So that the titlewill not mislead anyone, it should be pointed out that this booklet is NOT atranscript of a Roman Catholic confessing his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.Nor is this booklet a critique on a particular church or religiousfaith. This "confession" is simply a graphic recounting of a ratherextraordinary spiritual odyssey, a spiritual odyssey which had its finale inthe Catholic Church. This is simply a testimonial of one man's faith, anintimate glimpse of one man's soul. Viewed in the broad sense one mightcall this a study of the Catholic psyche , for contained in thistestimonial is the basic Catholic motivation, the reason why all Catholicsare Catholics. To get the most out of the author's narrative, however, onereally should view it in the narrow sense, that is, as an individual religiousexperience confided privately, person to person, for then one will more fullyrecognize the sincerity and good will that inspired it, and more fullyappreciate the unreserved frankness of its presentation. But viewed either waythis booklet is sure to provide a memorable reading experience.

I am one of thosepeople who harbor the conviction that the Catholic Church is the one trueChurch of Jesus Christ. And if you happen to be of another religious faith,particularly if you happen to be a Protestant, I have a pretty good idea whatyou are thinking. You are probably thinking: "Poor deluded fellow... it is apity that he has never been exposed to the light of Scripture, a pity that hedoes not enjoy the intellectual freedom enjoyed by other Christians... for ifhe had the least familiarity with Sacred Scripture, the least freedom ofintellectual inquiry, he would never subscribe to such a faith... he would be aProtestant, or an Eastern Orthodox, or an unaffiliated Christian-anything but aRoman Catholic."

This is likely tobe your opinion. In fact, if you did not regard me as something of a religiousoddity I would be very surprised. You hear so many stories about the "strangegoings on" in the Catholic Church, and so many of these stories purport to be"authoritative" reports on Catholic belief and practice - what else can youthink? If you did not attach some credence to these stories, you just would notbe a "normal" non-Catholic.

I mean that! Butfor the fact that I was exposed to the light of Scripture, but for thefact that I do enjoy freedom of intellectual inquiry, and but for thefact that I found all those accusations against the Catholic Church to bethoroughly untrue, I would, in a probability, have this day the sameopinion of Catholics that you have.

You see, I havenot always been a Catholic. For the first 32 years of my life I was aProtestant. And what is more, I was a through and through Protestant. I wasborn of Protestant parents - an Episcopalian father and a Methodist mother. Iwas baptized a Protestant - Episcopal because my brother before me was baptizeda Methodist. I was reared a Protestant - sent regularly to Episcopal,Methodist, Congregational, and Baptist Sunday schools, whichever was handiestto where we lived, and enlisted in various Protestant youth movements. Myparents were staunch "liberal" Protestants: they believed that one church is asgood as another - so long as it is Christian and Protestant.

As might beexpected, when I reached manhood I married a Protestant - a devoutAugustana-Synod Lutheran. Then began my stint, for the sake of domesticharmony, in the Lutheran faith, because within a year's time my wife and I wereobliged by economic considerations to move to another section of the countrywhere, except for a sprinkling of Baptists and Pentecostals, all of theProtestants were Methodist. There I became active once again in the MethodistChurch, my wife joining with me (I think that, with the possible exception ofMissouri-Synod Lutherans and some Southern Baptists, all Protestants areliberals at heart), and there I decided to become, and in due course, didbecome, a Methodist minister.

And I say thatwithout any misgivings. Why should I have misgivings? My association withProtestantism did me a great deal of good. It was as a Protestant that Ilearned of the reality and power and munificent goodness of God. It was as aProtestant that I learned of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, comeinto the world to atone for the sins of man and lead man in the way of eternalsalvation. It was as a Protestant that I learned to acknowledge and revere theBible as the holy Word of God. And it was as a Protestant that I cameto know many wonderful God-fearing people, people whose sincerity and genuineChristian charity were a great source of inspiration to me.

Divine Providencejust would not have it any other way. To be sure, I was an avid student of theBible - I believed that the Bible is the sole Christian rule of faith. But, asDivine Providence would have it, the more I studied the Bible, and the more Imade it my rule of faith, the more I realized that my faith was not wholly whatGod had ordered. I discovered voids in my religious fabric, voids whichhad to be filled if I were to know real peace of soul. This feeling ofspiritual insecurity led me inexorably to a study of comparative religion; and,again, as Divine Providence would have it, the more I studied comparativereligion the more I came to realize that the Catholic faith was the one faiththat could fill the voids in my religious life, the one faith that could giveme the real peace of soul I longed for.

