An Unanswered Letter? - Our letter “debate” with Bishop McKenna on Baptism of Desire

The Best Argument Against “Baptism of Desire” (video) *This crucial video and article covers the Church’s dogmatic teaching on salvation*

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

[Preliminary note: For those who don’t know, Bishop McKenna is a well known “traditional Catholic” Bishop, who is in working communion with Bishops such as Bishop Sanborn, who respect him as their fellow Catholic.  Bishop McKenna’s views on salvation reflect and/or are tolerated by most of the sedevacantists priests and laypeople.] Recently, Bishop Robert McKenna published a pamphlet entitled “An Unanswered Letter” to the Dimond Brothers.  This pamphlet is now being distributed on the internet and at various traditional chapels.  The pamphlet begins as follows, and then is followed by five questions, which will be discussed later:

[The following is a copy of a letter written by Bishop Robert McKenna, O.P. to the Brothers Dimond on the subject of their rejection of the validity of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, asking them to defend their position in certain key areas.  As of the day of this publishing, there has been no reply.]

Is this true?  Did we really fail to answer his questions in “certain key areas” about Baptism of Desire?  Here is what actually happened:

On Feb. 20, 2004, we received a letter from Bishop McKenna attacking us for rejecting “baptism of desire.”  The reader should note that Bishop McKenna doesn’t even believe in baptism of desire; he believes that souls who don’t have the Catholic Faith and don’t desire baptism (Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims) can be saved in their false religions, as will be shown.  His letter was an attempted response to our newsletter #2 on the topic of baptism of desire. In his letter, Bishop McKenna made numerous objections and asked us questions on various topics, including things such as Mark 16:16, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, etc.

I responded to Bishop McKenna on March 10, 2004, answering all of his questions in a detailed letter consisting of 13 pages, whereas his original letter only consisted of 2 and ½ pages.  For a full response to his questions about Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, see Appendix Item 1. In my detailed response, after answering all of his objections, I also asked Bishop McKenna one simple question.  I asked him the following:

Bishop McKenna, “would you call the following statement from Fr. Denis Fahey heretical?  (If you write back and do not answer this question, then I will assume that you do believe that Jews and Muslims who reject Christ can be saved).”

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52 “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

In this statement Fr. Fahey says that Jews who reject Our Lord may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (i.e., the state of grace).  Is Fr. Fahey’s statement (that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace) heretical or not?

On March 25, 2004, Bishop McKenna responded:

Dimond Brothers Most Holy Family Monastery 4425 Schneider Road Fillmore, NY 14735-8755 March 25, 2004 Dear Brothers Dimond: For our enlightenment (and salvation) would you please answer — as simply as possible, and in sequence — the following questions: 1. The Council of Trent teaches that, in the New Testament, no one came (sic) be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism “or its desire” (aut ejus voto). If the word “or” (aut) is, as you say, here to be understood as equivalent to “and” (et in Latin), is this private interpretation, or have you an authority for it? In Theology, unlike Philosophy, authority, not philosophical reasoning, is the primary proof. 2. If “or” here is the equivalent to “and”, why did not the Council, in a matter of the greatest importance, use the unambiguous “and”? 3. If, again, “or” here is the equivalent of “and”, why did not the Council put the “desire” for the Sacrament before the reception of the Sacrament? The intention, willing or desire for something precedes its execution. 4. In the ensuing words of the Council ”... as it is written” ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit you hi-lite “WRITTEN” as excluding Baptism by desire, being something distinct from the Sacrament itself. Why is Baptism by desire not rather to be understood as therefore implicitly INCLUDED in what is written? As a part of the Sacrament, as St. Thomas Aquinas calls it (together with Baptism of Blood)? 5. If you accept the authority of St. Alphonsus Liguori, the great Doctor of the Church, in other matters, why not for his teaching that, from the words of the Council which we have been treating, Baptism by desire is de fide — a matter of divine faith? Sincerely in Christ,

             Bishop Robert F. McKenna. O.P.

One can see that in his response Bishop McKenna asked us five more questions about baptism of desire, without making any mention of the one question that I asked him!  Is this not totally dishonest or what!

