KING: How much of music did he understand?
LEVINE: Wonderfully. So much so that I, as a Jewish conductor, suggested for that 1994 concert that I do a work of Mahler. And he said, "didn't Mahler convert to Catholicism to become the music director of the Vienna Philharmonic?" I as a musician didn't -- didn't think of that. It's not that I didn't know it, I didn't think of it. That's the kind of sensitivity he had to Jewish issues. And he wanted to broaden it out. And what happened was he felt like it was a -- music could be a vehicle for inter-faith dialogue.
KING: The pope congratulated your children's bar mitzvahs?
LEVINE: Not only congratulate us, he sent us a menorah.
KING: He sent you a menorah?
LEVINE: He gave it to us, actually, didn't send it. Actually gave us a menorah. I think it's from the 16th century in Prague. It's the most beautiful menorah. He sent a letter on the occasion of each of my son's bar mitzvahs. He also had the cardinal in charge of Catholic/Jewish relations send a letter that was read out in my Orthodox shul on the occasion of my son's recent bar mitzvah, and the rabbi read it as if it were from a rabbi. At the end, it said, "it's by Rabbi Joel Schwartz (ph)." He said, but it wasn't by Rabbi Joel Schwartz (ph). It was by Rabbi -- by Cardinal Kasper. It was astounding. It was a letter that said, you should be proud of your Jewish heritage and live it out to its full.
KING: Where have you been? Why have we just found you? You conduct all over?
LEVINE: Yes. I conduct all over, and I conducted for him in the Vatican many times. I conducted also for him at World Youth Day in Denver. Me, conducting for Catholic youth? And on that occasion, he came over to me and disrupted the entire performance, put his arm around me and said, did I disturb you, Maestro? And he had in fact stopped the whole show.
KING: Are you going to the funeral?
LEVINE: Of course. I am leaving tomorrow morning. And I will be at the funeral. I couldn't not be there.” – End of except from interview.

MHFM: Please spread this far and wide to expose this non-Catholic, Christ-denying apostate Antipope John Paul II. One is either for God or one is for the devil. Either one exposes this non-Catholic apostate or one stands with the devil.

The Devastating Dilemma

- Why those under John Paul II must either deny the faith or deny that he is the Pope



A Camden mess celebration of festivities and dance as they please Emperor John Paul II. John Paul celebrating a baseball mess in Camden, take us out to the novus ordo game on Sunday. Redhats packing in the stadium to cheer the crowd (God man) and to cheer their God (John Paul).
ATTENTION: IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT JOHN PAUL II IS THE VALID POPE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THEN YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A DEVASTATING DILEMMA. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING TO FIND OUT WHY.

SUPPOSE THAT TOMORROW YOU ENCOUNTER a well-informed Protestant who is interested in becoming a Catholic. As you and this fellow enter into a lively discussion about various issues relating to Protestantism and Catholicism, you discover that, while this man claims to be interested in becoming “Catholic”, he has major problems with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Justification; specifically, he rejects the canons and decrees of the 16th century Council of Trent, which solemnly and infallibly anathematized as heresy various doctrines of the Lutherans on Justification. (This Protestant does not say that you will go to hell if you believe in Trent's teaching on Justification; but he holds that Trent's teaching was erroneous and should not be believed.) As he explains his position you think to yourself, “How does this man expect to become Catholic when he doesn't believe in the teaching of the Council of Trent on Justification?” While you ponder this strange thought, the Protestant fellow explains how at present he is a non-denominational Protestant who strongly adheres to Luther’s doctrine (i.e., Luther's solemnly anathematized heresy) that one is justified by faith alone, but plans on joining the Catholic Church.

Before we carry this story any further, my first question relating to this encounter with such a Protestant is this: When you meet this man, do you consider him to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church? (Keep in mind, he has been validly baptized.) Or do you consider him as someone outside the Church who needs to be converted? In other words, do you consider him to be a Catholic who is inside the Church or do you consider him to be a heretic who is outside the Church? Remember, the Catholic Church has never issued a solemn declaration that this non-denominational Protestant is a heretic who is outside the Catholic Church and needs to be converted to Her. Nor has the Catholic Church ever issued a specific declaration about the scores of Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc., whom one is bound to encounter during his sojourn on earth.

So my question is: Does a Catholic, without a judgment from the Church specifically about these persons, determine that these persons are Catholics in communion with the Church, or does a Catholic determine that such persons are heretics who are outside the Church and who need to be converted? As every Catholic knows, a Catholic judges and knows that such a non-denominational Protestant (as well as a Methodist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian or Episcopalian, etc.) who openly rejects Catholic dogma, is outside the Catholic Church and needs to be converted. Catholics make this judgment instinctively and with certainty every time they meet a Protestant who openly rejects the Church or Her teaching. Catholics have done this for twenty centuries whenever they have encountered an Arian or an Albigensian or an “Old Catholic”. One does not need – and has never needed – a specific declaration from the Church about each of these persons, which would be practically impossible anyway. Rather, by their open rejection of Catholic teaching, or by their open rejection of the Catholic Church, or by their open religious affiliation with a church or group of persons which openly rejects the Catholic Church, a Catholic makes a sure and necessary judgment that such persons are not Catholic, but are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
“... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”[1]
With that consistent and undeniable teaching of the Church in mind – that a Catholic can and must determine that those who openly reject Catholic doctrine are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church – we return to the encounter with the non-denominational Protestant. He just finished telling you how he rejects Trent's teaching as erroneous, and how he holds Luther’s heresy of Justification by faith alone, but that he plans on becoming a Catholic immediately.
So you, being a charitable Catholic, inform him that if he wants to become Catholic he must accept and believe the Council of Trent's teaching on Justification and repudiate Luther’s view of Justification by faith alone (sola fide), since the Catholic Church (not to mention scripture – James 2:24) condemns Justification by faith alone.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 9, ex cathedra: “IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BY FAITH ALONE the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his will: let him be anathema.”[2]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 8, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked [ex opere operato], but that FAITH ALONE in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema.”[3]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 19, ex cathedra:
“If anyone shall say that nothing except faith is commanded in the Gospel... let him be anathema.”[4]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11, ex cathedra:
“And so no one should flatter himself because of FAITH ALONE, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ ‘that he may be also glorified’ (Rom. 8:17).”[5] Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra:
“‘You see, that by works a man is justified AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE’ (James. 2:24).”[6]

