Concerning heretical Traditional Priests, the SSPV and salvation

First of all, you need to get your facts straight. We never said that the SSPV priests believe in universal salvation. We said that they believe that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. This is not a question, this is simply a fact! They also believe that it’s possible for non-Catholics to be saved in any religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, etc. They hold the same heresy as Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, who taught that souls can be saved in any religion.

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

Notice the etc. The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which people can be saved, because there is not one religion about which he could tell you that all those who die as members of it are definitely lost without a doubt. That souls can be saved in these religions is the belief of the SSPV and the CMRI, not just the SSPX.

Almost all of the traditionalists priests hold that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved. Bishop McKenna is probably one of the most “traditional” of the independent priests or Bishops in the country and he holds that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as proven in our article. Bishop Sanborn holds the same thing. He kicked a friend of ours out of his church in Michigan, and during the course of the conversation admitted to our friend that it’s possible for a Jew who rejects or hates Christ to be saved without the Catholic Faith.

So, you complain about our assertion that there are hardly any traditional priests that can be trusted with regard to the Faith. Well, that’s too bad, because that’s just simply the truth. Only a heretic would state that the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV and the other independent priests who believe that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith in non-Catholic religions are not heretical. According to you, a Catholic is supposed to have no problem with priests who believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved, just as long as they don’t profess belief in universal salvation.

I will now quote from the SSPV Responds section of our new book to document how the SSPV denies the dogma and contradicts themselves word for word in the process.

THE SSPV RESPONDS

The SSPV responded to us in the Fall, 2003 edition of their publication. Referring to Brother Michael Dimond and myself as “Brothers Grim” on the introductory page of their issue, Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV writes:

Oh really? Remember that claim (“no traditional Catholic priest is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”) dear reader. And remember how I have pointed out that the thing which most characterizes the denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation is dishonesty. Remember how we have seen that the heretics on this issue speak out of both sides of their mouth with a satanic double-tongue: one minute they tell you that the Church is necessary and the next they deny it; one minute they tell you that there is no salvation outside the Church and the next they explain it away. So now watch the heretics at work. Watch how the heretics of the SSPV teach on page 1 of their Fall, 2003 issue the exact thing they deny on the introductory page. On pages 1-8 of this same issue, the SSPV carries an article by Francis Fenton explaining what they consider the real meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall, 2003, p. 1: “It is a doctrine of our faith that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation.’ This does not mean, however, either that an individual is assured eternal salvation simply because he is a member of the Roman Catholic Church or that he cannot be saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.”

Did you get that? Outside the Church There is No Salvation “does not mean… that he cannot be saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.” But on the introductory page of this issue, Fr. Jenkins told us on behalf of the SSPV that no traditional priest “is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”! They assert here the exact heresy – word for word – which they claimed to reject on the introductory page! The statement here on page 1 of their publication (that persons who are not members of the Church can be saved) thus proves that their statement on the introductory page (that no one is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation) was a complete lie! It confirms what we have been saying all along about these dishonest heretics. The heretical Society of St. Pius V priests are so blinded by their denial of this truth that they cannot see that they are word for word contradicting themselves, in a matter of a few pages and in the very issue in which they purport to clarify their belief as in accord with Catholic teaching.

Thus, as I have said, it is a fact that the SSPV rejects the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and they lie every time they say they uphold Catholic teaching on the necessity of Church membership for salvation. They indeed believe and obstinately hold that Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. can be saved without the Catholic Faith. In fact, the same article in their Fall, 2003 issue proceeds to deny the dogma in bold fashion over and over again.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 5: “A non-Catholic, then, who, through no grave fault of his own, is not a formal member of the Church at the moment of death, is certainly not going to lose his soul on that score.”

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 6: “So, is it true and an article of faith that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’? Yes, it is. Does this mean that a person, no matter how praiseworthy a life he may have led, will be eternally lost who, through no grave fault of his own, is not an actual member of the Church at the moment of death? No, it does not.”

But the SSPV’s Fall, 2003 issue is not yet finished denying this dogma.