"Poppycock! Purefigments of the imagination!" you will say. And again I say that may indeed beyour honest opinion. But I also say, read on. For if you will read on and notdraw hasty conclusions I think you will alter your opinion. Perhaps you willnot sympathize with my explanation, but I am sure you will find that I am notrelating something that happened solely in my imagination.

A reallyconscientious student of the Bible does not imagine what he reads there, and asI said before, after entering the Methodist ministry I was just that, a reallyconscientious student of the Bible. I practically lived in the Bible, for notonly did I consider it expedient that I should be constantly enlarging upon myknowledge of Scripture text, so that I could preach with more and more fluency,I also considered it expedient that I should be constantly enlarging upon myknowledge of Scripture exegesis (correct interpretation), so that I couldpreach with more and more authority. To be a proficient quoter of Scripture wasnot enough - I also wanted to be a proficient explainer of Scripture.Particularly, I wanted to be able to explain the indistinct passages ofScripture, the passages most Protestant ministers pass over on the grounds thatthey are "too ambiguous" for explanation; for it was my considered opinion thatthose passages contained some very significant truths, truths that could be brought to light and should be brought to light.

Now you can callthis presumption if you want to, but I honestly do believe this program of minewas God-inspired. For, as it happened, my study of Scripture exegesis hadhardly begun when I made a very remarkable discovery, a discovery which had theeffect of removing all apprehension from my mind. I discovered that whenever Icam across an indistinct, seemingly ambiguous, passage of Scripture, one whichallowed for several interpretations, I could remove the ambiguity, find the onetrue interpretation, by searching out other passages directly bearing on thesubject and correlating them.

For example,Christ repeatedly refers to God in the Bible as "my" Father and to Himself asthe "son" of God. When those passages are isolated, three distinct andcontradictory interpretations can be drawn from them: 1) Jesus was a mortalbeing, a son of God in the same sense that all Christians are sons of God; 2)Jesus was a supernatural being, a son of God in the sense that visible angelsare sons (emissaries) of God; 3) Jesus was a divine Being, a son of God in thesense that He was of the very Essence of God. But when those passages are notisolated, when they are correlated with Jesus' other statements bearing on Hisidentity - e.g., John 1:18, 8:19, 10:38, 12:45 and 14:8-12 - the onetrue interpretation, namely the third one, emerges clear as crystal. Hence thedoctrine of the Holy Trinity, professed by the overwhelming majority ofChristians, which defines God as being numerically and individually one inessence but existing in three Persons - God the Father, God the Son, and Godthe Holy Spirit.

This method ofascertaining the true intended meaning of indistinct Scripture passages -employed by all the leading authorities on Scripture exegesis, I later foundout - brought a great deal of consolation to me because it established thescriptural validity of some tenets of faith I had previously taken for grantedsimply because the were traditional Protestant tenets. But it also brought somesurprising revelations, revelations I had not bargained for, revelations whichchallenged the scriptural validity of some of my beliefs. In this I wasnot consoled but rather very disturbed.

The first ofthese surprising revelations had to do with the intrinsic structure of Christ'strue church. In the most literal and absolute sense Christ's true church is a body, I learned. Further, this body is not a group body, like a body of people,but is an organic and spiritual entity, like the body of a single person.Further, this body, the true Christian Church, is not strictly a human body butis akin to being a divine body - this is by virtue of the fact that it is theMystical Body of Christ Himself. Actually, albeit mystically, Christ'strue faithful constitute the members of His church body, while he reigns inHeaven as the Head of His church body.

"And he is thehead of the body, the church." (Col. 1:18). "But now there are manymembers indeed, yet one body... Now you are the body of Christ, and members ofmember." (I Cor. 12:20-27) "Because we are members of his body, of hisflesh, and of his bones." (Eph. 5:30) "For as in one body we have manymembers, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, areone body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Rom. 12:4-5) "Knowyou not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" (I Cor. 6:15)

"There shall beone fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Careful to keep the unity ofthe Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called inone hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Fatherof all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." (Eph.4:3-6). "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions andoffenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." (Rom. 16:17).

"These thingsJesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to Heaven, he said.Holy Father, keep themin my name whom thou hast given me; that they may be one, as we also are. . . .sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth . . . that they all may be one, asthou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us . . . I inthem, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one." (John17:1-23)

In the face ofsuch evidence how could I entertain any doubt? There it was plain as could bein Sacred Scripture, the Word of God, the Christ's true faithful constitute asingle unified body -- unified in every respect: in organization, in belief,and in worship. That was the way Christ's Mystical Body on earth was originallyconstituted, and in order for it to live on as His Mystical Body on earth thatis the way it had to stay constituted.

