baptism of desire | the catholic church

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).”

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, 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.

SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

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 Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved. It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism. Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]

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 Trent has been horribly mistranslated in Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma. The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI. That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the Council actually says here.

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. 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 Trent that we just discussed say: It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

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 Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!

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 Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for Justification? In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii – the justification of the impious (see quote above). The impii (“impious”) does not refer to infants – who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). The word “impii” in Latin is actually a very strong word, according to a Latin scholar I consulted, and he agreed that it is too strong to describe an infant in original sin only. It is sometimes translated as “wicked” or “sinner.” Therefore, in this chapter, Trent is dealing with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for Justification. In fact, the next few chapters of Trent on Justification (Chaps. 5-7) are all about adult Justification, further demonstrating that the Justification of adult sinners is the context, especially when the word impii is considered. That is why the chapter defines that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it (both are necessary).

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 TRENT

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 England, just to get the person’s thoughts. I do not even know this person whom I e-mailed, and I don’t think that she is even a Catholic. She is a Latin Scholar from Oxford Latin and I believe she answered honestly and impartially. Her response is very interesting and very important, especially for those people who are convinced that the Council of Trent taught “baptism of desire.” I wrote to her as follows:

“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 kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

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 Trent say on the necessity of Baptism? Do they teach an understanding open to baptism of desire, or do they exclude any salvation without water baptism? The answer is undeniable.

The interpretation of “or” in Sess. 6., Chap. 4 as “and” is not only possible (as Ms. White admits), but it is perfectly compatible with all of these infallible definitions, while the interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is incompatible with all of these definitions, not to mention (most importantly) the words “as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” which come immediately after “or a desire for it” and in the same sentence.

The interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with the teaching of the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and there cannot exist disharmony between dogmatic councils.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with the Council of Trent’s extensive definition just three chapters later on the causes of Justification. Just three chapters later, the Council lists four causes for Justification in the impious.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”

In listing all of the causes of Justification, why didn’t the Council mention the possibility of “baptism of desire”? It had ample opportunity to do so, just as it clearly taught no less than 3 times that the graces of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire for that Sacrament (Sess. 14, Chap. 4; and twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14). But “baptism of desire” is mentioned nowhere, simply because it is not true. And it is further interesting to consider that the word “desire” shows up not in Chapter 7 on the Causes of Justification, but in Chapter 4 where the Council is talking about what cannot be missing in the Justification of the impious (namely, neither water nor desire can be missing in the justification of the impious).

But some will say: “I see your point and I cannot deny it, but why didn’t the passage use the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or’; it would have been clearer then?” This question is best answered by considering a number of things:

First, it must be remembered that the passage describes what Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (i.e., what cannot be missing in Justification); it does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire.

Second, the Council didn’t have to use “and” because “or” can mean “and” in the context of words given in the passage, as shown already.

Third, those who ask this question should consider another, namely: why in the world, if baptism of desire is true and was the teaching of Trent, didn’t the Council say anywhere (when it had so many opportunities to do so) that one can be justified without the Sacrament or before the Sacrament is received just as it clearly and repeatedly did in regard to the Sacrament of Penance? This amazing omission (obviously because the Holy Ghost didn’t allow the Council to teach baptism of desire in its many statements on the absolute necessity of baptism) simply confirms the points that I’ve made above, because if the passage meant baptism of desire it would have said so.

Fourth, the above question is best answered by a parallel example: In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church. If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day. That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, surely would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

So, did the Council of Constantinople err? Of course not. But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy? Absolutely. So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the Council Fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase? The answer is that there must be heresies.

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires. God never allows His Councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the Council Fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son. The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. All that matters is what the actual dogma declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.

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.”

Interesting in this regard is the fact that numerous Popes point out that, in the 28^th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers at Chalcedon drew up a canon that elevated the status of the Bishop of Constantinople. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, therefore, intended to elevate the status of the See of Constantinople in drawing up Canon 28. But the canon was rejected by the Pope in his confirmation of the acts of Chalcedon, and therefore was considered worthless.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28^th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”

This shows that the intention or thoughts of the fathers at a General Council mean nothing – they are worthless. All that matters is what the Church actually declares. Therefore, the fact that some of the Council Fathers at Trent – and even eminent and sainted theologians after Trent – thought the aforementioned passage of Trent taught baptism of desire means nothing; for the fathers at Chalcedon also thought the Council was elevating the status of Constantinople, when it didn’t; and some of the fathers at Constantinople probably thought that the Council was denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, when it didn’t. The bottom-line is that only those things that are actually declared by the Councils matter – nothing else. And the aforementioned passage of Trent does not teach baptism of desire; it does not teach that desire justifies without baptism; and it does not contain error.

The fact is that God made sure that the words “as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that the Council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course. Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5. The inclusion of “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)” shows the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other Councils which affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions.

