Most "Holy" Family Monastery…A doctrine of Ambiguity, Condemnations and Haste

(A Letter by Mr. Patrick Walsh of Waterford City, Ireland - Fall 2007 A.D.)

"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

Triumph of the Faith
(Placido Costanz, 1727)

"...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])

Note: Click to view cover of the Official Douay Rheims 1582 A.D., Catholic Bible which (with its Annotations) carries Full Ecclesiastical Approbation

*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

Baptism in water necessary to salvation Gal. 5:6 Tit. 3:12

Annotations (1582 A.D. version of the Douay Rheims Bible) 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. 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.

Aug. hares. 38 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

OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL BURIAL IS TO BE GRANTED OR DENIED

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. Canon (1239)

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……POPE of the Catholic Church ...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 Saint Pius X
"Defender of De Fide - Scourge of False Doctrine"

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

17: Q. 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).”277

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.

Glorious Saints Reigning in Heaven with Holy Trinity
Dome of St. Robert Bellarmine Chapel (Rome)

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”.

Every Catholic receives an immediate Particular Judgement when they die

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.

Most Unholy Family Monastery Protestant Sources

Challoner Bible

Haydock

New Jerusalem Bible

Rock and Roll sorcerers

Attwater Catholic Dictionary

Challoners Bible:

The revisions of the Rheims Bible made by Bishop Challoner, [N.T 1749, 1750, 1752: O.P. 1750] The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. states: "Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 . . .

The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, '“To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarce a verse remains as it was originally printed." Never the less this is what commonly passes as the Douay Bible and is the version used by English Catholics. Challoners alterations mostly took the form of approximations to the text of the Protestant King James "Version" and the clearing up of obscure words and passages in the true Douay Version.

The "Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible"

The other supposed "Douay-Rheims" Bible being widely sold today is the Haydock Bible. Unfortunately it is another Challoner variation.

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia under the subject "Haydock, George Leo" has this to say concerning the "Haydock Bible" now being erroneously sold as the Douay-Rheims:

Father Haydock's chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Rheims in 1582, and at Douay in 1609; Bishop Challoner's text of 1750 was the basis of the work, but in the “New Testament” Dr. Troy's edition of 1794 is largely followed. The notes are partly original, partly selected from other writers, those on the New Testament not having been compiled by Father Haydock. The edition appeared in Manchester, 1812-14; Dublin, 1812-13; Edinburgh and Dublin, 1845-8; New York, 1852-6. So, to recapitulate, we see that Father Haydock's version is NOT the Douay-Rheims is not only the Challoner version, but the New Testament is largely the Troy version of 1794, and, the notes for the New Testament are NOT his notes.

[T]he respective publishers, were printers; but the editor and annotator employed by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes its celebrity."

--- The "Troy Version" used by Fr. Haydock ---

The question remains now -What is the Troy version that most have not heard of?

A. Another Challoner variation: it was a 1805, version (published in the U.S.) that was based on the Dublin "fifth edition" of Challoner, having been slightly revised by Dr. Troy of Dublin.

Thus, the Haydock Bible is NOT the Real Douay Rheims Bible.

To finish with the information on the Challoner Version, please recall Cardinal Wiseman's statement:

"In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . .”

New Jerusalem Bible

Press release from the "Catholic" Communications Network issued on November 21st 2005

Lecture by Fr. Henry Wansborough at the Gift of Scripture Launch

FR. HENRY WANSBOROUGH

Fr. Henry Wansborough (with "Cardinal" Levada) meets "Pope" Benedict xvi 2007

He is the author of the New Jerusalem Bible

Advent: Saturday 15 Fr. Henry Wansborough of Ampleforth at Robin Hoods Bay Methodist "Church". Talk, questions and refreshments -EVERYONE Welcome.

His [the V2 Sect Heretic's Wansborough's] Speech:

"…First I would say that it is a highly Catholic document. It is built on and really grows out of authoritative Catholic teaching at four levels. These authorities are not merely frequently quoted, but do genuinely inform the thinking.

