This is the first of a number of articles reviewing booklets published by the Knights of Columbus. More than likely, you will have seen their ads placed in newspapers and magazines designed to lure people into Roman Catholicism.

Because we know the intent of these ads, we will treat the booklets with a pre- judgment that they will be written in a way to try to obscure the real facts about Romanism in language that sounds appealing to many religious people.

We will also look for suble half-truths and downright unbiblical statements that will start to lead the reader to intellectually assess Catholicism to be a godly religion, if not a thoroughly biblical one.

Questions are presented to readers that would suggest some statement a Christian might make concerning the Catholic religion. For instance, in one of their ads they had, as a true/false statement, "Catholics worship the Virgin Mary."

The answer they would give is "False" and explanations concerning latria (worship given to God) and hyper-dulia (veneration of Mary) would attempt to completely negate the fact that the devotion most Catholics feel and express toward Mary greatly eclipses that which they give to God.

While some might want to repeat the scripture "Judge not", we must obey our Lord Who said, Judge not according to appearances, but judge righteous judgments (John 7:24).

To define these righteous judgments, we will go solely to the Bible, God's Holy Word, and, as admonished by Paul, prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

GOD'S CHURCH IN PROPHECY AND FULFILLMENT

There are a number of relatively harmless statements in the first chapter "The Pre-Christian Message Fulfilled," But we do see one statement that, we suspect, may be developed further on in the booklet.

The Catholic Church believes that she is the fulfillment of Judaism, and that all the promises to Israel were trensferred to the Catholic Church. This would condone, for them, a continued sacrifice as well as set the stage for their many legalities of Canon Law.

Speaking of Jesus' saying He had come to fulfill, not destroy, the Law, they say, "(Christ) meant that the entire, essential message of the Old Testament system of revealed religion was to stand as it had been, but in a more perfect way.

Referring to Old Testament rituals in Hebrews 10:9, God said, He taketh away the first, that he might establish the second.

In almost the next paragraph they invent myths to further their theme of Roman Church/Israel connection. They say the chosen peope had to be prepared gradually for the full and complete revelation to be made by their Messiah. Their argument is that "the religious message which God first gave had to be suited to the religious capacity of a people who at the onset were like children. As they developed and matured spiritually and religiously, further revelations from heaven would be made until the message should be completed by the Messiah Himself."

The problem with this reasoning is that, rather than developing spiritually and religiously, Israel became more and more ungodly, with a few notable exceptions here and there. Their rejection of God's Law caused them to make their own Traditions and then, when He came, to reject their Messiah.

Then we come, on page 3, to the first real "red flag." The booklet says, "For example, circumcision was the rite of initiation into the chosen people of God. Jesus established a much more perfect rite of initiation, Baptism, which introduces the recipient into the new Israel by imparting to him the supernatural life of holiness and making him a member of the all-holy Saviour."

The Bible teaches that Israelite men did not receive circumcision in order to make them Israelites; they were Israelites when they were born, and in one biblical account, they had lived for many years before they were circumcised (Joshua 5:2-9).

In order to get a clear perspective of what was entailed in these so-called "rites of initiation," let us run a biblical comparison looking at circumcision, infant baptism (by far the most normal Catholic Baptism), regeneration (or being born again, which Roman Catholic theology says happens at Baptism, which is correctly referred to as Baptismal Regeneration) and Believers' Baptism.

We will ask all four the same four questions: Were they authorized by God, what do they accomplish, what do they guarantee and are they administered by man or God? We know from John 1:13 that if they are administered by man, they cannot be the means of salvation, because God says that the new birth is not occasioned through the will of man.

Circumcision was authorized by God. According to Romans 4:9-13, Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had before being circumcised. Circumcision neither justified him nor made him one of God's chosen people, but was received as a sign that he was chosen by God. Circumcision was a permanent physical token that one had become one of God's chosen people, and it was administered by man.

