the Popes.  All your example proves is that there is some question on why Eugene's election occured. It is clear who elected him.  The fact is that you have never dealt with these issues and misrepresented the truth (whether intentionally or unintentionally). 
 I have repeatedly asked to come back and discuss this issue further with you.  Yet I have recieved no response.  I  hope that you will at least post this e-mail on your web site (with your response).  I only ask that you post it in its entirety.  I believe you two have very very dark souls, and believe you are leading many souls to hell.  You two are quick to condemn everyone in your path, yet you can't even find the time to give this argument a response.  I hesitate to call you two cowards, but it appears to me that you are just that.  So PLEASE!!!!!!!!! COME OUT FROM UNDER YOUR DESKS AND RESPOND--I WONT HURT YOU I PROMISE!!!!!       The challenge to debate this issue still stands.      

William Golle

P.S. This will be posted in Catholic Answers Traditional Catholicism forums

1 Like

This creates a problem for you because the conclave of Cardinals elects the Pope according to Church law. This law has been in effect for over 500 years. Since there are no more Cardinals, then how are the People of God to know who the next Pope will be? This situation has never ever occured in Church history and there is no teaching that has a resolution to this problem.

May I respectfully say that:

  1. Because something has no precedence is irrelevant.
    The following had no precedent:
    God comes in the Flesh & murdered.
    Arian Crisis.
    Great Western Schism.
    Protestant Revolt enmass.
    Lady in Mexico appears & 6+million are converted.
    Fatima’s Apparitions where the Eucharist is fed to children by an Angel no less…where ever he got them from is still a mystery.
    An Ecumenical Council directly caused by a papal apparition (VAT II).
    Collapse of 95% of religious woman’s vocations.
    Collapse of 70% of clerical vocations.
    Avg age of a VAT II priest: 68yrs old!

  2. No more card’s. So, who/how the next pope will be?
    If you read your CCC par 675, 677, you may see that IF we are in those times, then there will be no next pope.
    That’s one legitimate possibility. That is, the church goes into eclipse with no visible headship until the Second Coming.
    In fact, in the CCC the Church appears dead as Christ on the Cross.

TNT, I don’t see how you infer from those passages in the Catechism that there will be no pope. Can you explain? Below are the the CCC paragraphs you reference above:

  1. Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

TNT----I have dealt with all of these objections in earlier posts----

I didn’t know you had any other posts. It indicates you have a total of 1 post.
RE: CCC 675,677:
Go to Here Posts 21 - 30


TNT TNT–I agree with one of the previous posters- I dont understand how you draw your conclusion from reading the new CCC–The fact remains that Vatican I has taught that “Peter will have successors in perpetuity.” Vatican I further taught that the Pope is the supreme leader in the Church even when it comes to Church law.(this means only the Pope can change Church law) The law of the Church , regarding Papal elections, has been (for over 500 years) that the conclave of Cardinals elects the Pope. THE SEDEVACANTIST FACES A HUGE PROBLEM ON HOW ANOTHER POPE CAN BE ELECTED? AND–HOW THE FAITHFUL CAN KNOW HE IS ELECTED?? WHY? Because there are no Cardinals alive appointed by Pope Pius XII (the person they believe to be the last valid Pope)----It is ridiculous!!! It sets up a situation where we may have a Papacy(successors in perpetuity), but no one can ever know who occupies the seat. Brothers Peter and Michael have still not responded to this!!! I HAVE EMAILED THEM, CALLED THEM, CHALLENGED THEM ETC–AND THEY STILL WONT RESPOND----YET THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLNG OTHER CATHOLICS “WIMPS” “GIRLS” “HERETICS” “APOSTATES” ETC—Just go to their web site and see for yourself------thay cant answer this, and that is why they are HIDING-----The conclusion is obvious!!! The quotes that ALL of these sedevacantists bring forth are not hersey- even though they may appear to contradict previous teaching–THEY DONT!!!

1 Like

The Dimonds respond…

Since you have attacked us ferociously, allow me to be frank.

We have already debated you once, fair and square, and demolished your arguments. We also showed that you cannot respond in any effective way to the truth we presented. Any honest person who listens to the debate can see that it wasn’t even close. We have refuted and could easily refute (again) your latest re-packaged objection. You had your chance to debate us. You took it and lost. You went in proud and confident and came out humbled (but only for a few weeks - after which your Luciferian pride returned). The sad part is that it probably won’t be until your Judgment, when you are condemned to Hell, that you really see how blind you are. The fact that you are blinded by pride is demonstrated by the fact that you told me how “built” you were from weightlifting. I hadn’t ask you anything of the sort. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

We have not pursued a second debate with you because defeating the same person again and again might not be very useful and some might question why we are debating the same person again and again. But if we so decide in the future to debate you again, which we might, we’ll let you know.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

Actually Brother Peter not everyone who heard the debate thinks that you won. There have been many people on Catholic Answers forum(which this has been posted) who did not think you won the debate. I have explained to you, and others that you misrepresented the truth during our debate. It was very clear that your example, (see above post) about Popes Martin and Pope Eugene, is totally not relevant to the argument that I asserted. When I called you Brother Peter about this after our debate you hung the phone up on me. YOU TWO (BROTHERS PETER AND MICHAEL) hvae never responded to this argument and have have refused to even talk about it on your web site. If you two dont want to debate then fine. (MY CHALLENGE TO DEBATE STANDS --ANYTIME ANYWHERE) The least you could do is respond to this (above) argument on your web site. You have yet to do that. You seem to find time to call people names, and condemn almost the entire world to hell, but you cant even respond to this argument. I look forward to see your response.

