CMRI (cmri.org) Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen)

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (also known as CMRI and the Fatima Crusaders) is a self-professed Catholic and validly ordained priestly society originating in the United States, founded in 1967. It offers the Tridentine Mass and claims to preach the traditional Catholic faith, rejecting the Second Vatican Council and upholds a right and true sedevacantist position in regards to the Vatican II sect claimants to the Papacy, since the Vatican II sect is totally apostate. Their headquarters is at Mount Saint Michael in Spokane, Washington.

Under their founder Bishop Francis Schuckardt, the organisation was somewhat controversial because of the erratic behaviour of this figure and the fact that he illicitly received his orders from the schismatical apostolic line of the Old Catholic Church (Jansenists); though the CMRI has always claimed to espouse the traditional Catholic faith.

The present Superior General, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, derives his apostolic lineage through the line of the heretical Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, “Archbishop” of Huế in Vietnam (he attended the robber’s Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed its documents and there is no record of him ever recanting or abjuring from his heresies, and by that fact alone, he was known to be a notorious heretic who is not Catholic and holds no office in the Church). This means that even if Mark Pivarunas was Catholic (which he is not), his consecration by Thuc would still not only be considered illegal, but also schismatical if he knew that Bishop Thuc was a heretic or schismatic.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders, but not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. …Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. …The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 103-105)

By decreeing “in no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites use for going to the notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc to be consecrated bishops or ordained priests. They say there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated or ordained, but Canon Law condemns this as we have seen. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. … Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred.”

All those consecrated by Bishop Thuc or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) cannot exercise their orders lawfully since they (in addition to being heretics and outside the Church) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments: “If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967). Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine Law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-Catholics and heretics).

Mark Pivarunas was later consecrated as a bishop by Bishop Moisés Carmona of Mexico in 1991. At present the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen serves 29 churches and chapels in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The organisation is growing and now has centres in Europe, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. It also operates the Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, while the nuns attached to the congregation have a convent at Spokane.

If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”

The Heretical CMRI

The following sections contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery

Many traditional Catholics are familiar with the priests of the CMRI. For those who are not, the CMRI is a society of priests which professes to be Roman Catholic, ordains men validly according to the traditional Roman Rite, rejects the New Mass, the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes. The CMRI has done many good things in favor of tradition and against the Vatican II Counter Church, and for those things it deserves credit.

However, we have pointed out in our newsletters and magazines the unfortunate yet undeniable fact that the priests of the CMRI hold to heresy (as will be shown below). The priests of the CMRI hold to heresy first and foremost for their obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. The CMRI holds that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Such a position is heresy.

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.”

Also see:

I ask those supporters of the CMRI who are unfamiliar with the CMRI’s belief in this regard not to dismiss this as something you simply cannot accept (because the Catholic Church condemns you if you do). Please consider the points below. Since the CMRI priests reject a Catholic dogma, no one aware of this fact (which will be proven below) can support them, be in religious communion with them or receive the sacraments from them under pain of mortal sin. Those who continue to do so obstinately will partake in their mortal sins against the faith and will follow them to damnation.

Pope St. Felix III (5th Century): “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men - when we can do it - is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

James 4:17: “To him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325.1: “Obligation to Profess the Faith - The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to their neighbor.”

Pope Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”

The Catholic Church teaches the following concerning religious association and communion with known heretics and schismatics and entering their Churches:

Council of Laodicea, Canon 9 (A.D. 364): “The members of the Church are not allowed to meet... any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.”

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258: “It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism [attributed to] Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism)

Peter Dimond, “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes: “The sin is caused by communicating with them [the heretics] despite (against) the Church’s prohibition...”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 82, Art. 7, Reply to Objection 2: “Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 23, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 2: “The commandment of the Church regards spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by holding communion in Divine worship [such as with a heretic,] one acts against the commandment, and commits a mortal sin;”

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…”

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.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues (c. 593 A.D.): “Rather ought every one to submit to death, than to receive the sacrament of communion from the hand of a heretic.” (Quoted by Gratian, Decretum, 42. xxiv. q. 1)

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house [at meetinghouses of heretics] will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house [at the meetinghouses of the heretics] is unholy.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

Pope Paul V (1552-1621), repeating his predecessors' interdict [of Pope Paul IV (1476-1559)]: “Great has been the grief of our mind for the tribulations and calamities ye have constantly undergone for your adherence to the Catholic faith; and as we understand that these trials are become more severe at present, our affliction is increased exceedingly. For we are informed that ye are compelled, under the most grievous penalties, to go to the churches of heretics, to frequent their meetings, and be present at their sermons. Indeed we are fully persuaded that ye who, with so much fortitude and constancy, have hither-to undergone almost infinite miseries, that ye might walk without stain in the law of the Lord, will never consent to be defiled by communicating with those who have forsaken the Divine law. Nevertheless, urged by the zeal of our pastoral duty, and from paternal solicitude with which we daily labour for the salvation of your souls, we are forced to admonish and conjure you, that ON NO ACCOUNT YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES OF HERETICS, OR HEAR THEIR SERMONS, OR JOIN IN THEIR RITES, LEST YE INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD; FOR IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT DISHONOURING GOD, AND HURTING YOUR OWN SOULS.” (Quoted in Bp. George Hay's, "The Sincere Christian". [Pope Paul V repeated his predecessors' interdict of Pope Paul IV, on September 22nd, 1606 A.D. in his brief Romani Pontificis, contra juramentum Fidelitatis – The Roman Pontiff, against the Alligence.])

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, (06/01/1928): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

The point is clearly made by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos:

Catholics are absolutely forbidden to have “…any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching…” and the “… Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”

Which is why St. Paul says:

You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

Because any obstinate adult practitioner of a false sect or religion is serving the Devil and not the true God, being the child of this Devil, any practice of his false religion or sect is a partaking “of the table of the devils.” This means the religious ceremonies and prayers of a false sect or religion.

Apostolic Constitutions, Book II, Section 7:62 (c. 380 AD.): “Take heed, therefore, not to join yourselves in your worship with those that perishFor there is no fellowship between God and the devil; for he that assembles himself with those that favour the things of the devil, will be esteemed one of them, and will inherit a woe. … So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid the assemblies of the ungodly… and of the rest of the heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to them we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by joining in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be partakers with them in their impiety.”