But he, being the well-informed Protestant that he is, responds by saying: “Excuse me sir, I do not have to accept and believe the Council of Trent's teaching on Justification to become Catholic. Nor do I have to believe that Justification by faith alone is a heresy, as you say. Your Pope, John Paul II, who is a Catholic, himself agrees with and has approved of a document that says that faith alone is not a heresy, and that Trent's canons on Justification do not apply to the Lutheran explanation of Justification.” And he proceeds to make three points in succession to prove this.

#1) The Protestant first cites the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, approved by the Vatican on Oct. 31, 1999. He quotes two selections from the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, which he happens to have in his briefcase. Joint Declaration With Lutherans:

“# 5. THE PRESENT JOINT DECLARATION has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and SHOWS THAT THE REMAINING DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER THE OCCASION FOR DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS.”[7]

After citing this, the Protestant correctly explains that this rules out any condemnation of the Lutheran view of Justification (faith alone, etc.). He then cites # 13.
Joint Declaration With Lutherans: # 13.

IN LIGHT OF THIS CONSENSUS, THE CORRESPONDING DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS OF THE 16TH CENTURY DO NOT APPLY TO TODAY'S PARTNER.”[8]

After citing this, the Protestant rightly explains that this also means that Trent’s condemnations (in the 16th century) of the Lutheran view of Justification no longer apply.
#2) Second, to further substantiate his point, the Protestant proceeds to cite two more selections from the same Joint Declaration With the Lutherans.
Joint Declaration With Lutherans:
“# 41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: THE TEACHING OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCHES PRESENTED IN THIS DECLARATION DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CONDEMNATIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.”[9]
The Protestant points out the obvious fact that this means that none of the Lutheran teaching contained in the Joint Declaration is condemned by the Council of Trent. And then he proves that Justification by faith alone is among the teaching of the Lutheran churches in the Joint Declaration.
Joint Declaration With Lutherans:
“# 26. ACCORDING TO THE LUTHERAN UNDERSTANDING, GOD JUSTIFIES SINNERS IN FAITH ALONE (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him.”[10]
He concludes, with perfect logic, that according to the Vatican's own agreement with the Lutherans on Justification, faith alone is most assuredly not condemned by the Council of Trent. Thus, he says to you: “You see, sir, the Catholics who adhere to and believe in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification do not hold that faith alone is a heresy that is anathematized infallibly by decree of the Council of Trent, as you claim a Catholic must believe in order to be Catholic.”
#3) Finally, this smart Protestant knows that you will try to say that John Paul II didn't sign the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. So he points out that the Joint Declaration was signed under John Paul II's auspices (i.e., with his support and patronage), and with John Paul IIs direction, full knowledge and public encouragement, which shows that John Paul II accepts it, approves it and agrees with it.

The Protestant even cites numerous speeches to prove from John Paul II's own words that he is fully in agreement with the Joint Declaration. He decides to read the following speech to you in full from the Vatican's own newspaper (L'Osservatore Romano), since he also happens to have a copy of it in his briefcase. John Paul II, Dec. 1999, on the Vatican-Lutheran Agreement on Justification: “For 25 years Lutherans and Catholics have been working to rediscover their common path... Theological dialogue has brought to light again the vast heritage of faith which unites us...

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION BEGAN FROM THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION and that it destroyed the unity of Christians of the West. A common understanding of justification... will, we are sure, help us to resolve the other controversies directly or indirectly linked to it.
THIS ‘COMMON UNDERSTANDING,’ WHICH I HAD HOPED FOR EIGHT YEARS AGO, TODAY, THANK GOD, HAS BECOME AN ENCOURAGING REALITY. This achievement of the ecumenical dialogue, a milestone on the way to full and visible unity, is the result of research, meetings, and prayer.”[11]

The Protestant concludes his presentation by saying:
“You see, sir, John Paul II is a Catholic and adheres to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, which declaration explicitly teaches that faith alone is not anathematized by Trent, and that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification are not the occasion for any doctrinal condemnations. Therefore, when I become a Catholic, I will hold the same position as John Paul II, and as the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans sets forth. I will hold that faith alone justifies, and I will not hold that it is an anathematized heresy! And I will not embrace the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, because John Paul II has accepted, endorsed and agreed with the Joint Declaration, which explains that Trent's canons are no longer in force.”

