As a brief overview, let me commend Mr. Drummey on the precision of his replies. It is apparent that "he did his homework." Having met him personally, I can testify to his wholehearted devotion to Roman Catholicism, and by reading his columns in The Wanderer, I can vouch for his trustworthiness as an apologist for his church.

The first chapter, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit contains nothing with which we would find ourselves in basic disagreement. However, since this is the first chapter, it sets the tone for the basic documentations Mr. Drummey gives to prove his points.

They are Exodus 3:14, for which the Catholic Church has never provided an infallible interpretation; The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is not infallible; Peter Kreeft and Russell Tacelli, who are not infallible; G.K. Chesterton, not infallible; Thomas Aquinas, not infallible; John Hardon, not infallible; St. John Chrysostom, not infallible; several more verses not infallibly interpreted by the Church (Isaiah 66:3, Psalm 121:2, Psalm 27:10, Ephesians 3:14, Isaiah 49:10, 2 Peter 1:4, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 6:17, Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:1,2, Mark 14:36, Matthew 11:27, John 1:18, John 8:55, Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33,34, mark 14:26-30, Matthew 22:21, John 17:20,21, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19, Matthew 22:37, John 6:14-15, 1 Peter 3:18-19, John 20:17, 1 Corinthians 15:3- 8, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36); a non- infallible papal encyclical Veritas Splendor, non-infallible book Radio Replies, and the non-infallible Byzantine Liturgy,

The point is not that the sources quoted by Mr. Drummey are unreliable; the point is that the Church he is defending has not recognized any of these sources as definitely infallible. You will notice this runs throughout the book if you read the rest of the responses, many of which we will quote and to which we will give a rebuttal.

Regarding the infallible interpretation of scripture, the article The Seven Verses of Scripture Authoritatively Interpreted by Rome (From Denver Catholic Register, 3/29/90, Page 10) says, "Father (Francis X.) Cleary (S.J.), scripture scholar and professor in the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University, who specializes in biblical theology of the Old Testament, writes, `Many people think that the Church has an official "party line" about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only seven passages have been definitely interpreted. Even in these few cases, the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals. "For example, Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 that we must be born of water and of the Spirit" means that real ("natural") water must be used for a valid baptism. When Jesus, after instituting the Eucharist, commanded His disciples to "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), he meant to confer priestly ordination. Again, the power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:23) authorized them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name. These authoritative interpretations emphasize the biblical origins of sacramental life. (The three other defined texts are John 20:22; Romans 5:12 and James 5:14).'"

Since his own church has denied him any infallible statement that can be lawfully used in apologetics, Mr. Drummey starts off at a distinct disadvantage. Even the so-called infallible statements by popes must be recognized as such and then translated by a fallible translator into a language ordinary people can understand. Such a translation makes infallibility impossible.

On the other hand, when I seek to counter any of Mr. Drummey's arguments, I will only use documentation from the Word of God, which God assures us is infallible (John 17:17), settled (Psalm 119:89) and preserved (Psalm 12:27).

I'm not sure what Bible Mr. Drummey quoted in his first answer, but he gave Exodus 3:14 to have God say to Moses, "I am who I am." That is a mistranslation, the KJV has I am that I am. I can say the former, but only a self-existent God can say the latter. After having used as proof the quotation of 5 words from his translation, he then quotes 31 words from the Catechism. (Whenever the word Catechism is used, it denotes the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Other catechisms quoted will be cited by name.)

In answer to the question of proving there is only one God, Mr. Drummey quotes a long and involved paragraph from Handbook of Christian Apologetics. I prefer using this exchange between an unbelieving teacher and a Christian boy.

The teacher asked, "Johnny, how many gods are there?"

Johnny replied. "There is only one God."

"How do you know that?" sneered the teacher.

"That's all there is room for" was Johnny's reply.

The two arguments Mr. Drummey gives for convincing an atheist that there is a God are intellectually good. However, we as Christians are not trying to win intellectual arguments with atheists (or anyone else). Our God given task is to preach the Gospel.

In order to do this, we must use God's Word, as the Holy Spirit is the only One Who administers salvation (John 16:8, 15:26 and 1 Cor 12:13. The Bible is His only weapon (Ephesians 6:17)

As we use the Word of God, we allow the Holy Spirit to take over and prove to the atheist that the Word of God is powerful. It is not powerful only when 51% of the people in the world believe it to be so. If everyone were an atheist, the Word of God would still be powerful.

A man walks into a bank with a shotgun hidden beneath his coat. Pointing his shotgun at the teller, he says, "Give me all your money or I will blow your brains out."

The teller smiles sweetly at him and says, "I don't believe in shotguns."

Does the man apologize, put away the shotgun and walk out of the bank? No! You see, what the teller believes about shotguns is absolutely immaterial; it is the power in the shotgun is important.

Mr. Drummey lists the five reasons for believing in God as given by Thomas Aquinas. They make sense, but we are not commissioned to go into all the world and get people to believe in God. The devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19). Many people who believe in God will spend a Christless eternity.

On page 13-14, we find an interesting question concerning a Catholic religion teacher in school who announced that she would be referring to God as "He/She." The teacher's reasoning was that "we as a Church are growing in the use of language in referring to God as He/She, being conscious of not limiting God to one sex or the other, but broadening our understanding of God."

Mr. Drummey answers this well, but my question would be - how can a person be engaged in teaching in a Roman Catholic school with ideas about a He/She God as voiced by this teacher. It seems that a Catholic apologist in Massachusetts should not have to correct a Catholic school teacher in Minnesota. Does this give any real concept of a united Church?

On page 14-15, we have a questioner asking about St. Augustine's statement (quoted in Catholic Replies 2 and the Catechism), "Let us rejoice and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself."

Mr. Drummey tries to assert that this does not mean we become gods in the Mormon sense. He emphasizes the words of Peter that we become sharers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). We know that becoming sharers of the divine nature is an apt definition of a Christian, but Augustine had written "we have become not only Christians, but Christ." Mr. Drummey may have preferred that this quote was not given in the Catechism.

On page 20, Mr. Drummey states that the feeding of the 5000 was a prefiguring of the Eucharist. This is a case of pure eisegesis, which is the act of trying to fit an established doctrine into the Word of God, rather than drawing from the Word of God to produce a doctrine (exegesis). Just reading the account of the feeding of the 5000 without any prejudice (pre-judgment), would not lead one to believe the Eucharist.

In a previous answer, Mr. Drummey had said that Catholics do not speak of the Bible as being dictated; only fundamentalists, he said, use such language.

In the first place, fundamentalists do not believe in dictation, but in verbal inspiration. Mr. Drummey then quotes from a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, "For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written, wholly and entirely, with all their parts at the dictation of the Holy Spirit . . ."

Then he tries to qualify that, and states, "we don't think that the word 'dictation,' as used by some Church Fathers and by Pope Leo XIII, should be understood to mean verbal dictation."

With all due respect to Mr. Drummey, how are we then to understand Pope Leo XIII? Whether it fits into today's Catholic theology or not, the pope said the entire scripture was written "at the dictation of the Holy Spirit."

Mr. Drummey is taking a papal encyclical (which does not necessarily mean it is infallible, but it is authoritative) and qualifying it with the preface of "we don't think." It doesn't matter what Mr. Drummey thinks; what should matter is that many whom the Roman Church calls Church Fathers, the Council of Trent and Pope Leo XIII all came down in the side of dictation, which very probably no contemporary Catholic theologian would be happy with. Someone is right and someone is wrong.

On page 33, Mr. Drummey admits that "a Catholic who attends Mass every Sunday over a three year period will hear more than 7,000 verses from Sacred Scripture." This is less that 1/4 of the Bible, and how many Catholics go to Mass every Sunday for three years?

He further states, "One who attends daily Mass over a two year cycle will be exposed to more than 14,000 verses." This is still less than 1/2 of the Bible, and if regular weekly communicants are scarce, what might we say about regular daily communicants?

Regardless of what Mr. Drummey or anyone else says, the average older Catholic can remember the days when Bible reading was either actually forbidden or was discouraged.

Another questioner says that a Catholic high school taught her granddaughter about "the five myths of the Bible." They are supposed to be Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark.

Mr. Drummey quoted from Free From All Error (page 64), "Scholars who describe the genre of Genesis as myth do not mean what most people think of when hearing the word myth."

One has to wonder why the word was used, if not in the definition that has been normally ascribed to it. Greek mythology is myth; God's Word is truth. Mr. Drummey's answer is concluded by the statement, "We would like to think that in the Bible classes referred to by our questioners, the high schoolers are being given the understanding of 'myth' that is approved by the Church, but knowing the deplorable state of much religious education today, we fear that is not the case."

If Mr. Drummey knew about the recent Roman Catholic book, New Jerome Bible Commentary (this has the Imprimatur of Lawrence Cardinal Shehan. Augustin Cardinal Bea is the author of the commentary's forward), he would probably be more concerned. Excerpts from this book are given in Christian News, 7/2/90.

"1. The Bible contains fiction.

"2. Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. These books came from the J-E-D and P sources centuries after Moses died.

"3. The Bible does not predict the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

"4. Joshua's account of the destruction of Jericho is fiction.

"5. Isaiah did not write Chapters 40-66 of the Book of Isaiah.

"6. Isaiah did not predict the coming of Jesus Christ, that he would be born of a virgin , and suffer and die for the sins of all men.

"7. The Old Testament does not teach any resurrection from the dead. St. Jerome was wrong when he said Job 19:26 referred to Jesus and the resurrection.

"8. The Sixth century B.C. prophet Daniel did not write the Book of Daniel.

"9. The Book of Daniel contains errors and fiction.

"10. Psalm 16:10 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ.

"11. The Books of Ruth, Jonah and Esther are fiction.

"12. The Book of Matthew contains fiction.

"13. The Ascension of Christ may not be historical.

"14. Three thousand were not converted at Pentecost.

"15. Paul did not write Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy and Titus.

"16. The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

"17. Genesis is not historical.

"18. Man and the universe gradually evolved from some primary substance.

"19. Christian doctrine gradually evolved. The Biblical view of God changed.