Our Almighty Creator is appalled when His children soil themselves with the filth of false religions or non-Catholic sects. So while it is wrong to be at the ceremonies and prayers of a false religion because it misleads non-Catholics and scandalizes Catholics, more than anything by far is it gravely sinful because it betrays God Himself. God commands all men to worship in His Religion of Catholicism, and He is exceedingly angry when people violate this most important of His commandments.

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., 1948: “Article I—Active Participation (Canon 1258, §1): If the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church. [Hence] active religious participation with schismatics is always intrinsically illicit. The reasons for this absolute prohibition of canon 1258, §1, have their origin in the natural and positive divine law. These reasons are: 1) The Church is the only de jure [by law] existing true religious society in which it is licit to render to God the worship that is due Him; 2) the giving of scandal through one’s quasi-approval of a false sect must be avoided; and 3) the danger of perversion from the true faith must remain effectively neutralized.” (pp. 42-48)

As Rev. Ignatius Szal explains from the beginning of his Canon Law commentary:

Communication in religious rites [with heretics and schismatics] is forbidden because of accompanying dangers such as perversion of faith and scandal to others. This prohibition of the Church, found in Can. 1258, extends not only to active participation with schismatics in rites that are of their nature non-Catholic, BUT ALSO EXCLUDES COMMUNICATION WITH THEM IN RITES WHICH, THOUGH PECULIARLY CATHOLIC, ARE EXERCISED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A NON-CATHOLIC SECT.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

First Rev. Szal begins with questions asked the Holy Office concerning the attendance at the Masses of schismatics. On Dec. 5, 1668, the Holy Office ordered a bishop to instruct his people not to go to Mass or other Divine offices in the churches of schismatics, and to warn them that THEY WERE NOT BOUND BY THE PRECEPT OF HEARING MASS WHEN THERE WAS NO CELEBRATION OF A CATHOLIC MASS, which means that if there is no Catholic Mass available (a Catholic rite said by a Catholic priest), 1) one cannot attend a non-Catholic Mass, and 2) one is not held to the precept of hearing Holy Mass. (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus [hereafter Col.]. Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907. Vol. I, p. 54, n. 171 (1668))

Continuing his assay of Holy Office pronouncements, Szal lists further decisions concerning Holy Communion. On June 17, 1839, The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith forbade the reception of Holy Communion from an heretical priest. A general prohibition against receiving any sacraments from schismatics was issued by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605). Benedict XIV (1740-1758) also forbade the use of the services given by schismatics for the conferring of the sacraments. Rev. Szal gives this stunning summary of these decisions as follows:

From the nature of the response which the Holy Office gave to questions concerning the reception of absolution and Extreme Unction from schismatics on the part of persons who are in danger of death, IT SEEMS TO BE THE MIND OF THE CHURCH THAT VIATICUM SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVED FROM SCHISMATICS UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.” (Ibid., Rev. Ignatius J. Szal)

1. The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.” It was published in the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, The CMRI’s publication (Vol. XXIV, No. 70, p. 10.).

The article indicates that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved, which is a blatant rejection of Catholic teaching. In fact, the title of the article “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church” is a word for word denial of the Catholic dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” It is equivalent to publishing an article entitled: “The Original Sin Mary Had.”

This heresy was so blatant that I called the headquarters of the CMRI in Washington and spoke to one of the priests about the article. He told me that he had “no problem with it.” They hold to this heresy because they adhere to Protocol 122/49, the heretical letter also called Suprema haec sacra which was published in 1949 against Fr. Leonard Feeney. This heretical, non-infallible letter teaches salvation by “implicit” baptism of desire, including for those in “invincible ignorance,” and for those who are not “members” of the Church, and for those “who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church.” In other words, it teaches that there is salvation for some people who don’t have the Catholic Faith or believe in Jesus Christ. This is blatantly heretical. Its teachings are utterly refuted by Catholic dogma, as proven in the section at the end of this article.

The CMRI recently published a pamphlet defending “baptism of desire” which implements arguments which have all been thoroughly refuted. They use a combination of fallible texts (which don’t prove the point), misunderstood texts (which don’t state what they claim) and mistranslated texts to inculcate their false position. In fact, they outrageously still use the “except through” mistranslation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent that has been discussed in this article. They also don’t tell you in their easily refuted and dishonest pamphlet that they hold that it’s possible for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be united to the Church and saved.

2. In the Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary (publication of the CMRI) Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp. 4-5, featured another heretical article called “The Boston Snare,” by Bishop Robert McKenna. Like the CMRI, Bishop Mckenna believes that members of all kinds of non-Catholic religions can be saved. He says that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly” outside the Church, which is a heretical idea.

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 Catholicsbut 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.

The CMRI has printed other heretical articles on this issue, but it is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their priests, that they 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 Christ. This heresy is held by almost all priests today.

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS

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.”

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 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:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/#material-heresy

http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/#the-natural-law

3. A priest from the CMRI’s seminary in Nebraska and a nun from the CMRI convent in Washington told me (when I questioned them over the telephone) that non-Catholics who die in their false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith.

This has been the response of every priest of the CMRI that I have questioned about this issue. While they admit that they believe that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic faith, and while they admit that they have no problem with articles which deny Outside the Church there is no salvation word for word, the priests of the CMRI will also claim that they do hold the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation! Therefore, the priests of the CMRI are heretical liars: they claim to hold Outside the Church there is no salvation while they print articles denying it word for word and while they tell anyone who asks them the appropriate questions that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith!

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine [on no salvation outside the Church], however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Notice that the SSPV writer “simply refuse to believe” in the Church’s dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. This is the SSPV’s public teaching (and all of these heretical priestly societies teaches their heresies publicly). 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.

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 Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian Creed”, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish eternally.”

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.”

The CMRI is in heresy, therefore, against the above infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, in addition to many other statements from the Magisterium. For those who find it hard to believe that the priests of the CMRI could be this heretical and dishonest, do not be surprised at all. Basically every single heretic who denies the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation will tell you that he is not denying it. The heretics who believe in salvation outside the Catholic Church know that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, so they cannot always come right out and blatantly deny it (although the CMRI even did that in the article they printed). The heretics who deny this dogma don’t primarily reject it in name but in its meaning.