As you pause for a moment to digest all of the facts that this Protestant just hit you with, your mind works to prepare a response. You know that as a Catholic, you have a strict obligation to tell him that belief in faith alone and belief in the Catholic religion are incompatible. You know that you are absolutely bound, by the infallible Magisterium of the Council of Trent, to tell him, in charity, that he cannot believe in the anathematized heresy of Justification by faith alone (and that he must condemn it) if he wants to become Catholic and have a hope to save his soul from Hell. So what do you say in response?
If you hold that John Paul II is the Pope, you spit back the following response, which is the only thing that you can think of: “John Paul II is wrong. He is not infallible in everything he says or does. And even though John Paul II believes in the Joint Declaration, as you have shown, the Joint Declaration is not infallible. So John Paul II, though he is still our Catholic Pope, has contradicted the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent.” And the smart Protestant, quickly detecting the flaws in this illogical and poor response, replies:

“Sir, I never said that the Joint Declaration is infallible. Infallibility has nothing to do with our discussion. The bottom-line is that you admit that John Paul II is a Catholic with whom you are in communion, and with whom every Catholic must be in communion. After all, he is your Pope. He is the head of your Church.
You admit that he is not a heretic who is outside the communion of the Catholic Church for embracing the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, so you most certainly cannot say that I will be a heretic for embracing the same declaration. If he is not a heretic who is outside the Church for believing it, then neither shall I be. I am going to become Catholic and hold the positions set forth in the Joint Declaration (that faith alone is acceptable, etc.), as the Catholic Church leaders have, and that's that!” If you hold that John Paul II is a valid Pope, you would then have nothing to say in response to this Protestant. To use a Chess analogy, you are “checkmated.” The debate is over, and you have lost.
The Protestant has succinctly refuted your response by pointing out your illogical and contradictory position. You are caught in an unsolvable and devastating dilemma.
You cannot on the one hand say that acceptance of faith alone and the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification is incompatible with this Protestant's entrance into the Catholic Church (which you must as a Catholic, since this was defined infallibly at Trent), while you simultaneously give obedience to John Paul II as head of the Catholic Church, who has demonstrated his acceptance of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification quite publicly. The Protestant has cornered you and you are forced to admit that he can indeed become Catholic and hold to what is taught in the Joint Declaration.

HE CAN BECOME “CATHOLIC” AND HOLD THAT FAITH ALONE IS NOT AN ANATHEMATIZED HERESY, AND THAT TRENT'S CANONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE LUTHERAN VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. You are forced to deny the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent unless you are prepared to deny that John Paul II is the Catholic Pope. As you think more and more about what this Protestant had to say, you realize how fallacious was the argument made by you and your friends in defense of John Paul II and the Joint Declaration in the past. When people had questioned you about it, you simply replied that “it's not infallible” and went on your way. But as the Protestant's response shows, this is completely irrelevant. The Joint Declaration is not infallible (“so what?” the Protestant says). The bottom-line, you now realize, as the Protestant has pointed out, is that if John Paul II is the Pope, one can be a Catholic and believe in the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. If one cannot be a Catholic and believe in the Joint Declaration, then one must admit that John Paul II is not a Catholic and is therefore not a Pope, since he believes in it. There is no way around this. But you know that to say that one can be a Catholic and believe in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification is to radically deny the following dogma:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:
“AFTER THIS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION, WHICH WHOSOEVER DOES NOT FAITHFULLY AND FIRMLY ACCEPT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY COUNCIL TO ADD THESE CANONS, SO THAT ALL MAY KNOW NOT ONLY WHAT THEY MUST HOLD AND FOLLOW, BUT ALSO WHAT TO AVOID AND SHUN.”[12]
To say that one can be a Catholic and believe in the Joint Declaration, you must deny this dogma, which shows that Trent's teaching on Justification must be believed under pain of heresy and loss of Justification, and that the Lutheran heresies must be avoided. You must also reject all of the canons and decrees from Trent (referenced earlier in this article) which condemn Justification by faith alone as a heresy that cannot be believed by any Catholic. As the magnitude of the whole affair begins to sink in, you think back on the “material heretic” argument that other defenders of John Paul II have used to try to respond to this devastating dilemma. You now realize that this response is as futile as the one that says that the Joint Declaration is not infallible. You know that a “material heretic” is not a heretic. A “material heretic” is a term used by theologians to describe a Catholic who is erring in good faith regarding some Church teaching, but does not deny it deliberately. In order to be a “material heretic” one must be unaware of the teaching of the Church that he is contradicting. But the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification explicitly repudiates the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent by asserting that they “no longer apply...” It goes without saying, you realize, that one cannot repudiate the Council of Trent (as adherence to the Joint Declaration does) without knowing of the Council of Trent! Therefore, you realize that adherence to the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification in itself is incompatible with what theologians call “material heresy” (which requires that one is unaware of the teaching of the Church he is contradicting), because the Joint Declaration references the very teaching of the Church – the Council of Trent – and repudiates it. But over and above the point just mentioned, your analytical skills tell you in advance that there is a much simpler reason why the “material heretic” response does not solve the devastating dilemma with the Protestant, and does not refute his claim, which is the central theme of this article. It is simply that a so-called “material heretic” is a Catholic inside the Church, not a heretic who is outside the Church. Thus, the Protestant could easily refute the “material heretic” response by saying the following:

