Refuting another response on Co-Redeemer

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.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that …He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, THROUGH HIS DEATH ALONE LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession…” (Denz. 711)

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:

“Dear Brothers: I am so pleased to see that the EENS booklet is now printed. You did a great job with the book. Countless souls have been directed by me to your site so that they could read "Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutely No Salvation." Your website stated that we should contact you for large orders. I would like to purchase TWO HUNDRED copies of this.

Keep up the good work!”

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:

Dennis M.: “I will ask them to explain [they did not do so] how these two laymen have branded me a heretic by using their smoke and mirror tactics to claim that I have somehow “denied Our Lord as Redeemer” because I speak of Our Lady’s role in our salvation as Co-Redemptrix.”

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:

Bro. Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “No, Mr. Dennis M., you don’t hold that Christ alone is our Redeemer, as Trent teaches (QUI SOLUS NOSTER REDEMPTOR); you obstinately hold that there are two Redeemers.”

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:

“FIRST POINT: The Dimonds state that I have denied the teaching of the Council of Trent by giving Our Lady the title ‘Co-Redemptrix.’

“I NEVER stated that Our Lord was not sole Redeemer; I clearly stated:

“Of course, as Catholics, we firmly profess that Jesus Christ is Our Redeemer, since there is no other name by which man may be saved.”

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:

Dennis M. writes: “How can Michael & Peter Dimond assume, by the above statement being followed by:

“However, Our Lady's role as Mediatrix, Advocate, and Co-Redemptrix is not some type of invention over time…” that I have denied the teaching of Trent? Just because these two laymen say so? Come on! They must give their readers more credit than that, unless they assume that they just “obey.” Speaking of Our Lord as Redeemer does not require that one not speak of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.”

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”:

Dennis M.: “I NEVER stated that Our Lord was not sole 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!

Dennis M. “Speaking of Our Lord as Redeemer does not require that one not speak of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.”

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

Dennis M. writes: “THIRD POINT: Michael & Peter Dimond act as if the concept of Our Lady’s role in mankind’s redemption is something that Fr. M. and some others have came up with [sic], and that stating so is heretical. They seem to believe that the title “Co-Redemptrix” is not Catholic. Well, as with many other things, this is the day they learn something new.

The title, “Co-Redemptrix”, which came into use in the 14th Century, has been widely used by Catholic Bishops, theologians, and popular writers ever since. To state that the concept was not around before hand, is incorrect.”

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.

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, pp. 263-264: “Tersely, to the point, and in several separate discourses, St. Augustine emphasizes the utter simplicity of God’s strategy: ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ I must be buried with Christ,’ writes St. Gregory Nazienzen, ‘I must rise with Christ; I must become a son of God; I must become God!’ This is the consensus of Father after Father of the early Church. That ‘man becomes God’ in the perfection of His grace, therefore, is spelled out by too many ancient authorities to catalogue here…”

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 John XXII condemned the following proposition, among similar other ones: “A good man is the only begotten Son of God.” - Condemned (Denz. 520).

Pope Pius XII condemned the same thing.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 78), June 29, 1943: "But let this be a general and unshaken truth, if they do not wish to wander from sound doctrine and the correct teaching of the Church: namely, every kind of mystic union, by which the faithful in Christ in any way pass beyond the order of created things and wrongly enter among the divine, so that even a single attribute of the eternal Godhead can be predicated of these as their own, is to be entirely rejected."

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:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

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:

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 292: “For this reason, in the hand of our Heavenly Mother Mary, and with all the hope and humility we can muster, we are enabled solemnly to raise our eyes to our Only-Begotten Brother and – with hearts choked from awe and in voices hushed with reverence – softly murmur: Yes dear Jesus, You are the beginning, but we are the End.” (The italics are his!)

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.

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 123 “…only in the New Testament adoption process do we become, by the uncreated grace of participation in Christ’s living presence, the Son of God Himself.”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 140: “…only those who have received the sacrament become another Jesus.”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 151: “…the Sacrament of Holy Baptism makes us equal to Jesus…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 10: “…for, once we are graced and baptized, all men do in fact ‘become God’…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 27: “…What must our Immaculate Mother be? Answer: She must be Jesus to us.”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 67: “…Well, only one person goes to heaven: Jesus Christ… All the sacraments have a raison d’etre, and that of baptism is to make us Jesus.”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 80: “The water of baptism, therefore – for those with the proper dispositions – not only makes you Just, it makes you Jesus.”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 220: “We become as intimately a part of the Blessed Trinity as Jesus Himself…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 120 “…This is precisely the sacramental character which identifies us as the God-man…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 269: “…becoming God Himself is likewise the End to which the Almighty calls and elevates us…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 372: “…This is the station to which we are called; this alone is the measure of our true vocation: to become Jesus Christ…”

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 121: “‘…The Sacrament of Baptism identifies us as the Only-Begotten Jesus, truly incorporating us into His Body and distinguishing us as the Son of God Himself…”

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.

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 272: “‘In one of the advanced degrees of Masonic Rosicrucianism, the inductee is presented a mirror to worship, surrounded by lighted candles – as though man himself were a god sufficient unto himself.”

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.

Michael Malone, The Only Begotten, p. 292: “‘Lo, here is Christ! Lo, Here is there!’ (Mark 13:21) is the oldest and most grandiose of all diabolical delusions ever concocted by the mighty mind of Lucifer… Christ is in our brother, our neighbor, the postman, the Mormon pizza deliveryman, everyone indiscriminately, regardless of whether or not the poor soul is a faithful baptized Catholic… The good and beautiful truth involved in the notion that all men are Christ is the good and beautiful fact that some, in fact are Christ.”

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:

Pius XI: “You young people [Spanish pilgrims] ought to associate yourselves with the thoughts and desires of our Blessed Lady, who is our Mother and Co‑redemptrix. You too must make every effort to be co‑redeemers and apostles in the spirit of Catholic Action."

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.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that …He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, THROUGH HIS DEATH ALONE LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession…” (Denz. 711)

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com