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.”

The only meaning of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is that which holy Mother Church “has once declared” in Her definitions. That meaning is that all who die without the Catholic Faith or outside the Church or in a non-Catholic religion cannot be saved.

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.”

The CMRI totally rejects this meaning, as does almost every modern day priest. Their meaning or “version” of this dogma is not what the Church says it is; in fact, it is the opposite. Their “version” of Outside the Church there is no salvation is that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved without the Catholic faith in their false religions!

All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.

St. Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is worshipping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1997)

Because God is all knowing, He knew all of the good and bad sheep, the elect and the damned, even before the earth was created: "For all things were known to the Lord God, before they were created." (Eccus. 23:29) And because God is all powerful, He creates the elect as well as the damned and gives them both ample opportunities and occasions in a time or times and place or places in which they can cooperate with His grace and get baptized by water and enter the Catholic Church sometime before they die, even if by a miracle, provided on their own part there is no hindrance: "The works of God are done in judgment from the beginning, and from the making of them he distinguished their parts, and their beginnings in their generations." (Eccus. 16:26) "[God] hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation." (Acts 17:26) And because God is all powerful, He clears all obstacles that would prevent His elect of good-will from being baptized by water and entering the Catholic Church: "No word shall be impossible with God." (Lk. 1:37)

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection: It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

4. Recently, someone we know was attending a Confirmation class at the CMRI’s chapel in Santa Clarita, CA. The teacher of the class, a layman, publicly stated that Jews can be saved without the Catholic Faith.

The person who heard this heresy subsequently went to the CMRI priest in charge of the chapel in Santa Clarita, Fr. Dominic Radecki. The person asked Fr. Radecki what he had to say about this horrible heresy that had been uttered at his chapel, that Jews can be saved without being Catholic. Fr. Radecki not only did not rebuke the layman who had stated that Jews can be saved without the Catholic faith, but he defended the layman’s heresy (that Jews can be saved without the Catholic faith) – thus proving what has been stated all along: that the CMRI priests reject the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation and are not Catholics.

5. The CMRI’s heretical denial of the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is no more effectively illustrated than in the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott. The CMRI advertises for and sells the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott (at least as of 9/24/03); and the position of Dr. Ott on the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation corresponds exactly to that of the priests and nuns of the CMRI.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 311: “It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church.”

Here on page 311 Dr. Ott correctly tells us that it is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers (not to mention the solemn teaching of the Magisterium) that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. But watch this. On the page immediately before this (page 310!), Ott tells us word for word the opposite!

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but also of means, as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows… In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire for the sameIn this manner also those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil (Mt. 5:37).

From one page to the next, Ludwig Ott contradicts himself on whether those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation! He even uses the exact same verb – “achieve” – in both sentences, but with the opposite meaning from one to the next: 1) “salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church”; 2) those “outside the Church can achieve salvation.” He uses the exact same verb to mean the exact opposite thing from what he stated on the page just before! His speech is not of God, but sadly of the devil. Black is white and white is black; truth is error and error is truth. And this is exactly the heretical position of the CMRI.

But for the pre-Vatican II heretics who obstinately condemned the priest Father Leonard Feeney who rightly defended this dogma of the Faith, obstinately despised the dogma Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and sowed the seeds for the Great Apostasy that is now upon us, it is no problem believing that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, while simultaneously pretending to believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is no problem for these people because they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “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… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

The “priests”, ecclesiastics and adherents of the Vatican II sect, as well as the priests and followers of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI and all other independent, validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests in this great apostasy (and those who knowing this information persist in denying this infallible dogma), as well as those who obstinately support or agree with the heretical groups, societies or sects, or the heresy advanced by these heretics, should rightly fear, as Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a doubt inherit a place in Hell for obstinately denying a Catholic dogma if they do not repent and convert.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

6. The CMRI and its heretical leader, Bishop Mark Pivarunas, are also adamant defenders of birth control by means of Natural Family Planning.

The CMRI priests instruct people that Natural Family Planning is an acceptable form of birth control (see Natural Family Planning is Sinful Birth Control). Bishop Pivarunas also publicly defended this sinful birth control practice at one of their conferences. Most recently, in the Winter of 2003, the CMRI carried an article entitled “On the Question of Natural Family Planning,” again promoting that couples can limit the size of their family by means of the Natural Family Planning birth control method. Natural Family Planning is a sinful method of birth control which subordinates the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children) to secondary ends, by a deliberate attempt to phase new life out of existence by means of the rhythm method.

Pope Pius XI adds teaches in Casti Connubii that the “sacredness of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises… from its purpose which is the begetting and education of children for God” and that all “Christian parents must also understand that they are destined… to propagate and preserve the human race on earth”. Our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible also connects the will to bear children to salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15) The Holy Fathers of the Church all agree with the Holy Scriptures and the Magisterium of the Church in this regard.

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)

St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)

St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating [children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter 17.--What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)

St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book 1, Section 20; 40, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? … He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and of his wife].”

Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.): “But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.” (Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)

Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.--Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)

St. Finnian of Clonard (470-549), The Penitential of Finnian #46: “We advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of children, as it is written, ‘And the two shall be in one flesh,’ that is, in unity of the flesh for the generation of children, not for the lustful concupiscence of the flesh.”

St. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373), On the Moral Life: “The law of nature recognizes the act of procreation: have relations with your wife only for the sake of procreation, and keep yourself from relations of pleasure.”

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): “For it [the Holy Scripture] regards it not right that this [sexual intercourse] should take place either in wantonness or for hire like harlots, but only for the birth of children.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XVIII.--The Mosaic Law the Fountain of All Ethics, and the Source from Which the Greeks Drew Theirs)

St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30, A.D. 400: “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 5:8, A.D. 307: “There would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, if it were known to all, that whatever is sought beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.”

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter LXI, Of the Passions, A.D. 314: “Moreover, the passion of lust is implanted and innate in us for the procreation of children; but they who do not fix its limits in the mind use it for pleasure only. Thence arise unlawful loves, thence adulteries and debaucheries, thence all kinds of corruption. These passions, therefore, must be kept within their boundaries and directed into their right course [for the procreation of children], in which, even though they should be vehement, they cannot incur blame.”

