Another question about salvation: more dishonesty from the SSPX

Thank you for your question.  I also read the newsletter.  First of all, I must mention again that the SSPX – as usual! – misquotes the Council of Trent.  Fr. Fullerton quotes the Council of Trent as saying that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  This is a lie.  This is from the horrible mistranslation found in Denzinger.  Being dishonest heretics, the SSPX, the CMRI and many other groups consistently misquote it as well and don’t care to correct it.  Well, they won’t get away with this obstinate misrepresentation of a Council before the Judgment Seat of God. The Council says that one cannot be justified without (sine) water baptism or the desire for it, just as if I said one cannot take a shower without water or the desire to take one (i.e., you need both) or a priest cannot effect a sacrament without matter or form.  The passage doesn’t say that one cannot be justified “except through” water baptism or the desire for it.  If the Council of Trent had said that justification cannot take place “except through” water baptism or the desire for it – or that justification can take place by water or desire – then BOD advocates would be right, since (in that case) it would be a positive statement indicating that one can happen by this or that.  But it doesn’t say that.  It says that justification cannot happen without…  For them to consistently misquote this passage is mortally sinful and shows that they are completely dishonest. And that is why the passage goes on to immediately declare, in the words which immediate follow, “as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” – thus confirming that there are no exceptions to anyone being saved without water baptism, and that John 3:5 is to be understood by all exactly “as it is written” – totally contrary to the concept of baptism of desire, which affirms that John 3:5 is not to be understood as it is written!

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).”

The dishonesty of the SSPX in consistently misquoting this passage reminds me of Fr. Laisney of the SSPX, who uttered one of the most egregious lies ever by a traditionalist.  In his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, Fr. Laisney says that the Council of Florence “mentions” baptism of desire!

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire.”

This is a complete lie sold in almost every SSPX bookstore.  But how many people care?  How many people continue to throw their support to this heretical and utterly dishonest group?  The denial of this dogma is rooted in deception.  It is rooted in misquotes; distortion; the elevation of non-infallible sources to infallible status; etc.  This is how the devil has been able to deny the necessity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith, which is now thoroughly imbibed by almost every so-called “Catholic.”  This is how the devil, in a grand scheme, was able to bring about the great apostasy by denying that most crucial dogma of Faith.  Regarding your question about the Pius XII quote in the newsletter, it is not a quote from Pius XII.  The quote to which you refer is not from Mystici Corporis, but from Protocol 122/49 (more deception).  It is important for the readers to know what Protocol 122/49 is.  There is also a section on it in the book, which we strongly encourage our readers to look at.  The letter is also called Suprema haec Sacra.  This fallible and non-binding letter was written on Aug. 8, 1949 by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani (a member of the Holy Office) to the heretical Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing.  Cushing, a B’nai Brith Man of the Year (who also called Outside the Church There is No Salvation “nonsense”) was very upset that Fr. Leonard Feeney was preaching that you must die a Catholic to be saved.  So Cushing wrote to the Holy Office which, by that time, was infected by modernist heretics who believed in salvation outside the Church.  Marchetti-Selvaggiani – one of those modernist heretics – wrote back, stating that one could be saved without being a member of the Church and if one is in invincible ignorance of the Faith.  In his letter, Marchetti-Selvaggiani tries to justify his heresy by referencing Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX and the Council of Trent, but none of those teachings say what he said (more distortion, deception, etc.) Immediately after the publication this letter, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:

VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

This letter assumed the status before the world of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, when it certainly was not.  The whole world therefore concluded that it is not necessary to be a Catholic.  If you want to know why basically no one who claims to be Catholic believes that the Church is necessary any more, you can thank this heretical letter, and its denunciation of Fr. Feeney.  This heretical, non-binding letter is adhered to by most of the “traditional” groups, including the SSPX, SSPV and the CMRI.  The letter was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.  It is not a binding or infallible teaching of the Church.  Here is just one passage from it:

Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing...      “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.  Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

In these lines we detect a denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a departure from the understanding of the dogma that Holy Mother Church has once declared.  Compare the following dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV with these paragraphs from Protocol 122/49, especially the underlined portions.