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI

OBJECTION- St. Alphonsus taught that baptism of desire is “de fide” (of the faith). This means that baptism of desire is dogma!

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

ANSWER- First, St. Alphonsus was not infallible. It is simply a fact that St. Alphonsus made some theological mistakes, as the following discussion will show. To advance St. Alphonsus’ opinion about some aspect of the faith as if it were a dogma is not Catholic.

Second, St. Augustine held that it was de fide that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of hell and St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly baptize. Both were dead wrong.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “…St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires of hell]...”

St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We… judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be baptized…”

Third, the root of St. Alphonsus’ error on baptism of desire was that he misunderstood Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent (his opinion on this passage simply does not hold up under scrutiny – see the discussion of that passage). And this mistake led to his false conclusion that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church. The passage which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire does not teach baptism of desire, but affirms: as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Fourth, in teaching baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus was teaching that one can be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood of Christ without the water of baptism and this is contrary to that which Pope St. Leo the Great infallibly defined. When a clash occurs between dogmatic definitions and the opinions of Saints, the Catholic, of course, goes with the dogmatic definitions, no matter how great or learned the Saint may be.

Finally, most theologians after St. Alphonsus who believed in “baptism of desire” didn’t even hold his opinion that baptism of desire is de fide. Most of them said that baptism of desire is close to the faith, not defined of the faith. Hardly any of them said that it is defined of the faith. This fact proves that it is NOT of the faith, because such a discrepancy would not exist among the theologians who claim to favor it if it could be demonstrated that baptism of desire is of the faith. Here is an admission by a defender of baptism of desire:

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 43: “The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith.”

If the Council of Trent taught baptism of desire, then baptism of desire is a defined article of the Faith. But the Council of Trent did not teach baptism of desire, which is why Fr. Rulleau is forced to admit that it is not defined of the faith, but only (in his view) “proximate to the faith.” “Proximate to the faith” and “of the faith” are not the same. Fr. Rulleau (a fierce advocate of the theory) would not be caught softening his own position if he could prove that it is of the faith, but he cannot. Thus, St. Alphonsus’ statement is wrong for several reasons: 1) it is contrary to defined dogma (Pope St. Leo the Great and the understanding of Trent on John 3:5 as it is written); 2) his statement cannot be proven – no definition can be cited; 3) it is not shared by even the theologians who believe in baptism of desire; 4) there are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated.

Let’s examine # 4) there are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated. To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. He says:

“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”

This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the Sacrament is received. It says nothing of baptism! St. Alphonsus’ very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises? In fact, the incredibly dishonest author of the Society of St. Pius X on baptism of desire, Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’ erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire! This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.

And this shows again what I have been demonstrating throughout this document: that basically all the saints and theologians who expressed belief in baptism of desire contradicted themselves in explaining it while making other errors in the same document.

It should also be noted that, although St. Alphonsus mentioned that he believed that an adult could be saved by the explicit desire or implicit desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, he uses the word implicit not to mean “not known,” but rather “not expressed in words” – in other words, an adult who knows of Baptism and desires it, but does not express this desire in words. St. Alphonsus, even though wrong about baptism of desire, did not hold to the modern day heresy of invincible ignorance – the idea that an adult can be saved by baptism of desire who does not believe in Christ or the Church and does not know of Baptism. St. Alphonsus would rightly condemn such an idea as heretical.

1. St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)

It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St. Alphonsus in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were infallible – are asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell), almost all of them avoid the question like the plague. They avoid the question because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’ position. Rather, they believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans and therefore they are in heresy for that reason alone.

2. 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.” (Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846. Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin, p. 57.)

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.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)

St. Alphonsus: “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.” (Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, p. 339.)

One can see that, although St. Alphonsus was incorrect in his belief that baptism of desire could be efficacious in an adult who died before receiving the sacrament, he condemned the modern day heresy which asserts that one can attain salvation in another religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic Mysteries of Faith.

Another point that is useful in refuting the objection from St. Alphonsus’ teaching on baptism of desire is what St. Alphonsus taught concerning the so-called baptism of blood.

St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.”

What St. Alphonsus teaches here is completely wrong. He teaches that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by martyrdom. This is directly contrary to the ex cathedra teaching of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope Eugene IV here defines from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil other than the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Alphonsus teaches that there is another remedy in martyrdom. St. Alphonsus’ opinion on this matter cannot be held, since it contradicts the Council of Florence. Now, we know that St. Alphonsus is a Saint in heaven because the Church has told us this – in fact, he is my favorite spiritual writer; but here St. Alphonsus was contradicting the solemn teaching of the Magisterium: that the Sacrament of Baptism is the only remedy for infants. We must conclude, therefore, that St. Alphonsus was not obstinate in his teaching on baptism of blood for infants; that is, he was not aware that his opinion contradicted the teaching of the Church, especially the teaching of the Council of Florence. However, if he or anyone else were to hold such an opinion obstinately (i.e., after being shown that it contradicted Florence), then such a one would be a heretic and outside the Catholic Church. This proves that it is possible for brilliant saints, who are even doctors of the Church, to err in a very significant way on certain matters of the faith. Other saints have as well, as I have shown in the section on the Fathers.