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

This is brazen heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

An interesting exchange with a false traditionalist regarding John Kerry, Antipope John Paul II and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Recently, I read an article by a “traditional Catholic” named Gary Morella, called John Kerry is not a Catholic – period.  Intrigued by the title, and wanting to share with the man what his conclusion about Kerry logically forces him to conclude about John Paul II and his Bishops, I wrote to him as follows:

“Dear Gary:

“In your article you state unambiguously that John Kerry is not a Catholic [John Kerry is not a Catholic – period], which is quite true and with which we fully agree. But what gives you the authority to make such a statement?  You would obviously say his open denial of Catholic teaching requires a Catholic to consider him a non-Catholic.  Okay, therefore you must agree that John Paul II and his Bishops who reject the Council of Trent (Joint Declaration with Lutherans on Justification) reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the Council of Florence (by teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid), and reject Vatican I (by teaching that we should not convert Eastern Schismatics), to just name a few, must also be considered non-Catholics who are outside the Church. 

“Would you agree with this?  One must admit that John Paul II and his Bishops are not Catholics who are outside the Church, and if one refuses to admit this he must also consider John Kerry a Catholic. 

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.”

Mr. Morella responded as follows.  I will stop the quotation from him and interject my comments where appropriate:

“God is the final judge on the Pope.  He's more qualified than you or me. In the case of Kerry, we're talking about a man who blatantly promotes what the Church traditionally, via de Fide teachings rooted in Sacred Scripture and the Church's great tradition, as held by the early fathers and the current Pope, considers intrinsic moral evils.”

When were talking about John Paul II and his Bishops, we’re also talking men who blatantly promote what the Church traditionally condemned.

“We're talking infallible pronouncements here on morals, which Kerry is in clear violation of, and proud of it. I don't see the Pope or Cardinal Ratzinger as being in agreement with Kerry, but rather reinforcing traditional Church teaching on these matters.  Moreover, their writings are consistently antithetical to Kerry on these moral issues for which there is no debate.” 

Notice two more illogical diversions.  First, he says we’re talking about infallible pronouncements on morals which Kerry is in clear violation of.  Okay, so what do you call what John Paul II and his Bishops deny?  With John Paul II and his Bishops, we’re talking about infallible pronouncements on Faith from the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and Vatican I – the most authoritative dogmatic statements in Church history. 

Second, notice how Mr. Morella diverts again by arguing that John Paul II doesn’t agree with Kerry on abortion.  Did we say that he did?  We said that John Paul II denies many other things, which are dogmas just as much as the unlawfulness of abortion.  Abortion isn’t the only issue over which one can cease to be Catholic, contrary to popular belief.  So, again, his statement is diversionary, and has nothing to do with the issue.  But in seeing this, dear reader, one should clearly see how those who try to escape the conclusion that John Paul II is not the Pope are not being honest; they are being deliberately inconsistent.  This should be clear to those who see this kind of dishonest diversion.

“I have yet to see where the current Pope has made it de Fide in regard to any of the questions that you bring up, which are, admittedly, of real concern.   For example, where is it de Fide that the Old Covenant is still valid? Where is it de Fide that the teachings of Trent, Florence, and Vatican I have been invalidated?  The fact that some clergy hold to such an error does not make it official Church teaching, thank God.  Similarly, where is it de Fide, that the Church is out of the conversion business? Has Matthew's Gospel been rewritten?”

Here we see the most common escape attempt of the defenders of Antipope John Paul II.  We’ve seen this tactic employed time and time again.  When you pin them down that those who reject defined dogma cannot be considered Catholics (as they admit with John Kerry), they quickly switch the topic and begin arguing about infallibility and whether the heretic has imposed his heresy infallibly as a de fideteaching.  Remember this tactic, because it is used all the time.  When they are pinned down on the heresy issue, they then conflate [fuse together] the heresy issue and the infallibility issue.  No longer does one have to be a heretic, but he must be a heretic “infallibly”! But has John Kerry ever infallibly imposed his heretical support for abortion as a de fide teaching upon you, Mr. Morella?  No, of course not.  So, then, you admit that this fact has nothing to do with the issue.  So, then, why do you mock God, and argue insincerely, by implying that John Paul II and his Bishops must impose the heresy as a de fide teaching for them to be considered heretics, when you know that this is not required to consider one a heretic (as in the case with the apostate Kerry)?  Again, we see the inexcusable inconsistency (i.e., dishonesty) employed by the defenders of Antipope John Paul II; for they know that Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the specific issue we are discussing.  (It should be noted, however, that we have proven elsewhere that Antipope John Paul II has imposed many of his false doctrines upon those under him, but this is not the issue under discussion here with Mr. Morella.)