Infant Baptism was not authorized by God, simply because the necessary prerequisite of belief and repentance cannot be exercised by the recipient of baby baptism. While the Catholic will say an indelible chatracter is imprinted on the soul at Baptism (which character will remain even if the individual spends eternity in Hell), the only real change that takes place is that the dry baby becomes a wet baby. Infant Baptism gives no guarantee of eternal life, and must be administered by man.

Regeneration, or being born again, is not only authorized by God, it is demanded by God as the only entrance into eternal life (John 3:3,5,7). The result is that the one in Christ is now a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17) and eternally secure in Him (John 10:28,29). God's written guarantee for all who are truly born again is in 1 Peter 1:3,4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.

While having a reserved ticket for any function does not guarantee that you will be well enough to attend, our salvation is sure because we are told in 1 Peter 3:18 that Christ will bring us to God. This regeneration is administered by God (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Believers' Baptism is authorized by God and, while it does not add to salvation, it is an act of obedience that testifies to what Christ has already done in the life. It is administered by man, which means it does not bring or contribute to salvation.

On page 4, the statement is made, "it seems that no appeal was made to the written Law during the early centuries of Israel's history." This is the first step toward trying to establish Tradition as a viable source of truth, but it is plainly contradicted in Exodus 24:7, the book of the covenant, Deuteronomy 17:18, (the king) shall write him a copy of this law in a book, Deuteronomy 28:58, the words of this law that are written in this book, Joshua 1:8, this book of the law, Joshua 8:31, the book of the law of Moses, Joshua 8:34, the book of the law, and Joshua 23:6, the book of the law of Moses.

The inaccurate conclusion to this subject is, according to the Knights of Columbus, "Israel . . . was without the Bible."

We are then given the statement that "The Jews of the first centrury B.C. or A.D. believed that the Scriptures did not contain the whole of God's message to mankind." This is true, and the Lord Jesus condemned them for adding their own human traditions to God's Truth (Mark 7:9). We are certainly not to take the religious Jews of Jesus' time as our teachers about what constitutes God's Truth.

Attention is called to the fact that both Joshua and Samuel added to the Law of God. This presumably is presented to condone the reckless additions to the Word of God made by Roman Catholic Tradition. But any one can understand that the Old Testament, while it was eternally in the heart of God (Psalm 119:89), it was progressively recorded by Old Testament writers and then, starting with the Gospels and Epistles and ending with the Book of Revelation, written by holy men inspired by God.

Tradition stands or falls by one criterion. The Apostle John sums up why scripture was written for men. In John 20:31, he says, these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. There is not one item in Catholic Tradition that explains the way or gives a guarantee of salvation.

A long quotation is given from Deuteronomy 17:8-12 to try to prove that "the law itself requires recourse to legally constituted judges, but this passage talks not of interpreting the Law, but of its administration.

The entire argument is setting the stage for the fiction that the Scriptures are not self-interpretive, but need an authority, which will eventually be named as the Roman Catholic Church, to interpret them.

While teachers are authorized by God to build up the Church of God, there is a Divinely-appointed Interpreter of Scripture. He is the Holy Spirit, God Himself, and His work is described by the Apostle John as the anointing which all Christians receive and who therefore have no need that any man shall teach them (1 John 2:27).

Most modern Catholics do not know much about the history of the papacy. If they did, they would think twice before giving a carte blanche in teaching to this group. Roman Catholic scholars have catalogued what Peter de Rosa calls "The Darker Side of the Papacy." While some might accuse him of exaggeration, if only 10% of what he says is true, the title deed of Romanism (the unbroken line of infallible popes) is not only a clouded title but a pernicious one.

The actions of Urban VIII toward his "friend" Galileo and Clement XI's Unigenirus of 1713 are two credible opponents of any concept of the truthfulness of papal teaching. The booklet states that Israel needed "accredited interpreters" but they had no agreement with the monsters of the Vatican who had little accreditation from man and none from God.

Finally, after a touching commendation of Holy Scripture on page 11, we come to those who are called God's accredited representatives of scriptural truth. Amazingly, this title is given not to a system of religion that studiously promulgated biblical truth, but rather to the one which burned Bibles and persecuted those who attempted to translate scripture into living languages. While the Catholic Church likes to call itself "the mother of the Bible," it is a truism that if this is correct, we have a classic example of child abuse.

The authority of the church is "proved" by such passages as Matthew 18:17, if they neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publiucan. The same passage says to tell it to the church. To try to squeeze the Roman Catholic systen into Christ's definition of "church" is a non sequitor.

Eventually, the writer comes down to his paragraphs on the Vicar of Christ on page 19. An aready published tract on this important subject will be helpful.

THERE IS A VICAR OF CHRIST

HIS NAME IS THE HOLY SPIRIT

The word "vicar" means deputy - one who has been sent to take another's place. The Lord Jesus Christ, knowing the need for an infallible Vicar for His church, speaks of the coming of the Holy Spirit and His office as Vicar of Christ. John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 - But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

John 16:7 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 16:13,14 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth . . He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

THE IDENTITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST

If someone were to approach you on the street and say, "I am the President of the United States" you might believe him. Of course, if you personally knew the President, or if you had documented evidence that he were someone else, you would deny the claim of the imposter.

The pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ; those who know the Holy Spirit immediately reject his claim, and others can see the documented evidence that proves this man to be an imposter.

THE PERFECTION OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the Infinite Son of God, knew that the Church would need an infallible Vicar to keep it from errors that would assail her. Rather than designate a man, He appointed the Holy Spirit, Himself; not only infallible, but infinitely perfect.

There is a sharp contrast between the person and work of the Holy Spirit and that of the pope of Rome, who claims to be the Vicar of Christ. Papal "infallibility" is an empty doctrine when compared to the infinity of the Holy Spirit.

DOES THE CHURCH NEED A VISIBLE HEAD?

"We walk by faith, and not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). Do you trust the judgment of a human imposter or the ability of God Himself to guide you into all truth?

THE WORK OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST

1. He convicts of sin (John. 16:8). Only He can show you that, outside of Christ, you are infinitely lost.

2. He testifies of Christ (John. 15:26). He reveals to your heart the Bible truths of a crucified and resurrected Saviour.

3. When you respond to this heart-revelation, the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). By this regenerative act you are born again. (John 3:5). End of tract.

The section "The Apostolic Age" supposes to prove Peter's being pope by reciting several New Testament passages, saying, "Peter swung into action and presided at the first session, held to elect a successor to the traitor Judas." Yet Dr. Murray of Maynooth Seminary in Ireland describes the office of the pope in this way. "Jesus appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, and gave him full authority to legislate for it; to teach, to inspect and judge; to reject and denounce all false doctrines, and to declare what is the true Faith; to appoint all its clergy and teachers and to arrange their work; in short, the whole church, its officers, its constitution, its work, were entrusted to Peter."

The question is, Why, if he was the pope, did not Peter appoint Matthias instead of having everyone cast lots?

It is true, that in fulfillment of Christ's giving Peter the keys, they were used in Acts 2 to open the door of the Kingdom to the Jews and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. It is noteworthy that after using keys, they are no longer needed unless a door is locked again, and also that Peter very quickly disappears from view in most of the rest of the Book of Acts.

The writer says that the other Apostles "urged" Peter to go to Samaria in Acts 8, but the Bible says they "sent Peter and John."

Mention is made of Peter's mission to the house of Cornelius and the fact that the other Apostles would not have thought that the Gentiles could receive the Gospel. It is interesting to see that when Peter came back to them, they contended with him for his going to the Gentiles. They didn't agree with Peter's action because of his office, but because of his explanation (Acts 11:18).

As is normal for Roman apologetics, the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) is grossly misrepresented. In Acts 15:1 we see the Judaizers disputing with Paul and Barnabas regarding circumcision not, as the Catholiuc writer says, that they are "the first group to protest the leadership of Peter."