1. The full Magisterium of the Church in the form of the Council decree on Revelation and Papal Encyclicals.

2. Documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the historical truth of the gospels, on the interpretation of the Bible and 27 quotations from the latest document on the Jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the Christian Bible.

3. Two addresses of "Pope" John Paul II.

4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church. ????? (You’ll forgive me if I put in the question marks)

This is a comprehensive range of Catholic documentation, authoritative, academic and pastoral, and the thought of the document genuinely grows out of them. But the document is also Catholic in another most important sense, ecumenical. From the beginning of the concept of this teaching document ecumenical representatives have been closely involved, and the agreed statements between Catholics and Anglicans and between Catholics and Methodists are quoted from the first few paragraphs.

One of the joys of biblical study has been that confessional boundaries play little part, and it is especially good to see this put into practice in an official teaching document of the Church. Particularly encouraging is the handsome admission of the debt to Christian scholars of other traditions than Catholic, and to Jewish scholars,

… The document is also comprehensive in that it ranges widely over the history of the Church. To begin with, the first Papal quotation is from "Pope" John Paul's allocution Ecclesia in Europa…"

Rock and Roll sorcerers (video)

Another way which you transmit the message of Christ?... is by the sale of a Protestant video which is full of immorality and false scriptural reading; an obnoxious compilation which no Catholic should ever cast their eyes upon. The Danger with this video is that it could lead the faithful or any unsuspecting individual to a premise that there is some element of truth to be gained in the understanding of a “protestant viewpoint”, solely because of its power to put together a rock video while profanely applying a false sense of scripture to its meaning. There is NOTHING to be gained by the application of rock "music" to a false version of scripture, or by the carnal sinful antics of a certain female singer who purposely publically blasphemes God's Spotless Mother in her pervert songs and actions. By supporting such organizations we only help them to thrive and promote their false church through uncharitable methods. Would Mother Church in her glory distribute such evil as a means of teaching the faithful? If you don’t know the answer to this question, then you are lacking the most basic understanding of Catholic doctrine: The answer is of course NO! She would NEVER have distributed such filth; notwithstanding your own personal authority to override her delegated power, and in the process making a mockery of the teaching of this great institution which you claim to defend. The Catholic Church has every means to edify any individual through its teaching…shame on you! Protestants and the like have been given to understand the material things of this world, without true knowledge of Gods Word. When you promote their profane concepts you embrace their ideology…shame on you! Take the block out of your eye!

True Catholic Sources

11. Does the Vulgate have the Church's special approval?

The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: "The same Sacred and Holy Synod ... hereby declares and enacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate edition ... is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretence whatsoever." (DZ. 785). It is still the official Catholic Bible today.

Imperative Text from the Catholic Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21)

2 Peter 1:20-21

20. Understanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

21. For, not by mans will was prophecy brought at any time: But the holy men of God speak, inspired with the Holy Ghost.

Most Holy Family Monastery: A Voice Crying in the Wilderness Issue #2:

You quote 1 Machabees 1:57 and 1:62 to confirm that the abomination of desolation is an object: a 2^nd altar which was erected upon and over against the altar of God. You state that upon and over against are adjectives to describe a 2^nd alter which is in proximity to the true altar. You state that over and against are scriptural ways of describing two objects being in proximity to each other….What a load of nonsense! There is no such reference to anything of the sort except your own made up version. You quote Bishop Challoner to prove your assumptions which he says come direct from Saint Jerome. (See above)

It may surprise you to know that I have the version of Jerome’s translations 1582 and there is no mention of over and against.

