An
Unanswered Letter?
Our letter
“debate” with Bishop McKenna on Baptism of Desire
By Bro.
Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
* If you are trying to print out only certain
pages of this or any other document, use the Print-preview option under the
File drop down option on the upper left side of your computer. This will allow you to print only those pages
you want to print.*
[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).”
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
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
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 [
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
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
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
THE PASSAGE DOES NOT SAY THIS; IT SAYS
THAT JUSTIFICATION CANNOT
BUT WHEN ONE PINS DOWN THE FACT THAT TO
SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT
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]
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.”
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
Appendix
1)
Click here for: Appendix Item 1 This
is the detailed discussion of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of
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.
SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF
OBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on
Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place
by the water of baptism or the desire for it!
So there!
ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4
of
That being noted,
this passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can
take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for
it.
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).”
First off, the reader should note that
this crucial passage from
Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the
reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches
that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any
possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the
Sacrament of Baptism. There is no
way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is
written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water
and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire
denies. The theory of baptism of desire and
an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they
cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent
will admit this. That is why all of them
must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
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… The great
question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”
Fr. Laisney, a fierce
baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be
understood as it is written if
baptism of desire is true. He therefore
holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply
literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written. But how does
the Catholic Church understand these words?
What does the passage in
But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use
of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or
the desire for it. A careful look at the
correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false. Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take
place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a shower can take place
by the desire to take a shower? No it
doesn’t. It means that both (water and
desire) are necessary.
Or suppose I said, “There cannot
be a Wedding without a Bride or a Groom.” Does this mean that you can have a Wedding
with a Groom and not a Bride? Of course
not. It means that both are necessary
for the Wedding. One could give hundreds
of other examples. Likewise, the passage
above in
AUT (OR) USED TO MEAN “AND” IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNCILS
In fact, the Latin word aut (“or”) is used in a similar way in
other passages in the Council of Trent and other Councils. In the famous Bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word
aut (“or”) used in a context which
definitely renders it meaning “and.”
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 [aut]
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.”
Here we see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is
equivalent to “and.” The Council
declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this mean that either Jews or heretics
will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and
none of the heretics can be saved. Thus,
this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”
Similarly, in the introduction to the decree on Justification, the
Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach or
teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is
defined and declared in the decree on Justification.
Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly
forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or
teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”
Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only
forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on Justification, but
one is allowed to teach contrary to it?
No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and
teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above “or” means that
justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to
mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on
Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother
Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be
repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the
Church.”
Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may
not be repudiated, but it may be changed?
No, obviously it means that both repudiation and a change are
forbidden. This is another example of
how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning
“and” or “both.” And these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage,
refute the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut
in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.
But why does
Catechism
of the Council of Trent, On Baptism -
Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: “INTENTION - ... In the first place they
must desire and intend to receive it…”
AN INTERESTING E-MAIL REGARDING THIS
PASSAGE OF
Interestingly,
I happened to e-mail a question about this passage from the Council of Trent
and its use of the word “or” (aut) to
a Latin Scholar from
“The passage in Latin is this: ‘quae quidem translatio ... sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto
fieri non potest...’
“It is translated: ‘This transition... cannot take place
without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.’
”This literally says that the transition cannot happen without the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it (meaning you must have both). It does not
say that it can take place with either one, don't you agree? Is it not equivalent to my saying: This
shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one (meaning both
are necessary); and is it not equivalent to saying: this article cannot be
written without pen or pad (meaning both are necessary)? You can use aut in this way in Latin, can you not?
”Any thoughts you have I would be very interested in. Thank you.”
And she
responded on Dec. 1, 2003 as follows:
“This is not easy! It
is possible to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.
“Aut as 'or' is more common,
but here the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for
baptism is enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the
desire as well as the sacrament itself.
I'll leave it to you to decide!
Best wishes,
Carolinne White
OXFORD LATIN”
While I disagree with Ms. White that the
passage can be read in both ways, her testimony is nevertheless very
interesting. I disagree with that point
because to say that something cannot take place without “x” or “x” is
not necessarily to say that something can take place with either “x”
alone or “x” alone. I don’t believe that
Ms. White is reading the passage literally enough. For example: to say a sacrament cannot take
place without matter or form
is not to say that a sacrament can take place with matter alone or form
alone. Nevertheless, Ms. White’s
statement is very important and very interesting in that it shows that in her
professional opinion as a Latin Scholar, the passage using “or” (aut) can definitely be read as “and,” something many baptism of desire
advocates absolutely reject as impossible!
She further admits that the
interpretation depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is
enough – I believe a very honest statement in her regard! And she said this without my giving her the
rest of the context; namely, where the Council of Trent declares, immediately
after using the words “or the desire for it,” that John 3:5 is to be
understood as it is written.
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
The point is, therefore, that, at the
very least, all baptism of desire advocates must admit that this passage
can be read both ways, and therefore that the
understanding depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is
enough or not. But if a baptism of desire advocate admits (as he must in honesty) that
this passage may not teach baptism of
desire, then he is admitting that the understanding of it must be garnered not
only from the immediate context (which affirms John 3:5 as it is written and therefore excludes baptism of desire),
but also from all of the other statements on Baptism and Justification in Trent. And what do all of the other passages in
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacramen