| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern âOrthodoxyâ Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | âMagiciansâ Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II âCatholicâ 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 | ![]() |
Mark Pivarunas (CMRI) Embarrasses Himself
Some time ago (and perhaps recently) Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI stated that people who deny âbaptism of desireâ arenât âcompetentâ to deal with the issue. Referring to members of Most Holy Family Monastery and to our teaching on the issue, he also said we are âfalse prophetsâ and used by the Devil. Mark considers it diabolical and soul-destroying to maintain that no one enters Heaven without being reborn of water and the Spirit. In support of his position, he cited the teaching of St. Alphonsus on âbaptism of desireâ as if itâs definitive and ends the debate. Pivarunas apparently thinks that St. Alphonsusâ explanation of âbaptism of blowingâ (baptismus flaminis) supports his view. In making that statement and argument, Pivarunas not only demonstrates his complete lack of familiarity with the details of this issue, but he embarrasses himself.
First, Mark Pivarunas doesnât even believe in âbaptism of desire.â He believes in âbaptism by Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.â He holds that souls can be saved in any religion, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., as this conversation with another heretical CMRI priest proved: CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics (video). The priest confirmed what weâve mentioned and proven many times: the CMRI (like other groups which support âbaptism of desireâ) holds that souls can be saved in false religions. They believe âinvincible ignoranceâ can save anyone in any situation. They deny the defined Catholic dogma that one must have the âCatholic faithâ (which involves belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) to be saved. They are heretics who donât possess an ounce of faith in Christ or His truth. Also, as the aforementioned conversation showed, the priest of the CMRI was not even familiar with the teaching of the Council of Florence. Thatâs another example of how Pivarunasâ group doesnât understand Catholic teaching.
Second, in citing St. Alphonsusâ opinion as if it proves his position, Pivarunas embarrasses himself. Thatâs because, as we proved in the article below, St. Alphonsusâ explanation is untenable even if you accept âbaptism of desireâ (BOD).
St. Alphonsus' Blatant Error on 'Baptism of Desire' [article]
As the article linked to above shows (and itâs a must-read for those interested in the issue), St. Alphonsusâ explanation of the issue was not only riddled with errors (he cites the wrong portion of the Council of Trent), but he admits that âbaptism of desireâ does not even provide the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth. Thatâs a big problem because the Council of Trent declared that everyone must have the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth in order to be justified. To put it another way: St. Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that âbaptism of desireâ doesnât provide the grace of first justification. Thatâs what the article proves. Yet, the truly foolish and obstinate proponents of âbaptism of desireâ (such as Mark Pivarunas) still havenât figured it out, even after we explained it for them. Thatâs precisely why we stated that defenders of BOD, who continue to promote St. Alphonsusâ opinion on the issue in the face of the facts, donât merely contradict Catholic dogma, they make fools out of themselves. They demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with the details of the issue, and they perpetuate a position that has been thoroughly refuted and debunked.
St. Alphonsus was not infallible. His position on âbaptism of desireâ was simply false and it must be rejected by all Catholics. Nevertheless, Pivarunas still hasnât realized that St. Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that âbaptism of desireâ doesnât even justify and that his position would have to be rejected even if you accept âbaptism of desire.â Pivarunasâ lack of familiarity with the relevant material, combined with his inability to grasp the ramifications of his assertions, demonstrates that heâs incompetent and unequipped to deal with the fine points of these theological issues. Despite his profound ignorance and incompetence, the heretic pontificates (literally) as if he possesses some special authority, when, in reality, he is just a guy who got himself ordained and then consecrated a bishop.
Mark Pivarunas denies Catholic teaching and believes that souls can be saved in false religions. Heâs a heretic and a false shepherd who leads souls to Hell. He is also an apostle of birth control, a vigorous defender of Natural Family Planning. His group even endorses methods of Natural Family Planning that involve taking steps to physically alter a womanâs body chemistry to avoid conception, as proven in this video: NFP: A Birth Control Deception. The video, NFP: A Birth Control Deception, also soundly refutes Pivarunasâ argument that Natural Family Planning must be permissible because certain churchmen before Vatican II (e.g., members of the Sacred Penitentiary) allegedly approved primitive forms of it.