 “Frankly, I don't see how any Pope could do such a thing, given that the New Testament supercedes the Old, and the observation that the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew has not been changed in regard to Christ admonishing His disciples to convert the world to Catholicism. De Fide teachings are those which have been believed by the Universal Church over a long period of time, not changeable in the course of a Pontificate.  The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not held as something that just occurred to Catholicism, but rather which always existed calling for formal Catholic recognition in the form of de Fide teachings. There is a huge difference between impeccability and infallibility, as I'm sure you're aware of.  None of us including the Pope and his bishops are exempt from the former.  The Church certainly is from the latter on de Fide dogmatic teachings on faith and morals, given the protection of the Holy Ghost that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

“And to date, de Fide wise, the traditional deposit of faith has not been OFFICIALLY changed. If any pope ever did that, i.e., formally told the world that what was traditionally held by Catholics as infallible teaching on faith and morals, i.e., what the universal Church has always believed on faith and morals, is no longer the case, then the world would have to know that such a man is not a valid pope. I have seen many problematic pronouncements coming from curia officials.  I have seen many things done by the current Pope, which are disturbing in the extreme.  But I have not seen a formal attempt to undo what has been traditionally taught by the Church as infallible on faith and morals in the way of erroneously saying that such is now de Fide teaching. What I do see are the erroneous opinions of very fallible men, which need to be recognized as such…”

Again, we see him going on and on, for numerous paragraphs, about the infallibility issue, which has nothing to do with the specific issue we were discussing: that those who reject Catholic dogma must be considered heretics, regardless of whether they impose their heretical views upon others.  But many of the people who read this type of diversionary nonsense in popular “traditionalist” publications just eat it up, because they have itching ears for heresy, and are not truth seekers – as a truth seeker would quickly see that Mr. Morella is going on and on about something that has nothing to do with the issue, and that he is being totally inconsistent. 

“I believe that what has gone on at the Assisi, some of the papal masses, the kissing of the Koran, is scandalous.  I do not believe that such things are Catholic.  And when the Pope does such things I do not believe that he is doing what Catholics should be doing. By his example, counter to what he says, the world sees a Church syncretistically indifferently reduced to being just another religion  instead of THE religion absolutely necessary for salvation.  Btw, I'm in complete agreement with Archbishop Marcel Levebvre's statements on this, which are unmistakably clear in regard to what is the traditional teaching of Outside the Church there is no salvation.  Archbishop Lefebvre, you recall, and the entirety of the Society of Saint Pius X, are not sede vacantists.  I refer to Archbishop Lefebvre's  Letter to Confused Catholics pp73-75. 

“Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?  No, it would be a second error to think that…”

“Lefebvre goes on to talk about the difficulties of these people in receiving the baptism of desire.  I will leave that to you to read. That said.  John Paul II is STILL the Pope, deserving of our prayers.  And he, and anyone else, in the See of Peter will REMAIN pope until that de Fide line is crossed. 

“Sincerely, Gary Morella

“P.S. btw, even Fr. Malachi Martin, for all of his criticism of the Pope, was not a sede vacantist, per my last telecon with him in his apartment in New York.    He prayed for the Pope.  I am not a sede vacantist either.  I also pray for the Pope, following Fr. Martin's advice in accord with what my Catholic faith has always taught me.”