As we can see, in his letter Bishop McKenna also made no acknowledgement of any of the detailed points that I brought forward in my lengthy 13 page response to him.  For instance, in his original letter, Bishop McKenna quoted Canon 5 from the Council of Trent on Baptism and wrote the following:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Bishop Mckenna: “ The Canon [Can. 5] does not specify Baptism of water…”

Bishop McKenna is trying to refute our assertion that the Council of Trent defines as a dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  He argues that Canon 5 only says that Baptism is necessary for salvation, but that it doesn’t define that Baptism of water is necessary for salvation.  In my letter, I refuted this by pointing out to him that this Canon is a Canon on the Sacrament of Baptism (Canones de sacramento baptismi). It is not merely a Canon on Baptism, but on the Sacrament of Baptism.  Thus, by this fact, I refuted his argument and proved that the Canon does indeed specify baptism of water (the Sacrament), which is exactly the opposite of what he said.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Thus, McKenna was completely wrong.  The Council of Trent defines as a dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism (Baptism of Water) is necessary for salvation.  This must be confessed by all Catholics, and all who deny it are anathematized.  All baptism of desire advocates do not hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.

So, after receiving this March 25 response, wherein Bishop McKenna despicably not only refused to answer the one simple question that I asked him about Fr. Fahey’s statement concerning Jews who reject Christ, but also did not acknowledge any of the points that I made refuting his assertions, and demanded more detailed answers to his own questions, we decided that we would be in no hurry to respond to this dishonest heretic, since he was not demonstrating any honesty or fairness at all in this matter – being unwilling to answer even one question from us.

In fact, when we received his March 25 letter, we were very busy with numerous projects, including, coincidentally, the final stages of the recently published book on this topic, which was at that time in the critical final stages of completion.  The questions that he asked were all addressed in detail in the book, which McKenna would receive after it was published. (It should also be mentioned that if McKenna’s March 25 letter seems friendly, this is only because he knew that he was going to publish that particular letter, whereas he knew that he was not going to publish the other letters which contained his verbal attacks and denunciations).

But on April 12, 2004, we received another letter from Bishop McKenna.  Here is the totality of it:

“Dear Brothers Dimond:

“No answer to the certified letter I sent you more than two weeks ago with a set of five questions to be answered regarding your denial of Baptism of Desire?

“Unless an un-evasive answer is received by a week from today – or better, the assurance of a public retraction of your position (how in conscience can you otherwise refuse to make one and not have to answer to God Himself for all those you have misled in a matter of Catholic doctrine?) – I will make my letter of March 25 as public as I myself can, and precisely as a letter unanswered.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, does anyone fail to see how dishonest, unfair, one-sided and evil this is?  Bishop McKenna refused to answer even one simple question that I asked him, a question that I gave him plenty of time to answer, a question which he could have answered in one word: yes or no.  I had already answered multiple objections and questions of McKenna in a lengthy 13 page reply to him on March 10, 2004.  Now, after refusing to acknowledge any of the points that I made in the letter, and after refusing to answer the one question that I asked, he wants more detailed questions answered within one week or else he is threatening to make his letter public as if it were unanswered by us!  This is a complete joke.

When you see this kind of bad will, dishonesty and double-standard, you are reminded of the words of Ephesians 6:12:

“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood: but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness: against the spirits of wickedness in high places.”

Bishop McKenna holds that Jews who reject Jesus Christ Himself can be saved; he is a complete heretic who totally denies the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation.  He is actually an apostate who has no Faith at all.  But he is so evil and so concerned that we believe that one must be a baptized Catholic to be saved, as the Church teaches, that he is going to give us one week (actually, 3 to 4 days, considering the time taken to send the letter) to spend time answering 5 detailed questions from him, when we just sent him a 13 page response answering his questions and he won’t even answer one question of ours!  This is, to put it frankly, evil.

However, since the book I was writing (which is now published) addressed questions that McKenna asked, I was able to put a letter together in response to McKenna somewhat quickly.  He received the letter by certified mail on April 26, 2004, exactly two weeks after the date of his April 12 letter, in which he gave us an absurd one week to respond to him.  Thus, I got back to him in two weeks.  My letter, which he received on April 26, 2004, answered all five of his questions in detail in a 15 page letter – but it was already too late!  McKenna had already published his March 25 letter as a pamphlet a few days earlier!  He was now circulating this pamphlet with his five questions stating that we did not answer them!  What an outrage and a lie, considering that he gave us a ridiculous one week!  (By the way, if we had responded within one week, then he probably would have sent another letter asking more questions, without answering any of ours, as usual.)

