Roman Catholicism does err
Index for this site
INFALLIBLE CONCLUSION MEANS INFALLIBLE PREMISES
NOT ECUMENICAL SO NOT INFALLIBLE
REASON AND INFALLIBILITY
The Church of Rome claims to be infallible. This doctrine is the Achilles’ heel of
Catholicism. Pulverise it and the whole
unbiblical system crashes down except the Bible. Prove one infallible doctrine to be wrong and
you prove that the Church is not infallible.
All the doctrines of
St Irenaeus said that the Church of Rome was to
be listened to because of its learning and apostolic origin which has nothing
to do with it being infallible. He
wanted the heretics to listen to that Church and would have told them it was
infallible if he had heard of that idea.
Some very mystical Christians followed the interpretations of their
leaders who they viewed as prophets because they found some of the scriptures
to be too vague. Also God might have
made them vague for some purpose intending to send a prophet
centuries later to do the interpreting.
When the Church becomes the only authorised interpreter of the Bible and
makes infallible decisions on how to interpret then the Church becomes the real
authority and the Bible has none. Since
the Church says infallibility does not work unless she does her homework
carefully so that it can guide her to the right conclusion it follows that the
reasons for her interpretation must be infallible as well. It is plain to be seen that if the Church can
get the right and most probable conclusion from studying the matter there is no
need for infallibility at all. People
will good brains would be able to see what the logical answer is. Infallibility is just a trick for forcing
people to let the Church tell them what is what. It is certainly one of the most outlandish
claims made by the Church and it’s disarming too which is why it looks saner
than it is. This infallibility is not a
great thing and is a failure for it cannot sanction the authority it pretends
to sanction when there is no agreement among theologians as to what dogmas are
infallible (page 27, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine).
The Catholic Church argues that since it is the true religion Christ
would not let it err in thinking it is infallible when it is not for then it
would cease to be the true Church. So it
is thought that if the Church of Rome is the
The Church can be fallible if millions of Catholics can make piles of
errors in religion and remain Catholics.
They cannot but then it is possible for the true church to exist and not
be infallible in its official doctrine.
The Catholic Church even claims that those Christians who are very far
from her are true Catholics and just don’t know it!
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Part 1, reminds us that the Church has two kinds of teaching, ordinary
and solemn. Ordinary has not been
infallibly defined but solemn has but ordinary is more important than solemn in
the sense that it comprises the general and constant and unchanging teaching of
the Church (page 177-178). Ordinary
teaching is considered infallible without a formal definition if it is the
constant teaching of the Church.
Theologians disagree a lot about what teachings are really inerrant
doctrines. What use is infallibility
when nobody can be sure when it was used?
When such uncertainty is permitted by God to exist he would just let a
group of bishops or a pope pretend to use the charism
of infallibility in order to deceive the Church. The Church also is unable to work out when
the bishops speaking as one without an ecumenical council are infallible (page
17, Infallibility in the Church).
If they had any infallibility at all they would not be so confused.
There is no evidence that Catholicism is protected against making
theological mistakes therefore it is evil to assert that she is for that is
saying that you should submit to her even though it is all guesswork. That is irrational and bigoted and
unnecessary.
To believe in the gospel because the Church says it is true is to believe
in the Church and not in God even if it is the gospel of God for we don’t know
that when we depend on the Church. We
must believe in God and what he has said instead. It is idolatry not to. We see that Roman Catholicism does not do
this and believes in the Church instead of God.
If the Church of Rome and the pope really believed in infallibility the
Church would be a democracy for then the Church would still be incapable of
error. They would give the people the
chance to run the Church under certain good restrictions when the people want
it so much. They could delegate
infallibility to the ordinary people of the Church so that what most genuine
Catholics think can be taken as what God teaches.
The Church holds that ecumenical councils are infallible. There is no list of such councils that is
binding on a Catholic (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The accepted numbering of the councils and
the accepted list is questioned by some Catholic theologians. What good is infallibility then if the
Catholic can reject some councils as defective or
infallible?
Even conservative Catholic theologians hold that the Church being kept by
God in enough truth to save souls is more important than holding that the
statements given by ecumenical councils or the Church using its infallibility
are infallible (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The radical Catholic theologian, Hans Kung
wrote that when he tried to get the Church through its theologians to prove to
him that it is possible for the Holy Spirit simply to protect some essential
statements from error it never responded (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS
WAY). His conclusion was that no theologian
was able to do it or could do it.
