Unfortunately, the priests of the CMRI (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen) also reject the true meaning of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. They also adhere to and promote the heretical Protocol 122/49 and hold that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved.
The CMRI recently published a pamphlet defending “baptism of desire” which implements arguments which have all been thoroughly refuted in this book. They use a combination of fallible texts (which don’t prove the point), misunderstood texts (which don’t state what they claim) and mistranslated texts to inculcate their false position. In fact, they outrageously still use the “except through” mistranslation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent that has been discussed in this book. They also don’t tell you in their easily refuted and dishonest pamphlet that they hold that it’s possible for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be united to the Church and saved.
In the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary (the CMRI’s publication), the CMRI ran an article called “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.” This is a word for word denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. It is equivalent to publishing an article called “The Original Sin Mary Had.” The article, of course, inculcates the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. And this is their position to this day.
In the Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary (publication of the CMRI) featured another heretical article called “The Boston Snare,” by Bishop Robert McKenna. Bishop McKenna believes that souls who die as non-Catholics can be saved; he also believes that it is not heretical to believe that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace, as confirmed in an exchange of letters that I had with him in the Spring of 2004. Ironically, Bishop McKenna’s thesis in the article is that this “heresy” of denying “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance” was the Devil’s snare which was sown in Boston, when the truth is actually just the opposite. Bishop McKenna and the CMRI (who printed his heretical article because they believe just as he does) are eating their words [“the Boston Snare”] right now by the scandal in Boston. But let’s look at an excerpt from his article.
Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’? For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.” 
Frankly, this has to be one of the more heretical statements ever made by a person purporting to be a traditional Catholic bishop. As can be seen clearly from these words, Bishop McKenna (like almost every modern priest) rejects the true meaning of this dogma and holds that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. In a desperate attempt to defend his heretical version of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, McKenna admittedly must change the understanding of the dogmatic formula proclaimed by the popes. He tells us that the “true” meaning of the dogma is that only those who are “knowingly” outside the Church cannot be saved. Oh really? Where was that qualification ever mentioned in the dogmatic definitions on this topic? Nowhere!
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
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… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:” Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
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 for 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 produce 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.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Recognizing that his understanding runs contrary to the clear words of the dogmatic definitions on the topic – none of which ever mentioned “knowingly” and all of which eliminated all exceptions – Bishop McKenna attempts to explain away the problem.
Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics… but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”
The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, according to McKenna and the heretical CMRI which printed this article in their magazine (Vol. XXIV, No. 83), is not a truth from heaven, but a warning or admonition written for non-Catholics! This is nonsense and flat out heresy.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
Dogmas are truths fallen from heaven which cannot possibly contain error. They are not merely human statements, written to warn non-Catholics, which are subject to correction and qualification. Dogmas are infallible definitions of the truth which can never be changed or corrected, and have no need to be changed or corrected since they cannot possibly contain error. Dogmas are defined so that Catholics must know what they must believe as true from divine revelation without any possibility of error, which is exactly the opposite of what McKenna and the CMRI assert.
And this is perhaps what is most important about the heresy of Bishop McKenna and the CMRI: the dogma deniers are revealing by such ridiculous argumentation that their “version” of this dogma is incompatible with the words of the dogmatic definitions; for if their version were compatible with the dogmatic definitions they would never be forced into heretical statements such as those above.
OTHER “TRADITIONALIST” PRIESTS DENYING THE DOGMA
It’s simply a fact that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests reject the truth of this dogma, just like Bishop McKenna and the CMRI. For example, Bishop Donald Sanborn is considered by some to be a staunch defender of the traditional Catholic Faith. But he vigorously attacks those who hold to the absolute necessity of water baptism, and explicitly says that pagans and idolaters can be saved.
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”
Bishop Donald Sanborn is an obstinate heretic who rejects the dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for all for salvation. His words above prove that he rejects the dogma. He bluntly indicates that it’s possible for pagans and idolaters to be united to the Church and be saved. This is clear-cut heresy.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
1 Corinthians 6:9- “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”
Sanborn even informed a friend of ours (whom he kicked out of his chapel for believing in the necessity of water baptism) that he (i.e. Sanborn) believes that a Jew who hates Christ could be saved while hating Christ. Sanborn’s colleague, Fr. Anthony Cekada, who is mentioned earlier in this book and believes similarly, even said that the Catholic dogma on salvation doesn’t exclude the idea that non-Catholic “individuals” are saved, but only that their sects are means of salvation. (Closing statement in a debate in The Remnant, March 31, 2002.) This is a heretical rejection of the dogma, of course; for the definitions on salvation declare just the opposite: they declare that all individuals who die as non-Catholics are lost. The definitions don’t merely say that their non-Catholic religions are not means of salvation.
Another example of a heretical “traditionalist” priest would be the heretic Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.” (Catholic Research Institute)
This is a word for word denial of the dogma from one who purports to be a staunch, pre-Vatican II traditional Catholic priest.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.”
This is bold heresy. First, Fr. Vaillancourt quotes approvingly from a person who word for word denies the dogma; and then he writes to uphold the heresy that Muslims and Buddhists can be saved without the Catholic Faith. He is a rejecter and an enemy of Catholic dogma. I could give many similar examples of heresy from other “traditionalist” priests; but they all try to hide or justify their heresy by “baptism of desire.”
I’ve spoken to priests and nuns of the CMRI who told me that they believe that members of non-Catholic religions, including Jews, can be saved. Thus, it’s ironic that the priests of the CMRI don’t actually believe in baptism of desire because they don’t believe that one must desire baptism to be saved. It is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their priests, that the priests of the CMRI adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49 and believe that invincible ignorance can save members of false, non-Catholic religions and persons who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. They are unfortunately complete heretics. This heresy is held by almost all priests today.
 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXIV, No. 70, Spokane, WA, Winter, 1992, p. 10 ff.
 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5.
 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger 430.
 Denzinger 468-469.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.
 Denzinger 1000.
 Denzinger 1473.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
 The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5.
 Denzinger 2022.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.