Go Top
MHFM: A Doctrine of Ambiguity
Catholics Against MhFM
Defending the Faith

The Crossroads at 23rd Street


"For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)


"When FEAR knocks on your door, send FAITH to answer it."

MHFM: A doctrine of Ambiguity, Condemnations and Haste: by Patrick Walsh (2007)

"For in the last days the false prophets and the corruptors shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate..." - The Didache XVI, iii

"...this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit. ....Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it." - (Excerpts from the Annotations [*Official Commentary] on John 3:5, from the Roman Catholic Bible [Douay Rheims 1582 A.D. version])

Even the most simple-minded of Catholics knows that "to privately interpret the Bible" is not Catholic- but is Luther's "religion" [heretical Protestantism].

"Some, putting aside her [The Church's] true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, 'It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's.'" - (Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther [Exsurge Domine], Papal Bulla of Pope Leo X, June 15, 1520)

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael, I am writing this letter as a matter of conscience, in order to address certain issues you have theoretically proposed pertaining to matters concerning the faith. Hopefully you will realise you have made a grave error in promoting doctrines that are not at all in keeping with Divine Revelation as proposed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

You may be acting out of sincerity, trying to stand up for the faith, however your efforts are misguided by your own interpretation of Christian doctrine, which is a mistake I myself fell into when I proposed your material to others and believed you were infallibly correct. Having studied the teaching of the Church in more detail I have come to a better understanding of my faith, knowing you to be in grievous error which I will endeavour to persuade you to listen to, and at the same time provide you with sound sense and crystal clear doctrine, which leaves no room for ambiguity. In light of my studies and in the most charitable sense I pray to God that the truth will unfold and the merciful God will open your eyes.

Brothers Peter and Michael, I sincerely hope you will not start our dialogue by calling me a heretic, but will instead accord me the same courtesy I will offer you by debating the subject matter at hand, remembering that virtue is patience, while the truth is being sought. It is not very prudent or Catholic for that matter to call someone a heretic when you yourselves are wrong, even if you don’t know it. These are all mistakes and can be undone with humility and Catholic teaching; however let us get to the issues at hand.

My first condemnation on your theory of Baptism of Desire lies in the fact that St. Augustine has already upheld this to be a fact and even gives an example of such by stating that if a person were to become a catechumen and had vowed to become a Catholic, he would be saved if some unforeseen event prevented him from doing so, and baptism would be supplied by desire. This is also upheld in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Before I give you the evidence, I take this opportunity to make you aware of the paramount importance of the writings and teachings of the Doctors of the Church which are upheld in the decrees of the Magisterium. What the Doctors teach we are obliged to obey as they have been sanctioned by the Church. If not! ... there’s no point in having any Doctors at all. Nor can we pick and choose what is to our own liking, putting our own spin and interpretation on whatever we decide, period. Not everyone that says Lord, Lord is saved; unless they adhere to the Church and those who were given the power to edify the faithful. Imagine meeting Our Lord when we die and having to confront Him with the issue of the ones He ordained to teach us the faith? How will God react do you think, when He asks us the question as to why we did not believe what the Holy Doctor Augustine has declared as the teaching of the Church on Baptism of Blood and Desire AND is listed into the annotations of 1582 version of the Douay Rheims by Holy Mother Church for our edification and Catholicity. You will probably say something totally ridiculous, like: “I didn’t believe him Lord, or I wasn’t sure, or I was standing up for the faith” or maybe another million concoctions!

Our Lord will surely say, “You foolish man! Did I not send you the Popes and Holy Doctors and Saints to teach and preach; what is the point of sending you teachers if you won’t believe? If you believed what they had told you, there would be no wrong in you, however since you have chosen your own doctrine, then you have also chosen your own fate, be-gone from me into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

My dear brothers, here is the teaching of Augustine on Baptism of Desire in the 1582 version of the Douay Rheims, which you don’t have, to provide proper instruction on the teachings of the Church. This version is from the true original which was never properly introduced into the public forum because of persecutions to the Church at that time. Its scriptural text and annotations are very clear and cannot be denied at the expense of being obstinate. The Holy Doctors (in this case St. Augustine) make it clear cut, giving no authority to any individual to manipulate his words.