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, A.D. 314: “Let lust not go beyond the marriage-bed, but be subservient to the procreation of children. For a too great eagerness for pleasure both produces danger and generates disgrace, and that which is especially to be avoided, leads to eternal death. Nothing is so hateful to God as an unchaste mind and an impure soul.” (Chapter LXII.--Of Restraining the Pleasures of the Senses)

Apostolic Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws;” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII)

Apostolic Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A.D. 375: “When the natural purgations do appear in the wives, let not their husbands approach them, out of regard to the children to be begotten; for the law has forbidden it, for it says: "Thou shalt not come near thy wife when she is in her separation." [Lev. xviii. 19; Ezek. xviii. 6.] Nor, indeed, let them frequent their wives’ company when they are with child. For they do this not for the begetting of children, but for the sake of pleasure. Now a lover of God ought not to be a lover of pleasure.” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to "be fruitful and multiply." [Gen. 1:28] He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: "Put away your fornications." [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.” (The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children)

St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage, Section 11, A.D. 401: “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (St. Gregory the Great, "Pastoral Care," Part 3, Chapter 27, in "Ancient Christian Writers," No. 11, pp. 188-189)

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 597 A.D.): “Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties.” (Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli [English], Book XI, Letter 64)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her. And the same is true with regard to other things and one’s conceptual images of them.” (Second Century on Love, 17; Philokalia 2:67-68)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662): “There are also three things that impel us towards evil: passions, demons, and sinfulness of intention. Passions impel us when, for example, we desire something beyond what is reasonable, such as food which is unnecessary or untimely, or a woman who is not our wife or for a purpose other than procreation.” (Second Century on Love, 33; Philokalia 2:71)

St. John Damascene (c. 675-749): “The procreation of children is indeed good, enjoined by the law; and marriage is good on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to be inflamed into unlawful acts. Marriage is good for those who have no continence; but virginity, which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer, is better. "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" [Hebrews 13:4].” (St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 24)

Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law (c. 1140): “Also, Jerome, [on Ephesians 5:25]: C. 14. The procreation of children in marriage is praiseworthy, but a prostitute’s sensuality is damnable in a wife. So, as we have said, the act is conceded in marriage for the sake of children. But the sensuality found in a prostitute’s embraces is damnable in a wife.”

Venerable Luis de Granada (1505-1588): “Those that be married must examine themselves in particular, if in their mind thinking of other persons, or with intention not to beget children, but only for carnal delight, or with extraordinary touchings and means, they have sinned against the end, and honesty of marriage.” (A Spiritual Doctrine, containing a rule to live well, with divers prayers and meditations, p. 362)

For a full discussion of why Natural Family Planning is evil, and for many more quotes from the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church, consult the article on our website:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/sexual-pleasure-and-procreation/

7. The CMRI has been sedevacantist (that is, they correctly hold that the Chair of Peter is vacant and that Benedict XVI is not the pope) for a long time; yet, they still administer Holy Communion to persons who reject the sedevacantist position. And according to various persons who have attended their Masses for years, the CMRI priests say little to nothing about the issue that Benedict XVI is not the pope from the pulpit.

Therefore, while the CMRI’s publication states that their priests do not hold that Benedict XVI is the pope, this belief is not enforced at their chapels. Hence, as far as many people who are unaware of these issues and attending their chapels are concerned, the CMRI does hold that Benedict XVI is the pope, since they say little to nothing about it and do not require adherence to the dogmatic truths surrounding this issue (namely, that a person who says we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics is outside the Church). They also allow non-sedevacantist nuns to join their society and receive sacraments from them as their sisters in Christ.

As stated, sedevacantism is the theological position held by traditional Catholics who recognize the Novus Ordo Church as a non-Catholic modernist religion, officially brought into being at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and the leaders of that sect to be Antipopes, leaving the seat of St. Peter (who is regarded by Catholics as the first Bishop of Rome) vacant at the present time. Most proponents of the position regard the current antipapacy to have been in place since 1958 until the present time (there have been others in history).

There have been 260 valid popes in Catholic history, and more than 40 antipopes (i.e., men who posed as popes but had not been truly elected). There have been more than 200 papal vacancies (periods without a pope).

Sedevacantist should be applied only to those who believe that there is at present no reigning pope, but it is frequently used to include groups, known as conclavists, who have attempted to elect popes (or antipopes) of their own. By definition, sedevacantists oppose conclavism.

The word sedevacantism is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which means "seat vacant," or "with the see (chair) being vacant" and is used in Vatican documents in the interval between the death or abdication of a pope and the election of a successor.

A sede vacante period occurs between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant, and is called the Interregnum. This Latin term means between the reign (of one Pope and another). It is a period governed by papal law, which admits of no changes to Church governance, or to the spiritual or material patrimony of St. Peter, save the election of his successor.

Hence, while the CMRI claim in their publications to be free from the errors and heresies which necessarily arise from obstinate adherence to the Vatican II Counter Church, if they don’t preach about this publicly at their chapels, they are – in reality – a group which accepts Benedict XVI; for they tolerate that heretical position at their chapel and give Holy Communion to persons who have rejected the information demonstrating that Benedict XVI is not the pope.

For these of these reasons mentioned above, no one aware of this information can support the CMRI, be in religious communion with them or receive the sacraments from them in any way under pain of grave sin and denying the Catholic Faith.

EVIDENCE FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST POSITION

According to reports, a ‘traditionalist priest’, who for a long time has been closely affiliated with Nicholas Gruner, had taken the sedevacantist position. Apparently Francis’ newest document (which contains a number of massive heresies) was the clincher. Paul Leonard Kramer allegedly posted this on his Facebook page:

Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

Now, it must be made clear that Kramer is not a true Catholic. He holds heresies on the salvation dogma; he was ordained in the invalid New Rite of Ordination; and he has not (as far as we know) rejected the previous Vatican II antipopes. He also doesn’t seem to realize that the heresy he mentions in his post (which convinced him that Francis is not pope) was taught in Vatican II itself and by the other previous Vatican II antipopes.

For instance, Antipope John Paul II has repeatedly repudiated this dogma, a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, defined infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearly by Pope Benedict XIV.

