Bishop Robert Mckenna Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed
Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P. (born July 8, 1927) is a self-professed Dominican and traditional Catholic bishop residing at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut since 1973. He is known for his supposed traditionalist Catholic positions and is an advocate of sedeprivationism. He is also known from the Fox TV-movie The Haunted, which is about the Smurl haunting where McKenna conducted two exorcisms.
Robert Mckenna was made a bishop in 1986 by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers who served as confessor to Pope Pius XII from 1954-1955. Bishop McKenna continued to say Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary, Monroe, Connecticut, before retiring in 2011. He has consecrated seven bishops, including Bishop Donald Sanborn and was noted popularly as an exorcist.
Bishop Robert McKenna Exorcisms
This video contains an exorcism that was performed by Bishop Robert McKenna (you can download the file separately here by right clicking the link and "save link as"). As you can see in the video, the man could have converted if Bishop McKenna had explicitly told him that he must become Catholic for salvation. But amazingly, when someone we know asked Bishop McKenna if he told this man that he had to become Catholic, McKenna responded that he only gave the poor man a catechism (he didn’t tell him he had to convert)! (This is because Bishop McKenna holds the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith, as we will see.) Thus, just because a priest is able to perform an exorcism by virtue of the powers of the priesthood received at his ordination, or any laymen or priest for that matter by the power of the name of Jesus, it doesn’t mean that he is a good priest or layman or even an authentic Catholic, as Our Lord teaches us in Matthew, chapter 7:
“Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:22-23)
Nevertheless, this exorcism shows the powers of the true Catholic priesthood and traditional Catholic sacramentals against the Devil. And it shows that the Devil exists and is working assiduously for the ruin of souls.
Bishop Robert Mckenna’s Heresies
Bishop McKenna believe that souls can be saved in false religions, and he refuses the sacraments to anyone who believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved. Since he is a notorious heretic who not only imposes his heretical views upon those at his Masses, but also an automatically, majorly excommunicated notorious heretic, Catholics must avoid him and other such pestilential heretics’ Masses and not receive any sacraments from them under pain of mortal sin.
Automatic excommunication for all heretics, schismatics and apostates
If you claim that you can judge a devil-worshiper to be outside the Church and Communion, then, you can also judge someone who professes to be a Catholic, yet who holds to one or more heresies. But this is common sense, unless one is a liar.
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (1512-1517): “THE PENALTIES TO BE INCURRED, AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, for each and all of the aforesaid persons, if they act to the contrary (though may they not!), are immediate major excommunication, the incapacity for all and singular legal acts of any kind, being branded as infamous, and the penalties expressed in the law of treason;”
Here we see Pope Leo X affirming the dogmatic principle that some penalties are “incurred automatically and without the need for any further declaration” whenever one has committed a crime to which such an excommunication is attached. The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists some of these crimes:
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2335: “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto [by that very fact] an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”
Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church. Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church’s sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19.”
As we have seen already, people automatically excommunicated in this way are majorly excommunicated, which means that they must be shunned for religious purposes and the sacraments:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Part, Q. 23, Art. 1: “The other is major excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful [prayers, religious gatherings, etc.]. WHEREFORE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE WHO LIES UNDER SUCH AN EXCOMMUNICATION.”
The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”
The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect.
More on Bishop Robert Mckenna’s Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed
Sedeprivationism is a term coined by the self-professed British traditionalist Catholic theologian William J. Morgan for the ideological school or party of the "traditionalist Roman Catholic movement" that holds that the "Popes" since John XXIII have been defective but true "Popes", following the principles of the late French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., as Lauriers set it out in his thesis published in the Cahiers du Cassiciacum and therefore called the "Cassiciacum thesis".
According to Laurier's thesis, "Popes" John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and (implicitly) Benedict XVI and Francis were or are defective "Popes" in that, due to their supposed espousal of the "modernist heresy", their consent to become "Pope" was faulty or defective, so that they became potentially "Pope", but did not attain to the papacy.
This idea is also described in another manner by saying that they became "Pope" materially but not formally (the formula, "papa materialiter non formaliter").
Two consequences flow out of this thesis:
There is no real sede vacante since a man fills the role of potential Pope;
If the current potential Pope recants from Modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy.
The terms sedeprivationism and sedeprivationist were coined by the late English Sedevacantist William J. Morgan.
Besides the late bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., those Traditionalists prominent for subscribing to this explanation are: Bishops Robert F. McKenna, O.P. and Donald Sanborn in the U.S.A., and Fr. Francesco Ricossa and his Istituto Mater Bonii Consilii (alternative name Sodalitium Pianum), to which Bishop Geert Jan Stuyver belongs, located in Flanders as well as the cities of Turin and Rome in Italy.