Macabees 1:57 1582 Douay

57. The fifteenth day of the month Casleu, the hundredth five and fortieth year king Antiochus (l) built the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and through out all the cities of Judah round about they builded altars:

Macabees 1:62 1582 Douay

62. And the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar that was against the altar.

There is no mention of the word over here to indicate the proximity of a thing as you call it. It is a clear reference to “against the altar”. The meaning of the words “against the altar” here in Macabees 1:62 are understood to be, that a false offering was made which is against or in opposition to the true sacrifice. Macabees 1:57 refers to a false idol while Macabees 1:62 refers to a false sacrifice. It is not a physical thing as such. The false idol is a profanation of Gods Church by which the holy sacrifice is taken away. The abomination of desolation is properly called the taking away of the Sacrifice of the Mass. You then make a most inappropriate decision and reference Bishops Challoner’s Douay Rheims bible, as if it was the bee’s knees of theology, which you insist is used by most English Catholics, not being aware that Attwater had condemned the same version as being totally corrupted by the errors of Protestantism. (See above)

Dear Peter & Michael, you go on to quote the Jerusalem bible and the text of Daniel 9:27 the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of a temple. There is no mention of a wing in the St Jerome version of 1582. However! If it were there, it would not have the uncatholic interpretation you have assigned it. The council of Trent stated that the Douay 1582 is the only true version. Here below is the *correct translation!

*Daniel 9:27 1582 Douay

27. And he will confirm the covenant to many, one week: and in the half of the week shall the host and the sacrifice fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and even to the consummation and to the end shall the desolation endure...

Most Holy Family Monastery: Issue #4 Page 2

Understanding that the "waters" of the Apocalypse represent the peoples, nations, and tongues of the Catholic Church, could be the key to understanding other important verses in this book. For example,

Apoc. 18:17 talks about how the shipmasters and the mariners wept over the destruction of the great city.

Apocalypse 18:17- "For in one hour are so great riches come to nought; and every shipmaster, and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off, And cried, seeing the place of her burning, saying: What city is like to this great city?"

The shipmasters, mariners and those that work in the sea represent those who work with souls in the Catholic Church; that is, priests, religious, etc. They weep over the desolation of Rome and wonder how in such a short time she has been brought down.

Heretical Monk Martin Luther
(Enemy of Catholic Thought)

Note: Another attempt to privately interpret scripture! These interpretations above are completely out of context.

Annotations: 1582 Douay

The Protestants here will needs have Babylon to be Rome, but not in St. Peter's epistle. But Babylon (according to all the Fathers) is signified, partly the whole society of the wicked, partly the city of Rome, only in respect of the terrene and heathenish seat of them that persecuted the Church. The Church of Rome is never called Babylon.

5. Babylon.] In the end of St. Peter's first Epistle, where the Apostle dateth it at Babylon, which the ancient writers (as we there noted) affirm to be meant of Rome: the Protestants will not in any wise have it so, because they would not be driven to confess that Peter ever was at Rome. But here for that they think it maketh for their opinion, that the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome the seat and city of Antichrist, they will needs have Rome to be this Babylon, this great whore, and this purple harlot. For such fellows, in the exposition of Holy Scripture, be led only by their prejudiced opinions and heresies, to which they draw all things without all indifferency and sincerity.

Tertullian also taketh it for Rome, thus, Babylon (saith he) in St. John is a figure of the city of Rome, being so great, so proud of the Empire, and the destroyer of the saints. Which is plainly spoken of that city, when it was heathen, the head of the terrene dominion of the world, the persecutor of the Apostles and their successors, the seat of Nero, Domitian, and the like, Christ's special enemies, the sink of idolatry, and false worship of the Pagan gods. Then was it Babylon, when St. John wrote this, and then was Nero and the rest figures of Antichrist, and that city the resemblance of the principal place (whosesoever it be) that Antichrist shall reign in, about the later end of the world.

In otherwise, Peter and Michael, the wicked persecutors which were the old Roman Empire, are a carbon copy of the evil empire which existed before the institution of the Church there; did persecute and will persecute the church in the last days. It proves you hold Rome to be a city. Here again in the following paragraph you state the same.

Most Holy Family Monastery: Issue #4 page 2

Apocalypse 17:9- "And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings." As stated already, Rome was constructed on seven hills. Since the great harlot sits upon the city of seven hills, the great harlot sits upon Rome itself – the center of unity in the Catholic Church And the home of the Roman Pontiffs.