"20. The Bible contains mythology.

"21. The Biblical story of Noah's flood is a myth.

"22. Man does not know who the historical Jesus really was.

"23. The Gospels are not true history.

"24. Jesus was not all knowing.

"25. Jesus did not co-exist with the Father from all eternity.

"26. Christianity is not the one and only divinely revealed faith.

"27. Christ did not die on the cross to appease the wrath of God. "

But then, Mr. Drummey did not exhibit much understanding regarding the infallible Word of God when he used the non-infallible Catechism to answer the next question concerning Biblical "myths," instead of going to the Bible where positive proof of the existence of Adam and Eve is plainly given.

In answering the question about whether the union of brother and sister in Genesis was incest, Mr. Drummey merely said that God "protected the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with intermarriage in families." The human reason why one is advised not to marry a near relative is that the pool of recessive genes often assert themselves and produce ill-formed babies. In the early days, there was not time for there to be this build up, so what are called today "incestuous marriages" had no danger.

A questioner quotes Genesis 3:15 as reading,"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for his heel." Newer translations change the gender, and say "he will bruise the serpent's head."

Mr. Drummey is uncharacteristically obtuse in his answer, but does finally admit that the more modern translation is more accurate.

This is quite an admission, when you realize that all the Bible Catholics had for multiple centuries was the Douay-Rheims, which contains what Mr. Drummey admits is not accurate. Generations of Catholics, if they ever happened to read Genesis 3:15, would be convinced that it was Mary who would bruise the serpent's head. This was backed up by the very popular Mariolatry contained in Simon de Montford's Mary vs. Lucifer. "God has never made and formed by one enmity is between Mary, His worthy Mother, and the devil. He has inspired her with so much hatred against that cursed enemy of God, with so much power to crush that proud rebel that he fears her, in a sense, more than God Himself."

A questioner was worried about the pope and evolution, and quoted the pope as having said, "evolution is no longer just a hypothesis."

Mr. Drummey corrected the quotation; what the pope actually said was, "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." He then goes into a long but often valid argument about the truth of special creation of at least the soul of man even if his body did evolve. The Bible says that God formed man of the dust of the earth. Of course Jim Drummey's previous decision to abandon the Bible as positive proof of creation leaves his explanation much to be desired.

The fact remains that what the Pope said, or is reported to have said, has destroyed the faith of a number of Catholics in regards to the pope's always standing stalwart on the ground of special Creation.

In dealing (page 43) with the question of Jacob and Esau, Mr. Drummey leaves uncorrected the statement that Genesis 27:1-40 speaks of Jacob's receiving the birthright. The passage has to deal with the blessing, which was different than the birthright, which only dealt with material inheritance. The blessing had to do with spiritual realities, and being in the genealogy of the Messiah. The difference is dealt with in the next generation when Reuben, the firstborn, is passed over for both; Judah received the blessing and Joseph the birthright.

On page 45, attention is called to the fact that Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible translates Exodus 32:28 by saying about 23,000 men were slain, while the KJV and most if not all modern Catholic Bibles opt for 3,000.

While coming down on the aside of "3,000," Mr. Drummey still does not want to lightly dismiss St. Jerome, as "his scholarship is awe-inspiring, he had access to manuscripts long gone, and he had a reason for writing 'about 23,000.'"

It seems conclusive that St. Jerome simply made a mistake, as he did in other notable occasions, especially when he translated the Greek metanoeo as "do penance" instead of "repent." Although more recent Catholic Bibles correct this error, the practice of Confession and Penance is still founded on this mistranslation in what was the only Bible any Catholic had recourse to for hundreds of years.

On page 52, a question is asked concerning Jesus' parable of Luke 12:35-48. Mr. Drummey says those ignorant of their master's will could refer to non-Christians or non-practicing Catholics, and the two types of punishment could refer to Hell and Purgatory. (emphasis mine)

We see that the word servant is used of all three persons (the faithful, the knowingly unfaithful and the unknowingly unfaithful). All three were in the same category; therefore this parable teaches that if the faithful man was a servant, the other two were likewise servants. The fact that the two latter ones will suffer punishment denotes responsibility, for they could have been faithful.

Even though Christians are also known as friends and sons, the word servant is used in the Epistles many times to describe a Christian. Furthermore, there is no way this parable can be transferred to different dispensation for it to make sense, as this judgment of servants comes after the Lord's return.

It is a picture of the judgment seat of Christ, described for us in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Faithful servants will become stewards in God's Kingdom and will share in the reign of Christ on the earth when the prayer of Matthew 6:10 is fulfilled. The other two (does this mean that 2/3 of Christians will fail the final exam?) will be punished in relation to their knowledge of their misdeeds. Note that the judgment is basically concerned with works; as is repeated in 1 Corinthians 3:13, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. But the nature of the work is determined by the faithfulness of the Christian, and the amount of divine light he has received.

A person who is saved and doesn't have the opportunity to sit under good Bible teaching does not have the responsibility of reacting positively to that teaching. A person who is saved and deliberately disobeys the Master will have far greater punishment.

But, we are assured, even those who suffer loss will be saved. Every one who stands before the Judgment Seat if Christ will eventually be in Heaven.

On page 53 Mr. Drummey admits he doesn't know if Judas is in Hell or not. The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote that as he was on the brow of the hill to hang himself, if Judas looked over to Golgotha's hill where Jesus was being crucified, and saw the Blessed Mother there and prayed to her, he would be in Heaven.

On pages 55 and 56, Mr. Drummey answers a comment that the passage in Acts 8 about receiving the Holy Spirit implies that the Holy Spirit is not conferred at Baptism.

Absolutely nothing is said that proves the Holy Spirit is received at Baptism. The best Mr. Drummey could do is to quote Acts 2:38, where Peter says you must reform (Greek: repent), be baptized . . .then you will receive the Holy Spirit. It is evident that the baby cannot repent (or reform), as this verse suggests, or believe, as is contained in other verses that speak of Baptism.

The question on page 58 was, "(W)ould an 'immoral' person, as mentioned by Paul, be a fornicator or one who uses artificial birth control?" It is possible that the questioner equates artificial birth control with fornication.

Unfortunately, while correctly dealing with immoral practices in the church, Mr. Drummey apparently chose not to directly answer the question of birth control. If deliberately limiting the size of your family through artificial birth control is a sin, it might come under the heading of illicit sex, or fornication, or, as a Catholic co-worker said, "mutual masturbation".

Page 60 contains evidence of contradiction between two different Catholic Bibles. In 1 Corinthians 15:51, the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Catholic Bible says we shall not all be changed. The New American Bible Revised New Testament says we will all be changed.

On the same page, the writer wonders if Paul committed the sin of presumption by stating with assurance that a crown awaits him. Mr. Drummey states that "presumption usually means that one expects to receive forgiveness from God and attain salvation without doing anything to deserve it."

If that is the true definition of presumption, all Christians are guilty because we all testify that we did not deserve salvation. That is why the Bible says, For by grace ye are saved.

St. Peter's Catechism defines presumption as "believing we can be saved by God alone without our own efforts." This is precisely what Christians believe, but we should be faithful to read the context of the statements concerning salvation by grace alone. While this truth is testified to in Ephesians 2:8,9 we are told in verse 10, For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The writer also asked if Paul was privy to information we are not. It is true that Paul was privy to the infallible truth of the Word of God, which anyone, Catholic or Protestant, has access to. The problem is, of course, that many good religious people seek to look to their good works and/or sacraments as ways to earn or merit salvation. All can have the same assurance that Paul had if they trust the truths the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write.

Another used Philippians 2:12 as a proof of Paul's lack of assurance and consequently the foolishness of a Christian's assurance. Mr. Drummey added on other texts - Romans 11:22, 1 Corinthians 9:26,27; 1 Corinthians 10:32 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

2 Corinthians 5:10 is speaking of the Judgment Seat of Christ. Even those who fail this test will be saved, as we are told in 1 Corinthians 3:15. There is no thought of possible eternal separation from God in any of these verses, in fact, if there were, it would be a direct contradiction of 2 Timothy 1:12. Nevertheless, we must face the truth in these verses which teach that, even though our eternal salvation is assured, there are rewards (both positive and negative) facing us when we stand before Christ.

On page 63, Mr. Drummey is asked, "Is there biblical proof that the papacy under St. Peter was actually in Rome?" Mr. Drummey cites as "the closest thing to biblical proof" is 1 Peter 5:13, where Peter sends greetings from Babylon, which, we are told, was a code word used by early Christians for Rome. Although this is generally claimed, I have yet to see any proof of it.

"Babylon" is used six times in the Book of Revelation, and signifies Rome. So says Mr. Drummey, which might get him into prophetic hot water if he equates Babylon with Rome and, consequently, with the institution he is representing, the ROMAN Catholic Church. As noted Bible scholars have noted, the similarity consists not only of name, but the very nature and activities of the ROMAN Papacy are outlined in Sacred Scripture as the epitome of Babylonianism, the anti-God religious movement fostered and protected by Satan.

A very interesting exchange begins on page 64. A writer quotes part of the opening prayer for the Feast of the Chair of Peter, "All Powerful Father, You have build your church on the rock of St. Peter's confession of faith." Then he asks if this is not Protestant theology?

Mr. Drummey's answer is classic. He first quotes paragraph 424 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This plainly says that it is upon the rock of this faith confessed by Peter that Christ built His church.

The he quotes paragraph 552, which states it is on Peter that the church was established. Mr Drummey states that he prefers the latter quotation. He admits to "wincing" when the first mentioned formula is quoted, and has taken upon himself to decide which part of the Catechism he will embrace and which he will forego.

It is probably irrelevant to him that the majority of the Church Fathers preferred the sentiment expressed in paragraph 424. He has admitted that there is something in the Catechism that is incorrect. We knew that all along; that is why we use the only infallible source, the Word of God, to settle any questions.

Many discussions have been aired concerning "Peter" and "the Rock." Without boring you with quotations from the Greek, we all simply ask our Catholic friends to find out a place in the Bible where Peter exercised papal prerogatives of primacy and infallibility. If Peter was pope, he didn't know it, and neither did the other Apostles.

Just after Peter's revelation from God, he made a theological statement that, Christ said, came from Satan (Matthew 16:22-23).

In Luke 22:24, which happened after the events recorded in Matthew 16, we se the disciples arguing who would be the greatest. If they had understood that Christ had already given the number one position to Peter, they would have argued who would be second greatest.

When Peter came back to Jerusalem after his ministry to Cornelius and family, some contended with him because he ate with the Gentiles. In verses 4 to 17, Peter explains what had happened. Verse 18 says that when they heard these things, they held their peace. Peter's actions were accepted not because he was pope, but because of his explanation of what God did in Caesarea

In answer to the question about who the second pope (or Bishop of Rome) was, Mr. Drummey cites Irenaeus as having supposedly written that it was St. Linus. However, respected Roman Catholic historian Eusebius Pamphilius states that St. Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

Another writer is interested in a complete history of the Papacy. A factual account of the multitudinous acts of simony, adultery, intrigue and murder (to name but a few vices) that befell the Roman Papacy would startle any loyal Catholic.

On page 65 Mr. Drummey tries to defend the use of the term "Holy Father" for the pope. He correctly cites other people and things who are called "holy," but he fails to mention that the only biblical use of the term "Holy Father" was used by Our Lord in His High-priestly prayer of John 17 (verse 11).

It seems that Catholic apologists have a real difficulty explaining that Jesus used the name Holy Father for God, and the pope allows it to be used to designate him now.

When I was having one of my debates with Karl Keating, I posed the same question to him. His answer was, "Bill might have asked, Why do we call any of our priests Father?" Then he went on to answer, not the question I asked, but the question Karl said I might have asked.

While officially having to admit that there were rascals (or monsters) on the papal throne, it is interesting to see the long explanation Mr. Drummey goes into to protect Pope Callistus against the charges of Hippolytus on page 66.. It almost seems that his lengthy defense is meant somehow to lead the reader into thinking that all claims of heresy and sin among Roman pontiffs can be as easily explained away.

Hank Hanegraaf claimed that Pope Gelasius (492-496) had pronounces an anathema on anyone believing in the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven. While stating that he could not find historical evidence of this fact, Mr. Drummey goes on to use what has become normal for a Catholic's apologetic answer to erroneous statements by popes.

He said, "But even if Gelasius had anathematized someone for believing in the Assumption, that would have been a disciplinary action, not a dogmatic statement. It would not have undermined the Church's belief in papal infallibility unless he had used his charism of infallibility to proclaim that no bodily assumption of Mary ever occurred."

I personally doubt whether Gelasius even knew he had "the charism of infallibility" as it was not defined until 1870.

A tract, 101 Heresies of Pope John Paul II was briefly reviewed by Mr. Drummey. He made the statement, "If Pope John Paul II were guilty of even one heresy . . . it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Church . . ." That is assuming, of course, that the Roman Catholic church was the church referred to in Matthew 16:18. Mr. Drummey would say that it was, but Christians would look upon the Body of Christ, of which they are members, as the Church against which the forces of hell will not prevail.

Then 73 Mr. Drummey defends a statement made by Pope John Paul II, "Jews are our elder brothers in the faith." He reasons that since Abraham is called our father in faith, and Jesus and His Apostles were Jews, why is it heretical to say that Jews are our elder brother in the faith?

The Bible plainly teaches that all Jews are not Abraham's seed, but that the seed refers to Christ and then to Christians. To assert that (unbelieving) Jews are our "elder brothers" gives rise to sentiments recently expressed from Vatican sources that, because of their lineage though Abraham, Jews do not have to trust Christ in order to be saved. It is the unbelieving Jews who were cut out from their Olive Tree, and therefore, until evangelical conversion, are no part of God's Kingdom.

Then Mr. Drummey continues to defend the pope's statements, on page 74, this one, "The plan of salvation includes the Muslims." His answer that "God wants all men to be saved" doesn't address the issue. All Christians know Muslims can be saved if they trust Christ; the pope very strongly indicated that Muslims can be saved as Muslims, which of course is heretical.

He also finds is necessary to defend the pope's statement that "Goodness and truth are found in false religions." While not admitting that false religions have "the fullness of truth," the pope said that the truth they have is "a preparation for the Gospel." The Apostle John more accurately writes concerning false religions, "the whole world lieth in wickedness."(1 John 5:19)

Mr. Drummey defends a statement from the catechism saying that those who explicitly intend to be baptized and join the church are joined by that intention. This seems to negate the church's insistence on water baptism by introducing a carte blanche for "baptism of desire," which historically was an exceptional rule brought in for those who would have desired baptized had they known the essential nature of baptism.

Mr. Drummey quotes from Karl Keating's book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, where, on pages 290-300 there is what Mr. Drummey calls a "balanced discussion of the Inquisition." Karl advises Catholics to ask certain questions of Fundamentalists when asked about the Inquisition.

"The Catholic should ask the Fundamentalist what he thinks the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates ... That the Church contains sinners? Guilty as charged." (p. 297)

Unfortunately, Karl does not define what he means by sinners. Are they a part of the church and living in mortal sin? That is the lot of murderers, and the Inquisition certainly produced murderers.

Karl continues, "That at times sinners have reached positions of authority. Ditto."

A number of popes gave their agreement to the acts of the Inquisition. Are they the sinners that have reached positions of authority?

The point Karl makes here, as well as he had in several of the debates, is that the Catholic Church is a church of sinners. The body of Christ is also made up of sinners, like those who used to define themselves mostly in British Christian papers as ASSBG - A sinner saved by Grace.

The fact that no one - Catholic or Christian - is perfect does not change the fact that the Roman Catholic church, with the pope as their leader, sanctioned the slaughter of at least tens of thousands of people.

On page 88, Mr. Drummey mentions sensus fidei or "the sense of the faithful." This means that "because all the faithful have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth, the body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief. . . from the bishops to the last of the faithful they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."

Yet Mr. Drummey, an unordained apologist, has taken it upon himself to answer questions in such a way as to point out deviant faith and morals of Catholic priests and bishops.

Cases in point are: on page 17, a priest who said Jesus was "an insurrectionist, a lawbreaker and a hippie; on page 81 Priest Bernard Marthaler of the Catholic University of America, who portrays the teaching of the Catechism in a negative way; on page 82 Priest Lawrence DiNardo, who said the Catechism was not meant for lay Catholics; on page 95, an unnamed archbishop from Washington who changed the Christian sabbath to Saturday; on page 105, a priest who is evasive about money; on page 106 a priest who disliked frequent Confession; on page 108, a nun who performs liturgical functions when the priest, who Mr. Drummey says is "very wrong" sits on the platform; on page 126 he criticizes Deacon Gene; on page 134 where a priest told a man there was very little difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism; on page 141, he criticizes the action of a permanent deacon; on page 150 he criticizes the manner in which a certain priest applies the ashes on Ash Wednesday; on page 151 a priest who will not bless religious objects; on page 152, a priest who doesn't allow the Rosary to be said during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; on page 231 a monsignor who doesn't believe in an eternal Hell; on page 239, a priest who is misinformed about sacraments; on page 254, a priest who violates the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance; on page 270, a priest who said the lay people shared in his priesthood; on page 288, a priest who was "completely wrong"; on page 296 a priest who violated the Bishop' Guidelines; on page 331 a priest who substitutes "and became man" in the Creed for "and became human." (This, says Mr. Drummey, is not permitted); on page 333 a priest who doesn't believe it is the priest that "does the consecrating;" on page 353, priests who give erroneous advice about marriage; on page 407, a priest who said the Church expects priests to preach on the Ten Commandments only once every three years; on page 408 priests who fail to preach against sin; on page 409 a priest who teaches against fulfilling ones Easter duty; on page 441 a Jesuit priest whose views "do not reflect the teachings of the Pope"; and on page 451, a priest who differs from the Roman Catholic church's stand on celibacy.

It is interesting to see that. in some of the answers, Mr. Drummey relies on individual priests or other Catholics; in some replies, he criticizes individual priests. He has to make a private judgment on who is reliable, which would mean those who agree with him. Where is sensus fidei?

On page 90 there is a quotation from the Catechism that the Church (called in the same answer the Mystical Body of Christ) only comprises those who profess the true faith, and are not living in mortal sin or have been excommunicated. Mr. Drummey concedes that other Christian religions are linked to the Body in an imperfect way by virtue of Baptism.

Yet the Catholic Church officially says that in order for a non- Catholic Baptism to be valid, the minister of the Baptism has to intend to do that which the Catholic Church teaches regarding this sacrament, which is to effect regeneration and unite one with the One True Church, which of course most Protestant ministers don't do. This is a lot of ecumenical double talk, but Mr. Drummey comes down on the more conservative side of the issue.

Mr. Drummey says that, in order to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, or Catholic Church, persons must "accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her . . .". Does this mean that the Catholic we witness to who goes to Mass twice a year, never goes to Confession and does not accept papal infallibility is not a Roman Catholic? He thinks he is! Who decides?

On pages 90 and 91, Mr. Drummey deals with the issue of traditional Catholics. His argument is that if the Traditionalists are correct, "Jesus lied when He promised to be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20), . . . when He promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the church (John 14:17) and that St. Paul lied when he called the Church 'the pillar and bulwark of truth' (I Timothy 3:15).

He fails to point out that Traditionalists consider themselves to be the Church that has the presence of the Holy Spirit, are filled with the Holy Spirit and are the pillar and bulwark of the truth. They look at the "non-traditionalists" as being the usurpers, so their convictions do not nullify their understanding of Christ's promises.

Many non-Catholics, myself included, look upon the Traditionalists as having a more valid claim to being truly Roman Catholic.

It is highly speculative to consider any of the three scriptures Mr. Drummey used to have any reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

On page 86, Mr. Drummey speaks of "any modification of the Mass . . . that does not affect her substance" as being part of the indefectability of the Church. He probably does not include the change of liturgical language in the Mass from a dead to a living language, but there are many bona fide Roman Catholics who do. Today's Traditionalists assert that the use of a changeable living language destroys the precision that is necessary for transubstantiation to occur. But this is not some new traditionalist thought.

The Catholic Church, which "never changes", put out an authoritative (but not infallible) book in 1913. It was written by Priest Joseph Baierl and published by The Seminary Press complete with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The book explains "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" in the form of questions and answers.

"Q: Why does the Church continue to use a dead language in the divine service?

A: (Latin) is a dead language and consequently does not change its form and meaning. A living language is continually changing. If we were to use a living language in the divine service, all sorts of errors and false meanings might creep in..."

On pages 91-92, Mr. Drummey deals with an extreme group of Traditionalists also known as sedevacantists (an empty See, viz., Rome) believe that the last valid pope was Pius XII. I have met a group of these in Spokane, Washington, and while I naturally could not agree with their theology, they presented a love and devotion to their traditional cause that at least equals Mr. Drummey's. These people are validly baptized Catholics, and most sincere in their efforts to bring the Roman Catholic church back to her traditional roots, which have been largely discarded since Vatican II.

On page 93, Mr. Drummey brings up the subject of invalidity and illicity. For instance, the Masses of the St. Pius X (Traditional) society are valid if performed by a validly ordained priest, but they are illicit.

Licit means lawful or permitted. A sacrament may be valid but not licit (accomplishing a sacramental effect but contrary to the laws of the Church, as in some mixed marriages.)

Valid means conforming to conditions essential to sacramental efficacy: proper rite,intention and status of minister, moral fitness and intention of recipient.

A validly ordained priest may perform a sacramentally valid marriage of Roman Catholic and a non-Catholic; but if the requirements (of obtaining a dispensation) are not met the ceremony is not licit.

On pages 102-3, Mr. Drummey explains the Catholic term imprimatur (let is be printed) as the term a bishop uses after a book has been given the nihil obstat (nothing objectionable to Catholic Faith) from an authorized Censor. He quotes Canon Law (canon 827), which says that a book must have an imprimatur if it treats "of questions on religions or morals." Certainly this description would include Mr. Drummey's current book, but Catholic Replies 2 has no imprimatur.

While Webster's Dictionary does give, as its fifth definition, "a graded or ranked series" for the word hierarchy, Mr. Drummey should understand that the word is made up of two parts that give its technical meaning the rule (archy) of priests (hierus). While it is a common usage in the world today, Mr. Drummey's use of the phrase "hierarchy of truths" tends to lead a person away from then original, and in our minds only proper, use of the word, the rule of the priests in the Roman Catholic church.

On page 117, we have three questions, two of which were from Catholics disturbed because Mr. Drummey had written that it was "nonsense" to believe that only Catholics can be martyrs, while the Council of Constance (1442), expressly denied Heaven to "pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics" and stated that even if one shed his blood for Christ (which sounds like martyrdom), one cannot be saved unless he is in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Mr. Drummey wrote that the Council of Florence was talking about "heretics and schismatics who were stubbornly resistant to the unity of the Church, hostile to correction, and therefore culpable for their heresy, schism, or unbelief."

That is interpolating into the words of the Council meanings that Mr. Drummey desires to add, but is not documented as being stated in the text. The concept of "No Salvation Outside the Church" presents a difficulty for today's conservation ecumenical Catholics (in which category we would place Mr. Drummey.)

From www.dodone.org\NoSalvation.html: The Popes through the centuries have defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation." Here are a few references to their teachings on the matter.

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...If slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247) Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)

Pope Innocent II (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): 'We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of the benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. . . For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words, Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her, all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.' (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. 'This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . ..Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): "By divine mandate the Interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone. . . is the source of truth.' (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

The third question was about Jews and Moslems being saved without being baptized with water. Drummey says this is accurate. However, in defending this, Mr. Drummey does not state this is because Jews or Moslems have the "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood," but because of a special relationship forged because, respectively, of their covenant relationship with God or their ties with Abraham.

Yet the Bible is clear that individual Jews are saved like anyone else - by grace through faith, and the blessing of Abraham through Isaac was to his seed, and that seed is Christ, whom Moslems reject as unique Saviour.

A Catholic writes to ask about Christians who have a conversion, are baptized in the Holy Spirit, who are admirable Christians and live happy, effective Christian lives.

Mr. Drummey suggests that the Holy Spirit uses Christian churches not in fellowship with Rome as means of salvation, but their power derives from the "fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church."

This becomes apparently nonsensical when we look at one of the many who have come out of the Catholic Church, trusted Christ as their Saviour and were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). To suggest that the power behind their conversion comes from the very system they were in for a number of years but were drawn away from by the same Holy Spirit is ridiculous.

Mr. Drummey graces his answer with reference the number of the highly publicized few who came into Catholicism from Protestant denominations (Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics to name two). No positive documentation of their salvation before they came to Rome exists, and, contrary to the desire of Karl Keating and company, the bulk of the traffic is still moving away from Rome.

Mr. Drummey wrote, on page 128, "the Old Covenant was never repealed." God said, in Hebrews 12:24, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant and that the old covenant was ready to pass away (Hebrews 7:13). God's old covenant with Israel was not concerning individual salvation - each individual was justified, as was Abraham, by his faith. The covenant had to do with the earthly promises to Israel.

A questioner makes the point that Allah is not the God of the Bible, but Mr. Drummey does not address this in his answer. He does quote from the catechism which seems to indicate Muslims worship the same God as do Christians, but several good studies from fundamental sources have failed to find any similarity between Jehovah and Allah.

In his answer on page 132, Mr. Drummey says that the title "Christian" was first given to the Catholics living in Antioch. It was usual for early writers to speak of Christians as being in the universal (catholic) church. This was a common adjective, and has absolutely nothing to do with the present day Roman Catholic Church (note proper nouns). As has been satisfactorily proven by a vast number of Christian writers, what is presently Roman Catholicism can be traced to a union of paganism and decadent Christianity in the 4th century.

On page 133, Mr. Drummey quotes from the Catholic/Lutheran agreement that salvation does not come "because of any merit on our part."Paragraph 2010 of the Catechism says that no one can merit the initial grace given in Baptism, but that after "we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed . . . for the attainment of eternal life.

On page 139, Mr. Drummey repeats the normal Catholic interpretation for the first Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15). He said that it was Peter's speech that decided the issue, and after he spoke, he quotes Acts 15:12, "the whole assembly fell silent."

Taking it up in the KJV, Acts 15:12 says, "Then all the multitude kept silent, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul . . ." Their silence was not because Peter had settled the matter, but because they wanted to hear what the missionary Paul had to say. Then James gave his verdict, and you will notice the four points in his sentence (Acts 15:19,20) had not been mentioned by Peter in his address.

On page 145, Mr. Drummey says that Masons and Roman Catholicism are not compatible.

According to Jim Shaw, former 33rd degree Mason (Box 884, Silver Springs, FL 32688), the following Vatican officials are Masons. Dates given are dates of initiation.

Cardinals Sebastiano Baggio 8/14/57, Jean Villot 8/6/66, Leo Suenens 6/15/57, Ugo Polatti 2/17/69, Michele Pellegrino 5/2/60, Archbishops Agostino Cassaroli 9/28/57, Annibale Bugnini 4/23/58, Mario Brini 7/13/69, Bishop Fiorenzo Angelini 10/14/57, Msgr. Pasquale Macchi, private secretary of Paul VI, 4/23/58.

On page 147, Mr. Drummey quotes from Karl Keating's book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (page 163).

"We should expect that the religion that is the fullness of truth, coming in the 'fullness of time,' would incorporate the good points of earlier religions while rejecting their errors."

In the Bible we are told not that other religions are partially good, but that "the whole world lieth in wickedness." (I John 5:19), and any mixture of pagan religion with Christianity was forbidden in 1 Corinthians 10:21

I have just finished reading chapter 4 of Mr. Drummey's book. It is entitled Salvation and Ecumenism, yet not once is there any reference as to how a person can obtain eternal salvation. Those reading this booklet who may not as yet understand the plan of salvation, will find it very simply stated in the Word of God.

Romans 3:23 - All have sinned and come short of the glory (goodness) of God.

Romans 6:23 - The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Peter 2:24 - Who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree

Isaiah 53:11 - He (God) shall look on the travail of his (Christ's) soul and shall be satisfied.

John 1:12 - As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on His name.

On page 152, he quotes from John Hardon in The Catholic Faith magazine. "Except for Our Lady, we would not have the Blessed Sacrament. It is she who gave us her Divine Son the flesh and blood in which Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist."

The Bible says that it was God Who gave Jesus His earthly body (Hebrews 10:5).

Write for a free copy of the tract, What is the Actual Role of Mary in the Birth of Christ from C.E.C., Box 99141, Louisville, KY 40269.

Many Catholics Wear the brown or Carmelite scapular to benefit from Mary's promise that those who die wearing it "shall not suffer eternal fire." This assures Purgatory (the mythological place where sins not cleansed by the Blood of Christ are purged) and eventually Heaven.

Although the "Blessed Mother" did not qualify this promise, but gave it to all wearers, Mr. Drummey makes up for her negligence by reminding Catholics they must lead a holy life in order to benefit from their scapular.

Mr. Drummey writes, "This includes at least weekly Mass attendance and reception of Holy Communion, frequent Confession of one's sins, observance of the Church's laws on fast and abstinence, participation in Eucharistic adoration. Bible reading, works of charity, and constant prayer, including recitation of the rosary, that beautiful devotion that the Blessed Virgin herself has recommended."

If a Catholic did all of that, he would not need a scapular. If Mary had been more explicit about the conditions, the scapular would probably not be as popular as it has been historically for Roman Catholics. Modern Catholics are not as attracted to this devotion.

Mr. Drummey (page 159) tells Catholics something that will be most disturbing. In 1966 Pope Paul VI said that abstinence from meat was to be observed every Friday, but that bishops could substitute abstinence with other forms of penitence. So you still have to give up or do something Friday as it is a day of penance. You might as well abstain from meat and go to dinner at Red Lobster.

It is interesting to note Mr. Drummey's response to various converts to the Catholic Church. He mentions Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft, and almost seems to make them infallible. Then, on page 172, he strongly opposes the Marian theology of Jeffrey Hart, another convert to Catholicism.

On the same page, Mr. Drummey makes reference to a oft- repeated Catholic fable, "Mary's perpetual virginity." If the Scripture were only silent about this, it would be gross presumption to formulate an essential dogma from that which the Bible does not say. However, the Word of God is not only silent about affirming it, it contradicts it in many instances, most of which the Catholic apologist will try to deny One inescapable verse is Psalm 68:9. This is a Messianic Psalm, to which most Catholic theologians agree. The Psalm has the Messiah saying,. "I have become an alien to my mother's children." Thus plainly states His mother would have other children (Matthew 13:55,56) and that they would be alienated from Him (John 7:5).

On page 178, Mr. Drummey gives what are reputed to be quotes from the Reformation leaders Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, where they state their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. We know that the Reformers took a giant step away from Rome; in many cases, they either didn't step far enough, or, as alluded to by John Robinson, Pastor of the Pilgrims, their followers didn't keep on moving away from Rome.

Regardless of supposed quotes from the Reformers, they are not the final arbiter of truth. We go back to the Word of God which militates against Mary's perpetual virginity (see above). Possibly, if the Reformers died believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, when they arrived in Heaven Mary would have been there to introduce them to Jesus' half-brothers James, Simon, Judas and Joses.

"Going to Jesus through Mary" is defended by Mr. Drummey on pages 177-8. Four long paragraphs from Church documents are used, including the statement that Jesus "showed a willingness on earth to grant (Mary's) every request." and included only one verse of Scripture - John 2:5. This scripture teaches the exact opposite of Mr. Drummey's argument. The servants had come to Mary, but instead of Jesus' honoring the request of servants to Mary to Him, He gently rebuked her. Then Mary stepped aside and made the confrontation just from the servants to Jesus, and the request was granted.. Another instance comes to mind when she and her family came to see Him. Rather than give them an exclusive audience, He said that whoever did the will of God was mother and sister and brother to Him (Mark 3:33,34).

On page 178, Mr. Drummey relates a story that is supposed to demonstrate Mary's role as intercessor. A farmer has an apple orchard, and every year he presented the king with a bowl of fine apples. One year, however, due to poor growing conditions, all the apples were marred and wormy. The farmer wondered how he could give these poor apples to the king, so he went to the queen for her advice. She carefully removed all the bad spots and cut the apples into wedges as the king liked them that way for dessert. When she presented this gift from the farmer to the king, he was greatly pleased. This is how Mary takes our less than perfect prayers and presents them to God in a way which pleases Him.

There is a grave theological error in this. John 16:26,27 speaks of our prayers to God. Jesus says it is not even necessary for Him to pray to the Father for us, for "the Father Himself loveth you," To suggest that Mary can make our prayers acceptable to God is utter blasphemy. The Bible also tells us it is the Holy Spirit Who makes our prayers acceptable (Romans 8:26).

On page 183, Mr. Drummey speaks of the birth of Christ like a ray of sunshine passing through a window that leaves the pane of glass undisturbed. This is the way they explain Mary's perpetual virginity in that, while giving birth to Christ, He did not disrupt her biological virginity. Numbers 3:12 describes the firstborn as one who opens the womb. While Mary's virginity is not compromised by the Holy Spirit's miraculous implanting of the embryonic body of Christ in her womb, Christ's passing through her birth canal violated her perpetual virginity. We should therefore speak of the Virginal Conception of Christ rather than His Virgin Birth. Of course, as noted above, her other children were not born supernaturally, so the fable of perpetual virginity, which is very important to Catholics, collapses into oblivion. The purity of the vessel through which Christ came into the world did not enhance His impeccability, just as any impurity in the vessel could not have diminished this. Her sin offering after the birth of Christ further underlines the fact that she was a sinner.

On page 184, it is admitted that the greatest Roman Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, did not accept the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. This being the case, since we have a clear example of Aquinas' lack of infallibility, can we accept, carte blanche, the rest of his theology?

While numerous theologians and apologists with whom we have become familiar accept the woman of Revelation 12 as being Mary, Mr. Drummey says it is Israel. This allows him to escape from the intriguing question of why Mary, who was supposedly freed from labor pains because of her immaculate conception, if she be the woman of Revelation 12, is travailing in birth.

From page 187ff, we have raised the issue of Mary's supposed request at Fatima that the pope, simultaneously with all the bishops of the world, consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart. This was done to the satisfaction of some on March 25, 1984. Extreme proponents of Mary's apparition at Fatima contend that it was not done by all the bishops of the world, and therefore did not meet Mary's requirements. Robert Fox is a priest who believes the consecration was valid. Admitting that all of the world's bishops did not participate, he agrees with the Bishop of Fatima that what was called a "moral totality" of bishops participated, and this makes the consecration valid. Apparently "almost all" is a "moral totality" - an interesting Jesuitic use of words.

On page 192, Mr. Drummey quotes what was allegedly said by the apparition at Fatima, "In order to save (poor sinners), God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart." In 1 Timothy 1:15, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."

Later, Lucia (one of the apparition children) spoke about devout Catholics making reparation to Mary. But God is already satisfied with the travail of Christ on the cross; where do we find biblical reference to anyone's making reparation to Mary?

On page 194, Mr. Drummey answers some questions about LaSalette. Mary is supposed to have appeared there to a fourteen year old girl and an eleven year old boy, She is reported to have said that if people don't stop committing two specific sins, "I shall be compelled to loose my Son's arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain. How long I have suffered for you . . . No matter how well you act, you will never be able to make up to me what I have endured for your sake." This idea of Mary's restraining the judgment of Christ and suffering for sinners is blasphemous.

On page 197, Mr. Drummey gives indications that Pope John Paul does not support the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje (see www.dodone.org/Bosnia.html)

"There are other indications that Pope John Paul does not support the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje. (1) In 1993, he appointed as the bishop of the region Msgr. Ratko Peric, who is adamant in his belief that the reported apparitions are not authentic.

"(2) During a visit to the Croatian capital of Zagreb on September 10-11, 1994, the Holy Father never made any reference to Medjugorje.

"(3) Speaking at the Sacred Heart Cathedral in Sarajevo on April 13, 1997, John Paul made no mention of Medjugorje, although he did praise pilgrimages to a diocese-approved Marian shrine, Our Lady Queen of Peace in Hrasno, 25 miles from Medjugorje. He praise that shrine as 'a true center of Marian devotion.'"

On page 199, a questioner remarks, concerning the Shrine in Necedah, WI that "They seem to be aligned to the Roman Catholic Church than are most of the liberalized churches I have been to over the years. . . They seem to be part of the 'remnant' church that could be instrumental in keeping Catholicism alive."

Mr. Drummey, of course, will have none of this. Even though he in his columns and The Wanderer newspaper often blame bishops for the sad state Catholicism is in today, he insists that the folks at Necedah (where I have been twice) should heed the bishop of LaCrosse, WI who came down very hard on them.

This is another instance where sensus fidei, dealt with on page 17, is a nonentity in present day Catholicism. As much is admitted by conservative Catholic Anne Roche Muggeridge in The Desolate City. She remarked that the true, traditional teaching of Roman Catholicism very likely animates very few in the Church today.

On the following page, Mr. Drummey verbally chastises the late Veronica Leuken and her shrine in Bayside, NY. But at least the materials sent from Bayside admitted to thoroughly Traditional Catholicism, unlike much of the twaddle that comes from today's liberated theologians, priests and bishops.

On page 201, Mr. Drummey refers to "St. Michael the Archangel. It is believers who are saints, and no angel can understand the wonderful redemption in Christ that makes us all saints. As the hymn says,

There'll be singing up in Heaven such as we have never known

Where the angels sing the praises of the Lamb upon His throne

Their sweet harps are ever tuneful and their voices always clear

O that we might be more like them when we serve the Master here.

Holy, Holy, is what the angels sing

And I expect to help them make the courts of Heaven ring

But when I sing redemption's story they will fold their wings

For angels never felt the joys that my salvation brings."

The next section of the book is entitled Mary, Angels and Saints, and we would be remiss if we didn't spell out the differences between Christian saints and Roman Catholic saints. It only takes one miracle to make a sinner into a saint - the miracle of regeneration. It takes two miracles to make a Catholic a saint, although Mr. Drummey admits that everyone who reaches heaven is a saint. We would say that everyone who is a saint reaches heaven.

The following is from www.dodone.org:

SAINTS

BASIC ROMAN CATHOLIC BELIEF

Saints are heroic servants of God who have died and are in Heaven. Many have been canonized by the Church and are given the inferior veneration of dulia . There are patron saints for almost every country, vocation, and situation. Because her house was flown by angels to Italy, Our Lady of Loreto was proclaimed Patroness of aviators. He levitated while praying, so St. Joseph of Cupertino is the patron saint of astronauts.

Roman Catholic theologians have theorized as to how a saint hears us, as they are not omnipresent. One idea is that the saint's spirit moves about the world at the speed of light. Another is that God hears the prayer and delegates it to a saint to take care of. Butler's unofficial Lives of the Saints (1956) contains 2,565 saints.

Problems about the authenticity of data about St. Christopher and St. Philomena, whose cult was authorized by Gregory XVI in 1837, caused both to be demoted - although devotion to them is still authorized.

Pope Pius XII proclaimed St. Clare of Assisi Heavenly Patroness of television. This great saint lay gravely ill on Christmas Eve, 1252. Unable to attend Mass she was granted by God the miraculous vision of Mass together with the sound of prayers and music in the Basilica of St. Francis some distance away.

Council of Trent, Session 25. "Those persons think impiously who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in Heaven, are to be invoked; who assert that they do not pray for men; who declare that by asking them to pray for each of us in particular in idolatry, repugnant to the Word of God, and opposed to the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia. "In 1802 an ancient tomb was found. Inscription was reconstructed and bones accepted as those of a virgin martyr in the 3rd century. Don Francesco de Lucia, parish priest, put the relics in a place of honor and wrote the life of St. Philomena based on dubious visions and imagination. She was canonized in 1855." (Editor's Note-She was demoted in 1961.)

POST VATICAN II

From the Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 1186: "To foster the sanctification of the people of God the Church recommends to the particular and filial veneration of the Christian faithful to Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ established as the Mother of the human race; it also promotes true and authentic devotion to the other saints by whose example the Christian faithful are edified and through whose intercession they are sustained."

From Wilmington, Delaware News Journal 4/20/91, "The makers of `St. Joseph: The Underground Real Estate Agent' package, which consists of a small plastic statue of the saint in tote bag and a burial instruction book, say they are quite serious about their product.

"The idea of asking St. Joe to intervene in the sale of their home is not a new concept. Plenty of Delawareans, who have been burying plastic statues of the saint for years, swear by the practice. And if done in the right spirit, the church does not really object.

"After digging a six-inch hole near the `For Sale' sign, the homeowner should place St. Joe in the ground head first, with his feet toward heaven.

"Then, according to the guide, the seller should say the following words: `Oh, St. Joseph, guardian of household needs, we know that you don't like to be buried upside down in the ground, but the sooner escrow closes, the sooner we will dig you up and put you in a place of honor in our new home.'"

Dictionary of Saints contains very complimentary stories of thousands of "saints." Some were, to say the least, quite unusual.

In this category is St. Christina the Astonishing. She died when she was 21, but revived during her funeral Mass and soared to the roof of the church. She said she had been to hell, purgatory and heaven. She lived for 50 more years praying for the "Holy Souls." She could not tolerate the odor of human beings and resorted to extraordinary means to avoid them. Among these were climbing trees, soaring to the rafters of churches and hiding in ovens. The writer tells us she was thought insane by many but venerated by others.

Other Christinas have interesting lives as well. Christina of Bolsena was miraculously saved from drowning when her father threw her into Lake Bolsena with a rock around her neck. She then survived five days in a furnace, but the writer admits these incidents are probably all legendary.

For Christina of Tyre: a fire lighted under her got out of control and burned hundreds to death. When her tongue was cut out of her mouth she spoke more clearly than ever. She picked up her tongue and threw it at the judge, and he lost the sight in one eye. She was thrown into the sea and was baptized by Christ. She was returned to land by the Archangel Michael. After all that we are told "it is doubtful if she ever existed."

On page 205, Mr. Drummey tells us, "(I)t cost about $250,000 to bring about the canonization of Elizabeth Ann Seaton in 1975." The Bible tells us the Living Water is "without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1).

Mr. Drummey comes to the rescue of the memory of Cardinal Stepanic, but the documentation from Edmund Paris' book Genocide in Satellite Croatia tells a far different story. It reminds us of the old saying, Historians can do something God cannot do - they can change history. Probably Mr, Drummey is as satisfied with his version of the Cardinal's life as I am with the observations of Mr. Paris.

On page 220, Mr. Drummey thus defines temporal punishment. "Temporal punishment is a consequence of venial and/or forgiven mortal sins and is the penalty that God in His justice inflicts either on earth or in Purgatory."

Romans 3:24 speaks of God's justice in this manner, "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." There was a debt to pay, for all stand guilty (Romans 3:19), but the payment of that debt satisfied God (Isaiah 53:11). For the unsaved sinner, the problem is still his sin; for the Christian, sin has been dealt with and our works will be examined (1 Corinthians 3:13- 15).

On page 225, Mr. Drummey uses the words "mediators" and "intercessors" as though they were synonyms. In the Bible, the word mediator is used only of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the role of a mediator is one who makes peace between parties at variance. An intercessor, used for Christians only in 1 Timothy 2:1, means simply prayer for or supplication on ones behalf. Incorrect use of the word mediator to define the role of Christians is confusing, as there is one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, who reconciled us to God

On page 224, Mr. Drummey again quotes Karl Keating, "To fundamentalists the term communion of saints and its allied term, the Mystical Body of Christ, mean nothing." In our circles, the term "Mystical Body of Christ" is sometimes used, but a designation with which we are more comfortable is simply The Body of Christ, comprising all saints. Perhaps because we don't think of a Suffering Church in "purgatory," Karl thinks we do not have the reality of a Body, sometimes called the invisible Church. Mr. Drummey adds that the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ was developed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:26-27).

Just because we don't ask dead people to pray for us doesn't mean we don't have a reality that there are loved ones waiting for us in Heaven. We believe that Christian pilgrims on earth and the blessed in Heaven form one Church, not visible to man and known absolutely by God alone, thus our calling it the Invisible Church.

On pages 226ff, Mr. Drummey cites the usual Catholic arguments for Purgatory. He admits Protestants do not accept 2 Maccabees, but even if we did, it would not prove Purgatory. The soldiers who were slain and who were prayed for had died in the sin of idolatry, which is a mortal sin according to Romanism, and would have meant they went to Hell from which no one can be prayed out.

He then goes to Matthew 5:245,26 where the debtor is thrown into prison. A priest once told me this alludes to Purgatory. It cannot actually prove it because it is the debtor who must pay the uttermost farthing, and with the Roman Catholic ideas of Purgatory, people on earth can help pay for the debtor.

Regarding Matthew 12:32, while Mr. Drummey says "this implies" there is forgiveness in the world to come, but it doesn't say so. Furthermore, people are in Purgatory, Mr. Drummey said, to make up for their temporal punishment, not specifically for forgiveness.

Lastly comes Revelation 21:27. We agree that nothing defiling can enter the New Jerusalem, but perfect cleansing has already been accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Confraternity New Testament says, in Hebrews 1:3, Christ has effected man's purgation from sin.

On page 227, Mr. Drummey makes an error even common to many fundamentalists. He says that 1 Corinthians 2:9 teaches there is nothing that can prepare us for the wonders of Heaven. The last statement is probably true, but is not proved by 1 Corinthians 2:9, for Paul follows, in the next verse, "But God hath revealed them to us by the Spirit." While even saved people cannot fully understand Heaven, all we need to know is communicated to us by the Holy Spirit.

On page 230, Mr. Drummey tries to negate the Christian belief that the words which used to be on the pope's miter, Vicarius Filii Dei (adding, in Roman numerals, to 666) are not the proper name of the pope. Having had correspondence with him on this matter, it was pointed out that Bishop Noll used the title Vicarius Filii Dei in Our Sunday Visitor, even though Mr. Drummey accuses us of ascribing a fictitious title to the pope.

The forger of the Donation of Constantine, an ardent papist, also used those Latin words to describe the pope. While we attach some importance to the title which adds up to 666, we have much more in the Word of God to consider the pope to be linked to 666. As Richard Baxter said, "If the pope be not Antichrist, he hath the ill luck to appear so much like him."

On page 251, Mr. Drummey mentions "the truths [Catholics] need to know the get to Heaven," including "thoughts, words, deeds and acts of omission that are contrary to the commandments of God." This is certainly an admission of salvation by good works.

In answering a question on page 257, Mr. Drummey's first words are "We will turn to Canon Law for guidance." While it is true that he often gives scripture references, where does Canon Law fit into the Catholic understanding of authority. Ludwig Ott gave us "Holy Writ, Tradition and the Magisterium." The over-generous use of Canon Law to answer questions certainly demeans the Word of God. Does Canon Law supplant Tradition or is it Tradition codified?

Why (page 259) does the absolution formula include the words "may God grant you pardon and peace" when Mr. Drummey tells us the essential words are "I absolve you from your sins . . ."? It seems God's absolution should be more important than that of the priest.

On page 268-9, the questioner says that the Old Law, including the priesthood, was done away with in Christ. He asks where the Catholic priest comes from.

Mr. Drummey says that a "presbuteros" (translated elder or presbyter) is in reality a priest. Yet there is no New Testament minister called by the name hierus, which is used exclusively for the Old Testament High Priest and Christ. This word means a sacrificing priest, and Jesus Christ is the only New Testament sacrificing priest.

However, Cyprian applied this term to the Roman Catholic priest for the first time in the 3rd century, when he said the administrator of the Mass was a hierus.. That is where the Roman Catholic priesthood came from - a counterfeit of the true sacrificing priest, the Lord Jesus. Hierus is the word that hierarchy (rule by priests) comes from.

The reason sacrifices and sacrificing priests are no longer necessary is because God was satisfied with the sacrifice of His Son to pay the debt owed by human beings to God.

Mr. Drummey begins Chapter 9 (The Holy Eucharist) by answering a Catholic question that has been on the minds of many Protestants: Can you tell me what the Council of Trent said about Jesus being completely present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in both the consecrated Host and the consecrated Wine?

Mr. Drummey quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The first statement is that the body, blood, soul and divinity (note small letters) are all contained in the Eucharist. The next paragraph says the bread becomes the body and the wine becomes the blood. Then he says, "As whether Jesus is fully present under each species, the Catechism, without mentioning Trent, says this is true" The Catechism does say that Jesus is sacramentally present under each species (Drummey uses the word s "fully present" which the Catechism doesn't) but the Catechism doesn't say that Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in both the Host and the Wine (which is the question that was originally given).

Since. at the Last Supper, Jesus specifically mentioned bread as representing His Body and the cup as representing His Blood, it is an aberration of scripture that would suggest (as most Catholics believe) that Soul and Divinity have to be added, and, even worse, that each species contains all four.

On page 282 we are told that a priest who has committed a mortal sin may still receive Communion at Mass if he makes an act of perfect contrition. The Catechism defines this as that which" arises from a love by which God is loved above all else." There is no way man's deceitful heart can objectively assess whether this has been the case; while the act of perfect contrition has been described as a sure way to Heaven, it is completely subjective and therefore not absolute. (see www.dodone.org/Contrition.html)

In the next few articles, Mr. Drummey goes into great detail concerning the validity and invalidity of the bread and wine used for the Eucharist. If unknowingly a person received invalid matter he is told he doesn't receive the Body of Christ, but, Mr. Drummey assures him that "We are sure" the Lord will impart graces to him. There is no infallible assurance of this.