If you purchase The Book of Destiny by Father Kramer (1955) you will find that in his thirty years study - his explanations of scripture are precisely in keeping with this version - which has been redeemed from a museum and carefully translated directly from St. Jerome. It must be noted that not many individuals have this priceless gem. If you wish I will give you information that has come to light on the corrupt sources of the Challoner and Haydock versions which were imbued by protestant theology under Henry VIII and his dominions. The proofs of validity presented in these volumes present an opportunity for you to gain access and get closer to the truth, if that is what you really desire. It also presents an opportunity for you to face the difficulties which will arise from the fountain of knowledge that I present to you. Telling people that you have changed your stance in the light of such information would show you up in a good light. People might view this as an act of inner strength and draw admiration instead of severe criticism and condemnation.

Below is the first piece of absolute proof which you must accept remembering that the Church has upheld the teachings of St. Augustine (Pope St. Hormisdas “sicut ration”i and Pope St. Gelasius in his decretal on the “Authority of the Fathers”)…. May God give you strength to make the right decision, keeping firmly in mind that it is an act of love and humility in honour of the Omnipotent God to tell people you made a mistake. Dear Brothers, I have made many mistakes - believing that God does not condemn us for our mistakes, however, what I do believe, is that He does condemn us for our obstinacy…. I pray you will look at the bigger picture and think of the great works you could achieve with the right application; I will pray sincerely that God will direct your hearts to make the right choice.

John 3:5 - Annotations (1582 A.D. version of the Douay Rheims Bible)

Baptism in water necessary to salvation

Chapter 3:5 - [Born again of Water] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.

Whereby the Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.

Aug. hares. 38

Gal. 5:6

Tit. 3:12

Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

18. [Is judged already] He that believeth in Christ with faith which worketh by charity (as the Apostle speaketh) shall not be condemned at the later day nor at the hour of his death. But the Infidel, be he Jew, Pagan, or Heretic, is already (if he die in his incredulity) by his own profession and sentence condemned, and shall not come to judgment either particular or general, to be discussed according to his works of mercy done or omitted. In which sense St. Paul saith that the obstinate Heretic is condemned by his own judgment, preventing in himself, of his own free will, the sentence both of Christ and of the Church.

31. [He that cometh from above] As though he should say, No marvel that men resort to Christ so fast and make less account of me, for, his baptism and his preaching and his person are all from heaven immediately. He bringeth all from the very bosom, mouth and substance of God his Father. Whatsoever is in me, is but a little drop of his grace. His spirit and graces are above all measures or men’s gifts, even according to his Manhood: and all power temporal and spiritual, the kingdom and the Priesthood, and all sovereignty in heaven and earth are bestowed upon him as he is man also.

Baptism in two cases not necessary, but otherwise supplied.

Every Infidel and namely Heretics are judged already.

The Excellency of Christ's power and graces.

1917 Code of Canon Law ... Laws to be OBEYED by the Catholic Church


Canon 1267: "Unbaptised persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and are therefore to be regarded as among those baptised."

St. Emerentiana: Approved Saint and Martyred Catechumen of the Catholic Church

Saint Emerentiana: Those familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus Ordo 'missals') will know the story of this virgin and martyr who Holy Mother Church has had Her religious commemorate on a yearly basis for some 1800 years. Let us quote the Breviary directly:

“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, stepsister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.

Virgin and martyr, d. at Rome in the third century; The old Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs, after giving the place of burial on the Via Nomentana of St. Agnes, speak of St. Emerentiana. Over the grave of St. Emerentiana a church was built which, according to the Itineraries, was near the church erected over the place of burial of St. Agnes, and somewhat farther from the city wall. In reality Emerentiana was interred in the coemeterium majus located in this vicinity not far from the coemeterium Agnetis. Armellini believed that he had found the original burial chamber of St. Emerentiana in the former coemeterium. According to the legend of St. Agnes, Emerentiana was her foster-sister. Some days after the burial of St. Agnes, Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" she is mentioned under 16 September, with the statement: In coemeterio maiore. She is represented with stones in her lap, also with a palm or lily.”

St. Thomas Aquinas ... Approved Doctor of the Catholic Church

Q. Can the Baptism of blood, or the Baptism of desire, take the place of the Baptism of water?

A. Yes, the Baptism of blood, which is martyrdom and figures the Passion of our Blessed Lord, and the Baptism of desire, which consists in an act of the love of God through the action of the Holy Ghost, can both take the place of the Baptism of water; but in this sense, that the grace of Baptism can be obtained without the reception of the sacrament itself when this reception is impossible; but not in the sense that the character of the sacrament can be received apart from the sacrament itself (LXVI. n).