It would havebeen foolhardy in the extreme for me to entertain doubts concerning theinvincible oneness of Christ's Church; for not only was it self-evident inSacred Scripture, it was self-evident in all the writings of the primitiveChurch Fathers. Wrote the great St. Cyprian in the third century: "God is oneand Christ is one, and one is His Church, and the faith is one, and one Hispeople welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unitycannot be rent asunder, nor can the one body of the Church, through thedivision of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." (St. Cyprian, Onthe Unity of the Church , chap. 23).

Likewise, St.Hilary in the fourth century: "In the Scriptures our people are shown to bemade one; so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingledtogether, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly Bread, we know thatthere is one body, in which our whole company is joined and united." ( Treatise 62, 13).

Now I ask you, isit any wonder that my conscience was disturbed by this revelation? Behold, Iwas not a member of a Christian unity or body. As a Protestant I was part of aChristian "cooperative," an "interdenominational association" made up of over300 Christian bodies, each one different in name, in belief, in government,and, to a lesser extent, in form of worship. True, they all professed Christ asLord and Savior, and they all professed to preach His Gospel -- they allproclaimed that their primary objective was the salvation of souls. In thatrespect there was indeed a common identity, or sameness. But the fact stillremained: They refused to meet on the same premises to profess their faith inChrist as Lord and Savior, they disagreed as to what constitutes Christ's wholeand true Gospel, and they were very much at odds concerning what qualifies aperson for eternal salvation.

For example, oneProtestant body held the independent view that altar and liturgy have no placein Christian worship. Another held the independent view that the sacramentsshould be withheld from infants and small children. Another held theindependent view that man becomes impervious to sin and assured of salvationonce he accepts Christ as his personal Savior. Another held the independentview that membership in Christ's Church is restricted to a select few, and whenone of the select few falls away from God's grace no amount of repentance canrestore him. Another held the independent view that Saturday, not Sunday, isthe Lord's Day. Another held the independent view that the powers of the churchadministration reside not with the clergy but with the laity of the localcongregation.

Yes, here withinthis interdenominational framework was fellowship -- here was a genuine,concerted love and longing for Christ and His promise of salvation. That muchhad to be conceded. But here also was division, division in the most explicitand flagrant sense of the word. Here, unquestionably, was a concept ofChrist's mystical Body on earth which could not possibly be consonant with theone spirit, one faith, one shepherd concept described in the Bible.

This realizationdistressed me more than I can say. Like His glorified body in Heaven, Christ'sMystical Body on earth never was and never will be a disjointed body, myconscience kept repeating -- and I did so want to be joined to His trueMystical Body, that I might share in its bountiful graces, that I might be, asSt. Paul said, a member of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. ( Eph. 5:30). The pleasantness of my Protestant association notwithstanding, I did sowant to be ONE with Christ, my Salvation.

One passage ofScripture suddenly became very meaningful. Over and over I pondered thesewords: "Seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." ( Matt. 7:7). And at length I realized what I must do in order to placate myconscience. Just worrying over the situation would gain me nothing. If I wereever to find the unity which Christ said would distinguish His true faithful, Iwould have to search for it.

So down to thebig public library I went -- and I commenced to search. I searched throughevery history of Christian church development I could find. I searched throughthe sectarian histories and the non-sectarian histories, the big encyclopediasand the little encyclopedias. I took special pains to be as comprehensive andas objective in my search as possible. Indeed, I took the same pains with thesevolumes as I did with the Holy Bible; for here again it was my own conscience Iwas serving; I would have been fooling no one but myself if I shirked anyevidence or displayed even the slightest bias.

That was not easyto accept, believe me. I hated to think that the church I had been most opposedto was the church most united in Christ. But I had to be honest with myself.The spectacle of 825 million Catholics, three-fifths of all professedChristians, perfectly, indomitably united in belief, in organization, and inworship -- the historical fact that Catholics, consistently the largest body ofChristians in the world, have always been thus perfectly united -- wasevidence I could not ignore. Perhaps I was prejudiced, but I certainly was notblind.