MARK FURTHER DISPLAYS HIS INCOMPETENCE
As a further display of his incompetence, Pivarunas also stated that St. Alphonsus taught âimplicit desire,â as if the saint favored the notion that people donât need to have faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity to be saved. No, he didnât. As we explain in the article on his âbaptism of desireâ error, when St. Alphonsus mentions the âimplicitâ desire for baptism, heâs referring to people who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries of Catholic faith), but arenât aware of water baptism or have not expressed that desire for water baptism in words. Again, the âimplicit desireâ to which he refers is an implicit desire for water baptism, not an implicit desire for faith in Christ. St. Alphonsus did not believe that anyone (ignorant or not) could be saved without faith in the essential mysteries of Catholicism: the Trinity and the Incarnation. However, he did wrongly think that one who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation could be saved without water baptism by an implicit desire for water baptism. Nevertheless, BOD heretics abuse Alphonsusâ passage in which he uses the word âimplicitâ â a passage that already contains numerous errors. They falsely assert that by âimplicit desireâ St. Alphonsus taught the heresy of âimplicit faith in Christâ (which can save Jews, Muslims, etc.), when he did not.
Mark still hasnât learned the distinction between an âimplicit desireâ for water baptism (which requires explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity) and an implicit desire for faith in Christ (the completely heretical notion that souls can be saved in non-Christian religions, which he and his group hold). The two are not the same. Perhaps Mark is incapable of understanding the distinction. St. Alphonsus did not hold the latter, but the former. The fact that St. Alphonsus (with St. Thomas and all the saints) believed that no one could be saved without knowing the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith (and thus rejected the CMRIâs heretical position on salvation through âinvincible ignoranceâ) is proven in this file: St. Alphonsus rejected the idea that souls in invincible ignorance can be saved.
Thus, as we can see, Mark Pivarunas truly has no idea what heâs talking about. Heâs ignorant and incompetent. Yet, he presides over a group of alleged traditionalists and he pretends to possess authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Simply put, heâs a faithless individual in whom the Devil found an effective instrument to encourage birth control and corrupt belief in the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith. Pivarunas is a heretical, non-Catholic disgrace â a false shepherd leading souls to Hell.
Besides their obstinate promotion of St. Alphonsusâ false opinion, the heretical CMRI promotes other false arguments on the issue. Actually, they employ a devilish combination of lies, distortions, misquotes, half-truths and fallible arguments to deceive people and promote their false position. None of those arguments withstand scrutiny. Our salvation book, our video Baptism of Desire Buried, and our other materials thoroughly refute their claims on the issue.
The truth is that the Catholic Church does not teach âbaptism of desire.â It has never taught it, which is why the defenders of BOD must always resort to fallible documents and opinions to make their arguments. Rather, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there is only one baptism of water, and that no one is saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit, as it is written in John 3:5. Thatâs the teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth. The Catholic teaching on this point is proven by the quotes below, our book, videos and articles.
There are a number of very interesting new points on these matters. We hope to cover them soon, but we have been involved with other projects. One of those points will further demonstrate that obstinate proponents of âbaptism of desire,â while they think they are of safe ground promoting the position that one can be saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit, are actually doing that which is criminal according to Catholic teaching. Their spiritual crime involves obstinately preaching contrary to the one and only dogmatic rule of faith on the matter.
Consider these two dogmatic statements from The Council of Vienne on baptism as a unit. All in the Church (outside of which no one at all is saved) have one and the same baptism; and that one baptism (which all in the Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, have) is of water.
Pope Leo The Great On The Necessity Of Baptism For Salvation
Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation - book and section
The Best Argument Against "Baptism of Desire"
The Council Of Trent Did Not Teach "Baptism Of Desire"
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^