This supposedly “Unanswered Letter” which McKenna published is now being circulated at traditional chapels, as well as on at least one website, and by at least one person via e-mail.

THE SHORT ANSWER TO MCKENNA, AND TO ALL OF THE OTHER HERETICS WHO OBSTINATELY ATTEMPT TO USE SESSION 6, CHAP. 4 OF TRENT TO PROVE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, IS THAT THE PASSAGE DOES NOT SAY THAT JUSTIFICATION TAKES PLACE BY WATER BAPTISM OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.  THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE HERETICS, ALMOST ALL OF WHOM DON’T BELIEVE THAT DESIRE FOR BAPTISM IS EVEN NECESSARY, NEED TO GET THIS THROUGH THEIR HEADS.  THE PASSAGE SAYS THAT JUSTIFICATION CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM OR THE DESIRE FOR IT, SIMILAR TO IF I SAID, “THIS SACRAMENT CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT MATTER OR FORM.”  ASK ANY OF THESE BAPTISM OF DESIRE HERETICS IF THIS STATEMENT MEANS THAT A SACRAMENT CAN TAKE PLACE BY EITHER MATTER OR FORM.  ASK THEM, AND THEY WILL ALL ANSWER “NO,” AND THUS THEY PROVE THE POINT THAT SESS. 6. CHAP. 4 DOES NOT PROVE BAPTISM OF DESIRE.  MANY OF THESE OBSTINATE HERETICS, WHO ARE ENEMIES OF GOD, WILL ALSO GO THROUGH ALL KINDS OF VERBAL BLACKMAGIC TO ATTEMPT TO SUBTLY DISTORT THIS FACT.

FOR INSTANCE, IN A JULY 3 LETTER TO A FRIEND OF OURS (TIM WHALEN), BISHOP KELLY OF THE SSPV WROTE THE FOLLOWING: “IN SESSION VI, CHAPTER IV, THE COUNCIL OF TRENT TEACHES THAT A MAN CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY BAPTISM OF WATER OR THE DESIRE THEREOF.” – LIE!!!

THE PASSAGE DOES NOT SAY THIS; IT SAYS THAT JUSTIFICATION CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.  NOTICE HOW THE APOSTATE BISHOP KELLY, WHO BELIEVES THAT SOULS CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH IN ANY RELIGION, SUBTLY SHIFTS AND DISTORTS THE STATEMENT OF TRENT.  THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH BAPTISM OF DESIRE HERETICS WHO DEAL WITH THIS PASSAGE.

BUT WHEN ONE PINS DOWN THE FACT THAT TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”, THEY HAVE NO RESPONSE.

The following is the beginning portion of my letter to McKenna received by him on April 26, the letter which responded to his five questions, but which was received a few days too late.    Keep in mind that when I wrote this I was unaware that his pamphlet would be published a few days before my letter arrived.

   April, 2004

Dear Bishop McKenna:

     I was in no hurry to write back to you simply because your two most recent letters (March 25 and April 12) demonstrated that you weren’t interested in addressing any of the points that I brought forward in my letter which refute your contentions.  In fact, you even refused to address the question that I posed to you so saliently in the letter: do you hold that Jews who reject Christ can be saved or would you call Fr. Fahey’s statement stating that Jews who reject Christ can be saved heretical?  I told you in the letter that if you refused to answer this then you are presumed to agree with him that Jews who reject Christ can be saved.  You conspicuously avoided answering the question and will be considered to hold that Jews who reject Christ can be saved.

     Your insistence to get me to answer more of your questions (and refute more of your hopeless arguments in favor of “baptism of desire”) when you won’t answer any of mine reminds me of the deniers of the Shroud of Turin.  They focus ad nauseam on the Carbon-14 dating tests which purportedly proved that the Shroud was a fraud, while they don’t even consider the many indisputable proofs that show that the Shroud is authentic.  This is a sign of remarkable bad will.  If they were of good will, they would consider that perhaps they have misunderstood the Carbon-14 tests or perhaps the tests were fraudulent or perhaps there is another explanation.  Likewise, if you were of good will, you would see that there are hordes of proofs against baptism of desire that neither you nor any of the other baptism of desire people can answer (just a few of which will be enumerated below); and, therefore, you would realize that perhaps you are misunderstanding the single passage that you can even try to quote (Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent), especially in light of the points about that passage that I brought to your attention.