ROME
Roman Catholicism says, “The Holy Catholic Church recognises that there
has been no new divine revelation since apostolic times (
To explode the Roman Catholic claim that her unbiblical doctrines are not
new revelations all we have to do is to show that they are not implied by the
revelation of the apostles. But this
implying is not of much assistance when we have so little that the apostles
wrote. Forgers and disciples of the
apostles wrote most of the New Testament.
The infallibly proclaimed doctrine that Mary never had original sin is
not implied by revelation. The Bible
didn’t mention it and tradition didn’t agree about it. There is no evidence that it was taught by
the apostles. All the early Fathers took
the line that Mary was conceived in original sin for she was born of sex (page
333, Vicars of Christ). And
reason said the following. “The Catholic
Church says that Jesus needed a sinless mother to be sinless himself. But she didn’t have a sinless mother so what
did he need one for? God could have
preserved him from it the way the pope said he did Mary.” If Catholics are right to say that Mary must
have been sinless when she was full of grace (Luke
Accordingly, when Pope Pius IX infallibly declared Mary to be sinless at
her conception he was guessing. He was
not infallible.
The epistle to the Romans says that all have sinned without
exception.
Some Catholics say that all does not mean literally all when Paul said
all sinned for he wrote in Romans 11:26 that all Israel would be saved. That looks good when out of context but in
the context Paul said that Israel would be hard of heart against Jesus until
the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled meaning that all of a future
generation of Israel would be saved.
The Church says that she can infallibly decree that Mary was conceived
immaculate as long as there is nothing in the Bible that is inconsistent with
what she wants to decree (page 104, Church and Infallibility). But this is a dangerous position. You can add on too much too easily.
Nearly all Catholicism’s unscriptural doctrines are in the same boat as
the Immaculate Conception in so far as we only have the word of the Church in
their support and we must make that boat sink in the interest of truth. The first statement of transubstantiation
might have been made by Justin Martyr after the NT was completed. How could the doctrine possibly not be an
addition when there is no hard evidence of its divine apostolic origin? The Church itself disputes the historicity of
John’s gospel which allegedly teaches transubstantiation which means there is
no evidence for the divine authority of this gospel apart from the Church
saying it is the word of God and how would the Church know for it is not
God? The early Church did not have a
pope and especially an infallible one or pray to saints. Need I go on?
If the Catholic doctrines were revealed by Jesus they would be in the
Bible.
If tradition is really a body of apostolic doctrine and not an addition
to the faith taught by Christ through the apostles then why for most of its
history has the Church used forged tradition to get money and power? Gregory VII had outright forgeries created
and the editions of the early Fathers writings altered ever so subtly to back
up his view that the pope was the successor of Peter, that the Church never
changed doctrine and that the pope had the right to rule the world (page 83, Vicars
of Christ). Many writings of the
fathers have only relatively recently shown to be forgeries and just like
Mormons with the Book of Mormon some are still seemingly convinced the
forgeries are genuine. People will too
often just convince themselves that they believe what they want. A realistic forgery could throw Roman tradition
off the track forever which is enough to prove that Jesus would not have left
the Church in the treacherous hands of tradition. All the Church needs to trick
us with is at least two witnesses who say they saw an ancient document from the
fathers and then say the document perished in a fire so all that is left is the
verbal account of the tradition. Many
dogmas were just put in writing by one father so the Church does not even need
two. How could the pope be infallible
when he has to depend on scholars who might be wrong that such and such a
source of doctrine is authentic and transmitted correctly? Are the scholars infallible as well?
IS INFALLIBILITY INSPIRATION?
According to Roman Catholicism, “It is the teaching of our Holy Mother
the Church that her infallibility and that of the pope is not inspiration. It is not putting an idea into their mind but
just preventing them from making the wrong decision (page 190, Apologetics
and Catholic Doctrine, Part 1). She
can only use her infallibility to find out if a doctrine is part of divine
revelation by thinking about it objectively and by examining its basis. So if the thinking behind the doctrine is
faulty then it is not revealed by God and the Church and pope are not
infallible and are guilty of polluting the apostolic doctrine with new material
and fostering the heresy of further revelation just like the Mormons and the
Moonies.”
The doctrine that the virgin Mary had been taken up into Heaven came from
puerile apocryphal scriptures and even if Mary was sinless it does not follow
that God must have assumed her into Heaven.
He might have done but his ways look strange to us so there is no reason
to believe in the assumption even if we think God would save Mary perfectly by
resurrecting and perfecting her after death.