There is no indication that "Peter presided at this meeting" as stated in the Knights of Columbus booklet. In explaning the role of Peter, they say, "Peter delivered his pronouncement and 'the whole meeting quieted down.' Why this sudden ending to a long amd sharp dispute, except that they respected the authority of Peter?"

The Bible account is different. It was James, not Peter, who determined the sentence of the Council (Acts 15:19). After Peter had spoken, the asembly quieted down to hear Paul and Barnabas, who were being recognized by the Church as "Apostles to the Uncircumcision." Also, nothing that James gave as his sentence even remotely resembled anything Peter said.

Through some twisted thinking, the writer claims that the miracles that accompanied Paul and Barbnabas "ratified Peter's stand on circumcision."

Galatians 2, where Paul withstood Peter to the face, is mentioned but Peter's error in giving in to the Judaizers from Jerusalem is condoned by saying he wished to "respect the delicate sensibilities of the Jewish Christians and to preseve the peace, (and) was a bit inconsistent in his conduct."

Regarding private interpretation, we are told that "St. Peter does not say so in so many words, but he clearly suggests that the opposite to private interpretation, a safe guide . . . is the Church." The only safe guide is the Holy Spirit, Who leads into all truth. The Catholic apologist would be quick to point out the number of differing Protestant groups as a reason for needing an authoritative Church.

Many questions arise. Does the Catholic take the concept of "No Salvation Outside the Church" from Pope Eugene IV or Vatican II? Does he subscribe to the beliefs of real Caholics, the Traditionalists, or embrace the New Mass of Paul VI? Liturgical differences among Catholic priests, Bishops and Cardinals are as rife as the differences that separate the "separated brethren."

God wants every Christian to believe as precisely as possible, for perfection is our goal (Matthew 5:48). He has made provision for doctrinal correctness by delegating the Holy Spirit to teach us. The Holy Spirit, being God, can only transmit absolute truth to humans. But no human can absorb and articulate that truth absolutely. That is why God made provision for this, and instructed us to endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit until we come to the unity of the Faith. The fact that some Christians are disobedient to this does not nullify God's having made provision doctrinally for His people.

The statement on page 25, "His salvation is to be achieved as a member of a vast organization" has to be questioned. Salvation is a personal contract between a life- giving Saviour and a hell-deserving sinner. The very idea of a "vast" organization counters our Saviour's own words that there are few who find the narrow way. The writer goes on to say that this "vast organization" is called the Church over a hundred times in the New Testament. He neglected to say that in over 80% of these times, the church referred to is a local church.

We can discern a pattern of thought into which our Catholic writer would like to ensnare us. First we see Israel presented as a structured, visible church that reveres the Word of God but does not rely on the Word of God.

Then we have the Roman Catholic Church presented to us as a structured, visible church that reveres the Word of God but does not rely on it.

The assumption is that God gradually revealed Messianic truths to Israel as they matured in the faith, and that the Roman Church is the finished product. We have already cited Hebrews 10:9 that the New Testament Church is not Israel remade, for God takes away the former so that He may establish the New Testament Church.

Jesus spoke succinctly of this in Matthew 9:17 when the Pharisees had questioned Him concerning Jewish ritualistic fasting.

Jesus said, Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the botles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles.

Roman Catholicism is a perfect example of trying to force new wine into old bottles. The result is disaster. The tragedy is that this disaster has impacted the lives of millions, who sincerely believe they are receiving the new wine of the Spirit, when it has long since run out.

The utter and complete contrast between Judaism and Christianity is manifested in comparison of the two, and we can readily see that Roman Catholicism falls into step with the former rather than the latter.

Israel was an earthly people; Christians are a heavenly people.

Israel walked by sight; Christians walk by faith,

Israel had a Temple where God dwelt; Christians are a Temple in which God dwells.

Israel gave their tithes as legal requirements; Christians are taught that their entire substance belongs to God.

Israel observed special days; for Christians every day of the year recalls the Incarnation and Passion of Christ.