     Further, if you were of good will, you would see that even if Sess. 6, Chap. 4 taught baptism of desire (which it doesn’t), it would mean that no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism, which is something you don’t even believe! 

     But, as it stands, if you continue on your path, when you stand before the Judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ you will do so with a guilty conscience of one who: 1) Attacked those who believed that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, which is the defined teaching of Trent.  2)  As one who fought obstinately and vigorously that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 taught baptism of desire, when the passage doesn’t state such, but affirms that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.  3) As one who fought vigorously that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 taught that either water baptism or the desire/vow for it is necessary for Justification when you don’t even believe one needs either one to be Justified, but are a heretic who believes that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims can be saved.  And you will be condemned without doubt to eternal hellfire for such inexcusable bad will, unless you convert to the Catholic Faith beforehand (which is our hope).

     I will now answer all five of your questions, simply because I can (and because we have the truth on our side).  But I really don’t have to, because you don’t answer any of our questions.  But don’t expect me to continually do this unless you demonstrate that you are open to changing your heretical position that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved.  [Answers to his five questions]

1.    My authority for our understanding of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 comes from the teaching of the passage itself, as well as the Council’s teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written and Sess. 7, Can. 5 teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (anathematizing anyone who says the contrary, such as yourself). Those things are my authority.  Baptism of desire itself means the opposite (that the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation) and that John 3:5 is not to be understood as it is written; it asserts that some men don’t need to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter heaven.  Thus, your understanding of this passage to mean baptism of desire contradicts the very wording of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 and Sess. 7, Can. 5. 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “[Justification]… cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

2.  To your second question: “why didn’t the passage use the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or’?”  This question is best answered by considering a number of things… [see Appendix Item 1, as this question is specifically answered in four points there.]

3.  The answer to your third question is that the Council Fathers didn’t have to put the word desire before laver of regeneration.

4.  In your fourth question you ask why baptism of desire is not to be understood as included in the Sacrament of Baptism and compatible with a literal understanding of John 3:5.  The answer is that every baptism of desire apologist admits that baptism of desire is not the Sacrament of Baptism because: 1) it does not have the sign of the Sacrament; and 2) it does not confer an indelible character.

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments.  The theologians, following St. Thomas… call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a sacrament is a kind of sign.  The other two [baptism of desire and blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.  Consequently they are not sacraments.”

     Baptism of desire, by definition, lacks the rebirth of water; it posits rebirth of the Spirit without the water.  Thus, it is not a Sacrament and it is incompatible with a literal understanding of John 3:5, wherein Our Lord declares that no one enters heaven without rebirth of water and the Spirit. 

Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever…”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

      But, as we can see, the Council of Trent (including in the very passage you attempt to bring forward, Sess. 6, Chap. 4) teaches the understanding of John 3:5 which is incompatible with baptism of desire.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “[Justification]… cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

5.  The answer to your fifth question is that St. Alphonsus was not infallible.  He wrote 111 books.  Those areas where St. Alphonsus is perfectly in line with dogma we accept, such as his teaching that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.  Those areas of his voluminous writings where he, being a fallible human being, made a mistake or contradicted something of greater authority we do not accept... [In my letter I went on to quote for McKenna the detailed section on St. Alphonsus from my new book, which is found in Appendix Item 2.  I am omitting it here]

After answering his questions, I closed my letter by asking him five questions:

1.  Would you say that it’s possible for one who dies as a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Satanist to be saved?  Would you say that they are all definitely lost or that you don’t know and therefore it’s possible? 2.  What do you think about Bishop Lefebvre’s statement that souls can be saved in any religion?

Bishop 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.”

3.  The following argument totally excludes the possibility of anyone being saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.  How do you respond?  The second definition from the Chair of Peter on Outside the Church There is No Salvation came from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam.

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.”

     This means infallibly that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation.  Obviously, this does not mean that one must be subject to an Antipope for salvation, which is what we have today.  It means that everyone must be ready to accept the true Pope as head of the Church, if and when we have one.       But how are infants subject to the Roman Pontiff?  This is a good question.  Notice that Pope Boniface VIII did not declare that every human creature must know the Roman Pontiff, but that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  Infants become subject to the Roman Pontiff by their baptism into the one Church of Christ, of which the Roman Pontiff is the head.

Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884: “The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism…” 

     Children are placed under the authority of the Church by baptism.  Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church (First Vatican Council, de fide).  This proves that baptism is actually the first component in determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff.  If one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, because the Church exercises judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over no one who has not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide). Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism.  For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle.  It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”      It is not possible, therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment (jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de fide, Trent).  And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII). 4.  [My fourth question to him concerned section 24 of my new book, which is another of the many arguments baptism of desire advocates cannot even begin to respond to.  See Appendix Item 3 for the full section.] 5.  Only the Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of the Body of the Church.  In the past, you have stated that non-Catholics can be saved by being united to the soul of the Church but not the Body.  The fact is that the Catholic Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the Church is necessary for salvation, which refutes your heretical contention.  What do you say?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier productive of eternal reward.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

     This definition of Pope Eugene IV teaches that one must be in the unity of the ecclesiastical Body to be saved.  It demolishes the “Soul of the Church Heresy.”  Pope Pius XI destroys it as well.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

     If you do write back, make sure to explicitly indicate that you are considering changing your position on this topic.  If you don’t indicate this, you will probably not get any response from us.  We hope for your conversion and your abjuration of this heresy that you hold.  If you were honest, you would admit that your belief that those who die as non-Catholics and in false religions can be saved is heretical and incompatible with dogma.  And once you acknowledged and repudiated this heretical belief of yours, you would begin to see the truth on this issue; because the fact is that your concern over the issue of baptism of desire is not due to your concern as to whether those who desire water baptism can be saved, because you don’t even believe that one must desire water baptism to be saved.  Your focus on baptism of desire is simply because you think it justifies your belief that there is salvation outside the Church and for members of false religions.

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

About one week after receiving my letter above on April 26, Bishop McKenna responded with a final, incredible letter.  This final letter of McKenna came to us around May 1.  In his final letter, McKenna did not respond to any of the five questions that I asked him, even though he just went public with five questions that we supposedly did not answer!  What an evil, dishonest person!  Rather, in his final letter, in response to my 15 page detailed refutation of him, Bishop McKenna did not even write five full sentences.

But Bishop McKenna answered my question about whether Fr. Fahey’s statement is heretical.  His answer was “no”.  There you have it!  Bishop McKenna holds that it is not heretical to believe that Jews who reject Christ Himself may be in the state of grace/justified (and therefore can be saved).  Bishop McKenna is a total heretic and actually an abomination.

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life.  And this life is in his Son.  He that hath the Son, hath life.  He that hath not the Son, hath not life.”

Anyone who denies that Bishop McKenna is a complete heretic who rejects the Church’s teaching on the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation is a liar.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Believe it or not, in his final letter, Bishop McKenna also said, “Enough of your ad infinitum garbage.  Now answer my questions” (underlining of “my” his own!) Answer his questions?  He can’t be serious!  Bishop McKenna must be possessed by the devil, for I just answered all of his questions in two letters almost 30 pages long, while he answered none of ours and then he published a pamphlet far and wide saying that we didn’t answer his questions (when we did)!  What an outrage!  After all that, he now is demanding more answers as if I didn’t give him any!

By the way, notice that he calls my letter “ad infinitum garbage,” which I’ll take as a compliment – that he called the 15 page letter “ad infinitum” because it provided such a detailed rebuttal to all of his questions, while he answered none of ours.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what Catholics who truly hold to the necessity of the Catholic Faith and Baptism for salvation are dealing with and are up against.  This is why people like ourselves have been calumniated in certain areas of the “traditionalist” movement.  You are not dealing with good willed people; you are dealing with evil men who hate this dogma, who hate the truth, who are liars, heretics and Christ-deniers who lack even the basic charity of giving people reasonable time to respond to them.

Bishop McKenna believes that souls can be saved in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam without the Catholic Faith, as well as Jews who reject Christ, and yet he is concerned that we are teaching Catholics that one must be a baptized Catholic to be saved.  In his first letter to us, he actually said that we are doing “incalculable harm”!  This is why Fr. Feeney was so hated and calumniated; it is because the devil hates this truth, and uses the countless heretics (useful idiots) who deny it to attack those who stand for this dogma as it has been defined.