However, findingthe unity of Bible prophecy did not entirely settle the matter. Just as greatas the problem of finding it, I found, was the problem of embracing it. Whatabout the other aspects of Catholicism, I asked myself. What about Catholicdoctrine, Catholic dogmatism, Catholic authoritarianism. Could I, injustice to my conscience, set aside my suspicions concerning those aspects ofCatholicism merely for the sake of the unity of Catholicism?

Those questionsposed quite a problem. But I solved that problem all right. After considerablesoul searching I concluded that unity was indeed a precious and most importantChristian commodity, but right doctrine and right authority were also precious,also important, perhaps even more so. Therefore, I should play it safe: Ishould preserve the status quo of my religious affiliation, at least for thetime being, and get back to my Bible studies. The prospect of having tointerrupt my Bible studies did not set too well with me anyway.

That was a wisedecision, you will say. But I say that it was a Providential decision, a God-inspired decision. For lo, I had no sooner returned to my beloved Scripture studies whenalong came another revelation, a revelation even more significant than thefirst one. Yes, and it was every bit as disturbing.

"All power isgiven to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations;baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: andbehold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt.28:18-20)

Then there wasHis statement to the Apostles on another occasion, telling them: "As the Fatherhath sent me, I also send you." ( John 20:21). Here again is a clear,unmistakable reference to the teaching mission of His Church; for here He istelling the Apostles that they had fallen heir to His own teaching mission. HisChurch was to be no less of a teacher than He was.

Further, it wasquite obvious that Christ did not give this teaching authority to all andsundry, that is, to the whole Church, but only to His duly appointedApostles, those who were to be the administrative body of theChurch. Had He meant that this teaching authority was to be exercised by all ofthe faithful He would have addressed His words to all of the faithful, or hewould have instructed the Apostles to so advise all of the faithful - neitherof which He did. The Bible is quite clear on that score. Some have been placedin the Church as teachers, not all, wrote the Apostle Paul. ( I Cor. 12:28-29).

Now where did Iget the idea that the teaching authority of Christ's Church cannot err when itdefines the essentials of Christian doctrine? Where did I get the idea thatthis teaching authority can no more err today than it could in the beginningwhen it was held by the Apostles? I got the idea from Christ Himself -- bycorrelating His statements concerning the teaching authority of His Church withHis statements concerning the divine protection pledged to that teachingauthority. Said Christ to the Apostles:

"These things haveI spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom theFather will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all thingsto your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you... when the Paraclete cometh,whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth fromthe Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony,because you are with me from the beginning." (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27).

In other words,the teaching authority of Christ's Church would not, could not, teach error,because infallible human beings would not be doing the actual teaching. Theinfallible Holy Spirit of God, the infallible Christ , would be doing theactual teaching, speaking through the human teaching authority of theChurch. Our Blessed Lord made this quite clear when He said to His disciples: "Hethat heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and hethat despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16).

And then therewas the testimony of the primitive Christian Fathers. A cursory study of theirwritings disclosed that they also believed that Christ's Church is incapable ofteaching error. Wrote the great St. Irenaeus in the second century: "For wherethe church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is,there is the Church in every form of grace, for the Spirit of God is Truth." ( Againstthe Heresies , 3, 24,1).

And finally therewas the testimony of my own faith. After pondering the matter, my own latentChristian faith insisted that Christ would not have admonished sinners to "hearthe Church" unless He was sure they would be hearing the truth; nor would Hehave assured the Church that her pronouncements would be "bound in heaven"unless He was sure that her pronouncements contained no error. ( Matt. 18:17-18). Careful analysis of Christ's teachings revealed that faith in the doctrinalinfallibility of His Church is synonymous with faith in Him.

Now let meexplain why I was disturbed by this revelation. I was disturbed, dear reader,because I obviously was not a member of a divinely authorized teaching church,much less an infallible teaching church. The church I was a member ofrepudiated the whole idea of a divinely authorized teaching church. Itmaintained that no man or council on earth possesses the God-given authority topronounce, as binding on the Christian conscience, what is and is not trueChristian doctrine.

Here I was a"minister of the Gospel, yet I could not mount the pulpit and say: ";Learn ofme, for I teach with the authority of the Lord. Learn of me, for he who hearsme hears Him." Nor could my bishop make such a declaration. Nor could thehighest official in the church make such a declaration. Any minister would havebeen liable to the charge of heresy - he would have been accused of "Popery,"which was the same thing as heresy.