“Call me what you will, ‘material heretic,’ mistaken Catholic or whatever. You still are admitting that I, just like John Paul II, will be a Catholic in communion with the Catholic Church, not a heretic who is outside the Catholic Church, if I embrace the positions set forth in the Joint Declaration. You are still admitting that I will be a Catholic, just like John Paul II is, if I hold that Trent no longer applies and that faith alone is not a heresy. And this is what I intend to believe when I become Catholic.” As an aside, the fact that a so-called “material heretic” is a Catholic in communion with the Church, and not a heretic, is why the Magisterium has never used the term “material heretic.” The Magisterium only speaks of Catholics, heretics and schismatics. A material heretic falls into the category of Catholics, not heretics. All heretics are outside the Catholic Church and on the road to Hell (de fide, Eugene IV, Council of Florence). 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...”[13]

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“... ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”[14]
So-called “material heretics” are not outside the Catholic Church, do not bring down on their heads an inextinguishable flame, and are not on the road to Hell for denying the faith, because they are Catholics confused about a point of Church teaching, not heretics who have denied Church teaching. Therefore, you realize that to respond to the Protestant's argument by saying that John Paul II is a “material heretic” (i.e., he is still a Catholic), not a real heretic, is not a valid response at all, and would be easily refuted by him, since such a position still agrees that John Paul II is a Catholic in communion with the Church, despite his adherence to the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. This proves the Protestant's point, which is that he can also be “Catholic” and in communion with the Church despite adhering to the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification. Thus, you finally come to the inescapable conclusion that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, IF YOU HOLD THAT JOHN PAUL II IS THE POPE, TO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH. It is impossible for you to try to convert a Protestant from his acceptance of the heresy of faith alone to a condemnation of the heresy of faith alone. It is impossible for you to say that a Catholic must believe in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent on Justification. And it is impossible for you to say that a Catholic must reject as anathematized heresy the propositions set forth in the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, which you must as a Catholic. It finally strikes you that it is impossible for you to give an accurate and coherent presentation of the Catholic faith to a non-Catholic, since you are in communion with those who have repudiated the very faith you are presenting. As long as you acknowledge John Paul II as a Catholic Pope, you are defending a Church that has repudiated the Council of Trent, a “Church” that is, by definition, a non-Catholic Church – a Church of heretics.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, profession of faith, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess THE ONE CHURCH, NOT OF HERETICS, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[15]

You realize that the same judgment by which you determined that this non-denominational Protestant was a heretic and outside the Catholic Church – a judgment you made upon meeting him and finding out what he believed and how he repudiated the Council of Trent – is the same exact judgment that you absolutely are forced to make about John Paul II. It hits you in a striking and illuminating way that you are not guilty of judging the Holy See or a Pope when you correctly judge that John Paul II is a non-Catholic; rather, you are identifying a non-Catholic for what he is, just as you correctly identified the non-denominational Protestant you met as a non-Catholic, as well as any Calvinist, Methodist or Episcopalian. You are making an absolutely necessary judgment about who is in communion with the true Church and who is not, based upon their open religious profession and their open acceptance or rejection of Catholic doctrine. To fail to make this judgment, you now recognize, is to fail to differentiate between the Catholic Church and heretical sects, and the members of the Catholic Church and the members of heretical sects. It is to be unable to distinguish between the true Church and a faceless blob of baptized heretics. You now realize that to say that you don’t feel you have the authority to judge John Paul II is to say that you don’t have the authority to judge the non-denominational Protestant you encountered as a heretic. THIS, IN TURN, MEANS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH, or to declare publicly that the Catholic Church is different from belief in a Lutheran creed of Justification by faith alone. You realize that you must reject John Paul II as a non-Catholic Antipope who has no authority and is outside the Catholic Church. You realize that this must be the conclusion of all Catholics. Those who understand these facts and still maintain that John Paul II is a Pope (and therefore a Catholic) are rejecting the Catholic faith. The dilemma presented above proves this beyond any doubt. Those who refuse to accept this fact, or ignore it, or say that John Paul II's belief in the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification doesn't absolutely prove that John Paul II is not a Catholic, are simply rejecting the known truth deliberately and are, by their own admission, professing a faith which does not require its adherents to believe in the Council of Trent. They do not love God, and they value affiliation with John Paul II's defected Church of heretics as more important than the Catholic faith. They would rather accept a new Catholic religion, according to which one can be inside the Church while holding the heresies of faith alone and that Trent's canons no longer apply, than tell their friends and associates that John Paul II is actually a non-Catholic Antipope and that everyone must acknowledge this fact. Therefore, those who understand that John Paul II has embraced the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification and know what it says, yet obstinately persist in regarding him as a Catholic (and therefore a Pope) are heretics who are on the road to damnation. They are in communion with a Church of heretics, not the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Not a Dilemma For True Catholics
The dilemma that we have just examined is not a dilemma for a true Catholic who is not in communion with Antipope
John Paul II and his false Vatican II Church. The true Catholic can logically and consistently point out to a Protestant that he cannot become a Catholic and embrace or accept faith alone, because this was anathematized by the holy Catholic Church at the Council of Trent. The true Catholic will point out to the Protestant that he cannot save his soul or be in any communion with the Church of Christ unless he condemns faith alone and all of the other Protestant heresies. The true Catholic will condemn the Joint Declaration as manifest heresy and Antipope John Paul II as a manifest heretic as soon as the Protestant brings them up, so the Protestant cannot use them to justify his heresy. The true Catholic will point out to the Protestant that there have been many Antipopes in Church history – men who claimed to be the valid successors of Peter but were not; and that John Paul II is another Antipope who is leading the world astray by his false Vatican II religion. The true Catholic will point out to the Protestant that it is the teaching of Catholic saints, Popes, theologians and canon law that a manifest heretic loses all jurisdiction to rule in the Catholic Church, whether he was a Pope or a Bishop, because one who is outside cannot command in the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”[16]
The true Catholic will also point out that Pope Paul IV solemnly taught in his 1559 Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, with the highest authority of the Catholic Church, that no Catholic can accept as valid the “Papal election” of a heretic; and that those who do accept a heretic as a valid Pope are under the wrath of God.
It is certainly true that it may be hard for some Protestants to accept the fact that God has allowed a counterfeit Catholic Church to be erected since Vatican II, with Antipopes posing to the world as true Popes, but there is nothing inconsistent in accepting it; and those of good will will accept it. In fact, they will see the fulfillment of prophecy about the true Church and its end-time counterfeit in the events that have transpired in Rome over the past 40 years, events which have reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant. The good-willed Protestant will accept that the fall of Rome from the true Catholic faith is predicted clearly in scripture (the prophecies about the whore of Babylon – Apoc. 17 and 18) and Catholic prophecy (Our Lady of La Salette), which serves to confirm that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ that the devil wants to destroy. The good-willed Protestant will be convinced that the one Church established by Jesus Christ – the Catholic Church – which received the true doctrine of Justification from Christ as defined by Trent, still exists, but that it cannot exist with the Church of John Paul II which repudiates this doctrine of Justification (among a ton of other things).
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, On Justification: “... the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent... PURPOSE TO EXPOUND TO ALL THE FAITHFUL OF CHRIST THE TRUE AND SALUTARY DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION, WHICH THE ‘SON OF JUSTICE’ (Mal. 4:2), CHRIST JESUS, ‘THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH’ TAUGHT, THE APOSTLES TRANSMITTED AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, UNDER THE INSTIGATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, HAS ALWAYS RETAINED, STRICTLY FORBIDDING THAT ANYONE HENCEFORTH MAY PRESUME TO BELIEVE, PREACH OR TEACH, OTHERWISE THAN IS DEFINED AND DECLARED BY THIS PRESENT DECREE.”[17]