Pope Urban V

Teaching authority to be obeyed by all - regarding the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas):

"We command you to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas as the Catholic doctrine, and study to embrace it with all your power." - Pope Urban V, letter to the Academy of Toulouse

Pope St. Leo ... Christ's VICAR of the Catholic Church:

Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (2, ad)

Pope St. Leo the Great, A.D. 461

“Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)

Pope St. Pius X's CATECHISM of the Catholic Church

Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

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 saviour; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

"Or a desire for it" means exactly what it says, to infer differently is to twist the words of the Church and deny its teaching.

You constantly quote Cantate Domino by Eugene IV to support your argument against baptism of blood without understanding its true meaning. The part of this dogmatic definition which you are stressing is the underlined “Even if they shed his blood in the name of Christ” as if to infallibly prove that is some element of truth in your fallible interpretation. However we will demonstrate that this is not Church Teaching and endeavour to raise your minds to a higher knowledge of the truth. Matters of the Faith need to be studied most diligently before any attempt is made to introduce them into the public domain. It is pretty obvious by close observation of your rigid interpretations and perceptions of Catholic doctrine that it is outside the scope of your learning and teaching authority.

Most Holy Family Monastery: “Even if they shed his blood in the name of Christ

This piece of text has a complete different meaning and interpretation then that which you assume to give it. The True meaning of this piece of text in Pope Eugene’s Bull is understood in the true sense, by the interpretation of the Holy Doctors. The meaning of this text; is that those who are baptised i.e. Protestants, and other false martyrs who believing, they are shedding their blood in the name of Christ are not saved. It has nothing to do with baptism of Blood. This has to do with those who are in the wrong faith who think they are shedding their blood for the name of Christ cannot be saved. Baptism of Blood pertains to those whom the merciful God bestows his grace in an instance of mercy to die for the true Church of Jesus Christ. Baptism of Blood can be attained by dying for the true Faith as Saint Augustine has already proved above in the 1582 Douay; however, I will give another example of the same once again from the 1582 Douay for your attention.

Here is the explanation of the Doctors on the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:10

10. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.

Explanation: 10. [For justice] Heretics and other malefactors sometimes suffer willingly and stoutly: but they are not blessed, because they suffer not for justice. For (saith St. Augustine) they cannot suffer for justice, that have divided the Church, and, where sound faith or charity is not, there cannot be justice. Cont. ep. Parm. li. 1. c. 9., Ep. 10. Psal. 34. Conc. 3. And so by this scripture are excluded all false martyrs, as St. Augustine often declareth, and St. Cyprian de Unis. Eccl., nu. 8.

Attempts To Discredit The Saints

As we can clearly see, your understanding of Cantate Domino is flawed. In various places in your magazines you have made attempts to discredit St. Augustine in relation to writing his book of corrections. If you didn’t, then why did you bring it up at all? St. Augustine, first among the Doctors in theology, corrected himself guided by the workings to the Holy Ghost; always keeping the Church as his focus. There is no need to proceed further. You have focused your attention on Augustine’s corrections deliberately, in an attempt to undermine his credibility, and elevate your own perspective, as if it were truth itself. This is especially true, because you can’t produce one piece of true Catholic evidence to show that these honourable Saints were condemned by the Church for holding fast to their beliefs on Baptism of Desire, instead you manufacture your own. Fact is, the evidence is provided by the Church, and proven to the contrary, that there is indeed a merciful God who is not bound by His own Will.

Most Holy Family Monastery: Page 63 you state : Pope Eugene IV explicitly excludes from salvation even those who “shed blood for the name of Christ."

Pope Eugene IV does not explicitly exclude from salvation those who shed their blood for Christ by your interpretation, proving to you here that you have misinterpreted the meaning of a definition in a Dogmatic Bull; Why? Because your knowledge of the Catholic Faith is inadequate! That in itself is not a great difficulty. The real problem is that you are taking over the mantle of the Church in preaching the word of God, while not sufficiently knowing it, in so doing; you are undermining the Truth and spreading error. You are using Catholic teaching without a proper understanding of its meaning which has been given by God through the teaching apparatus of the Church for our edification and salvation, and all you have to say is that this institution has erred consistently ... in your opinion.