It was perfectlyall right to mount the pulpit and say, "Learn of me." In fact, we were dutybound to teach when we preached. But to say that we had direct authority fromGod to teach, to imply that our teaching bore the stamp of divine infallibility-- that definitely was out. That would have been a serious breach of one of themost basic and fundamental tenets of Protestantism: the tenet that the Bible isthe only divinely authorized dispenser and guarantor of Christian truth.

This idea thatthe Bible is the supreme and final arbiter of Christian truth had to dominatethe theme of every sermon. We ministers had to make it quite clear that whileit was good and edifying to hear the voice of the church, in the final analysisit was direct to the Bible, to the "constitution" of the church, that theChristian must needs go for the binding convictions of his faith. It had to beemphasized that the primary mission of the church was not so much to teachChrist's saving faith as it was to lead people to the Bible so that the Biblecould teach them Christ's saving faith.

This despite thefact that for the first four hundred years of Christianity there was nopublished Christian Bible; this despite the fact that for the next one thousandyears, until the invention of the printing press, there were scant few Bibles;this despite the fact that only the literate have access to the Bible; thisdespite the fact that those who have made the Bible their sole rule of faithhave come up with literally hundreds of conflicting rules of faith -- thisdespite the fact that the Bible itself states that many who interpret itprivately will interpret it wrongly, to their own destruction: " . . . in which[St. Paul's epistles] are certain things hard to be understood, which theunlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to theirown destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

The more Ithought of it the more I thanked God for His wonderful revelation. However, donot misunderstand me. I was not beginning to doubt the whole truth of theBible, nor was I doubting the value of the Bible where Christian learning isconcerned. These things I shall never doubt. I was simply facing up to the factthat the Bible, venerable book of truth that it is, is not the teacher of itsown truth. The obvious was forcing itself upon me: Instead of a catalog oftruths God wants taught, and taught so that all Christian generations,including the blind and illiterate of those generations, can hear andunderstand.

Quite obviously,a living church possessed of an audible voice was needed to carry the greattidings of Salvation to all generations; therefore God in the Person of JesusChrist founded such a church, and He said to it: "Go ye into the whole world,and preach the gospel to every creature." ( Mark 16:15). Note that hesaid preach His Gospel to every creature, not distribute His Gospel toevery creature in the form of a book. He ordered His Church to speak tothe world because through His Church He would be speaking to the world.( Luke 10:16). How anything so obvious could have escaped me before, I donot know, unless my training had erected a mental block. It certainly is asplain as can be in Sacred Scripture.

Now my earnestdesire was to seek out this church that could teach with the voice andauthority of the Lord. I wanted this singularly blessed church to teach me. Iwanted the wonderful assurance of Christ's own personal guarantee that myChristian faith was the true Christian faith prescribed by Him for thesalvation of the world.

And once again mysearch ended where I least expected it to. That is right, dear reader, thechurch I was looking for turned out to be none other than the same CatholicChurch. How could I consciously say that it was not? My study of the doctrinesand practices of the various Christian churches revealed most clearly that onlyone, the Catholic Church, exercises the same kind of teaching authority thatwas exercised by the church of the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers. Onlythe Catholic Church functions for her members as an unerring interpreter ofGod's revealed truth. Only the Catholic Church dares proclaim to the world thatwhen she teaches the truths of Christian doctrine, it is Jesus Christ, who canneither deceive or be deceived, teaching through her.

Only the CatholicChurch was NAMED by the primitive Church Fathers as the church appointed byJesus Christ to carry on His sacred teaching ministry. Wrote St.Irenaeus in the second century: "The Catholic Church, having received theapostolic teaching and faith, though spread over the whole world, guards itsedulously, as though dwelling in one house; and these truths she uniformlyteaches, as having but one soul and one heart; these truths she proclaims,teaches, and hands down as though she had but one mouth." ( Adv. Haer. ,1, x, 2).

Wrote St.Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century: "But the brightness of the CatholicChurch proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same pointsin the same way, and radiated forth to all the race of Greeks and barbariansthe reverent, sincere, and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of thedivine teachings as to conduct and thought." ( Ecclesiastical History , 4,7, 13).

Wrote St.Augustine in the fifth century: "The Catholic Church is the work of DivineProvidence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through theIncarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles,through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, throughthe admirable lives of the saints, and in all these, at opportune times,through miracles worthy of such great deeds and virtues. When, then, we see somuch help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitateto bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolicchair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of allmankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority." ( De UtilitateCredendi ).