In an address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, Antipope John Paul II spoke of quote, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God…”

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121: “… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book rejects the dogma that the Old Covenant has ceased. It teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, and that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah (which was part of the Old Covenant) is also still valid. It teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the prophesied Messiah; it is possible to see Him, as the Jews do, as not the Messiah and not the Son of God.

In section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of GodChristians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”

So, according to this Vatican book, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah is a possible one! The preface for this totally heretical book was written by none other than Joseph Ratzinger, the now Benedict XVI.

This is antichrist!

1 John 2:22: “... he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of the Catholic Faith; apostasy is a rejection of the entire Christian Faith. This book contains both heresy and apostasy, fully endorsed by Benedict XVI.

When Vatican II teaches that Jews, despite not belonging to the Church, are not to be considered as rejected by God, that means they remain in a valid covenant with God and can be saved. That’s also how the apostates in the Vatican II sect understood and implemented Nostra Aetate. Francis’ heresy on the Old Covenant is simply a reiteration of the doctrine of Nostra Aetate and the statements of the previous antipopes. It is also a further formalization of that heresy as the official doctrine of the Counter Church, for Francis teaches it openly in an Apostolic Exhortation addressed to the entire Church.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

Without even going into details, it should be obvious to all that the statement of Nostra Aetate (#4) is heretical. Jews are rejected by God, because all who reject Jesus Christ are denied by God. This is a truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Matthew 10:33: “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. Look it up in the dictionary. Therefore, Vatican II and its antipopes is denying the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33: he who denies Our Lord is rejected by Him. Thus, without even going farther into detail, one should easily see that Vatican II teaches blatant heresy in Nostra Aetate #4.

But this heresy gets even worse when one considers that the Council of Florence Bull Cantate Domino is a dogmatic definition on individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews, etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected. Note: the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected and condemned, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is condemned and rejected!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy SpiritTherefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

By the way, Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium contains numerous other heresies as well, such as the heresy that “the followers of Islam… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 252) and that “Non-Christians [such as atheists and pagans], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254). Concerning the Jews, Francis went on to say: “As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols [false gods] and to serve the true God [i.e., Francis says Jews are not to be considered to be as those who turn from false gods in order to serve the true God Jesus Christ and the Trinity since he already believes they serve the true God!]… With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 247)

Further, in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,” Francis professes that it’s admirable for Muslims to participate in daily Islamic prayers and religious services (252). He professes that non-Christians are justified by the grace of God (254), directly contrary to the Catholic profession of faith and Catholic dogma that only Christians, that is, those with the catholic faith can be justified. And, (254) of that document, Francis also speaks of non-Christian rites, signs and expressions, in other words, the false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan religions, as “God’s working” and things which “the Holy Spirit raises up.” And in his encyclical “Evangelii Gaudium” (255), Francis also professes that Religious Freedom, whereby everyone has the right to promote any religious view in public, is to be viewed a fundamental human right: “the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 255).

See: Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World

But there were many other heresies taught by the antipopes on various topics that were just as explicit as the one Kramer finds so appalling. He should have been convinced a long time ago. In fact, years ago someone we know personally spoke with Kramer. In one of those conversations he expressed doubts about the validity of John Paul II. However, his rejection of Antipope Francis is interesting because it’s another example of how even some of the most obstinate false traditionalists, who have misled so many for years, are now finding Francis so indefensible that they must reject him as an antipope. It’s a big embarrassment to the false traditionalist crowd.

Over the years Kramer has said some good things. We hope he comes around to the true positions on all the issues. His paragraph is an example of how simple it really should be for people to come to the correct conclusion on Francis (i.e., that he’s without any doubt a heretical non-Catholic antipope) if they are being even slightly honest about the situation.

Mark Pivarunas of CMRI Embarrasses Himself

Some time ago Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI stated that people who deny ‘baptism of desire’ aren’t ‘competent’ to deal with the issue. Referring to members of Most Holy Family Monastery and to their correct understanding on the issue, he also said they are ‘false prophets’ and used by the Devil (which is true in the sense that they lead people back to the jaws of the heretics and their sacrilegious, blasphemous communion; see above link). Mark considers it diabolical and soul-destroying to maintain that no one enters Heaven without being reborn of water and the Spirit. In support of his position, he cited the teaching of St. Alphonsus on ‘baptism of desire’ as if it’s definitive and ends the debate. Pivarunas apparently thinks that St. Alphonsus’ explanation of ‘baptism of blowing’ (baptismus flaminis) supports his view. In making that statement and argument, Pivarunas not only demonstrates his complete lack of familiarity with the details of this issue, but he embarrasses himself.

The CMRI, its priests and leader, Mark Pivarunas, holds that souls can be saved in false religions, even in religions that does not desire baptism, including in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc, as this conversation with another heretical CMRI priest proves: CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics (video). The priest confirmed what’s been mentioned and proven many times: the CMRI (like other groups which support ‘baptism of desire’) holds that souls can be saved in false religions. They believe ‘invincible ignorance’ can save anyone in any situation. They deny the defined Catholic dogma that one must have the ‘Catholic faith’ (which involves belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) to be saved. They are heretics who don’t possess an ounce of faith in Christ or His truth. Also, as the aforementioned conversation showed, the priest of the CMRI was not even familiar with the teaching of the Council of Florence. That’s another example of how Pivarunas and his group doesn’t understand Catholic teaching.

Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, The Decrees of Vatican II Compared with Past Church Teachings: “The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jews has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history. The Council Fathers of Vatican II, however, have not only implied the salvation of heretics and schismatics, but also praised these other false religions in their “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” The opening paragraph of this declaration [of Vatican II] strongly suggests that, yes, salvation may be found outside of the true fold.”

First, Mark Pivarunas, as the leader of the CMRI sect and editor in chief of their heretical magazine, The Reign of Mary, doesn’t even believe in what he writes. For it is a fact that his own sect publishes official and formal newsletters denying this exact dogma 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.”

All of the CRMI priests and religious I have asked this question has said that non-Catholics who die in their false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith, and many of them even openly and publicly teach that members of false religions can be saved, or at least, when they are questioned about it.