Another error we find in the paragraph from St. Alphonsus is his reference to the Holy Innocents as an example of baptism of blood. This is erroneous because the Holy Innocents’ deaths occurred before the Resurrection of Christ – before the law of baptism was instituted.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Further, notice how St. Alphonsus says above that the opinion that baptism of blood is not efficacious in infants is temerarious (reckless). In other words, he is teaching with Suarez that it is “reckless” to believe that infants who die without sacramental baptism will not be saved. In teaching this he was actually proposing the very error of John Wyclif solemnly anathematized at the Council of Constance.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved. And he was anathematized for this proposition, among many others. I have already quoted what The Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above, but I will quote it again here.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”

St. Alphonsus is actually the best-selling author of all time, having written more than 111 books, not including his letters. It is not at all surprising that he, being a fallible human being, made some mistakes in matters of faith. But his error on baptism of desire stemmed from the fact that he erroneously thought that it was taught in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. That is the main reason he believed in it: he thought it was taught by Trent and from that mistake he erroneously interpreted the Canons on Baptism in Trent (including the all exclusive Canon 5) as somehow to be understood in light of baptism of desire.

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.”

If St. Alphonsus had more literally examined Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, he would have seen that it does not teach baptism of desire (as discussed in the section on that passage), but affirms John 3:5 as it is written.

It is also important to note that while the principle of Papal infallibility was always believed in the Church (expressed from the earliest times by such phrases as in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated), there is no doubt that after the definition of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more clarity about which documents are infallible and which are not. St. Alphonsus and others who lived before 1870 did not necessarily have this degree of clarity, which caused many of them to lessen the distinction, in certain cases, between the infallible decrees of Popes and the fallible teaching of theologians. It also caused them to not look quite as literally at what the dogma actually says, but rather at what the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular theologians of the time.

For instance, in arguing that baptism of desire is de fide, St. Alphonsus referenced the statement from Innocent III or Innocent II (they don’t even know which one) on the “priest” who was unbaptized, which I have discussed. But obviously that letter of Innocent (?) or whoever it was to an Archbishop did not meet the requirements for Papal Infallibility, and contains a clear error (referring to an unbaptized person as a “priest”). The fallibility of this document is not something that St. Alphonsus seems to have given much consideration. And this proves what I said above, that St. Alphonsus’ conclusions are fallible and that one cannot unfailingly rely upon them.

When Our Lord spoke to Peter about Satan’s desire to sift the apostles (Lk. 22:31-32), He told him that He prayed for “thee (singular), that thy (Peter’s) faith fail not…” He did not say, “but I have prayed for all of you, that your faith fail not.” Only St. Peter and his successors have been promised an unfailing faith, and this when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter (cf. Vatican I, Sess. 4, Chap. 4, Denz. 1837). The Popes when speaking with this unfailing faith, such as Pope St. Leo the Great in his dogmatic tome to Flavian, the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and the Council of Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism (Sess. 7, Can. 5), exclude any possibility of salvation without water baptism and affirm infallibly that unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That is what a Catholic must adhere to and believe.

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

Another very important aspect to this issue is the Dogmatic Profession of Faith issued by the Council of Trent and by Vatican Council I. Both Councils infallibly declared that the Sacramental System as a whole is necessary for salvation, and this truth must be professed and believed by all Catholics and by converts.

Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”

Notice that Pope Pius IV in “Iniunctum nobis,” the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, declares that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are necessary for man’s salvation, but it adds that all are not necessary for each individual. This is very interesting and it proves two points:

1) It proves that every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation. Hence, this definition (besides the others) shows that each man must at least receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.

2) Notice that the Council of Trent (and Vatican I below) made it a special point when defining this truth to emphasize that each person does not need to receive all of the sacraments to be saved! This proves that where exceptions or clarifications are necessary in defining truths the Councils will include them! Thus, if some men could be saved without “the sacraments” by “baptism of desire” then the Council could have and would have simply said that.

But nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in these dogmatic professions of Faith. Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation was defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all 7 of the sacraments are not necessary for each person.

The First Vatican Council repeated the same Profession of Faith, which is a dogma. It made this Profession in the very first statement on Faith at Vatican I.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”

No matter how hard one tries to avoid it, “baptism of desire” is incompatible with this truth, a truth which must be professed and believed by Catholics and by converts from heresy. In fact, this dogma blows away the theory of baptism of desire.

Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental character.”

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.

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.

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.

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, 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…

“If you 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 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:

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…”

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.

-Get the new book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation for $8.00 for much more on this issue, and for all of the documentation for these and other important aspects to this controversy, which is at the heart of the Great Apostasy -