And sadly, Bishop McKenna’s beliefs are held by the majority of those people who attend the traditional Mass.  This is simply a fact.  The majority of the “traditionalists” believe that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic Faith by baptism of desire or “invincible ignorance,” including Jews who reject Christ, but they would try to deny that this is what they believe unless you pin them down and ask them the correct questions.

Appendix

1)  Click here for: Appendix Item 1 This is the detailed discussion of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent from my new book.  This discussion contains various new and important points about this passage of Trent, as well as a detailed discussion of and answer to the same things that McKenna raised.  The discussion also contains an interesting e-mail about this passage of Trent.  This discussion proves that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent does not teach baptism of desire.  All baptism of desire advocates need to read this important section in totality.

2) Click here for Appendix Item 2.  This is the St. Alphonsus section from my new book.  This discusses in detail the flaws in St. Alphonsus fallible opinion on baptism of desire, why it doesn’t bind Catholics, with some important new points.

3)  Click here for Appendix Item 3.  This is section 24 of my new book.  It is also the fourth question that I asked Bishop McKenna, which he did not answer (of course).  This dogmatic argument is one of the many that devastates the theory of baptism of desire and which none of the baptism of desire advocates can answer.

4)  Click here for Appendix Item 4.  This is the full text of my first letter to Bishop McKenna. My first response to Bishop McKenna was quite stern, considering that Bishop McKenna attacked us out of the blue and has been an obstinate heretic against this dogma for years. The parts that I ellipsisized out (…) are the parts in the letter where I am repeating what is said in the Sess. 6, Chap. 4 section of my book, Appendix item # 1.  Those with questions about this passage need to read that section.

5) Click here for Appendix Item 5.  This is the section from my new book on the CMRI and Bishop McKenna.  It exposes McKenna’s incredibly heretical article which was published in the CMRI’s official publication, where he denies that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is an actual infallible truth from heaven that must be held by Catholics, and teaches that it is only a warning. CLICK HERE TO READ NEW SECTION ON SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

 CLICK HERE TO READ NEW SECTION ON ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI

Catholics Must Believe and Profess that the Sacramental System as a whole is Necessary for Salvation (de fide)

MY FIRST LETTER TO MCKENNA

March 10, 2004

Dear Bishop McKenna:

     I am writing you to respond to your letter dated Feb. 20, 2004 – your attempted response to my newsletter refuting the theory of baptism of desire.

 1.    You say that we have done “incalculable harm” to the faith of many traditional Catholics.  Incalculable harm? How so? By telling them that all men must be Catholic and baptized to be saved?!  Bishop Mckenna, this outrageous and heretical statement by you reveals your profound detestation for the Church’s infallible teaching on the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ and receiving the Sacraments for salvation.  It’s obvious that you hate this truth, for why else would you attack those who defend it?  But in attacking this dogma and those who defend it you are simply attacking Christ Himself, from whom this dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, comes.

     Bishop Mckenna, you believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Animists, etc. can be saved.  You hold that souls can be saved in any and every religion.  Why don’t you just admit it?  You are a complete heretic.  I know that you believe that Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Buddhists can be saved, but would you also say that Jews and Muslims who reject Christ and aren’t convinced of His Divinity can be saved?  Would you call the following statement from Fr. Denis Fahey heretical?  (If you write back and do not answer this question, then I will assume that you do believe that Jews and Muslims who reject Christ can be saved).

Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52 “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

     I’d be shocked if you didn’t agree with this statement, that Jews who reject the Savior himself can possibly be in a state of Justification.  Regardless, it is a fact that you hold and defend that non-Catholics can be saved, and thus you reject the dogma which declares that one must have the Catholic Faith to be saved.  If you die without converting to belief in the dogma that whoever wishes to be saved must hold the Catholic Faith (Athanasian Creed), and that all who die as non-Catholics are not saved (Eugene IV), and unless you repent of your attacks upon those who defended this teaching of the Church (such as ourselves), you will without a doubt be condemned to hellfire immediately after your death and judgment.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “The Athanasian Creed,” 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.”