Also, when Pivarunas says: “It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law” – it is clear that his words are ambiguous, and that they can be interpreted in different ways; for are “these false and immoral religions” only opposed to the natural law, but the believers not necessarily breaking the natural law? And in what sense are the religions opposed to the natural law? He said: “Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire).” So the person must follow the natural law, and then he can be saved by an implicit baptism of desire even though the religion itself is opposed the natural law?

By the way, Pivarunas and his subjects have been rebuked many times by many people on this heresy, and yet, never has Pivarunas denounced any of his subjects believing in this exact heresy or demanded that they recant their heresy, nor has he or anyone else in his sect ever recanted or abjured from the fact that this heresy has been publicly taught in their public and official newsletters.

It’s repeatedly been documented that almost all traditionalist priests deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. It’s also been pointed out that almost all of these dogma deniers sometimes make statements which seem to indicate that they hold the dogma; when, in fact, they don’t. All of this is on display in Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas’ statement above. Notice that Pivarunas made statements which absolutely seemed to indicate that he holds strictly to the necessity of the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ for salvation. Very shortly after making these statements, however, Pivarunas proceeded to deny the dogma that people “invincibly ignorant of the true Church” can be saved and thus reveal that he doesn’t believe anything he just said.

MHFM testimony, Questions, Answers and Comments: “…the CMRI…deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as explained in the section about them our website and in our book. They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius (editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very public fashion.”

MHFM testimony, The heretic Tom Droleskey: “All the priests (and a nun) of CMRI with whom I have spoken have indicated non-Catholics, including Jews who reject Christ, can be saved. This is what they believe.”

Second, in citing St. Alphonsus’ opinion as if it proves his position, Pivarunas embarrasses himself. That’s because, as Most Holy Family Monastery correctly proved in the article below, St. Alphonsus’ explanation is untenable even if you accept ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD).

St. Alphonsus’ Blatant Error on ‘Baptism of Desire’ [article]

As the article linked to above shows, St. Alphonsus’ explanation of the issue was not only riddled with errors (he cites the wrong portion of the Council of Trent), but he admits that ‘baptism of desire’ does not even provide the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth. That’s a big problem because the Council of Trent declared that everyone must have the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth in order to be justified. To put it another way: St. Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that ‘baptism of desire’ doesn’t provide the grace of first justification. That’s what the article proves. Yet, the truly foolish and obstinate proponents of ‘baptism of desire’ (such as Mark Pivarunas) still haven’t figured it out, even after they explained it for them. That’s precisely why defenders of BOD, who continue to promote St. Alphonsus’ opinion on the issue in the face of the facts, don’t merely contradict Catholic dogma, they make fools out of themselves. They demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with the details of the issue, and they perpetuate a position that has been thoroughly refuted and debunked.

St. Alphonsus was not infallible. His position on ‘baptism of desire’ was simply false and it must be rejected by all Catholics. Nevertheless, Pivarunas still hasn’t realized that St. Alphonsus unwittingly admitted that ‘baptism of desire’ doesn’t even justify and that his position would have to be rejected even if you accept ‘baptism of desire.’ Pivarunas’ lack of familiarity with the relevant material, combined with his inability to grasp the ramifications of his assertions, demonstrates that he’s incompetent and unequipped to deal with the fine points of these theological issues. Despite his profound ignorance and incompetence, the heretic pontificates (literally) as if he possesses some special authority, when, in reality, he is just a guy who got himself ordained and then consecrated a bishop.

Mark Pivarunas denies Catholic teaching and believes that souls can be saved in false religions. He’s a heretic and a false shepherd who leads souls to Hell. He is also an apostle of birth control, a vigorous defender of Natural Family Planning. His group even endorses methods of Natural Family Planning that involve taking steps to physically alter a woman’s body chemistry to avoid conception. The article linked to below also soundly refutes Pivarunas’ argument that Natural Family Planning must be permissible because certain churchmen before Vatican II (e.g., members of the Sacred Penitentiary) allegedly approved primitive forms of it.

See our article on Natural Family Planning and Objection 13 that deals with the objection brought forward by Mark. A. Pivarunas of CMRI.

MARK FURTHER DISPLAYS HIS INCOMPETENCE

As a further display of his incompetence, Pivarunas also stated that St. Alphonsus taught ‘implicit desire,’ as if the saint favored the notion that people don’t need to have faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity to be saved. No, he didn’t. As was explained in the article on his ‘baptism of desire’ error, when St. Alphonsus mentions the ‘implicit’ desire for baptism, he’s referring to people who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries of Catholic faith), but aren’t aware of water baptism or have not expressed that desire for water baptism in words. Again, the ‘implicit desire’ to which he refers is an implicit desire for water baptism, not an implicit desire for faith in Christ. St. Alphonsus did not believe that anyone (ignorant or not) could be saved without faith in the essential mysteries of Catholicism: the Trinity and the Incarnation. However, he did wrongly think that one who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation could be saved without water baptism by an implicit desire for water baptism. Nevertheless, BOD heretics abuse Alphonsus’ passage in which he uses the word ‘implicit’ – a passage that already contains numerous errors. They falsely assert that by ‘implicit desire’ St. Alphonsus taught the heresy of ‘implicit faith in Christ’ (which can save Jews, Muslims, etc.), when he did not.

Mark still hasn’t learned the distinction between an ‘implicit desire’ for water baptism (which requires explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity) and an implicit desire for faith in Christ (the completely heretical notion that souls can be saved in non-Christian religions, which he and his group hold). The two are not the same. Perhaps Mark is incapable of understanding the distinction. St. Alphonsus did not hold the latter, but the former. The fact that St. Alphonsus (with St. Thomas and all the saints) believed that no one could be saved without knowing the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith (and thus rejected the CMRI’s heretical position on salvation through ‘invincible ignorance’) is proven below.

Here’s a very interesting new quote from St. Alphonsus which refutes the heresy that people can be saved who are ignorant of the Gospel, the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential mysteries of the Catholic faith). This is important because many baptism of desire heretics in our day – who believe that souls can be saved in false religions and without belief in Christ – falsely assert that saints such as St. Alphonsus agreed with them. This is totally false.