As we continue our study of the Knights of Columbus booklet, we see that the Visible Church is mentioned on page 27. We also find mention of this in Models of the Church by Jesuit Cardinal Avery Dulles. He writes, "Insistence on the visibility of the Church has been a standard feature of Roman Catholic ecclesiology from the late Middle Ages until the middle of the present century."

However, the very use of the words "visibility" and "invisibility" can lead to confusion. "Visibility" implies reality, while "invisibility" suggests lack of substance. Before we look for better terms, let's define the Protestant and Catholic positions.

The New Catholic Dictionary, compiled by Conde Pallen and John Wynne, with the imprimatur of John Cardinal Hayes of New York City was published in 1929. It contains a good working understanding of both positions. The stated Protestant position is that the true Church of Christ exists only in invisible form. The visible form, called the Church is not of the essence of the Church. The Church of Christ exists only in its sanctified members, who are not generated by the Church through ministry but generated immediately by God. This immediate union of individuals with Christ through faith (which eliminates the necessity of the ministry of the Church) constitutes the true essence of the Church of Christ.

(Before we comment on this, let us state the Catholic position). The Catholic position is that the Church is essentially visible. By that they mean that men can see those things which make up the church. Not only can they see persons involved, rites used and ministry ruling, they also know that these persons, rites and ministry are the very Church of Christ.

The bottom line is this:

In an invisible Church we have a Church known only by God.

In a visible Church, we have a church that can be discerned by man.

In an invisible Church, we have generation begun, actuated and consummated by God.

In a visible Church, we have sacramental generation actuated by sacraments (rites) officiated over by a ruling ministry (hierarchy). In an invisible Church, we have God commanding broadcast of Good News to man, but the life-giving property of this Good News is administered only by the Holy Spirit, therefore its reality is not in outward manifestation, but in inward regeneration.

In a visible church, we have "life-giving forces" operating through a favored branch of "clergy", whose ministrations supposedly bring life. In an local church, the microcosm of the invisible church, we have truly regenerate people with a possibility of unregenerate members, who, although they are members of a local church, do not comprise part of that true church, the invisible church.

In a visible church, we have members manufactured by a ritual of baptism even before they can assent, and therefore not one member who has been truly scripturally born again, a rebirth which is administered by God and not through inheritance or human effort or will (see John 1:13). This is because when a person is saved, he immediately ceases to be part of this visible church (although he may not realize this right away) and he becomes a member of God's true invisible church.

A SECOND DEFINITION

A second definition of "visible" from the dictionary is, "That which can be perceived with the mind." This also presents us with a good contrast. While Roman Catholicism has "mysteries of faith" which must be accepted and not understood, these are non-real philosophical concepts and have no bearing on the substance of the Church. Because entry into and union with the Church is dependent on outward signs, the Church and all of its ritual and hierarchy become visible - not only recognizable but understandable.

This is another proof of the finiteness of Satan, the God of the False Church. He can only work through conscious human endeavor, and while his "mysteries" remain unknown by his followers (but understood by Christians), he must make the essence of his church visible for it to have reality. Only Infinite Deity can make invisibility real.

On the other hand, while there are certain outward actions that can be perceived by human understanding in the true church, there is that essence of becoming "Church" which is outside of man's understanding or acceptance. We can see someone making some indication of his trusting Christ, but we cannot know whether inward regeneration and salvation have actually occurred. In this sense, the Church in its essence is invisible.

It cannot be defined precisely using human measure, neither can its workings be understood by the human mind.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?

John 3:8 - "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

II Tim 2:19 - "...the foundation of God standeth sure, the Lord knoweth them that are His."

I Cor 12:13 - "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..."

Matthew 20:25,26 - "But Jesus called them unto Him and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them...but it shall not be so with you..."

I Peter 1:3 - "...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again.."

Romans 11:34 - "For who hath known the mind of the Lord...?"

VISIBILITY DESTROYED BY INTENTION

The doctrine of Intention, defined by the Council of Trent, destroys any possibility of a visible church. This doctrine states that any priest may secretly withhold his intention of having any sacramental act valid, though he goes through all of the sacramental forms.