You have repeatedly and publicly falsified the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church on this dogma.  You have declared again and again that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly and culpably” outside the Church. That is not what the Catholic Church has defined, Bishop Mckenna! 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 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.” 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…”

Notice, Bishop Mckenna, that your lying version of the dogma – that it only applies to those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church – is not mentioned anywhere.  It is very simple: If it were true that some non-Catholics or “invincibly ignorant” persons could be saved, then GOD WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DEFINE THE DOGMA THAT NO ONE AT ALL CAN BE SAVED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  But God did allow His infallible Church to define this truth, WHICH SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES FROM SALVATION EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT DIE A CATHOLIC.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

     There is no other meaning to the dogma other than what has been declared in the definitions, as Vatican I defined. You totally reject the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation as it has been declared by the Popes.  In fact, you not only believe that non-Catholics who are “invincibly ignorant” can be saved, but you also believe that non-Catholics who have heard of the Church but aren’t convinced that it is true are saved.  Your heresy, according to which this dogma only applies to those who are convinced or have heard that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, is so absurd that it would make it counterproductive to try to convince non-Catholics that Catholicism is the only true religion!  And this heresy of yours is precisely why, as you admitted to Bro. Michael, after you exorcised the man from England who was possessed by the “werewolf demon,” you didn’t even tell him that he had to convert to Catholicism to be saved!  That was a mortal sin of omission, and it was the specific result (the bad fruit) of your heretical belief that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Just admit it: you flat-out reject the dogma that “no one,” (Pope Pius IV; Benedict XIV; Pius IX) “nobody at all,” (Innocent III) “nobody, even if he shed his blood in the name of Christ” (Eugene IV) can be saved as a non-Catholic.  The following statement could have been addressed to you:

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.”

Bishop Mckenna, your letter to us, Feb. 20, 2004: “In any case the dogma of no salvation outside the Church does not mean that absolutely no one can be saved unless he is a professed Catholic.  It certainly does mean that no one can be saved who is knowingly outside the Church and either refuses or neglects to seriously examine its claim to be the one true Church.

2.  In your letter you say the following in regard to Canon 5 from Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Bishop Mckenna: “ The Canon [Can. 5] does not specify Baptism of water…”

     Oh yes it does; it is a Canon on the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., water Baptism).  Thus, the Canon excludes salvation without the Sacrament, which is exactly what we believe, and exactly what you obstinately reject and attack.  You are surely under the anathema of this Sacred Canon.  And in case you try to get around the above truth of Canon 5 on the Sacrament by asserting that baptism of desire and blood are sacraments, I will quote Can. 2.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

 3.    In your letter you attempt to answer the question that I posed in the newsletter:

“Are the Words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5  - “Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God” - understood by the Catholic Church as they are written or not?”

     But never once in your letter did you actually answer this question.  Your pitiful attempt to make it look like you were giving an answer when you weren’t is as follows:

Bishop Mckenna: “The answer, then, to your opening question on the ‘witness stand’ for Baptism of Desire, namely ‘Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not?’ is that the Church understands it (and everything else in Sacred Scripture) in context!  In such a way as to recognize no contradiction in Holy Writ. John 3:5 has to be understood in the context of Mark 16:16.”

       Give me a break! What kind of answer is that?  It is no answer at all, but rather dishonest evasion, because you realize that if the Church understands John 3:5 as it is written, which it does, then there is no such thing as baptism of desire, since baptism of desire posits salvation without being born again of water.  You also realize that if you say that John 3:5 is not as it is written (which is what all baptism of desire advocates would have to admit), then you are contradicting the very words of the only passage from a dogmatic Council you like to quote.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

       But, most importantly in your case, it’s an outrage that you actually claim to believe in this passage.  For even if we suppose for a moment that this passage did teach baptism of desire [which it doesn’t], if it did then it would mean that all men must have at least water baptism or the vow/desire for it to be justified.  But you totally reject this; you don’t believe one has to vow/desire baptism to be justified!  You hold that Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. can be saved!  Thus, you lie and mock God when you feign fidelity to the words and teaching of this decree.  You don’t believe even in what you claim the passage is teaching!

     This shows that all that you care about in regard to this passage is trying to find anything you think shows that one doesn’t have to be baptized.  It demonstrates that you possess no fidelity to dogmatic truth whatsoever.  But this type of dishonest hypocrisy and heresy will convict you before God’s Judgment Seat, unless you convert and repent of your heresy beforehand.