This is obviously not to suggest that saints, such as St. Alphonsus, were correct about everything; rather it is prove, once again, that not one saint held the heresy of “invincible ignorance,” the idea that ignorant non-Catholics can be saved in false religions or without belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. This heresy of invincible ignorance is held by almost all people who believe in “baptism of desire” today. Here’s the quote from St. Alphonsus’ book, The History of Heresies.

St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

As we see, St. Alphonsus is clearly making reference to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas below, in which he denies that any soul who is ignorant of the Gospel can be saved. Rather, if there is a person who is completely ignorant of the faith but who is of good will, God will make sure that he comes to a knowledge of the faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection: “‘It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.’ St. Thomas replies: ‘It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…’”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8. “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

Therefore, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, like all of the fathers of the Church, rejected the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics. Their speculation and erroneous teaching on baptism of blood/desire only regarded those who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the most essential mysteries of Catholic faith). And this point really shows the dishonesty of modern heretics, who like to quote St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire to somehow justify their heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved by “baptism of desire.”

Here is another important quote. This important quote absolutely proves that St. Alphonsus, like all the Doctors of the Church, rejected the false idea that souls who are “invincibly ignorant” of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith can be saved.

St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

Notice that St. Alphonsus is explicitly discussing the concept of invincible ignorance. He is explicitly addressing the question of whether souls who are “inculpably ignorant” of Our Lord and the Trinity can be saved, AND HE DENIES IT. He affirms that only those who believe in these absolutely necessary mysteries of Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) can be saved. This is a very important quotation because the heretical idea that souls can be saved in other religions is rampant in Traditional circles, and is taught by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. These groups teach the false and heretical idea that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.

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)

Thus, as we can see, Mark Pivarunas has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s ignorant and incompetent. Yet, he presides over a group of alleged traditionalists and he pretends to possess authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Simply put, he’s a faithless individual in whom the Devil found an effective instrument to encourage birth control and corrupt belief in the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith. Pivarunas is a heretical, non-Catholic disgrace – a false shepherd leading souls to Hell.

Besides their obstinate promotion of St. Alphonsus’ false opinion, the heretical CMRI promotes other false arguments on the issue. Actually, they employ a devilish combination of lies, distortions, misquotes, half-truths and fallible arguments to deceive people and promote their false position. None of those arguments withstand scrutiny.

The truth is that the Catholic Church does not teach ‘baptism of desire.’ It has never taught it, which is why the defenders of BOD must always resort to fallible documents and opinions to make their arguments. Rather, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there is only one baptism of water, and that no one is saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit, as it is written in John 3:5. That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth. The Catholic teaching on this point is proven by the quotes below.

The obstinate proponents of ‘baptism of desire,’ while they think they are of safe ground promoting the position that one can be saved without the rebirth of water and the Spirit, are actually doing that which is criminal according to Catholic teaching. Their spiritual crime involves obstinately preaching contrary to the one and only dogmatic rule of faith on the matter.

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved (salvatur), one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”

Consider these two dogmatic statements from The Council of Vienne on baptism as a unit. All in the Church (outside of which no one at all is saved) have one and the same baptism; and that one baptism (which all in the Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, have) is of water.

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.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’ (Athanasian Creed).”

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, The Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)

About four months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard Cushing, the apostate “Archbishop” of Boston, the so-called Holy Office issued a document on August 8, 1949. Actually, the document was a letter addressed to Bishop Cushing, and signed by “Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known to most as Protocol No. 122/49. It is also called Suprema haec sacra and the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. It is one of the most crucial documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the faith. Protocol 122/49 was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.

Protocol 122/49 has no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church. Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote the letter, and “Cardinal” Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop – which is none. The letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy, deceit, ambiguity and betrayal. Immediately after the publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:

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

This was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly said, held the “No Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this fateful letter, the enemies of the dogma and the Church appeared to have been vindicated and the defenders of the dogma seemed to have been vanquished. The problem for the apparent victors, however, was that this document was nothing more than a letter from two heretical so-called cardinals of the Holy Office, who had already embraced the heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate “archbishop” in Boston. Some may be surprised that I describe “Cardinal” Ottaviani as heretical, since he is considered by many to have been orthodox. If his signature on the Protocol isn’t enough proof for his heresy, consider that he signed all of the Vatican II documents and aligned himself with the post-Vatican II revolution.

It’s interesting that even Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican II, who was unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced to admit that it’s not infallible:

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]… is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not infallible, document. That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”

In other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema haec sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents; but it isn’t, as we will see. Fenton is simply wrong when he says that Suprema haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative. Suprema haec sacra is neither authoritative nor infallible, but heretical and false.

Since almost the entire public was (and is) given the impression that Protocol 122/49 represented the official teaching of the Catholic Church, it constituted the selling out of Jesus Christ, His doctrine and His Church to the world, a selling out that had to take place before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II. By Protocol 122/49 and the persecution of Fr. Feeney, the public was given the impression that the Catholic Church had now overturned a 20 centuries’ old dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is definitely necessary for salvation. And even to this day, if one were to ask almost every so-called Catholic priest in the world about the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, he would probably be answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall the specific names and dates. Try it, I know from experience. A huge amount of basically all of the Novus Ordo priests who know anything about the issue will use Protocol 122/49 and the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic, antichrist, anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic religions and without the Catholic Faith. These are the fruits of the infamous Protocol 122/49. And by their fruits you shall know them (Mt. 7:16).

Now let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”

Let’s stop it right there. Already it’s clear that the author of the Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept something different than simply “that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” The author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words themselves state and declare. If the author were not preparing the reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of the dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply written: “This dogma must be understood as the Church has defined it, exactly as the words state and declare.”

Compare the Protocol’s attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope Gregory XVI’s treatment of the same issue in his encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “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… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Pope Gregory XVI does not try to to explain this dogma away, by saying, “However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as does the heretical Protocol 122/49. No, he unequivocally affirms that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Throughout the whole encyclical, Gregory XVI does not fail to repeatedly affirm the true and literal meaning of the phrase Outside the Church There is No Salvation, without qualification or exception, as it had been defined. Father Feeney and his allies in defense of the dogma were reiterating exactly what Gregory XVI officially taught above. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Protocol 122/49 was written to “correct” the understanding of Father Feeney on Outside the Church There is No Salvation (which it was), then Protocol 122/49 was also “correcting” the understanding of Pope Gregory XVI and all of the infallible statements on the topic for 20 centuries.