Mr. Morella happens to mention that he agrees with the teaching of Bishop Lefebvre on salvation (he must have seen this issue addressed on our website, since I didn’t bring it up).  He says he agrees with Bishop Lefebvre, that souls can be saved in false religions, and he concludes by asserting that John Paul II is the Pope, and that Malachi Martin was not a sedevacantist – as if that proved something.  I responded to Mr. Morella as follows, again setting forth the facts which he ignored and denied, giving him another chance to be honest, consistent and to accept the truth. (I mentioned his defense of Lefebvre’s heresy only because he brought it up and I felt that it had to be addressed, even though I didn’t want to get into a discussion about the salvation issue, which might allow him to divert from the facts regarding Kerry and Antipope John Paul II).

“Gary,

“You are confusing apples with oranges.  Infallibility has nothing to do with this issue!  Whether John Paul II has imposed his denial of dogma upon you as a de fide teaching has nothing to do with this issue.  Has John Kerry ever imposed his abortion views upon you as a de fide teaching?  No, of course not.  According to your argument, you would therefore have to acknowledge him as a Catholic.  But you would say he obstinately denies the dogma condemning abortion.  Ok, John Paul II obstinately denies the Council of Trent; he agrees that faith alone is not a heresy and the Council of Trent doesn’t condemn Lutherans anymore (JD on the Doctrine of Justification with the Lutherans).  You cannot have it both ways: you cannot judge that John Kerry is not a Catholic but that John Paul II is! – they both deny dogma! 

“What you are really saying is that the only heresy that makes one a non-Catholic is to be pro-abortion, while one can deny the Council of Trent, Vatican I, the Council of Florence, accept all religions as true and still be a Catholic.  But that is heretical.  So, do you agree that you must consider John Paul II as a non-Catholic by the same criteria that you consider John Kerry a non-Catholic (i.e., they both obstinately reject Catholic dogma, articles of divine and Catholic Faith)?  If you deny this then you are admitting that Catholics can regard John Kerry as a Catholic.

“By the way, your statement that you agree with Bishop Lefebvre on salvation is heretical.  The Church condemns the idea that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  What you are holding is a denial of Catholic dogma.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com”

Mr. Morella responded as follows:

“Sir,

“It is you who is confused! I am not confusing anything.  I know my faith.  You, on the other hand, know appear to know nothing other than that YOU alone are the final arbiter of what is Catholic, which I will have none of.  This correspondence with you is ended. I pray for your soul.  You don't have a clue, sir, what it means to be Catholic.  You ought to get down on your knees and pray to God that you're allowed to meet the good Archbishop whom you call a heretic in Heaven.  We do not know for certain that he's there.  But what my Faith has traditionally taught me after studying carefully Archbishop Lefebvre's writings is that he is one of the best defenders of the Faith in difficult times that I've ever seen on the order of a Saint Athanasius.  Accordingly, there is a high probability that he is in Heaven, contrary to your blanket assertion that he's a heretic.  Who do you think you are, making such a charge.  Who made you the infallible Catholic guide? 

“Baptism of desire has ALWAYS been a part of Catholic teaching…  Was the Good Thief, a traditionally recognized saint, a baptized Catholic?  No.  Is he in Heaven?  Yes, by Christ's own words on the cross.  Accordingly, by his actions, he was every bit a part of the Church that Christ founded upon the Rock that is Peter.  Of course, we ONLY have Christ's witness to that effect!  I dare say that was enough for Pope Eugene, who would not have intended the eisegesis (sic) of his statement per your unique interpretation, which makes Christ a liar!  Do you dismiss all those who weren't Catholic in the Old Testament who did the work of God as being heretics? Do Abraham and Moses fall into that category?  They were individuals Who did not convert to the Faith, right, because there was no Faith at that time.  Yet in their hearts they were just as much a part of what is now the Catholic Church due to their basically doing what is Catholic.  The One God that they believed in is still the Triune God of eternity, of Which the Second Person eternally existed.   Jesus Christ in that context created the World, i.e., as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, which is a reference in New Testament Jude.   Jesus Christ in that context had a lot to say about the evil that is sodomy per Genesis 19, which is the response to those who say, Jesus said nothing in Sacred Scripture about such abominable filth…

“I made it very clear to you that there are things which the current pope has done which I do not consider Catholic.  He also done (sic) things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.  You cannot compare the two given that observation, as you would erroneously have those, who have the audacity to disagree with you, do.  The Holy Office of the Pope deserves more than such a trite comparison. 