The Council of Trent saw this as a means of refuting the Reformed doctrine of Assurance of Salvation, but what it actually does is to destroy any concept of a visible church. We can see the persons involved in worship, but how do we know that their initiatory rite was performed with priestly intention? We see a priest perform a sacramental act, but how do we know that the Bishop who ordained him intended a valid ordination? If we have a pope, how do we know for absolute certainty that the pope received a true Christian Baptism?

THE ONLY CONCLUSION

The only conclusion must be our decision to remain in a supposed visible church that is possibly not even a church, or to submit to the will of God and have Him perform the only truly life-giving Act - the act of biblical regeneration.

We must no longer rely on that which our senses perceive to be Truth, for our senses are utterly unreliable. We must cast ourselves at Jesus' feet for mercy, and enter into a True Church - a Church generated by God; a Church preserved by God, and a Church that will ultimately be glorified by God.

On page 28, we see a section called "Establishing a Hierarchy." Of course, the author doesn't tell us the root meaning of this word - the rule (archy) of priests (hierus). While a lot is said to try to equate biblical deacons, elders and bishops with Roman Catholic clergy, the whole concept of a hierarchy within His Church is debunked by Jesus Christ Himself. While the hierarchical system of Rome was fashioned after the Gentile rulership (especially of Rome), Jesus said in Matthew 20:25,26: Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise domnion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you . . .

The pith of the entire booklet, God's Church in Prophecy and Fulfillment, has been to supplant the final authority of the Bible with the final authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It is suggested that adherence to the Bible alone will result in disunity. Let it be understood that the most intrinsically united group in the world is the Church, the Body of Christ, often separated by geography, history, custom and petty dosctrine, but all finally united in Him as the Head of every truly born again Christian.

The Bible, they claim, as the sole rule of faith, has led to religious confusion and disunity. That is their opinion.

The Bible says, The entrance of thy words giveth light (Psalm 119:130) and puts one on the path that shineth more and more unto the perfect day (Proverbs 4:18).

THE PRECEPTS (LAWS) OF THE CHURCH (1984)

Definition in K of C booklet: "The official collection of Church laws for the RomanCatholic Church, consisting of 1732 laws (called Canons) is known as the Code of Canon Law. . . . For purposes of simplicity it has long been customary to summarize certain important canons in a list called Precepts of the Church. These are:

1. To keep holy the day of the Lord's Resurection: to worship God by participating in Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation: to avoid those activities that would hinder renewal of soul and body, e.g., needless work and business activities, unnecessary shopping, etc.

Catholic books used to use the term "mortal sin" as that which was incurred when deliberately missing Mass. This brought death to the soul; one dying in mortal sin went eternally to Hell according toRoman Catholic theology. This booklet uses a milder terminology - "seriously irresponsible and sinful."

One may be excused from Mass for valid reaons . . . In doubt, one should consult with a prudent and moral counselor.

In conversation with an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister (a layperson who distributes Hosts to the faithful), I asked her if she ever missed Mass, and was this a mortal sin? She relied that this bothered her as she occasionally missed Mass, so she phoned her priest to ask his advice. You would expect that a priest would fit the designation of a "moral and prudent counselor."

However, this priest told her (contrary to Canon Law) that missing Mass occasionally was all right, as long as she didn't make a habit of it.

2. To lead a sacramental life: to receive Holy Communion frequently and the sacrament of Penance regularly - minimally, to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, between the First Sunday in Lent and Trinity Sunday.

In Ireland, this was called your "Easter Duty" and had to be fulfilled at Easter time. In USA,"by privilege" this can be done between the First Sunday in Lent (Feb. 13, 2005) and Trinity Sunday (Apr. 10, 2005).

He who neglects Communion during the Easter period is still bound by the law to go to Communion before the next Paschal (Easter) season.

At the Last Supper the Holy Eucharist was instituted. The words of the insitution have come down to us in four different versions, "Pauline" (Luke 22:19ff and 1 Cor. 11:23-25) and"Petrine" (Matt. 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-24.)