In 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly taught in Munificentissimus
Deus that the assumption is a doctrine revealed by God. At best this was a conjecture so when he
makes infallible guesses he must be inspired.
He was claiming to be a prophet of God on a par with those of scripture
which made him a heretic and a fake pope for the ban on new prophets was part
of the basic and constant doctrine of the Church.
Nearly all Catholic doctrines have the same problem. Priests pardoning sins, the papacy, Church
infallibility and the power of baptism to remove original sin in babies are all
guesses. There is no real evidence for
them. The early Church believing in them
means nothing for Jesus said that apostasy would be the preference of his
followers and there always were opponents.
And what makes it even worse the earliest Church showed no trace of
these doctrines.
The distinction between infallibility and inspiration is a distinction
without a difference. If the pope has
three options A, B and C and he is guided to reject A and B and this shows that
C must be true then he is inspired to accept C.
He must have been inspired to see that A and B are wrong. The words of C are ratified as infallible by
God when this happens so they are as much scripture as the Bible. The Bible itself is full of sayings from
people who were not prophets but whose words God chose for his book. He did not inspire the words but he inspired
the insertion of the words and approved of them which is
in essentials just as good. So the
infallible statements of the Church are new scripture. The Church is heretical and incapable of infallibility
as a consequence for not recognising this scripture and officially teaching
that it is scripture.
The teaching that God does not inspire the choice of C but inspires the
rejection of A and B is a bizarre one to say the least. What if there should have been a choice D
that nobody thought of? God would have
to inspire the pope to see that choice D exists. It would be easier if he just inspired choice
C in the first place. His playing games like this hardly commends him as somebody we can be proud
of and put confidence in. The Church has
made up the doctrine that the infallibility it has is different from
inspiration because it wants to dodge the accusation that it is creating new
scripture when it gives new doctrine.
The Church also says the apostles’ teaching cannot be added to and
additions are always heresy so she has to look as if she is not creating new
dogma but discovering with the help of God and sanctioning things that are
implicit in apostolic teaching. But when
you look close enough you see the Church is employing inspiration and adding to
scripture. If the apostles teaching
cannot be added to then the Church is not infallible and not apostolic in the
unique way for it to be the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
When infallibility only works if the Church thoroughly does its homework
first it follows that the Holy Spirit has to inspire it to realise that all
this was done exhaustively and correctly meaning that the reasons for the
definition are infallible as well.
The Church denies that it is inspired when it does its homework. The
Church says that if it does it all wrong the infallible conclusion will not
really be infallible. The logical
consequence of this has to be that each and every Catholic has to see this
homework and check it before he or she could have the right to believe in the
dogma that was infallibly sanctioned.
Why? To let men get you to
believe what they say God says would be blasphemous unless you are as sure as
can be that he did speak to them for God comes first. And you have to be sure that the
infallibility was able to function and it is only right to check out the
homework for it is only human work. To
fail to check is, in effect, to leave the Church by opposing its dogma and the
purity of the dogma. The chief work of
the Church is to teach (page 231, Catholicism and Fundamentalism) for
she sanctifies through this teaching so the teaching comes first so doctrinal
aberration in any form is a means of excommunication. The unity of the Catholic Church is
thoroughly artificial. A Church that is
not one and therefore not a Church can’t be infallible or have a monopoly on
being infallible.
The problems with infallibility are so obvious that it makes one certain
that the pope and the higher level Catholics who have the power to make
infallible statements know fine well that they are deceiving.
INFALLIBLE CONCLUSION MEANS INFALLIBLE PREMISES
Because infallibility is not inspiration, the Church has to think about a
doctrine to see if it is credible and basing her claim on the grounds in favour
she may and only can then infallibly proclaim that God says it is true.
Her logic will be like the syllogism with two premises and
a conclusion. Here is an example. The Bible is right. Jesus said he turns communion into his body
in it. Therefore communion is the body
of Christ.
The examination needed for proclaiming a doctrine infallible is carried
out under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
The Church does not obligate you to accept her proofs for a doctrine but
if they cause the infallibility then they are automatically proclaimed
infallible revelations when the doctrine is proclaimed. The Church believes many things now for
different reasons than it did in the past proving that it is not the true
Church for if a Church was founded that was true to the principle that the reasons
for a dogma are as infallible as the dogma it would then be the true Church.
Before a doctrine can be raised to an infallible dogma it has to be seen
that it fits in with previous dogmas.
If a previous dogma implies that the doctrine is true there is no need
for an infallible proclamation though it might still be done. If previous dogmas do not imply but allow for
the proposed new dogma then it follows that the grounds for it are not as
strong as they would be if the doctrine were implied and it can’t be proclaimed
infallible. A dogma is as good as proven
when proclaimed infallible but this tells us different. Thus, Catholic dogmas like the Immaculate
Conception and Assumption of Mary, the virgin birth and several others are not
really infallible for the verification is insufficient.
The theologian pope, Benedict XIV, declared in 1740 that there was
silence on the assumption of Mary in the early Church and he also said that
there was not enough to go on to make a dogma of her assumption. Each doctrine has a different quality and
quantity of evidence behind it too which means that the more evidence there is
the more infallible the dogma made of it is.
But the Church cannot accept this for if a doctrine is not convincing
then it makes the infallibility that elevates it to dogma not convincing
whereas the purpose of infallibility is to make a doctrine as convincing as the
other parts of the faith in the sense that you are certain that God has said it
is true so it is true.
The pope could not make the Immaculate Conception a dogma without
considering what Original Sin is and does.
So when he made it a dogma his interpretation of original sin was being
made a dogma as well. The logical links
between dogmas such as become dogmas themselves. The Church got the idea of substance and
appearance not being the same thing from Aristotle and this convinced it that
transubstantiation was possible for then you could have the wafer seeming to
all intents and purposes to be bread while it is really the body of
Christ. In substance it is the body of
Christ and not bread. So when the Church
created the dogma of transubstantiation it was approving of Aristotle’s
ridiculous physics and imagining that it showed that transubstantiation was
possible when neither Aristotle or logic show that his
theory makes it possible so we have two foolish dogmas created automatically
and implicitly with the proclamation of transubstantiation.
To cast doubt on the infallibility of one Catholic doctrine
is to doubt them all because they are all products of that alleged
infallibility.
Infallibility instead of safeguarding the proud claims of the Church
dismantles them.
Infallibility is a useless miracle because it is giving certainty but it
can only make a doctrine certain when the doctrine is already certain. Thus, a doctrine that has not formally been
declared infallible like the immortality of birth control can still be as
certain as an infallible doctrine.
The Catholic believes that the Church is infallible because it claims to
be infallible and that it claims to be infallible because it is
infallible. This is the fallacy of
circular reasoning. The vicious circle
is unjustifiable even if you believe in justifiable ones for there is no need
for belief in revelation especially revelation coming through a Church.
So popes and bishops have left the Church and the one true faith in their
hearts by rejecting and changing the reasons for believing things and the
notion of apostate and schismatical clergy being
infallible is preposterous and contrary to infallible Catholic doctrine. How anybody can expect the Church to have
real humility is beyond me.
There is nothing more serious than ending human life. The papacy set up the Inquisition and
butchered right up until soon after 1856 when Pius IX said that serious cases
of heresy should be treated with clandestine murders (page 244, Vicars of
Christ). Pius VII revived the
Spanish Inquisition in 1814 which went as far as to persecute Catholics who did
not observe the fast days of the Church (page 243, ibid). This was done on religious grounds. To make dogmas as cruel as that is definitely
a far stronger statement of infallibility than just making an infallible
statement in St Peter’s. They are more
believable for the pope endorsed them by death.
He declared his dogmas by human sacrifice. The rules of the Church that heretics should
be slain are stated to be as important as human life. That is what the pope was saying when he
backed up these rules.
INFALLIBILITY CAN’T REVEAL
The Church teaches that infallibility is not inspiration so the pope or Church
could give and infallible revelation but use the wrong words to express it for
it is up to him how he or they put the truth across.
Belief in infallible statements is not a part of the Catholic faith (page
88, Believing in God). The Church
believes it uses its infallibility when it gives statements of binding dogma
but that is not the same as it making infallible statements. You can use statements to mean to express the
truth or what is infallible revelation and they may not do that for their grammar
or wording is not right. So the wording
is not infallible but the meaning is.
That is what the Church means when it denies believing in infallible
statements.
(This is different from Hans Kung’s view that infallibility is a priori
wrong. He said that an infallible
statement cannot be infallible because it is made up of words and words can
mean anything. For example, the word
yellow conjures up an image of a different yellow colour and yellow shape in the
mind of a person who reads the word. This
view of his is obviously mistaken for if he were right we would not be able to
understand one another at all.)
What use is infallibility when it does not guarantee that the right words
will be used? The charism
is for making the Church pick out truth from error and for establishing
certainty in the faith.
What if the Church resists the influence of Jesus and
issues a fake infallible proclamation?
The Church is not always certain what was an
infallible decree in the past and what was not. We are told that God will kill anybody who
tries to delude the Church this way. But
anybody who makes a decision to commit such a sin is no longer in the Church
for trying to pervert the faith and destroy proper unity. It is too incredible to believe that God
would murder them.
The fact that the Church can be open to Jesus and his gift
of infallibility and then wilfully misrepresent what it has learned by using
ambiguity is fatal to the doctrine of infallibility.
NOT ECUMENICAL SO NOT INFALLIBLE
The Catholic Faith says that ecumenical councils when invoking the power
of infallibility make the right decisions because of God’s protective power.
Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical councils are not infallible though she
says they are if they want to be. They
are fallible they are not ecumenical.
Another reason is that the charism of infallibility
does not belong only to the bishops but to the whole Church including
Protestants who
The Councils were invalid for the allegedly schismatic and actually
schismatic Churches were barred. Since
the so-called schism between east and west in the eleventh century there has
been no true ecumenical council and none of the decisions given at Catholic
ones should be accepted or taken seriously.
The fact that the Eastern Church had an uneasy truce with the
Catholicism is a false religion which means that it is a human
institution. If tradition says the whole
Church is infallible then it follows that the laity should be appointing and
voting for the bishops so that the bishops represent them properly and can be
their voice in an ecumenical council.
Therefore any council that does not use bishops like this is not
infallible. It is possible for the pope
to have sufficient control over who becomes a bishop without trampling on the
laity.
All rival Churches of Christ have enough in common to make decisions that
are agreeable to one another.
CONCLUSION
The Roman Catholic Church makes no sense when it claims to be infallible. It is actually claiming to be in the place of God by doing so!
A GREAT LEGACY, Rev RJ Coates,
A ROMAN CATECHISM WITH A REPLY THERETO, John Wesley Protestant Truth
Society,
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer,
AN ACCOUNT OF ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER 1581-1656, ND Emerson MA PhD,
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, James Heron, Outlook Press,
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press,
BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY SO, Rev Roberto Nisbet,
Church Book Room Press,
CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
CHRISTIANS GUIDE TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist
Press,
CITY OF
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DEAR CATHOLIC FRIEND, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn,
Eyre & Spottiswoode,
DOCUMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, edited by Henry Bettenson,
Oxford University Press,
ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM ET DEFINITIONUM, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A Schonmetzer,
EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS A NEW PHENOMENON,
HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Collins – Fount Paperbacks,
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS?
Colin Badger, Wayside
HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR VOCATION IN LIFE, Thomas Artz
C.SS.R, Liguori Publications,
INFALLIBLE? Hans Kung, Collins,
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS,
IS THE
IS THERE SALVATION OUTSIDE THE
LETTERS TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, H A Ironside,
Loizeaux Brothers,
LION CONCISE BOOK OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT,
LIVING IN CHRIST, A Dreze SJ,
Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne 1969
LOOK! THE
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co,
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
OUGHT I TO SEND MY CHILD TO A
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans,
ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING CONTRASTED WITH BIBLE TEACHING, Bernard Burt, The Bible Student Press,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM TESTED BY THE SCRIPTURES, John A
Coleman, New Litho Pty. Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHAT IS FINAL AUTHORITY? Harold J Berry, Back to the Bible,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM,
ROMANISM AT VARIANCE WITH THE BIBLE, Rev James Gardner, Protestant Truth
Society,
SALVATION, THE BIBLE AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM, William Webster, Banner of
Truth,
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers,
THE ADVANCE OF ROMANISM, S M Houghton, Cotswold Bible Witness, 1964
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH? Ken Camplin, Printland Publishers,
THE BIBLE REFUTES ROMANISM Philip H Rand Protestant Truth Society,
THE
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, BC
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE WORD OF GOD, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth
Society,
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM, John A Bain MA, Oliphant Anderson
& Ferrier,
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus
De Ligouri, Redemptorist
Fathers,
THE MOTHER OF GOD AND OUR INTERIOR LIFE, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,
OP, TAN,
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg
BD, APCK,
THE RICHES OF
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
THE
THE
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE
TREASURES FROM GOD’S STOREHOUSE, Dr Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press,
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter De Rosa, Corgi Books,
WHAT HAPPENED! Francisco Lacueva, Evangelical Protestant Society,
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Catholic Truth Society,
WHY I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC, Rev Canon McCormick DD, Protestant Truth
Society,
YOU CAN LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CHRIST, Wilson Ewin,
Wednesday, 20 February 2008