Confirming thatthe primitive Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church were one and thesame church, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote inthe second century: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that hasfound mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of JesusChrist, his only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things,beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God;presiding in the chief place of the Roman territory.presiding in love,maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father's name: her do Itherefore salute in the name of Jesus Christ." (Introduction - To The Church ofRome ).

How significantand thought-provoking those statements of the primitive Christian Fathers are.How significant that every time they mentioned the teaching church of JesusChrist it was the Catholic Church, never one of the Coptic churches, or one ofthe Orthodox churches. And who should know better than they which Christianchurch is the true teaching church of Jesus Christ, the teaching churchdescribed in the Holy Bible?

I know, about nowyou are probably thinking: "If the Catholic Church is the teaching churchdescribed in Bible prophecy, why does she suppress the Bible? Why does shebypass the Bible by drawing upon tradition for some of her articles of faith? Whydoes she indulge in such unscriptural practices as praying to Christ's mother,Mary?"

I reply to that,dear friend, is this: Go to the Catholic Church as I went to the CatholicChurch; conduct an on-the-spot investigation of Catholic teaching and practiceas I did; and you will find out, as I found out, that all those stories aboutthe Catholic Church suppressing and bypassing the Bible are as false as falsecan be. And you will find out that there is absolutely nothing unscripturalabout praying to Christ's Blessed Mother.

You certainlywould not go to the Swiss Information Bureau for authoritative information onthe winter resorts of Norway, or to General Motors for authoritativeinformation on the performance of Ford automobiles, or to a staunch Democratfor authoritative information on the achievements and aspirations of theRepublican Party. Nor would you seek information about the former from thelatter. Why? Because it is just not fair to obtain information about something,or someone, from a rival. It is not fair to yourself, and it certainly is notfair to your subject. Rival information its always prejudiced information, andtherefore is seldom entirely free of serious omissions and gross exaggerations.

That was thesimple rule of logic and fairness I adopted, and I must say that it rewarded mebeyond measure. Instead of finding the Bible suppressed in the Catholic Church,I found it very much in evidence and very highly honored. In fact, I had neverbefore visited a church where the Bible was so much in evidence, so highlyhonored. I noticed that during Mass an enormous and exceedingly beautiful bookfilled with Scripture, called the Missal , rests on the altar andoccupies much of the priest's attention as he proceeds through the Massliturgy. I noticed that during Low Mass the priest raises this great book ofScripture to his lips and reverently kisses it, and during High Mass hesolemnly incenses it, signifying the Church's loving devotion to God's revealedtruth. And I noticed that the priest celebrant of the Mass, or a priestassistant, never preaches the Mass sermon without first taking a New Testamentand reading some Epistle and Gospel verses to the congregation, and neverwithout first offering up this prayer with the congregation: "The Lord be in myheart and on my lips, that I may worthily and in a becoming manner proclaim Hisholy Gospel." I noticed that throughout the whole course of the Mass, which isthe center and heart of all Catholic worship, there was a most profoundreverence shown to Sacred Scripture by all present. At the reading ofthe Gospel, for example, everyone stands in reverence of the Word.

And that is notall. I found that this reverence has been manifest in the worship of theCatholic Church since the fourth century when the Christian canon of SacredScripture was first determined - and determined, incidentally, by this sameCatholic Church. Catholic devotion to the Bible is as old as the Bible itself.

Are Catholicsencouraged to read and meditate upon the Scriptures privately in their ownhomes? Indeed they are. Contrary to what many Protestants think - contrary towhat I myself had long believed - Catholics are constantly being told, insermons, in letters from their Bishop, and in Papal encyclicals, the spiritualgood that will come from keeping a Bible in the home and daily meditating onits content. Wrote Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Letter, On the Promotion ofBiblical Studies: "For the Sacred Books were not given by God to men tosatisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study andresearch, but, as the Apostle observes, in order that these Divine Oraclesmight "instruct us to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus,' and'that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.'" p Bishopsshould help "excite and foster among Catholics a greater knowledge of and lovefor the Sacred Books. Let them favor, therefore, and lend help to those piousassociations whose aim it is to spread copies of the Sacred Letters, especiallyof the Gospels, among the faithful, and to procure by every means that inChristian families the same be read daily with piety and devotion . . .for, asSt. Jerome, the Doctor of Stridon, says: "To ignore the Scripture is to ignoreChrist."