Since Trent's doctrine on Justification comes from Christ, was transmitted by the apostles, and is always retained in the Catholic Church (de fide), a Church whose members do not retain – but publicly reject ­– Trent's teaching on Justification is not the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to remain in communion with a Church whose members do not retain Trent's teaching on Justification (such as the Protestant churches and the Church of John Paul II), but publicly reject it, since such a Church is, by definition, a non-Catholic Church. Therefore, the following conclusion is inescapable: those who comprehend this information and obstinately affirm that John Paul II is their Pope, and that consequently they are in the same Church as he is, are putting themselves outside the Church of Christ by their own affirmation. There is absolutely no way around this conclusion.

This is why, in addition to the fact that no one can be a Catholic and obstinately believe that John Paul II is a Pope in light of this information, no Catholic can donate or financially support any priest or organization that does not publicly condemn John Paul II as an Antipope. Those who do persist in supporting such a priest or organization, after seeing the above information, are denying the faith by donating to a heretical priest/organization and committing grave sin. For more information on the Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, consult our article, “22 Heresies in Antipope John Paul II’s Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification” in issue #4 of our magazine.
Endnotes

[1] The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.
[2] Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 819.
[3] Denzinger 851.
[4] Denzinger 829.
[5] Denzinger 804.
[6] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 675.
[7] L'Osservatore Romano, Baltimore, MD (PO Box 777), Special Insert, Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, November 24, 1999, #5.
[8] L’Osservatore Romano, Special Insert, Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, November 24, 1999, #13.
[9] L’Osservatore Romano, Special Insert, Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, November 24, 1999, #41.
[10] L’Osservatore Romano, Special Insert, Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, November 24, 1999, #26.
[11] L’Osservatore Romano, December 9-10, 1999.
[12] The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Rev. H. J. Schroeder, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1978, p. 42; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 678; Denzinger 810.
[13] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.
[14] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 74.
[15] Denzinger 423.
[16] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 401.
[17] Denzinger 792a.

A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire

In many ways the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the most important dogma in the Catholic Church. Connected with this is the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. But today both of these truths are almost universally denied by those calling themselves Catholic. They assert that the unbaptized can be united to the Church, justified (attain the state of grace) and saved by what is called baptism of desire. A tiny minority of those who believe in baptism of desire (less than 1%) limit it to those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion (e.g., unbaptized catechumens). The vast majority of them (more than 99%) extend the possibility of salvation by baptism of desire to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. and people of no religion, who do not actually desire baptism or believe in the Catholic Faith. This majority group also somehow extends the "saving capability" of baptism of desire to Protestants, even though Protestants have already been baptized. In this newsletter we will show that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost (i.e., actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism). The discussion will focus mainly on baptism of desire as it is believed by the tiny minority (for those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion), because the majority's definition of baptism of desire (that baptism of desire saves those who don't believe in the Catholic Faith or actually desire baptism) is directly contrary to many defined dogmas, was never held by any saint, and is a denial of the Athanasian Creed which defined that whoever wishes to be saved must believe in Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith.

Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand
1) Are the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 ("Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.") to be taken as they are written, or not as they are written?
All defenders of the theory of baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally. They agree that baptism of desire cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is written. So the question is: Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."
The reader can see very clearly that the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), thereby excluding any possibility of baptism of desire. Ironically, the Council defines this in Sess. 6, Chap. 4, the very passage which baptism of desire proponents quote all the time to favor their position. In fact, this passage is brought up by baptism of desire proponents as their single strongest – and perhaps only – argument from the Papal Magisterium. It is their "trump card". Why do they think this? The baptism of desire people believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But a careful look at the passage proves this to be false. The passage says that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire for it; in other words, both are necessary. Suppose I said, "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place by the desire to take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are necessary. In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the same way in other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."
Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or"(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church... has approved this custom of communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."

Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another clear example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or "both". And these examples blow away the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire. But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii - the justification of the impious (see quote above). The "impious" cannot refer to infants - who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). Therefore, in this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for justification. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it. Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it..." So, far from being in favor of baptism of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it. We know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water or desire, which is certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN. Let them cease quoting the horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them). And furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of desire. They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to Peter and his successors alone (Lk. 22:31-32).

Some baptism of desire supporters also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments to somehow try to prove baptism of desire. But it's obvious that this canon does not teach that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification, as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns those who assert that neither is necessary. For a full discussion of this canon we refer you to the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine. It is also quite interesting to consider that whereas the Council of Trent never teaches baptism of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14 and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (if a person has perfect contrition) can suffice for justification before Penance is actually received. This efficacy of the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the desire for baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should indicate something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn't allow it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council or even in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an erroneous theory. John 3:5 is true exactly as it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). If the concept of baptism of desire were a true teaching of the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely would have included it in the canons on Baptism or in the chapters on Justification. But it's nowhere to be found. It's also noteworthy that the terms baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism of the Council of Trent - contrary to what many assert. For a discussion of what The Catechism of the Council of Trent does and does not teach on Baptism, consult the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine. 2) Is there one baptism or are there three?
Is there only one baptism celebrated in water? Or do three baptisms exist: water, blood and desire? Let us quote the teaching of the Church: The Dogmatic Nicene Creed: "We confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Countless Popes have professed the dogma that there is only one baptism (see issue #6 of our magazine for quotes from no less than 9 other Popes). Did baptism of desire proponents ever wonder why countless Popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to define the so-called "other two" (desire and blood)? Why has not a single Pope ever used the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Why did two general councils of the Church – Lateran IV and Vienne – define ex cathedra only one baptism which is of water?

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: "But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church."
If the sacrament of baptism brings salvation to children and adults (de fide), then without it there is no salvation! Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism which regenerates 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."
Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water. This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess "three baptisms", and not one, is to reject Catholic dogma.
3) Are those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism part of the faithful? Who are the faithful? Can one who has not been baptized be considered part of the faithful? I have not, as yet, heard any believer in baptism of desire try to answer this question. The following facts explain why I have not yet gotten an answer to this question; it is because they cannot answer this question.
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."
As many of you know, the Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass of the catechumens (those training to be baptized) and the Mass of the faithful (those baptized). Need one say more? In the early Church, the unsacramentally baptized (i.e., those who had not been baptized with water) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition. This teaching of Tradition is why in the Traditional Rite of Baptism, the unbaptized catechumen is asked what he desires from holy Church, and he answers "Faith." The unbaptized catechumen does not have "the Faith", so he begs the Church for it in the "Sacrament of Faith" (Baptism), which alone makes him one of "the faithful."

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
"For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes...

Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?... Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above... for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
"... the instrumental cause [of Justification] is THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, WHICH IS ‘THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH,’ without faith no one is ever justified...
THIS FAITH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APOSTOLIC TRADITION, CATECHUMENS BEG OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi) which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow."
And with these facts in mind (that a catechumen "begs" for the faith because he isn't part of the faithful), remember the definition of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved..." The original Latin reads: "Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur..." The Latin words nullus omnino mean "absolutely nobody."

Absolutely nobody outside the one Church of the faithful is saved. Since the one Church of the faithful only includes those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism – as apostolic tradition, liturgical tradition and Church dogma show – this means that absolutely nobody is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.

4) Is Our Lord's command to be baptized impossible for some to fulfill?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171:
"Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."
As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra:
"... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do..."
Is Lefebvrism Catholic?
Recently, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two books attacking the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. The premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent, that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the following Magisterial teaching declares:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 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 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 Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Here we see the Council of Florence authoritatively teaching that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, and Pope Pius XI teaching that no one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the sacrament administered in water). The Society of St. Pius X's books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others. All of these groups also believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the dogma more directly.