     You also hypocritically intimate that one must follow what St. Alphonsus says, while at the same time you don’t even believe what St. Alphonsus believed on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  In fact, St. Alphonsus would denounce you as a heretic if he knew that you held that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved.  See the following:

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are separated from it, cannot be saved.” St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them.  Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin.  Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760):“How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith!  What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics?  He who does not believe is lost.  This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith.  O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us?  We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

St. Alphonsus was simply mistaken in his opinion on baptism of desire.  He was not infallible.  If he were alive today and were presented with the arguments against the theory from the dogmatic teaching of the Church, he would agree with us.  But we side with St. Gregory Nazianz (Doctor of the Church), Pope St. Siricius and many others on this issue, which will be detailed in a book I’m writing on the issue.

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked.  This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them.  Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.  Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… “Ifyou were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism.  But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?  I cannot see it.  If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory.  You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory.  Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?” Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385: “As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.  If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for.  Enough of past mistakes!  From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

4.  You ask in your letter whether Mark 16:16 is to be understood as it is written.  The answer is that the Catholic Church has never issued a dogmatic definition specifically about Mark 16:16, but it has issued infallible definitions on John 3:5, all of which understand it literally as it is written.  And the dogmatic definitions on John 3:5 about the absolute necessity of being born again of water and the Holy Ghost for salvation, show us the true meaning of Mark 16:16, which is the same, of course.  That is why Our Lord said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” But I will point out to you that the reason that Our Lord did not say “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned” is because those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it is superfluous to mention baptism again. 5.  You make reference to St. Bernard on this topic.  St. Bernard admitted that he could have been wrong about baptism of desire, and he also used the later condemned phrase “faith alone” 3 times in the same document (thus proving his fallibility)!

St. Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II, 8: “So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose.  I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he desires to receive the sacrament, in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or some other invincible power stands in his way… This intimated that sometimes faith alone would suffice for salvation… In the same way, faith alone and turning the mind to God, without the spilling of blood or the pouring of water, doubtlessly brings salvation to one who has the will but not the way… to be baptized.”

This is why we go by the dogmatic definitions, not saints or theologians, unless they are in conformity with the dogma.  For instance, we go by St. Ambrose below when he teaches what the Catholic Church later defined as a dogma about John 3:5.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid.  For what is water without the cross of Christ?  A common element without any sacramental effect.  Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5]  Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.” St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.: “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood.  Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.” St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’  No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

But all of this is diversionary on your part, since you don’t even believe in baptism of desire; you believe in salvation for non-Catholics who don’t vow/desire baptism.  So don’t mock God and continually shift the focus away from your heresy by trying to quote Saints who never believed what you believe. 6. Now that I have made it clear that you reject the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation as it has been defined; that you don’t even actually believe in baptism of desire (you don’t believe that one has to vow/desire baptism); and that you would be condemned by St. Alphonsus himself, I will quote from something I’ve written on the topic, which shows that this passage in Trent (Sess. 6, Chap. 4) definitely does not teach baptism of desire.  And when you obstinately insist that it does, you twist to your own desires and your own damnation the words of the Council of Trent…

7.  There are other things that I could discuss about your letter, such as your statement that baptism of desire and blood are “part” of the Sacrament of Baptism, but I will stop with what I’ve said so far.  If you do write back, answer the question about Fr. Fahey’s statement or you will be presumed to agree with it.  I do hope for your conversion to the Catholic Faith, your abjuration of your denial of this dogma, and your repentance for attacking those who defend it.  If you do not convert and repent of this, you will be lost.  I will end this letter by quoting from the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, which you obstinately reject.

Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, for converts as well: “I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold.  With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it.  So help me God and His holy Gospel.”

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

BISHOP MCKENNA’S INCREDIBLE ARTICLE IN THE C.M.R.I. PUBLICATION

     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. 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. (The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5.)  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 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.” 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. The CMRI has printed other heretical articles on this issue, including in the Winter of 2004.  In this article, they compile basically all of the dishonest and/or invalid arguments usually brought forward by baptism of desire advocates, all of which have been refuted in this document [our new book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation].  Worst of all, they misquote the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 (as discussed in Section 16 of this document).  And ironically, 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.  They hold that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic Faith and are complete heretics.  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.  This heresy is held by almost all priests today.