The decisive words in these passages: "This is my body, this is my Blood."

The use of precise words has always been necessary as the form of a sacrament. When a priest changed the baptismal formula only slightly, it rendered the sacrament invalid. Traditinal Roman Catholics use, as one of their arguments for the necessity of the Latin Mass, that the precise formula required for transubstantiation cannot be given in a living lanuage, which is always changing.

Now we have this booklet stating what the decisive words are but admitting that the institution of the Mass in Luke and 1 Corintinans do not use the precise formula.

Two of what the booklet calls "the greatest graces" from the Eucharist are found in John 6:54 an 58. One assures the glorious resurrection of our body, and the other is a pledge of future glory and happiness in Heaven.

It seems that the writer has overstepped the bounds of Catholic assurance, because to believe either of these is found in the Eucharist would be the sin of presumption (believing God will do someting He hasn't promised to do)

The article speaks of the Eucharistic fast, which used to be from the previous midnight,and now is only one hour. While Catholics used to attend early Mass so they could get home and have their beakfast by 9 am; now the Catholic can have a hearty breakfast at 9, finish by 9:30 and then go to 10 o'clock Mass figuring to receive Communion about 10:30. If he slightly miscalculates, he needs only to hold "Jesus" in his hand until 10:30.

The booklet tells us that men need someone "close to God" to tell them that their sins are forgiven.

Within the scope of this statement is contained the thought that it is better to have somone tell you your sins are forgiven than to just have God's Word for it. Peter aptly contrasted the power of the written Word above the spoken word. He described his hearing the powerful voice of God on the amount of Transfiguration, but said, over and above that, we have a more word of prophecy. Human language can be misunderstood; that is why we have His Word concerning His faithfulness to forgive us our sins.

3. To study Catholic teaching in preparation for the Sacrament of Confirmation, to be confirmed, and then continue to study and advance the cause of Christ.

4. To observe the marriage laws of the Church: to give religious training (by example and word) to one's children; to use parish shools and religious education programs.

There is a very long and involved discussion of impediments (circumstances that make valid marriage impossible), including age, close relationship, legal adoption, Holy Orders or vowed chastity. Mixed marriages were discussed, and have been the subject of less scrutiny in more recent years.

When a priest counsels in a mixed marriage situation, the first thing he wil desire is conversion of the non-Catolic party. If this doesn't work, he will ask the non-Caholic party to sign a satement that the chilren will be brought up Catholic. If he won't sign, the Catholic party usually has to sign that they will bring up the chidlren properly and seek to convert the spouse to Catholicism. Before the wedding, the non Catholic must become aware of this.

Interesting enough, the Catholic's position on birth control, which should be one of the most important parts of an ongoing marriage, was not discussed in this booklet.

Of course "Catholic divorce," called annulment was discussed with the usual conclusion is that no marriage ever existed so there was no marriage to nullify. Today, excuses as lame as "psychological immaturity" are being used in annulment cases.

5. To strengthen and support the Church: one's own parish community and parish priests; the world church and the Holy Father.

6. To do penance, including abstaining from meat and fasting from food on the appointed days.

The days of fasting are two: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. On these days only one full meal is allowed. Two other meals, sufficient to maintain strenth, may be taken.

The days of abstinence are Ash Wednesday and Fridays in Lent. The general law (Canon 1251) designates all Fridays of the year as days of abstinencece, but observance of Fridays outside of Lent is left optional for Americans.

When a Catholic says he is fasting, we would assume he is giving up food for the entire time of the fast, but in actual fact he is getting one big meal and two small meals per day!

Older Caholics were told, that eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. They are now assured by priests that no one went toHell for eating meat; they went for disobeying a law of the Church, which was that you couldn't eat meat on Friday!

The exact laws can be changed from time to time, and the only law is to obey the law, whatever it may be.

7. (Added by American bishops in 1973) To join in the missionary zeal and apostolate of the Church.