Since being consecrated a bishop, McKenna has been one of the main promoters of the Cassiciacum Thesis (also called Sedeprivationism) developed by his consecrator, which states that the papal claimants since Paul VI have not been true popes due to their public heresies, but have only been papa materialiter. According to McKenna, by teaching that men have a "natural right" to worship as they see fit, the successors of John XXIII have attempted to put the heresy of ecumenism in place of Catholicism. Referring to this heresy as "a spiritual insanity," he wrote in, On Keeping Catholic:
"Now while the Popes of Vatican II, including the present Benedict XVI, can function on the purely natural level in running the Church as an organization or legal corporation, they have on the supernatural level - in view of their spiritual madness - no divine authority to speak for the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ or to govern the faithful in His name; no power [of jurisdiction], that is to say, to function precisely as the Vicar of Christ for so long as this insanity continues. They and the bishops under them, blindly following them, are lacking the jurisdiction they would otherwise have under normal circumstances. We must simply ignore them and carry on as best as we can without them."
Although he is sometimes classified as a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist, McKenna considers himself to be a Roman Catholic bishop just dealing with the Church crisis of the present day.
The Heretical Sedeprivationism/Cassiciacum Thesis
The ridiculous and heretical Formaliter/Materialiter position, also known as the Sedeprivationism or Cassiciacum Thesis formulated by the Thucite Bishop Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, is not the sedevacante position, as those who hold it will readily admit. They who hold this position believe that John Paul II is the pope, and he is not the pope. They believe he is formally not the pope, meaning he has no authority or jurisdiction, while at the same time he is materially the pope, meaning he physically occupies the Chair of Peter; that he is physically the pope, but not spiritually (no jurisdiction or power). Thus they have a body without a soul ruling the Church, a corpse ruling the Church. That is why it is a ridiculous position, because it insults common sense. It is also heretical because it denies the infallible teachings of the Vatican Council of 1870, that a pope has primacy, supreme power, and jurisdiction over the universal Church.
The First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, July 18, 1870: “1. That Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church… 9. If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to discipline and government… let him be anathema.”
Thus, to say that there can be such a thing as a pope without primacy, supreme power, and jurisdiction is heresy and those who obstinately teach it despite being aware of this information are heretics. This is the position, the Cassiciacum Thesis.
Bishop McKenna on No Salvation Outside the Church
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 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!
Recognizing that such an 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 Church there is no salvation, according to Mckenna and the heretical CMRI which printed this article in their magazine (Vol. XXIV, No. 83) because they believe the same thing, is not a truth from Heaven, but a warning or admonition written for non-Catholics! This is grotesque theological 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 statement by Pope Pius X
As we have already seen, 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.
McKenna and the CMRI are compelled to deny that dogmas are truths from Heaven and to belittle dogmas to fallible “warnings for non-Catholics” which can be corrected, because they desire to justify their heretical belief in salvation outside the Church – i.e., those “unknowingly” outside the Catholic Church – which belief, as they unwittingly admit by employing such argumentation, is directly contrary to the clear words of the dogmatic definitions.
This is perhaps what is most important about the heresy of Bishop Mckenna and the CMRI: the dogma deniers – that is, those who believe in the heresy that “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance” can save those who die as non-Catholics (such as Bishop McKenna and the CMRI and almost every modern priest whether he is “traditional” or Novus Ordo) – 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.
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.”
Bishop McKenna tells us that baptism of desire means that Jews who reject Christ can be saved
In a letter published on the internet by Most Holy Family Monastery (see Most Holy Family Monastery Exposed) from Bishop McKenna, McKenna fully explains and exposes his belief in salvation outside the Church, and that Jews who reject Christ can be saved. I will quote from his letter:
Bishop Robert McKenna, to Bro. Peter Dimond, Nov. 25, 2004: “2. I answer your ‘one simple question’ regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘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.’
“Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “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 (subjectively) a member of the Jewish Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), 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 (objectively) good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Fr. Fahey taught that a Jew who rejects Our Lord can be in the state of grace (and therefore be saved). Bishop Mckenna acknowledges this and fully agrees with it and states explicitly that “Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire.” This is as heretical as it gets. Baptism of desire, according to Bishop McKenna and many other false traditionalists, means that certain Jews who reject Christ can be saved. This is formal heresy and a denial of the central truth of the Gospel.
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.”
John 8:23-24: “And he [Jesus] said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”
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 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.”
The quote below is another example of a theologian before Vatican II who gave the false explanation of ‘baptism of desire,’ according to which one can be justified without being reborn or having the temporal punishment due to sin remitted. (By the way, almost all the ‘theologians’ in the years just before Vatican II also believed that souls could be saved in any religion and completely repudiated defined salvation dogma.) For those who aren’t familiar with the Catholic teaching on why it’s wrong to assert that one can be justified or saved without being reborn and having the temporal punishment due to sin remitted, see this article and the quotes below.