Besides the heretical premise described above, there is much, much more that could be mentioned about the recent works of the Society of St. Pius X, especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Father Laisney. You don't want to miss our in-depth review of these books in issue #6 of our magazine, in the section on the Society of St. Pius X. But here we will just mention a few things about each book. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau pretends to be an examination of the Church's teaching on what is necessary for salvation: the necessity of baptism, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, etc. Yet amazingly, in the entire book, the author does not quote one (I repeat, not one) of the ex cathedra (infallible) Papal statements on Outside the Church There is No Salvation! I guess he didn’t feel they were relevant? He did feel it important to mention, however, that Baptism of Desire can occur among paganism (BOD, p. 64); that justifying faith can come from false religions (BOD, p. 61); that it is an error to attribute infallibility to every document of the Magisterium (BOD, p. 9) – all of which is heresy!

The author also states that to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium (BOD, p. 11)! This utterance is particularly absurd and quite hypocritical when we consider that the same author, when treating of whether implicit or explicit faith in Jesus is necessary to be saved (pp. 56-57), remarks that he's not sure what authority St. Thomas' opinion on this point holds – since St. Thomas says that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation and the Society of St. Pius X does not! So much for "to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium."

As distressing as Baptism of Desire was, Fr. Laisney's book Is Feeneyism Catholic? Is even worse. For instance, there are these incredible statements of Father Laisney:
Father Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, pp. 47-48: "Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire!... Thus far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very Council of Florence, the very bull Cantate Domino, teaches it as being 'another remedy' permitting a delay for adult catechumens for the reasons given by St. Thomas."
This is scary, especially from one who claims to be a traditional Catholic priest. The Council of Florence mentions absolutely nothing about baptism of desire! It mentions nothing of adult catechumens; and it mentions nothing of "baptism of desire" being "another remedy" "for the reasons given by St. Thomas"! These are all lies! And Fr. Laisney knows that this is true. But because he is so diabolically and uncontrollably biased and obsessed in his quest to prove that men can be saved without baptism, he could not refrain from adding them in – to his own perdition, if he does not convert. And then there are Fr. Laisney's amazing contradictions:
Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: "... this is Baptism of Blood, which – the Church teaches – can save also little children dying with their parents for Christ."
Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 22: "Note that an infant, not having yet the use of his reason, has no other possibility to be saved than through the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, i.e., baptism of water."
Hello? On page 9 he asserts that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – by baptism of blood. On page 22 he assures us that "there is no other possibility" for infants to be saved other than the Sacrament of Baptism. Fr. Laisney cannot even avoid contradicting himself about what he says "the Church teaches" (page 9), let alone what the Church really teaches. The worst part of this mess is that Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that infants have no other remedy for original sin other than the Sacrament of Baptism, a dogma which Laisney quotes on page 47! - denies on page 9! - affirms on page 22! - and then denies again on page 77! This type of dishonesty, contradiction and heresy characterizes the books of the Society of St. Pius X on baptism and salvation.

Moreover, the SSPX – Lefebvrists continue to promote the heretical idea that people can be saved in false religions. The books by Archbishop Lefebvre, particularly Against the Heresies (pp. 216-218) and Open Letter to Confused Catholics (pp. 73-74) – two of the SSPX's best sellers – blatantly deny the dogma that men are saved only in the Catholic religion. In Against the Heresies page 216, Lefebvre writes: " Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)..." Page 217 says: "One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions..." Page 218: "When we say that (Outside the Church there is no salvation), it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell." Will anyone considering himself a "traditional Catholic" have the audacity to say that these statements from Lefebvre are not heretical? They are blatantly heretical! Anyone who would say that they are not heretical is a heretic himself who rejects the defined dogma "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." No Catholic who knows that the SSPX teaches and promotes heresy, as we have just proven, can give them a penny of financial support if he desires to remain Catholic. The following words of Pope Gregory XVI could have been addressed specifically to the SSPX and those who defend the heretical teaching that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion. Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), 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."
Strange Heresy? In May of 1999, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH accused us in their newsletter of holding a "strange heresy". The subject of their attack was our view that the true justification of a sinner (i.e., the state of grace) cannot be attained without water baptism. They hold that while baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation by divine law, one can be regenerated (justified/born again) by the mere desire for baptism. They believe in a baptism of desire that justifies but does not save, and they call our view that there is no justification at all without baptism heretical. The absolute stupidity of such an assertion by the modern-day St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire becomes very clear when this topic is examined more deeply. For example, they accuse us of holding a strange heresy when this was the teaching of St. Ambrose (W. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 2:1330).
St. Ambrose: "You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

What's amazing about this is that the St. Benedict Center (Richmond, NH) even quotes this passage from St. Ambrose in their books to prove their position (e.g., Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation, p. 132). So this position – that one cannot be justified without baptism – is put forward as true by the St. Benedict Center when they quote St. Ambrose; but in their newsletter they call this very same position a "strange heresy" because they feel like attacking Most Holy Family Monastery. What incredible hypocrisy! Furthermore, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as early as the year 451, had already defined this doctrine as St. Ambrose expressed it and as we believe it. Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, 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."

Before we get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, we will give a little background on this dogmatic letter. This is Pope St. Leo the Great's famous dogmatic letter to Flavian, originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council of Chalcedon – the fourth general Council of the Church – in 451 (quoted in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Press, Vol. 1, p. 81). It is one of the most important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the Council (more than 500) to rise to their feet and proclaim: "This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo." The very letter in itself embodies the term ex cathedra (speaking from the Chair of Peter), as proven by the reaction of the fathers at Chalcedon. This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in its definition of faith, which was approved authoritatively by Pope Leo himself. It is unquestionably dogmatic and Magisterial.