Concerning theallegation that the Catholic Church "bypasses" the Bible when she bases some ofher articles of faith on tradition, I merely had to focus my attention on a fewpassages of the Bible itself to be convinced that this allegation is totallywithout foundation in fact. Strange I had not noticed this before, but theBible does actually state that some of Christ's teachings were committed totradition; that is to say, they were handed down by word of mouth rather thanby letter. Further, the Bible actually states that these teachings were no lessimportant for having been committed to tradition. Here are the Bible passagesto which I referred:

"Therefore,brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whetherby word or by our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:14). "And we charge you,brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselvesfrom every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition whichthey have received of us." (2 Thess. 3:6).

There is noquestioning the meaning of those sentences. Here the Apostle Paul specificallystates that there is not one but two criteria of Christian truth: thatwhich was left to the Church via the Bible, via the written word, andthat which was left to the Church via tradition, via the unwritten word- both of which, he says, are of equal importance to the faith of Christians.

"This is thatdisciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things;and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other thingswhich Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, Ithink, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (John21:24-25).

So we have theBible's own word for it that there were some things which Jesus said and did,some things which the Apostles taught, that were not written down, that did notfind their way into the Bible - not because they were relatively unimportant butbecause writing it all down with the means and time available would have beenhumanly impossible. Had the Apostles and their disciples attempted torecord all of Our Lord's doings and teachings they would have had no time leftfor preaching and baptizing and organizing the Church in the far-flung missionfields, which was what Christ had ordered them to do.

Now the questionarises: What made me so sure that the tradition which forms the basis of partof Catholic doctrine is the tradition, the unrecorded teachings of Christ,mentioned in the Bible? A little objective research, plus a little objectiveChristian reasoning, made me sure. First of all there was the testimony of theprimitive Christian Fathers. Wrote St. Athanasius in the fourth century: "Butit will hardly be out of place to investigate likewise the ancient traditions,and the doctrines and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lordcommunicated, the Apostles proclaimed and the Fathers preserved; for on thishas the Church been founded." Wrote St. Augustine in the fifth century: "Thesetraditions of the Christina name, therefore, so numerous, so powerful, and mostdear, justly keep a believing man in the Catholic Church."

Then I went backover the mainstream of Christian belief and practice since Christianity began,and discovered, much to my surprise, that all the other ancient andsemi-ancient Christian churches - Coptic, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox -have consistently held to the same tradition-based doctrines that the CatholicChurch holds to, proving that acceptance of them was universal prior to theadvent of Protestantism in 1517.

Also it occurredto me that if the tradition which forms the basis of part of Catholic doctrineis not the tradition mentioned in the Bible, what has become of it? Could it bethat some of Christ's teachings have become extinct? To this I had to answer inthe conscience of my faith that after suffering ignominy on the Cross to plantHis truth in the world, Christ would not permit any part of it to becomeextinct. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away,"He said. ( Mark 13:31).

Manifestly clearto me now was the justification for such Catholic practices as praying toHeaven for the intercession of Mary and the saints. For these practices are thetraditions referred to in the Bible. They have to be the traditionsreferred to in the Bible, otherwise why were they so precious to the primitiveChristians?

To give you anidea who precious these traditions were to the primitive Christians I refer youto St. Ephraem's Prayer to the most holy Mother of God, composed by thatillustrious deacon in the fourth century: "O Virgin Lady, immaculate Mother ofGod, my lady most glorious, most gracious, much purer than the sun's splendor,budding staff of Aaron, you appeared as a true staff, and the flower is yourSon our true Christ, my God and Maker. You bore God and the Word according tothe flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin afterchildbirth, and we have been reconciled with Christ, God your Son."

Then there is theprayer, composed by St. Germanus of Constantinople in the seventh century: "OLady, all-chaste, all-good, rich in mercy, comfort of Christians, tenderconsoler of the afflicted, the ever-open refuge of sinners, do not leave usdestitute of thy assistance. Shelter us under the wings of thy goodness. By thyintercession watch over us."

But, alas, asconvincing as this great mass of evidence was, I still did not have thestrength of will to hand myself over to the Catholic Church. Force of habit isa mighty force, I found, quite capable of resisting some of the strongestmental persuasions. It plays tricks on the mind, it creates the illusion in themind that custom, somehow, is a profound truth in itself, a truth which, forsome mysterious reason, transcends all other truths.

Somehow I managedto convince myself that I was a Protestant by the irrevocable force ofheredity, like my skin was white by the irrevocable force of heredity;therefore, I should not change the complexion of things like this because itwas God's doing. In other words, I was a Protestant "by nature," therefore the"natural" thing for me to do was remain a Protestant. Certainly God would makeallowances on the Judgment Day for people who just naturally were notCatholics, I told myself, providing, of course, they believed in Him with theirwhole heart and soul and repented of their sins, which I did.