Would you have us believe that several Holy Popes, a Dogmatic Council, many Doctors, Saints, Canon law, the Catechism, Testimonies to martyred Saints, and Holy Scripture are wrong to suit your illusionary ramblings, condemning all around you and blaspheming the Blood of the Saints? It’s no wonder Our Lord is retuning Enoch and Elias in the last days to preach the faith; for if your errors were equal to their truth then there would be no need to send them at all, unless of course there were some article, act, or mannerisms of theirs which was displeasing to contend by Holy Family Monastery.

Here are some of the criticisms you have directed against the Doctors and Saints:

St. Cyprian erred

In another attempt in your magazine you try to discredit St. Cyprian. You employ his belief that a heretic couldn’t baptise. You omit the following facts that he was supported by all eighty seven Bishops throughout Africa, plus the fact that St. Cyprian submitted his entire collection of letters in relation to this matter to Rome. He held his position too strongly and was severely censured for his position; St. Cyprian toed the line and died a Saint. You referenced St. Cyprian’s denial of the Baptism by heretics, as proof that he was wrong in relation to his support of baptism of desire; that’s like saying that if someone slipped on the pavement, no one should ever walk on the pavement again, or because Cain killed his brother, that the return of his son Enoch should be contended. This is a prejudiced viewpoint and is a common trait in all your arguments, using a situation which was resolved by the Church to cast doubt on other elements of Our Faith, even though it's not, it’s a kind of trickery to win over agreement. You failed to mention St. Cyprian was severely censured, showing that the Church is not in the habit of missing important issues relating to the Faith. If Cyprian erred then it was the Church who found it out, we didn’t have to wait till now for the Dimonds to come along and compare error with truth. St. Cyprian’s error was corrected many years ago, while the truth of Baptism of Desire as taught by the majority of the Fathers still remains and was never condemned by the Church. You can quote No Salvation statements all day just like the protestant factions who quote one liners; however, these ex cathedra statements are useless unless you have a proper understanding of what they mean! These come in the form of writings of the Doctors and Saints, who you constantly ridicule, to you own condemnation. You should be acutely aware that the Church is not in the habit of elevating its Doctors and Saints to a state of error which she was never aware of so that Peter and Michael could come along with their new found doctrine and make everything perfect, keeping in mind that Our Lord said “My Dove My Precious one she is without spot or wrinkle” Not “My Benedictine Brothers, they are without spot or wrinkle”.

Cyprian’s error had nothing to do with Baptism of Desire; instead you employ his circumstances in an unjust manner to prove that he could hold an erroneous doctrine because of previous or existing difficulties and thus maintaining that he was incorrect on Baptism of Desire. If we were to employ these same circumstances to the opposite effect it would demonstrate in a different manner that because of his aversion to anything that would taint the Sacrament of Baptism. For St. Cyprian to admit to Baptism of Desire and Blood, it would certainly indicate that he was aware of it, for how could St. Cyprian reject Baptism of Heretics and affirm Baptism without water (Baptism of Blood). The Church does not graft its faith in idle philosophies of alternate reasoning, no! She is grounded on the workings of the Holy Ghost as seen through the teachings of Mother Church. However, I refuse to subject myself to this mindset you have created, which is not in keeping with Christian standards. Instead I simply believe that which he believed, and is supported by the Church as proven above.

St. Augustine erred

On page 50 you stated that St. Augustine wrote an entire book of corrections, as if to prove that because of this, he had somehow erred on Baptism of Desire, giving the impression that if he told the truth, we could condemn it because he made previous corrections to his writings. This is utter nonsense! It must be noted that St. Augustine corrected his errors in the course of his writings, guided by the Holy Spirit; not from the criticisms of two cousins [the Dimonds -ED] of one family eighteen hundred years later. It will be interesting to see if you have the ability or dignity to do likewise and correct your many errors, keeping firmly in mind that he was guided by the enlightenment of Mother Church and holds first place among the Doctors in Theology as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

You asserted that St. Fulgentius, Augustine and a host of others, held that it was certain that infants who die without baptism descend into the fires of Hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This Holy Pope anathematized the Pelagians, he did not condemn St. Augustine or any others as you have erroneously stated, if he did, show me the condemnation?