The next writer tells of "Eucharistic ministers digging in a salad bowl" to get their hosts which were a square that looked like rye bread. Then the remaining consecrated Hosts were passed down the aisle so people could consume them. The pastor responded that this was acceptable.

Mr. Drummey replied that it is not true. He quoted an authoritative source which says, ". . . the sacred articles remaining are to be consumed or taken by the competent minister to the place where the Eucharist is reserved." From this statement he reasoned that the competent minister is responsible for consuming the Hosts remaining after Communion.

He assumes the sacred articles are to be consumed by the competent minister, which would make the sentence read, "to be consumed . . . to the place where the Eucharist is reserved." It is evident from the construction of the sentence that (1) the Hosts are to be consumed - it doesn't say by whom or (2) taken by the competent minister to the place where the Eucharist is reserved. Thus the initial pastor was correct if he read the same authority regarding disposal of the elements left over from Communion.

A writer called attention to the fact that St. Mark's parish in Virginia Beach, VA was using a recipe for Communion Bread which included oil and milk. Drummey quotes a priest writing in The Sacraments and their Celebration, "Bread made with milk, wine, oil, etc., either entirely or in a notable part, is invalid material." Again it is a case of Mr. Drummey to the rescue straightening out these aberrant priests. A final note concerns table wine or that which is bought at a liquor store, both of which are invalid.

Is it a case of Much Ado About Nothing? Why does material to be inhabited by Christ (supposedly)have to be pure? Christ came not to save the righteous, but sinners. Certainly if the miracle of transubstantiation were legitimate, its efficacy would derive not from the purity of the bread or wine, but in His infinite power to make Himself known to His disciples.

A further question concerns "unsanctified hands" touching the Host. Is that any different from an unsanctified tongue touching it? Concerning Communion in the hand, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal is quotes as follows: "The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant's choice." (n.240b)

We have watched the pope on television giving Communion. When a communicant came forward and held out his hand, the pope (John Paul II) shook his head and waited for the mouth to open so the host would be received on the tongue.

In a long section that discusses the problem some people have medically with receiving wheat flour (which is used in the Communion bread), Boston's then-Cardinal Bernard Law wrote, "the law of the Church is extremely explicit. In keeping with the Last Supper narrative found in the Gospels, the bread must be made of wheat alone." While it is a law of the church that the bread be made of wheaten flour, one searches the Gospels in vain trying to find such an inference.

On page 303, a questioner wants to know how to refute the statement that celebrating or attending Mass is never mentioned of the Apostles. Mr. Drummey says that just because the word "Mass" is not mentioned doesn't preclude its being celebrated, and "we find mention of early Christians taking part in 'breaking of bread' or the "Lord's Supper', both of which refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

The words, "Lord's Supper", appear once in the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 11:20. The Greek word for supper means a main meal, usually in the evening. The entire verse reads, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper.

The words "breaking of bread" occur three times - Luke 24:35, Acts 2:42 and 2:46. The last reference is to "breaking bread from house to house," which sounds like having tea and a biscuit at another believer's home. I don't see any excuse for anyone to automatically link either of these phrases with the Mass.

In order to understand Mr. Drummey's quotes from ancient sources, we have to remember they wrote in Greek, and the word Eucharist is simply a Greek word meaning the prayer of thanksgiving. The Eucharistic prayer has no semantic link to sacrifice.

The Didache uses the word sacrifice, but it is apparent from the context this refers to the sacrifices of praise, as in Hebrews 13:15

Justin Martyr uses the phrase "eucharisted bread" and that simply means bread which has been given thanks for, as is the bread in a Christian Communion service.

On page 304 Mr. Drummey tells us that Mass in Latin started in the 4th century. Is it a coincidence that this was the same century as the "conversion" of Constantine, and his desire to make the now decadent institutionalized Church the glue that would hold the Roman Empire together?

On page 309ff, Mr. Drummey explores the reasons why Vatican II (1962-5) has caused so much confusion in the Catholic Church, He says, "The blame for that sad state of affairs, it is clear, belongs to the national and diocesan liturgical commissions which have blatantly ignored or rejected numerous ecclesiastical documents calling for the faithful implementation of Vatican II."

We remember Mr. Drummey's remark when we had dinner together one evening. He asked the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist. The answer was "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

For those unfamiliar with Vatican II, here is a brief summary of it: Vatican II was a Roman Catholic Church Council, convened by John XXIII in 1962, interrupted by his death and re-convened by Paul VI. It ended in 1965, and was responsible for liturgical reforms and the introduction of modern and ecumenical terminologies. Most decrees of Vatican II are opposed by the Traditionalists. On the opening day of Vatican II, John XXIII said, "The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught" (Ad Limina Talks, p. 57,67,68). A Vatican II document, Constitution on Divine Revelation, Introduction, para. 1 said, "Therefore, the following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation."

From the Catholic Answer, January/February 1991, page 33ff, "There has been, in addition to the Council's 16 documents, something called `the spirit of Vatican II' that runs through the entire post-conciliar period. It is probably a safe bet that average members of the faithful have heard this particular `spirit' invoked more often than they have heard any actual quotation from the Council's own teaching documents, just as average Catholics have probably heard more things discussed and dismissed as simply being `pre-conciliar' than they have heard reasons for dismissing certain things. "For a significant number of Catholics...it was a kind of brand new `process' of democratizing the Church. Such Catholics are generally those who are tempted to consider the pre-Vatican II Church to have been rigid, static, legalistic, judgmental, hidebound and resistant to any change. "Some Catholics have tended to read more significance into the changes that were made than was actually warranted. If Latin could be dropped from the liturgy, for example, or fish on Friday from Catholic penitential practice - so this type of reasoning tended to run - then why could not the Church's prohibition of artificial birth control or her age-old practice of ordaining only males to the ministerial priesthood also be dropped? "Many who thus see the Council and its actual deeds merely as part of a larger `process' of the inevitable liberalization and democratization of the Church tend not to accept the 16 documents produced by Vatican II as the Council's final word. For them, the `process' has to continue until still other changes thought to be in `the spirit of Vatican II' have also been realized. There has been more than one call for a Vatican III. "We must keep in mind the reasons for which Pope John XXIII called for the Council in the first place. It was not, as many apparently persist in believing today, in order to being the Church into greater conformity with the modern world. Rather, in the words of this Pope's Constitution Humanae Salutis in 1961, it was to bring `the modern world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the Gospel'" (from dodone.org/VatII.html)

Some thoughts from www.dodone.org/FF32.html might help to point out New Age tendencies and liturgical abuse of present day Romanism.

Even though he opposes some New Age concepts, Karol Wojtyla (before he became Pope John Paul II), had said, "The Incarnation of the Son of God emphasizes the great dignity of human nature; and the mystery of redemption not only reveals the value of every human being but also indicates the lengths to which the battle to save man's dignity must go."

You take all of the theologies and philosophies that are militating against the real Catholic Church and you add other extremes on both sides. The late Marcel Lefebvre saw the Church forsaking Tradition, and a Roman Catholic priest in Toronto celebrated Mass in a clown suit. He said Jesus was King of Kings and Clown of Clowns, and in the Eucharistic prayer, he mimed the words of consecration. It is no wonder that alarmed conservatives can write books like Anne Roche Muggeridge's The Desolate Church. She wrote, "On paper the doctrinal front has been held, but on paper only. The great, perhaps the only, achievement of Vatican II was the retention and reassertion of the body of Catholic dogma. Despite all their weaknesses, the documents as they stand admit of a perfectly orthodox Catholic reading. That not inconsiderable feat achieved, the magisterium collapsed, exhausted. Of course, it has to be considered of enormous importance for any future Catholic restoration that the Church's very grounds of existence do not have to be fought back on to the law books, but at present there is no value left in pretending that these teachings animate the lives of more than a minority of even practicing Catholics. The authority of the Church is no longer authoritative. It has been delegitimized."

In Denver in recent years we have had unbelievable spectacles. We saw the Pope's coming in 1993 to rally around him a dedicated throng of people, most of whom call him Pope but don't do what he says. We hear a teaching nun tell a class that the way to heaven is obedience to Matthew 25, and a retired Irish priest in another part of town to hear of this and complain about "all the rubbish" being taught in R.C.I.A. (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults - grown up catechism instruction) classes today.

You can visit one parish on any given Sunday and make note of a variety of "non-Catholic" inconsistencies. Long before altar girls were approved (the practical advantages of their use remains a real question), altar girls in this parish were commonplace. Kneelers have been removed, and a missal is not even available. Women dramatically read the Gospels, and communion is passed to the congregation like in a Baptist church.

Is this all part of the making desolate of the real Catholic Church by those very forces which initially elevated her to the top of European politico-religious life?

We can't leave this discussion without mentioning Vatican II. What really happened? Did the Church change? Did the Catholic Church take positions that eventually led to abuses, and did the abuses themselves eventually become part of ethnic Catholicism?

After Vatican II, the Liturgists now took over, and the prevailing gripe of the editors of The Wanderer (a conservative Catholic weekly from St. Paul, MN and one of the most loyal spokespersons for the Harlot Church) is liturgical abuse (Mr. Drummey calls these aberrant priests and bishops "liturgical termites"). In actual fact, the corruption of the liturgy has led to doctrinal corruption. Almost every issue of The Wanderer bemoans the straying of priests from the traditional Roman Catholic belief. A recent issue spoke of Jungian psychology as taking over much of American Catholicism. The Society of Pius X, the "Lefebvreites," while they pay lip service of loyalty to the present pope, are very unhappy about the forsaking by modern day Catholics of traditional Romanism. A Catholic Church in Cicero, Illinois called Paul VI the "Antichrist" because he committed the "abomination of desolations" by changing the Mass from Latin to English.

A priest modernized the baptismal formula in Massachusetts, and his Bishop said that the baptisms were invalid. A priest uses a home- made Eucharistic prayer, and the Mass is declared absolutely illicit, and possibly invalid. We find it common that priests change, modify, simplify and make up liturgical forms whose precision is still on the books as being a vital part of the sacrament.