“I have better things to do than to get into debates when there is nothing to debate.  You didn't even read carefully what I said, in regard to your comment about "what I'm really saying."  No way did I say that abortion was the only issue.  To imply that I did is erroneous on your part. 

Sincerely, Gary L. Morella”

First of all, I didn’t say that Lefebvre was a heretic.  I said that his statement was heretical. (Despite the many good things Lefebvre did, he was a heretic, sadly, because he believed that souls could be saved in any religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., but the point is that I didn’t say that he was a “heretic” in my e-mail.)  So, Mr. Morella first misrepresented what I said.  He then says that I ought to pray that I meet Lefebvre in heaven, just before he admits that he’s not sure that Lefebvre’s even there.  This is a clear contradiction, spilling from a mind and a soul rampant with heresy and emotion, and not intent on adhering to God’s truth.  He was so emotionally upset that I labeled Lefebvre’s blasphemous and heretical statement (that souls can be saved in false religions) heretical, that he misrepresented what I said, and then contradicted himself.  (The sad fact is that it’s not about the truth and obedience to God with most of these people, it’s about emotion, human attachments and what makes them feel good.) 

Further, notice his hypocrisy when he says “Who made you the infallible Catholic guide” – in disgust that I actually labeled Lefebvre’s statement heretical and that I just didn’t accept the idea that souls can be saved in false religions, while at the same time Mr. Morella doesn’t hesitate to state publicly that John Kerry is not a Catholic – period! So who made you, Mr. Morella, the infallible Catholic guide that judges that John Kerry is not a Catholic - period, you hypocrite?

Second, notice that Mr. Morella then says that “Baptism of desire has always been part of Catholic teaching.”  Dear reader, this man agrees with Bishop Lefebvre that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions (Buddhism, Animism, Islam, etc.).  This has nothing to do with catechumens who desire baptism or “baptism of desire.”  And yet he is dishonestly arguing that he believes in baptism of desire – as if he actually believed that one must desire baptism to be saved!  What abominable hypocrisy!  Baptism of desire to him and so many countless others = salvation for members of non-Catholic religions.  Baptism of desire has become a false Christ: if you don’t believe in Christ, no problem, you’ve got baptism of desire.  But the fact is that Mr. Morella’s dishonesty and heresy, invoking baptism of desire to justify his belief that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions (condemned by Eugene IV), would be the position held by most “traditional Catholics” today.  Those who obstinately believe this are an abomination in the sight of Our Lord, and before God’s Judgment Seat (unless they amend) they will have to confess that they didn’t believe in baptism of desire at all, but salvation outside the Church – and they will be cast into the eternal fire because they are no different from liars.

Third, notice that Mr. Morella cites the Good Thief and other Old Testament personages as “proof” for his heretical idea that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith.  This again is totally dishonest, for a Catholic knows that the requirements for salvation in the Old Testament were not the same as that of the New, with the coming of the Redeemer.  Mr. Morella might as well argue that one can observe the Old Law like the Jews.  For the prophets in the Old Testament observed the Old Law, and they are now in heaven, so are you saying that one cannot be saved while adhering to the Old Law, Mr. Morella?  But, of course, he would quickly respond, “well, that was the Old Covenant,” the Old Law is dead now; it cannot be observed any longer.  Exactly, so why are you arguing from the Old Covenant with regard to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation?  He is condemned by his own mouth.  When one sees this kind of dishonesty, one begins to see why God condemns people to Hell for all eternity – their bad will is truly incorrigible and without excuse.  By the way, Mr. Morella is also wrong about the Good Thief, for the Good Thief did not go to heaven on the day of the Crucifixion, as explained in the section on The Good Thief in my book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Fourth, Mr. Morella then says that our “interpretation” of Eugene IV would make Christ a liar.  Well, you’ve said it Mr. Morella, you make Christ a liar – for the words of Eugene IV speak for themselves.