You theoretically proposed that St. Augustine was so outspoken in favour of this error that it became the common and basically unchallenged teaching for more than 500 years, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Again, I reiterate that the Church has acknowledged the fruits of these theological perceptions by asserting Her supreme apostolic authority; making clear to all Her teachings by confirming Her doctrine, and removing any doubt. It does not however condemn any of the writings of Augustine or those Saints who agreed with him, no! Instead it upholds his teachings regardless of your opinion.

What you are trying to do is to cast aspersions on good, by justifying your own opinions regarding a theological understanding, which has been preserved throughout the unity of the Church since the early Fathers. You are deliberately manipulating circumstances to win a debate. What you are proposing is, to look for an excuse not to believe those whom God has elevated for the needs of our salvation. You do this by seeking out a particular flaw in their teachings or otherwise, to prove your fallible theories; that is the rock you will perish on. If any of these Holy Saints were preaching heresy then the Catholic Church would never have elevated them to the status of Doctors and Saints…Do you understand? When we have a good look at what you yourselves have written and proposed in your false agenda, the sources by which you came to your idiocy, it should be clear to all with the simplest of understanding, that you are the ones who have misused the teachings of the Church and have demonstrated that you indeed are the fallible ones, and not the teaching institution of the Church.

Act of Reparation for Blasphemy

May the most holy, most sacred most adorable, most mysterious and unutterable Name of God, be praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in heaven, and on earth by the Sacred Heart our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar, and by all God's creatures. Amen. (Imprimatur: L.C. Epus Salford; 18 February, 1917.)

St. Bede (Church Father) and “Butlers Lives” are liars

Your Saint bashing did not stop there, you go on to pompously affirm that there is something untruthful about this piece of history, that it’s some kind of plot to fool the world. You quote the commentary on page 53.

Most Holy Family Monastery: “Outside the Church” Page 53

The Butler lives of Saints “They both record that just before the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, St. Alban prayed for “water” which he miraculously received! St. Bede then goes on to say that the guard died Unbaptised! Butler’s says that the water was merely to “refresh” Alban’s thirst!

In another rash statement that follows you blurt out: With all due respect to St. Bede and the good things in Butler’s, how obvious does it have to be?

Most Holy Family Monastery: “Outside the Church” Page 53

St. Bede: “As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…”

Fr. Butler: “The sudden conversion of the headsmen occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor (Alban), with the crowd, went up the hill… There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with water whereof he refreshed his thirst… Together with St. Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue (stain) his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.”

The testimony of this Holy Saint and Church Father should be good enough for you to accept; instead you have chosen to use this information by the Butlers, written possibly not in the way that would have done justice to the honesty of St. Bede’s account. However St. Bede’s testimony should be good enough for any upstanding Catholic to accept, With the exception of yourselves who seem to have the knack of finding fault with almost everything that is Catholic; You use these situations to cast doubt on the Testimony of another saint of Our Holy Church. The way that your finding fault renders it most unlikely that you’ll ever see the truth outside the confines of your own tunnel vision; not forgetting that you have in addition questioned the credibility of the renowned author, Father Alban Butler; (1710 -1763) This edition on lives of the Saints is regarded as the most revered Catholic book after the Bible, the missal and imitations of Christ. Let’s pause here to give an examination of your sources which you constantly reference. These Un-Catholic sources give an indication as to your faith building techniques. You maintain that the Doctors are just fallible human beings in many of your abominable pages, forgetting that this is not so when they teach the faith. When the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on faith and morals he is speaking infallibly or if he is upholding an already infallibly proclaimed dogma, tradition or teaching, this is called infallibility. When the teachers of the Church preach and teach its doctrine this is called active infallibility. I would be very careful on how you critique the Holy Doctors and Saints, a good Catholic will do it with holiness, reverence and respect, not by insulting their ministry, which is an even greater insult to God.


Dear Brothers Peter and Michael, as I look upon the good and the bad in your many articles, there are three main errors that you have fallen into in your enthusiasm to serve Our Lord. I do believe that your intentions are generally good even though your application is totally misguided and has created many difficulties.

1. On Dogma: Your Principle errors- In defending the Dogma “Outside the Church There Is No Salvation” is admirable, however, you have allowed yourself to be sidetracked by getting involved in Baptism of Blood and Desire. You managed to lump “No Salvation Dogma” and “Baptism of Desire and Blood” together, catapulting you into an area of conflict which I believe in my humble opinion, is beyond your expertise and understanding. Being so caught up in yourselves you tended to use the sources of the Church in an almost fanatical manner to prove your point.