Individual Catholics are confused. A nominally Protestant convert to Catholicism who was instructed by a priest for two years did not know the meaning of the word transubstantiation. After he admitted be believed few of the doctrines and none of the disciplines of Roman Catholicism, he was asked, "How much do you have not to believe before you are no longer a Catholic?"

Smiling, he said, "That's a good question."

It is a good question. In Romanism today you have the late Marcel Lefebvre, Andrew Greeley, Richard McBrien, Cardinal O'Connor and a host of others, all of whom have made statements and signed papers that position the Pope and his Catholicism as either too non- traditional, straight-laced, conservative or exclusive. Will the real Catholicism please stand up?

If Gregory "the Great" were to visit America, he would have a hard time finding a real Catholic or a real Catholic Church. So intense has been the battle, and so complete the desolation, that is often seems the rider on the Beast is no longer that safe, monolithic Catholicism that sheltered people for centuries; it is a hybrid Catholicism that scarcely deserves the name.

The late Cardinal John O'Connor, that "stalwart" "conservative" "uncompromising" bishop, agreed that people can be called Christians even if they substitute a mere Protestant Communion service for the sacrifice that takes away the sins of the living and the dead. Denial of the Mass is a denial of Catholicism, and Cardinal O'Connor says you can do that and still be a Christian.

So far has the desolation of the Church gone that even many die- hard conservatives admit that what they call the revolution against the church has succeeded.

Will there be a last-minute traditional revival in Romanism? Will the next Pope be "Peter the Roman" and bring things back to real Catholicism? Will the splinter groups of authorized and unauthorized champions of Tradition win back the straying Catholics? That will be up to the God of the Future, Who often has done things that surprise men.

However, if this is the true fulfillment of Revelation 17:16, and not just a dress rehearsal, don't hold your breath until a traditional pope is elected. We may be near the end -- or God could allow if to stretch on for many years.

One thing we know - making the harlot desolate will not bring lasting Victory to the Beast. It is only the prelude of God's Final Chapter of History. When it will be acted out is unknown. All that we know is that it WILL come, but will only signal God's final act of judgment, and His destroying Satan's Mystery of Iniquity, the "Wicked" of 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

In reading Chapter Ten, The Sacred Liturgy, one is impressed with the number of rules that govern the Mass. Not conforming to these is not only disobedient, it may render the Mass illicit or even invalid. This includes instructions about dancing, altar girls, stained glass windows, multiple pictures of Mary, use of paper purificators, music, vestments, priestly greetings, lay people reading the Gospel, substituting something else for the Creed, the mixing and disposal of water and wine, priests' washing hands, deacons inaudibly saying the words of consecration, when to break the host, alcoholic priests, changing "for many" to "for all,"omitting the words of consecration, genuflecting after consecration, honoring Joseph, standing during the great Amen, lack of reverence, women having their feet washed, and concerts in churches.

I'm doubly glad I am not a Catholic priest, as I am sure I would do something that Mr. Drummey would find not to be exactly according to the rubrics.

In his section on birth control, Mr. Drummey quoted two theologians which, he said, were "noted for their fidelity to the magisterium." One, Herbert Jone, said that the "indirect killing of an unborn child may be permitted for grave reasons." He concludes that surgery to remove a tubal pregnancy is morally permissible.

In their 1940 book, Radio Replies, Priests Rubble and Carty state, Volume 2, Paragraph 1006, "For even if (the doctor) were certain that the mother would die unless he destroyed the child, he would not be morally free to take the living child's life."

Aborting the fetus in a tubal pregnancy would most certainly destroy the child, although Catholics will argue that because the operation had the primary motive of saving the mother, aborting the child is secondary and a doctor performing such an operation would not be morally culpable. Sounds like double talk.

It was interesting to read, on page 391, that "St." Thomas Aquinas believed that the soul was infused in the unborn baby forty days after conception. Thomas, the greatest Roman Catholic theologian, and subject of a recent complimentary book by Norman Geisler, was known as the "Angelic Doctor." Mr. Drummey gives us a clue about why Thomas came to this conclusion.

He was, said Mr. Drummey, "relying on the biology of Aristotle." If Thomas had relied on the Word of God, he would probably have come to different conclusions in much of his studying, notably the Aristotelian notion of essence and appearance (substance and accidents) to try to prove transubstantiation.

While we are on the subject of Thomas Aquinas, on page 405, a quote by Thomas (verified by Mr. Drummey), in the Catholic Digest is "It is better to die ex-communicated than to violate the conscience."

While Mr. Drummey and others say truthfully that it is one's obligation to instruct one's conscience correctly, these provisions were not made in Aquinas' statement. Even though Catholics will deny that excommunication damns the soul, its rendering the person incapable of doing the only things which will save him, the absence of which will put him in mortal sin, it almost positively consigns one to Hell.

Aquinas' statement sounds noble, but it is theologically unsound.

Mr. Drummey's conclusions concerning Roman Catholic law- makers who promote abortion are enlightening. We would agree with him that abortion is murder, and that, quoting Msgr. Smith, "every deliberate act of that kind (murder) is an objective offense against the divine law, from which no one on this planet is exempt. . . . Those who promote, sustain and expand abortion cannot disentangle themselves completely from this grave (mortal) sin and objective injustice."

A questioner had asked, how can a pro-abortion lawmaker like Ted Kennedy receive the Eucharist. Mr. Drummey's answer is good. He said, "Objectively speaking, their actions should exclude them from the Eucharist, but only God knows the true state of their souls and whether their Communions are worthy or sacreligious,"

But I thought having a visible church with a "near-God" pope should enable him to exercise some restraint. Popes have issued interdicts, anathemas and excommunications for lesser crimes. If the pope really is against abortion, as the saying goes, let him put his money where his mouth is, and exercise some punitive action against the many Catholic pro-abortionists: law-makers, doctors and private citizens.

The treatment of 1 John 5:16-17 on page 403 is interesting. Over the years, many Catholics have used this passage to prove that there is venial sin (a sin not unto death) and a mortal sin (a sin unto death). Mr. Drummey says the sin which is not unto death must mean mortal sin, as the text goes on to say that he shall give him life for a sin not unto death.

This (private) interpretation by Mr. Drummey not only defeats the arguments of many Catholics for many years, it makes the defining of "the sin unto death" difficult. Mr. Drummey's (private) interpretation of this is that John "is probably talking about final impenitence, the rejection of God's love and mercy at the moment of death."

If it is "at the moment of death," by the time you prayed for the person, he would be dead so prayer is unable to grant forgiveness . The big question would be - how can another person determine which of the kinds of sin a person is committing?

It is more likely (my private interpretation) that John is speaking of a sin unto physical death, which is spoken of in other places in scripture, viz., 1 Corinthians 11:30.

On page 409, someone with a chronic pain disorder asked if the Sunday obligation of going to Mass might be met by watching a televised Mass.

Mr. Drummey gave the assuring reply that illness has always been considered a legitimate reason for not fulfilling ones Sunday Mass obligation.

Then Mr. Drummey says that one cannot satisfy the Sunday obligation by watching Mass on television. He reckons it is laudable for a person, who cannot attend Mass because of illness, to watch the televised Mass, but that one must be physically present at Mass to fulfill this law of the church.

In other words, no sin is involved by not going, but because one was not physically present, no forgiveness or blessing was received.

This reminds us of St. Clare of Assisi, who, at the time of midnight Mass on Christmas, was confined to her bed and was unable to be physically present at Mass.

They say that God granted her a special miracle of having the audio and video brought to her bedroom, and she therefore was made the patron saint of television. It is not said whether or not the miracle Mass granted forgiveness and blessing, or that they were withheld since she was not actually in church. It would seem that anyone believing this would be constrained to believe that televised Masses are as effective as attended ones.

I have been told that blessings given over television are valid only if it is a live broadcast; that blessings recorded and played again lose their effectiveness.

On page 412 Mr. Drummey says that one reason many Catholics miss weekly Mass is that priests don't tell them that being absent without sufficient reason is a mortal sin, and their soul could be in jeopardy because of this.

He goes on to say that if the priest doesn't make this plain, most of those missing Mass would not be committing a mortal sin since the three necessary ingredients are not present. For a sin to be a mortal sin, it must be a serious matter and the Catholic must exercise the full consent of his will and sufficiently reflect on it. If he knew that missing Mass Sunday morning and dying Sunday afternoon would send him eternally to Hell, and if he sufficiently reflected on this, he could not give the full consent of his will and therefore missing Mass would not be mortal sin for him.

I guess if you don't know that killing your husband is a mortal sin, it is not.

An Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister (a lay distributor of the host) admitted to me that she did not attend Mass every Sunday. When I asked her about missing Mass deliberately being a mortal sin, she replied that this had bothered her, so she phoned her priest and asked him. He said that missing Mass was not a mortal sin as long as you don't make a habit of it.

On page 417, Mr. Drummey admits that the church used to deny Christian Burial rites for a suicide, but has now changed its position. Was the "indefectable" church wrong then? How many people who committed suicide ended up in Hell when, given the "benefit" of a Funeral Mass they might have, if they waited several years before killing themselves, made it to "Purgatory?"

On page 417, the sinfulness of intemperance (e.g., alcoholism, excessive smoking, reckless driving) would depend, not on the gravity of the offense, but the understanding of their gravity, sufficient reflection and giving full consent of the will.

I doubt if any of those guilty of intemperance sufficiently reflects before lighting up.

On page 424 Mr. Drumey discusses mental reservation, also known as equivocation. He gives a simple example of a child, answering the door and being asked if the mother is there, would check with the mother, who would tell the child to lie and say the mother was not there. This would mean the mother is "not at home for you," but would not be a sin even though it is not the real truth.

This can come into play when speaking to a priest, as this Catholic definition of mental reservation infers.It is,

"Answering questions in such a way as to deliberately conceal information which the questioner has no right to seek. When being asked impertinent or unjust questions, it is permissible to equivocate either by a lie or the deceitful use of words." This can always be employed by priests.

The rationale is that the priest does not have a moral obligation to give truthful answers to one who has no moral right to receive the truth.

This is backed up by the Catechism, which says in paragraph 2489, . . . "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." A better motto might be to tell the truth and trust the Lord to take care of results..