The following explanation is typical of how ‘baptism of desire’ was propounded. This shows, once again, that the doctrine itself is false. ‘Theologian’ after ‘theologian’ was simply feeding people a false doctrine. These examples are significant because the enemies of the necessity of the Catholic Church in our day base their positions on the views of fallible pre-Vatican II theologians. In many cases, they were the men whose errors and heresies paved the way for the Vatican II apostasy.
Adolphe Tanquerey (d. 1932), A Manual of Dogmatic Theology. Vol. II., New York: Desclee Company, 1959, pp. 227-229.: “Contrition or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins… An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God. It is certainly sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, it very probably is sufficient in one who knows the need of Baptism. Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptismal character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin. Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given.”
Tanquerey teaches that one can be justified without having the temporal punishment due to sin removed. His statement is contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that the temporal punishment due to sin is necessarily removed by the grace of rebirth/baptism, and that one must have that grace to even be justified. Moreover, the notion that one can be incorporated into Christ (which is necessary for justification and salvation) without becoming entirely new (and therefore having everything taken away) is contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament on the new birth. ‘Baptism of desire’ is opposed to dogmatic teaching and the clear testimony of Holy Scripture.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “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 effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
Notice, the effect of rebirth or baptism is that everything is removed (the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin), so that a person who dies in that state is not delayed in any way from immediately entering Heaven. (The temporal punishment due to sin is what can delay those who die in grace from immediately entering Heaven.) One must be born again (i.e., have everything removed) to even be justified (put into a state of grace).
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “FOR IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates… but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
The explanation of ‘baptism of desire’ advanced by Tanquerey and others is that ‘baptism of desire’ justifies without granting rebirth or the removal of the temporal punishment due to sin. That explanation is clearly false, as the teaching above proves. The reason theologians erred so greatly in attempting to explain ‘baptism of desire’ is that the doctrine they were defending (‘baptism of desire’) is itself false.
Thanks for exposing Tanquerey’s [errors]… I also noted that Tanquerey held that Baptism does not remit Original Sin and infuse sanctifying grace for many (if not most) baptisees, because they had ‘probably’ already obtained these through Desire alone!
Where does this nonsense stop? Confirmation of Desire? Extreme Unction of Desire? Holy Matrimony of Desire? Ordination of Desire?!
With regard to his false teaching that Baptism does not remit Original Sin for many, because it supposedly already happened prior to Baptism, this canon is also interesting:
Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin, #5: “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.”
Subject: False Doctrine of Tanquerey
It does, indeed, appear that many heretical priests have read Tanquerey; for who among 'Catholics' has not perused The Spiritual Life? I remember a Franciscan priest that gave Sunday afternoon talks on Tanquerey's writings, back in the late 1990s - right before I received your material (which I thank God for).
It also appears that, in particular, Anthony Cekada has taken this false idea of Tanquerey's, quoted in your article, as part of the infallible ordinary magisterium, and has extended it beyond perhaps even Tanquerey's erroneous notions. When I telephoned Cekada, he told me the same things that Tanqueray wrote: "...perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins..." "It is certainly sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant..." "Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace..."
… I told him that a person cannot have [saving] charity [faith and hope by a baptism of desire] until that person receives the sacrament of baptism, for that is how we receive faith, hope and charity: the three theological virtues (should I have to tell a 'priest' of this truth?). The faithless heretic Cekada simply fast-talked his way out of answering me. But Cekada made it clear that he believes in 'invincible ignorance'… he believes that the heresies held and taught currently by almost all the false traditionalist priests - against the dogma that sacramental baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation - are part of the 'infallible ordinary magisterium' since 'theologians' taught and published it in catechisms - even though it doesn't agree with the infallible extraordinary magisterium (which Cekada and others ignore on this issue); and he believes in, and applies 'baptism of desire' to: Jews, Muslims and other pagans (as long as they're "nice" Jews, Muslims and pagans).
I counted at least five contradictions in the paragraph you quoted from Tanquerey…
Tanqueray's errors are really, as you say, false doctrines… It demonstrates that those who obstinately adhere to this particular heresy (in fact, any heresy) do not believe in Jesus Christ. They don't. For if they did, they would not render the words of Jesus Christ, the acts of His apostles, the works and martyrdoms of Catholic missionaries meaningless!...
CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS
The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)
The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”
This means that all validly baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”
The fact is that all Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.
The baptized children who reach the age of reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic faith, Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see: The Natural Law) or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.
Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)
This means that the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as we have seen) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously [or obstinately] denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
Please consult the following sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:
NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
The following statements on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are from the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees (decrees from the Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching given to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium (the extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra (infallible statement from the chair of Peter): “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
As we can see from this infallible statement from the chair of Peter, no one at all can be saved unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.. Yet, many people today who call themselves Catholic or Christian, boldly and obstinately assert the direct opposite of this statement and claim that protestants, heretics, Jews, schismatics and even Pagans can attain eternal life.
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.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, 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.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)
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.”
Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is true) second.A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it.That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.
St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”