There is no salvation Outside the Church! Of this I am sure; however my understanding of this Dogma is determined by the evidence of the Church; no more is required of me in this regard to undermine my Catholicity.

You have however exceeded those boundaries, comparable to those of the Luther of centuries past, who managed to convince others, that he was correct and everyone else was wrong.

2. Pride: Spurred on by this new found confidence to determine matters of you’re own choosing, and using information imprudently and incorrectly, you managed to endow yourselves a new sense of confidence which would only lead you to your second condition, that of questioning the Doctors and Saints, Church history, Catechisms, canon law and other overwhelming evidence supplied by Mother Church, and even reason itself. Your charisma moved you forward like a speeding train, going nowhere fast; however the blinkers were on as you flattened anyone who disagreed with your train of thought, just like the obstinate Luther himself. You refused to listen to any form of advice from anyone; maybe because no one had given your own works a thorough examination, and your methodology of forcing your own opinion. Baptism of Desire does not conflict with No Salvation Dogma; far greater minds then you or I have already confirmed this and have not even once been censured by the Church.

3. Interpretation of things Holy: Having reached the point of no return I endear you to slow down and observe your malady. Your present disposition of interpreting Scripture from totally Non-Catholic sources and putting your own spin on matters should have alarm bells ringing from Canada to Mexico; the Devil having fooled you completely. If you think I’m too severe in my writings to you, I would appeal to you to cast your mind to the greatest of severities you will face, if you fail to act upon good advice given by myself, whose main intention it is to advise you of your present misery and to stop you misleading others.

Baptism of Desire:

Finally, Dear Brothers, the greatest of all your errors which have been enumerated, if one were to put it in a nutshell, would be your fanaticism of Baptism of Desire and Blood. You have endeavoured to cause a controversy of gigantic proportions in raising this subject in the Catholic world, one which was sadly started by the renowned Father Feeney (for the wrong reasons) commonly known as the Feeneyite madness. You have demonstrated a willingness to continue in pursuance of his practice, of causing confusion within the ranks of those Catholics who are genuinely seeking to find truth in these extremely difficult times. Dear Brothers Peter and Michael, You should never have entered into this deep theological discussion about matters which Mother Church has not taught as the principal means of salvation. Her sound reasons for not doing so have been retained by her authoritative power; we don’t have the right to question her wisdom; In your haste to do so, you have assumed the authority of the latter and caused division instead of unity among Catholics. The most Holy Roman Catholic Church has “never” and I say again! “NEVER” stirred such emotion, controversy, confusion, and debate as you have managed to generate, by your misguided notions of Church teachings. You have allowed your faith to be derailed by such controversies and your behaviour is totally unacceptable. Is there not enough eloquence within the bosom of the Mother Church to keep you occupied for an eternity, instead of disrupting the Church and Her Children in this time of famine for the word of God? Don’t let the Devil lead you in circles; you’ve done great work on some of your videos including the Mass; you’ve excelled in exposing the False Antipopes of Vatican II and other unchristian practices; I implore you instead to use your ability constructively by meticulous examination of true sources, using prudently these same sources to help, rather then hinder the Faith.

A word of warning!

I implore you stand back and look at the trees, examine those sources you put your trust in; see if you have given out erroneous doctrines, make a self-examination and ask yourselves if you wrongly used interpretations of doctrine and Church writings; ask yourselves have you been over critical of others including the Doctors, Saints and general public; are you over scrupulous and fanatical? My last piece of advice I would tender is this; don’t think for the Church; think with it.

Dear Peter and Michael, I dare not go any further into these books of yours, to do so would take years of work given that there are so many errors contained within, that I do not have time to address here, I’ve only covered about twenty pages of your writings. There are matters here that are so far from the truth that it’s horrible to see your confusion. However I sincerely hope you understand the difficulties you have created and undo them as quickly as you possibly can. You ought to burn these compilations without hesitation and seek out proper Catholic sources. I firmly believe that if you make the right choice where pride is kept at bay, you could still serve Our Lord in a profound way.


- Pax Tecum


Faith is Liberty Espoused  •  © 2022  •  23rdStreet.com  •  Contact