And if that were not sufficient to prove that Pope Leo's letter is without question infallible, consider the fact that it was also approved by Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and by Pope St. Agatho at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681). It was also confirmed infallibly by a number of other Popes, including: Pope St. Gelasius, Pope Pelagius II, 553 (Den. 246) and Pope Benedict XIV, 1743 (Denz. 1463). Because of the tremendous significance of Pope Leo's letter to the topic at hand, we will quote an extract from Pope St. Gelasius which shows how no one can contradict, in the slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo to Flavian.
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: "Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian... if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema." (Denz. 165)
Here we have Pope St. Gelasius speaking ex cathedra to condemn anyone who would depart, even in regard to one iota, from the text of Pope Leo's dogmatic epistle to Flavian.
Now, in the section of Pope Leo's dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with the sanctification by the Spirit. "Sanctification by the Spirit" is the term for Justification from the state of sin (the state of grace). No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit, as everyone professing to be Catholic admits. Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood. It is only by receiving the blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification).

It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."
It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application the blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Baptism of desire/blood advocates – as well as the St. Benedict Center, since they believe in justification by desire – explain that the blood of Redemption, which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul by the desire for baptism or by his martyrdom, without water baptism. They assert that the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism. But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! Let us quote the crucial portions of his statement again:
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, 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)… 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."

Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.
A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.
And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, 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)..."

The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification. Since Pope Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way to her.
Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism (de fide). There can be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism (de fide). There can be no salvation without water baptism (de fide). By separating the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption from the water of baptism, baptism of desire and blood advocates – and the St. Benedict Center – teach contrary to Pope Leo's dogmatic pronouncement. And this is HERESY!
The significance of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is tremendous. It naturally crushes any idea of salvation the supposedly "invincibly ignorant." These souls cannot be sanctified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ without receiving the saving waters of baptism, which God will bring to those of good will. The Sacrament of Baptism is the only way that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner.
The dogma that the blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent; however, the definition is not as specific as Pope Leo’s. The difference is that, whereas Trent’s definition sets forth the principle that the blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the sacrament of baptism, Pope Leo’s definition confirms that this means that the blood of Christ can be applied to a sinner only by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism... let him be anathema."
Pope St. Leo's pronouncement also radically confirms the Church’s consistent understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in their absolutely literal sense: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Those who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope Leo must reject any belief in the theories of baptism of desire and blood. They must cease believing and teaching that sanctification by the Spirit comes without the Spirit, the blood and the water. Those who refuse to do this are obstinately contradicting the teaching of the Church. To obstinately contradict the teaching of the Church is to fall into heresy. To fall into heresy without repentance is to lose one's salvation.

Some may wonder why some early Church fathers, saints, and theologians taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo's pronouncement. The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo's definitive pronouncement in this regard. They were erring in good faith. They were fallible human beings. They were not aware that their position was contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

But once one recognizes that this position on baptism of desire and blood is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – as a careful consideration of Pope Leo's pronouncement proves – one must change his position if he wants to remain Catholic and save his soul. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo and confirmed for us that the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of redemption cannot be separated from their link with water baptism, so we must align our position with this or else we don't have the faith of Peter.

There are other errors in the St. Benedict Center's explanation of Justification, which are catalogued in issue #6 (see Errors of the Current St. Benedict Center). Since these errors deal with finer points of this issue, there is no doubt that many supporters of the St. Benedict Center have held - and some still may hold - these errors in good faith, while affirming the dogma that the Catholic Faith and Baptism are necessary for salvation. But the current day leadership and many of its affiliates are obstinate and refuse to correct themselves, and bring down on their heads definite anathema when they condemn the teaching of the Church described above as a strange heresy. The most obvious area in which they show themselves to be obstinate against the teaching of the Church on this issue is in regard to the dogma that "outside the Church there is no remission of sins." The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member), but that the same unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church. This is contrary to the ex cathedra definition of Boniface VIII below. It is therefore heresy to say, as they do, that one who is outside the Church can have his sins remitted. We pray that the affiliates of the St. Benedict Center will change their heretical position on this matter, as well as their heretical allegiance to the Vatican II Church, because they have endured unjust persecution from heretics who hate the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and Our Lord Jesus Christ's doctrine on the necessity of Baptism.
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 necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." John 3:5 vs. John 6:54
Some writers, including Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: "Amen, amen I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." They argue that the language in this verse is the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church doesn't take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don't need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. But the argument falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial difference in the wording of these two verses.

John 6:54- "Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU EAT the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
John 3:5- "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John 6:54, does not say: "unless a man eat the flesh of the Son of man..." He says: "Except you..." His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. Since the people to whom He was speaking could receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5 Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church's magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written (see Council of Carthage, Denz 102; Florence, Denz. 696; Trent, Sess. 5, no. 4, Denz. 791; Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4; Trent, Can. 2 and 5 on Baptism, Denz. 858 and 861.). Also, one should note that Trent's Canons on Baptism are Canons on the Sacrament (Canones de sacramento baptismi). This means that Can. 5 (see below) condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., water baptism) is not necessary for salvation. It also takes John 3:5 literally once again, as the Church always does. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."

John 3:5-7: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God... WONDER NOT, that I said to thee, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."