Also, notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic definition of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate his position and literal understanding of the formula Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Throughout the whole document, Protocol 122/49 makes no reference to any of the dogmatic definitions on this topic. This is because Pope Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a dogma that exists is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared; while the authors of the Protocol, being heretics, did not believe that a dogma is to be understood exactly as it was once declared. That explains why Pope Gregory cited exactly what Holy Mother Church has once declared and the authors of the Protocol did not.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith and Reason: “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.”

If the understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was not clear from the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the infallible definitions on the topic), then a 1949 letter of “Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not going to give it to us! And if no exceptions or qualifications to this dogma were understood at the time of the definitions – nor at the time of Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for exceptions to come into our understanding of the dogma after that point (e.g., in 1949), because the dogma had already been defined and taught long before. Discovery of a new understanding of the dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as it had been defined. But define new dogma is indeed what the Protocol tried to do. I continue with the Protocol.

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar... Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

Here the Protocol begins to enter into its new explanation of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, but in a diabolically clever manner. The ambiguity lies in the fact that this statement is true: no one who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to submit to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved. But everyone reading this document is also given the clear impression by this language that some people, who have unknowingly failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved. This is heretical and would actually make it counterproductive to convince people that the Catholic Church is divinely established!

Compare the dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church with the addition to the dogma by Protocol 122/49.

The Dogma:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “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.”

The Addition by Protocol 122/49:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

The reader can easily see that the intended meaning of Protocol 122/49 is a departure from the understanding of the dogma which Holy Mother Church has once declared. No one can deny this. The dogma of the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation has gone from application to every human creature (Boniface VIII) to “those knowing the Church to have been divinely established” (Protocol 122/49), again making it foolish to convince people that the Church is divinely established. I continue with the Protocol:

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

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

The Dogma:

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 produce eternal rewards. 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.”

We see that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis, which is heresy!

It was necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom and unity” (Eugene IV), but now it is “not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member” (Protocol 122/49). The defined dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied. This is heresy!

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.”

All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins which they commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them. The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.

St. Paul, Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

Everyone can know with certainty that there is a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world and all that it contains. Everyone knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or jade or stone. They know that God is not the tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the snake or the sacred tree frog. They know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is worshiping a creature rather than the Creator. They are, as St. Paul says in verse 20, without excuse. St. Augustine explains this well in reference to persons who died ignorant of the Faith and without baptism.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: “Objection: It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.” St. Thomas replies: “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide. 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 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, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost, whether adults or children. 2) Among those who are baptized validly 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 Natural Law or 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.”

There is no way on earth that the teaching of Protocol 122/49 is compatible with the teaching of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII. To accept, believe or promote the Protocol is to act contrary to these definitions.

I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

Here the heresy comes out quite bluntly. People who don’t hold the Catholic Faith – who are “involved in invincible ignorance” – can also be united by “implicit” desire, as long as “a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” And I remind the reader that Protocol 122/49 was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s statement that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. That is to say, the Protocol was written to specifically distinguish its own teaching from Fr. Feeney’s affirmation that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, which shows that the Protocol was teaching that people who die as non-Catholics and in false religions can be saved. Thus, the Protocol’s statement above is quite obviously, and nothing other than, the heresy that one can be saved in any religion or in no religion, as long as morality is maintained.

Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218: “Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1).”

Compare the above passage from the Protocol with the following dogmatic definitions.

The Dogma:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian Creed”, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish eternally.”

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: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

I continue with the Protocol:

Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non pertinent), he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’”

In the process of giving its false analysis of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved. What’s interesting about this heretical passage in Protocol 122/49 is that even Msgr. Fenton (one of its greatest defenders) admits that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’ Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”

Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body, as Suprema haec sacra (the Protocol) does, is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church. Therefore, by its statement above, Protocol 122/49 taught the heresy that it is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

This is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is heretical. They both deny the necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

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. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”

Less than three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was published in part in The Pilot, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28, 1949. Father Feeney stood strong against the heretics’ attempts to beat him down and get him to submit to the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved. Referring to the August 8th letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani (Protocol 122/49), Father Feeney rightly stated: “it can be considered as having established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error.”

The reality was that Father Feeney’s expulsion from the Jesuit Order had no validity. The men who expelled him and the clerics who were against him were automatically expelled from the Catholic Church for adhering to the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. This is similar to the situation in the 5th century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful reacted, accused Nestorius of heresy and denounced him as a heretic who was outside the Catholic Church. And Nestorius was later condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Here is what Pope St. Celestine I stated about those who had been excommunicated by Nestorius after he began to preach heresy.

Pope St. Celestine I, 5th Century: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that a public heretic is a person with no authority to depose, excommunicate or expel. The quote is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work of St. Robert Bellarmine. This explains why all of the persecution against Father Feeney (expulsion, interdiction, etc.) had no validity, because he was right and those who were against him were wrong. He defended the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, while his opponents defended the heresy that there is salvation outside the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

Things between Father Feeney and the heretics in Boston remained unchanged until September 14, 1952. At this point, Richard Cushing, the so-called Archbishop of Boston, demanded that Father Feeney retract his “interpretation” of the dogma – which means retract the dogma – and make an explicit profession of submission to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter (Protocol 122/49). With four witnesses, Father Feeney presented himself before Cushing. He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani “absolutely scandalous because it was frankly heretical.” This is exactly what Pope Gregory XVI would have said about the horrible Protocol letter, as well as any Catholic.

During their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if he was in agreement with the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani. Cushing responded, “I am not a theologian. All that I know is what I am told.” This evasive and non-committal answer shows the true colors of Cushing, this heretic, false pastor and enemy of Jesus Christ. If Cushing believed that one was bound to the letter, then he should have responded without hesitation that he agreed with it. But because he didn’t want to defend the letter in any of its details, especially its denials of dogma, he responded by evading the question. This evasion prohibited Fr. Feeney from putting him on the spot and convicting him with the dogma that was being denied. Father Feeney accused Cushing of failing in his duty and left.

Related articles:
Free Videos
www.Catholic-Saints.net
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!