Also, I dont remember talking about how “built” I am. This has nothing to do with you two responding to my assertions. DONT WORRY ABOUT MY PRIDE!!!(because you two cant judge my heart and intentions, just Like I cant judge yours) WORRY ABOUT YOUR MISREPRESENTATION OF THE TRUTH AND YOUR LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOUR POSITIONS.

1 Like

Does anybody else find this a little bit childish?

I know that the Dimond Brothers partake in a great heresy, but their followers are few, and even the Society of St. Pius X thinks that they’re way out in left field, and frankly, I think no matter what we tell the Dimond Brothers, their position won’t change.

One debate was certainly appropriate, but to turn it into a grudge that involves mudslinging is to debase ourselves into the sort of pointless namecalling that the Dimond Brothers partake in every day.

The best we can do is pray for them, and try to ensure that anyone thinking of joining their sect is informed of the truth, and steered away.

All we have to do is wait, and within a generation or two (or less), the Most Holy Family Monastery will be just another extinct heresy to add to the list.

1 Like


I am not so sure that the numbers that are influenced by them are few. I think it is more than you think. Also to me, it is personal, because during our debate they misrepresented the truth. When I called them on this they have repeatedly dodged the issue. Many people that (I know this because i have spoken to them) follow the Dimond web site believe that people are afraid of the Dimonds. I believe i have been the only person to take them on publicly, and call them out on their errors. It is especially bad because they said something untrue during our debate. This is something I immediatley called them on. They have yet to respond. I cannot, in good conscience, allow them to bully people and intimidate without stating quiet publicly that they really are cowards who wont defend themselves when you “punch back.”

1 Like

To TNT ~ I think you’re right on the mark…

I still hear silence daiesiegirl----------frOm you TNT and the DIMONDS----WHAT A SHAME!!!


To Victory5 ~ your responses are of one who is holding a personal vendetta. Ask yourself how you would have responded to Saint Paul, if you had heard him speak, back in his day… Would you have rallied to have him stoned, for his ardent desire to take the veil off the eyes of others? This is really all the Dimond Brothers are doing. I truly do not believe they intentionally withhold or twist the Truth, to suit some hidden agenda… they have nothing to gain by doing this…

To TNT… I believe the Blessed Mother was preparing us for this current state in the Church, when she appeared as Our Lady of LaSalette. Who, here, would dare call her a conspiracy theorist, or perhaps just confused, in this Heavenly apparition?

Mr. Bob Sungenis has constantly refuted the Dimond Brothers. For anyone interested check out

Daisygirl—Believe me, the Dimonds are not even close to Saint Paul–not even on the same planet. You are correct on one thing -I do have a personal vendetta against the Dimonds, and all those who attack HOLY MOTHER CHURCH, THE BRIDE OF CHRIST----Whether the Dimonds intentionally misrepresented the truth is not known. I cannot judge that. I can judge the fact that what they said was incorrect, and that they refuse to respond to this (see my first post here).

Sorry, I don’t agree that this debate in insignificant. Although the Dimond Brothers may not have many followers, their sedevacantism is shared by many more who don’t necessarily agree with the Dimond’s teaching on salvation outiside the Church. Perhaps you don’t know many people who are followers of sedevanctim, but I do. I say, as long as the errors are taught, keep fighting them!

This URL will take you directly to his comments

Thanks estesbob, and God Bless!

  1. I only have limited amounts of time to reply to posts. You went several days before even reappearing on the Forum.

  2. You may or may not hold literally that there will perpetually be successsors in the Chair.
    So, let us first agree that this is an impossibility, as each pope’s death proves. That is, it is self evident that constant seating of a pope cannot be the true meaning in VAT I.

  3. The Chair of Peter will have apostolic SUCCESSORS in perpetuity.
    This is true ONLY in that each person who has legitimate possession of that Chair, has valid Apostolic Succession. This can ONLY occur if the possessor has valid Ordination into the level of bishop. That is, you hold to the daisy-chain principal.

Well, Ok.
Any Valid bishop has the possibility of becoming pope.

  1. Now you seem to have this belief that it is Divine Law, and not governing Canon Law that a pope can only and EVER be a pope if there is a college of cardinals, no matter how small, that elect him.
    Since there IS the possibility that all cardinals MAY no longer be existent (catastrophy or apostasy, pick yur poison) then the canon law can, and would be, defacto suspended.
    If you want to deny that self evident fact, go right ahead

In any case, as of today, there are valid bishops. But even That is not my point, (your attempts to make it so notwithstanding). There are bishops that have it, and they will pass it on.
So, I’m not conflicting my points against apostolic succession. A pope could come from them, but agian, I** don’t need that certainty to make my points**.

My point is, that The Catholic Church does not dissolve when there is no sitting pope. Period. That cannot be denied.

You make this ironclad point that There is no way to elect a pope if there are no cardinals.

BUT, you keep dodging my point on the CCC par. 675,677.
There is not likely to be any future pope.

If we are in the Supreme Deception of those par’s. then it says only the Second Coming will resolve the Deception. Period.

So, you would say: "We are not in the Supreme Deception."
That’s a valid opinion.

So, I would say: "We ARE in the Supreme Deception."
That’s a valid opinion.
However, IF we are in the Supreme Deception & Intro of the Antichrist -ISM, it certainly cannot be the SEDE’s or the hardcore Traditionalists, because they amount to less than 2% of the believers who identify as catholics. That is the Opposite of Supreme.
Supreme must take in the vast majoity as the CCC Par’s. indicate. I need not tell you who that would be, IF we are in the Supreme Deception. And, the CCC says it MUST COME. So it’s not IF but WHEN.

The best you can say is NOT NOW.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit