Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |
Refuting another response on Co-Reedemer - Part 2 on Dennis M.
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Dennis M. recently gave a short response to my article Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer? This is the article that proved that he obstinately rejects and insults as “Protestant” the defined dogma that Christ alone is our Redeemer. Since he cannot refute this dogma staring him in the face he begins by issuing puerile personal attacks and even to lie. Whenever one has to resort to this it is usually a sign that he has no way around the facts you are bringing forward. And this is true in this case; because there is absolutely no response that can be made to the infallibly defined dogmas above. For instance, Dennis M. said that we said that the world would end by the year 2000. This is a lie; we never said that the world would end by the year 2000. Dennis M., being a faithless phony, certainly has a problem with those who recognize that we are in the last days, since he is under a man who says that holding that we are in the last days is schismatic. Since he cannot refute this dogma staring him in the face, Dennis M. desperately attempts to discredit us by saying that we are “laymen masquerading as Catholic theologians” and that there are “half-truths” printed on our website. Oh really? I guess that is why he ordered 200 copies of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation and, by his own admission, has recommended countless people to our website. Here is what he wrote to us on 6/6/04: On his website Dennis M. also copies much of our writing on the salvation dogma and uses it without any credit. Furthermore, about a year and a half ago Dennis M. held the heretical Cassiciacum Thesis. This is the idea that the Vatican II Antipopes are true Popes but possess no jurisdiction. This is a heretical theory which empties the Papacy of its power; it directly contradicts Vatican I, which defined that a Pope by definition possesses supreme jurisdiction. At the time (about 1 year and a half ago) I wrote to Dennis M. and charitably and strenuously told him that this position cannot be held because it conflicts with Catholic dogma. He eventually agreed, and acknowledged that my prompting him to change his position was the working of God. If it weren’t for my prompting and rebuke he would most probably still be holding the same schismatical position. I guess it’s a good thing that there are people out there “masquerading as Catholic theologians” who are there to correct him on the fundamental dogma that a Pope possesses supreme jurisdiction. Also, since Dennis M. attempted personal attacks, one should know that he received ordination from Bishop Patrick T. – a man who was an Old Catholic who claimed to be converted. Dennis M. was so uncertain about this ordination from Bishop Patrick T. that he received it conditionally from the phony Bishop Tom. The point is that for Dennis M. to present himself as if he is a regular priest (when any male could go to a Bishop such as Patrick T. and get ordained) and then for him to call religious such as ourselves – who have given our lives to God and made solemn profession of the Benedictine vows of stability, conversion of life and obedience (which include poverty and chastity) – “laymen” is a joke. Dennis M. also repeatedly referred to us as religious; his attempt is simply a dishonest way to avoid the dogma he rejects.DENNIS M.’s DISHONEST RESPONSES
Now I will expose and refute Dennis M.’s easily detectable dishonesty in attempting to respond to my article. First, let me remind the readers that we fully acknowledge that people could be confused about this issue in good faith – and may express themselves erroneously on this topic in good Faith – before they have seen the specific dogmatic definitions contradicting it above. But, in the case of Dennis M., he attacked our reiteration of this dogma as “Protestant” after he saw it and he still obstinately holds his indefensible position while attacking the true position. 1. He writes: Notice the subtle dishonesty. I did not say that he “denied Our Lord as Redeemer.” I said that he denied that Our Lord ALONE is Redeemer because he obstinately believes that there are two Redeemers. Here is what I wrote: One can easily see that he changed what I said to attempt to obscure the point at hand. And he must obscure the point at hand because any HONEST PERSON CAN SEE THAT IF IT IS DE FIDE THAT CHRIST ALONE IS REDEEMER THEN NO ONE ELSE IS! 2. Dennis M. writes: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the type of liar you are dealing with. Dennis M. says “I never stated that Our Lord was not sole Redeemer.” What! The whole point of disagreement here is that he holds that Mary is the Co-Redeemer, while we believe that Christ alone is the Redeemer! His whole argument is that Christ is not our sole Redeemer, but that Christ and Mary are both Redeemers! So he is just simply lying here because he knows that he cannot refute the dogma which I brought forward. He is a liar, who is condemned out of his own mouth. He denies his own position. Anyone who cannot see that he is a liar in light of this is not honest. But it continues… 3. Dennis M. continues: This is very interesting! What do you notice that is different about the bolded portion of his statement here? Notice that in the last line he doesn’t use the word “sole” before Redeemer! He says: “Speaking of Our Lord as Redeemer does not require that one not speak of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.” Yes, Mr. Dennis M., I agree, but speaking of Our Lord as SOLE REDEEMER (as Trent defines) does require that one not speak of Our Lady as Co-Redeemer! So, what we see here is masterful dishonesty and obfuscation (actually, it’s not that masterful because it’s very easy to detect if you read carefully). First (in point 1) above he uses the word “Redeemer” without “sole” preceding it to misrepresent what I accused him of: Second, when dishonestly making it look as if he accepts the dogma which he doesn’t accept he changes his entire position and uses the word “sole” before “Redeemer”: Third, when he speaks of Our Lady being the Co-Redeemer in the same sentence he knows that he cannot call Our Lord “sole Redeemer” in that sentence, so he omits the word “sole” in that context so that the obvious contradiction would not be picked up! This guy is just a complete liar and a heretic.DENNIS M. SAYS THE CO-REDEEMER IDEA HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, BUT THE IDEA THAT MAN BECOMES GOD HAS BEEN AROUND MUCH LONGER
First, I never said Dennis M. came up with this erroneous title. So this is just another misrepresentation from the dishonest heretic Dennis M. Second, Mr. Dennis M., maybe you should know that the idea that man becomes God has been around for a while too! In fact, it’s been taught since the early Church! The idea that man becomes God was taught by many of the Fathers of the Church and countless theologians since that time. They wrongly said that man becomes God in a false exaggeration of 2 Peter. 1:4, which teaches that a baptized Catholic in sanctifying grace “participates in the divine nature.” They didn’t really mean that man becomes God (an awful heresy), yet so many of them said it in an exaggeration of 2 Peter 1:4 that a man named Michael Malone was able to write a 400-plus page book with this as one of its dominant themes. I labored through his 411 page book; and believe me Mr. Malone marshals the quotations on this topic! Dr. Ludwig Ott says the same in his book Fundamentals of Catholic dogma, p. 254: “It is a firm conviction of the Fathers that God became man so that man might become God…” In his book, Michael Malone quotes priest after Father after Saint after theologian on this topic to attempt to prove the heresy that man becomes God – an idea that has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII condemned the same thing. This is precisely why Catholics cannot accept what a Saint or a theologian or even a Pope in his fallible capacity may say – or even what a number of them say – if it conflicts with infallible Catholic teaching. The results of this can be and are disastrous. All we need to look at to see the deadly results of such a policy is Michael Malone himself. As I said, Michael Malone (who is now deceased), who was regarded as a “traditional Catholic” by many, wrote this long book arguing that the baptized have actually become God, based on the erroneous and, strictly speaking, heretical statements made by many Saints and Fathers. But unfortunately Michael Malone really believed what they said in an exaggeration of 2 Peter 1:4 and he followed their erroneous statements to his destruction.THE DISASTROUS RESULTS OF SUCH A FALSE THEOLOGY WHICH DEPARTS FROM THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM
In Apocalypse 1:8, to demonstrate His Divinity, Our Lord Jesus Christ says: Here is what Michael Malone – taking his heretical idea (based upon countless fallible Catholic authorities) to its full heretical conclusion and really believing that man becomes God – actually says: This is an incredible blasphemy. Michael Malone took the erroneous exaggerations of what Catholic Saints and Fathers said about 2 Peter 1:4 to their heretical conclusion and became an Antichrist who really believed that every baptized Catholic is Jesus Christ. He says it so many times in his book that it is revolting; but rest assured, if you challenged him on it, he would try to produce hundreds of quotations from some of the greatest Saints to justify his blasphemy. In the next quotations we see that Mr. Malone even acknowledges that the idea that man becomes God is one of the oldest satanic tenets. Mr. Malone has a problem with those who say that every man is God. He acknowledges that they are simply missing one point, that this should only be applied to the baptized! We see this clearly in the next quote. This example just serves to show us again precisely why one cannot accept the small handful of quotations from recent Popes in a fallible capacity that Mary is Co-Redeemer when the infallible, unerring Council of Trent defines the opposite, that Christ alone is Our Redeemer. Besides, it has also been taught by many authorities – including in most imprimatured texts during the reigns of recent Popes – that souls can be saved without baptism and in ignorance of the Catholic Faith. Yet, Dennis M. admits that this is a heresy because it contradicts the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. So, contrary to what Mr. Dennis M. says, the handful of statements he brings forward – basically nothing compared with the amount of Catholic authorities that asserted that man becomes God – don’t qualify as part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. We know this because they contradict the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent (the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium cannot contradict the solemn Magisterium); and, furthermore, according to the statement of Pius XI we are all co-redeemers, which is clearly false: So, just like those who would obstinately defend the statements from Saints and Doctors that man becomes God (which is, strictly speaking, heretical) would become heretics, those who obstinately defend the erroneous statements of certain individuals (in fallible capacities) that Mary is Co-Redemptrix (after seeing the dogmatic definition refuting it) are heretics. Dennis M. obstinately contradicts the dogma that Christ alone is our Redeemer and even labeled it “Protestant” when we simply reiterated it; he is an anathematized heretic.Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^