He then concludes by saying, “I made it very clear to you that there are things which the current pope has done which I do not consider Catholic.  He also done (sic) things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.  You cannot compare the two given that observation…” 

Okay, John Kerry is not a Catholic – period, as Morella wrote in his article, but John Paul II and his Bishops, who have far more acts of heresy than Kerry, can be considered Catholic, because John Paul II “has done things which are very Catholic, which Kerry does not even consider.”  So, if John Kerry did some things which were Catholic, which John Paul II does not consider, he could be considered a Catholic too, right, even though he supports abortion?  This is what he would have to admit.  But he wouldn’t agree with this, even though it is perfectly logical and true, because he is not an honest person, just like all those who obstinately accept Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic. 

They cannot say that John Kerry is not a Catholic while they recognize William Keeler (who says that we shouldn’t convert Jews) as the Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore. They cannot say that John Kerry is not Catholic while they recognize “Cardinal” Cassidy (who signed the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification) as a Catholic. They cannot say that John Kerry is not a Catholic while they recognize Antipope John Paul II as a Catholic. Those who obstinately deny this are forced into the most heretical and dishonest evasions, as was Mr. Morella.  Such people are in the same sect as John Kerry, no matter how much they try to deny it.  They are not Catholic – period.

What about sanctification prior to Baptism?

We’re glad that you liked the article. Sanctification from sin is not possible without water baptism. You may be referring to the position of the St. Benedict Center, which holds that sanctification is possible without water baptism but that salvation is not possible without water baptism. There is a section refuting this position in the book. To sum up the problems with their position simply: they correctly hold that unbaptized catechumens are outside the Catholic Church, but at the same time they hold that these catechumens (whom they admit are outside the Church) can have their sins remitted. This contradicts the solemn teaching of Pope Boniface VIII, which teaches that there is no remission of sins outside the Church.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.” (Denz. 468-469)

What does Jesus mean by “the Kingdom of God is within you”?

Scott, Jesus says this in response to a question about when the Kingdom of God will come. The Jews expected that when God’s Kingdom and the Messiah would come to fruition it would be a temporal kingdom that would physically subjugate all peoples to the Jews. Jesus was refuting this notion, by pointing out that the Kingdom of God is spiritual, it concerns the soul, and is therefore “within you.” Regarding your second question, I would first share with a Protestant the clear teaching of Christ and the New Testament on the Necessity of Baptism (John 3:5; Mark 16:16, etc.), the Institution of the Papacy (Mt. 16), the Institution of Confession (John 20:23) and the Eucharist (John 6), and the condemnation of the idea of faith alone (James 2:24), to begin with. If they cannot accept these things, then they are simply not honest people.

Is your community affiliated with Rome and the “Benedictine” Order under John Paul II?

No, our community is not affiliated with Antipope John Paul II or the “Benedictine” order under him, simply because they are not real Catholics as they do not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on many issues, such as, for instance, the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church – to name just a few. They can claim to be Catholic just as John Kerry does, and hold the buildings of the Church, but they are no more Catholic than he is.

What are some good Morning Prayers?

The answer to your question about morning prayers is that, after the morning offering, it is good to say the following prayer to the Holy Trinity - the prayer given at Fatima.

"Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore thee profoundly, and I offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the earth, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference with which He Himself is offended.  And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and of the immaculate heart of Mary, I beg of You the conversion of poor sinners."

Sub Tuum Praesidium

We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God! despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

Dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary

My Queen, my Mother.  I give myself entirely to thee; and to show my devotion to thee, I consecrate to thee this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being, without reserve.  Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession.

Short Prayers to the Virgin

Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation. My Mother, preserve me this day from mortal sin. Mother of love, of sorrow, and of mercy, pray for us. My mother, my trust. Mary, Virgin Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me. In thy conception, O Virgin Mary, thou wast immaculate, pray for us to the Father, whose Son Jesus Christ conceived of the Holy Ghost thou didst bring forth. To thee, O Virgin Mother, who wast never defiled with the slightest stain of original or actual sin, I commend and entrust the purity of my heart. O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Can one support the building fund of the SSPX, etc.?

B., good to hear from you. The answer to your first question is no, you absolutely cannot donate any money to the SSPX for any reason, including the building fund, since they are a heretical and schismatic group.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."