Scripture scholars understand that St. Peter was writing this epistle from Rome, which he calls “Babylon.” Therefore, Rome is Babylon and Babylon has fallen. But if it has fallen, then it once stood strongly. And is this not true? For prior to its fall, Rome (Babylon) was the bulwark of Catholicism and the centre of Christianity - the great city.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio (# 4), June 26, 1749:

"... the Catholic Church is signified by the City of Rome alone, in which the bodily presence of this Apostle [Peter] is carefully reverenced..."3

Here again your trademark interpretation makes use of Pope Benedict XIV and his apostolic constitution as proof that Babylon is Rome alone. However, you should note that Pope Benedict stated that the Catholic Church is signified by the City of Rome alone and not Babylon alone, a huge difference. The City which is signified by Pope Benedict is the city which was elevated from her former state iniquity by the Church, to a state of perfection. Pope Benedict could never say Babylon instead of Rome as that would go against Holy Scripture and assign the perfect dove to the society of the wicked.

St. Ambrose of Milan
Doctor of the Church

Annotations: 1582 Douay

But St. Augustine, Aretas, and other writers, most commonly expound it, neither of Babylon itself a city of Chaldea or Egypt, nor of Rome, or any one city, which may be so called spiritually, as Jerusalem before, chap. 11, is named spiritual Sodom and Egypt: but of the general society of the impious, and of those that prefer the terrene kingdom and commodity of the world, before God and eternal felicity.

The author of the Commentaries upon the Apocalypse set forth in St. Ambrose name, writeth thus: This great whore sometime signifieth Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of God. But otherwise it signifieth the whole city of the Devil, that is, the universal corps of the reprobate.

Tertullian

Now to apply that to the Roman Church and Apostolic See, either now or then, which was spoken only of the terrene (worldly) state of that city, as it was the seat of the Emperor, and not of Peter, when it did slay above 30 Popes Christ's Vicars, one after another, and endeavored to destroy the whole Church: that is most blasphemous and foolish. The Church in Rome was one thing, and Babylon in Rome another thing. Peter sat in Rome and Nero sat in Rome. But Peter, as in the Church of Rome: Nero, as in the Babylon of Rome.

As we can see this is a complete and utter fabrication of the truth...Let’s proceed to the seven hills interpretation.

Most Holy Family Monastery: “The Seven Hills”.

Apocalypse 17:9- "And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings.”

It is a well know fact of history that the city of seven mountains (or hills) is Rome, Italy. This is because Rome was constructed on seven hills. Since the great harlot sits upon the city of seven hills, thus the great harlot sits upon Rome itself – the centre of unity in the Catholic Church and the home of the Roman Pontiffs.

Dear Peter and Michael, It is not a well known fact of history that the seven mountains or hills are Rome, Italy, I’m inclined to agree that its your private interpretation of scripture again. 2 Peter 1:20: “Understanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”.

Annotations: 1582 Douay

9. Seven hills.] The Angel himself here expoundeth these 7 hills to be all one with the 7 heads and the 7 kings: and yet the Heretics blinded exceedingly with malice against the Church of Rome, are so made to take them for the seven hills literally, upon which in old time Rome did stand: that so they might make the unlearned believe that Rome is the seat of Antichrist. But if they had any consideration, they might mark that the Prophets visions here are most of them by Sevens, whether he talk of heads, horns, candlesticks, Churches, kings, hills, or other things: and that he alluded not to the hills, because they were just seven, but that Seven is a mystical number, as sometime Ten is, signifying universally all of that sort whereof he speaketh. As, that the seven heads, hills, or kingdoms (which are here all one) should be all the kingdoms of the world that persecute the Christians: being heads and mountains for their height in dignity above others.

And some take it, that there were seven special Empires, kingdoms, or States, that were or shall be the greatest persecutors of God's people, as of Egypt, Chanaan, Babylon, the Persians, and Greeks, which be five. Sixthly of the Roman Empire which once persecuted most of all other, and which (as the Apostle here saith) yet is, or standeth, but the seventh, then when St. John wrote this, was not come, neither is yet come in our days: which is Antichrist's state, which shall not come so long as the Empire of Rome standeth, as St. Paul did Prophesy, 2 Thess. 2.

Not a single thing to do with Rome or Italy! Or the Catholic Church….Lord help us!