However, force ofhabit and all the excuses I conjured up were no match for the grace of God. Itwas not long before my eyes were opened to yet another Bible revelation, one sorife with eternal consequences that there could be no resistance, no excuses.Had I remained out of the Catholic Church after this truth was made known to meI would have had to abandon my conscience altogether - I would have had to liftmy eyes to Heaven and say, "Not Thy will, Lord, but mine be done."

"I am the bread oflife. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the breadwhich cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I amthe living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, heshall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the lifeof the world." (John 6:48-52)

I contemplatedthose words long and hard, for while I had read them many times before andfound them beautiful and stirring, I now saw in them something extremelypersonal and challenging, something that demanded clarification. You see, I hadbeen led to believe that in this text Christ was speaking figuratively, thatis, the bread He promised to give for the life of the world was not to beconstrued as His actual self, but bread symbolic, or representative, of His self. But somehow the more I contemplated His words the more I suspectedthat there was something drastically wrong with this interpretation. How, Iasked myself, can symbolic bread be called "living" bread? How can symbolicbread vivify and impart divine life to the soul? How can dead vegetablesubstance be representative of the living Son of God?

Faced with theseperplexing questions, I sought for the answers elsewhere in Sacred Scripture -I resorted to "interpretation by correlation," the method of interpretationthat had served me so well before. And again this method did not fail me. Aclose analysis of all the pertinent Bible texts revealed that the Jews did notunderstand Christ to mean symbolical bread. They understood Him to mean breadthat consisted of His true and living flesh. "How can this man give ushis flesh to eat?" they argued ( John 6:53). Christ was speaking not inthe figurative sense but in the literal sense, those Jews surmised; and theymust have surmised correctly because Christ made no attempt to change theirthinking; instead, He repeated Himself, laying even greater stress onthe literal sense of His words:

"Amen, amen I sayunto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, youshall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hatheverlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meatindeed: and my blood is drink indeed." (John 6:54-56).

But how? Howcould the faithful actually partake of His true and living Flesh and Blood?That was what the Jews wanted to know and that was what I wanted to know. Onlythere was this difference between the Jews and myself: Like the Apostles, I hadfaith that somehow it could be done; like the Apostles, I believed that withChrist, with Divinity, all things are possible; like the Apostles, I exercisedpatience and was rewarded for my patience. Searching the Scriptures further Ilearned exactly how Christ intended to give His Flesh and Blood for thefaithful to eat and drink - I found the full explanation contained in theaccount of the Last Supper.

"And whilst theywere at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to hisdisciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. THIS IS MY BODY. Andtaking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all ofthis. FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD. " (cf. Matt. 26:26-28;Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20).

The bread andwine of Holy Communion, that was it! The bread and wine of Holy Communion werenot mere symbols, or representations, of Christ's Body, as I had been led tobelieve, but were in very truth bread and wine miraculously transformed by thepower of God into Christ's true and living Flesh and Blood, only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. Not only did I have Christ's promise at Capharnaumand the fulfillment of Christ's promise at the Last Supper to convince me ofthis, I had the testimony of the Apostles, preached to the whole infantChristian community. In the most unequivocal language the Apostles affirmedthat the bread and wine duly consecrated on the altar did in fact become the actualSubstance of the Savior. Declared the Apostle Paul:

"The chalice ofbenediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Andthe bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (I Cor. 10:16). "But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread,and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatethand drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." (I Cor. 11:28-29)

What furtherproof did I need? None at all, for the Bible was my criterion of Christiantruth and the Bible could not have been more explicit. Yet, lest there be somelingering suspicions, I sought out the belief of the primitive ChristianFathers. If anyone were qualified to pass judgment on the correctness of myconclusion it was they, for they were the disciples, the immediate successors,of the Apostles - their interpretation of Sacred Scripture was obtainedfirsthand from the very authors of Sacred Scripture.

It turned outthat the primitive Christian Fathers had a great deal to say on the subject,and it turned out that all of them were in perfect agreement. Those illustriousleaders of the infant Christian Church called the bread and wine consecrated onthe altar the "Eucharist," and they unanimously maintained that by virtue ofthe consecration it was no longer common food-stuff but had become, by theOmnipotent Power of God, the true Flesh and Blood of the Savior.

Now I knew withabsolute certainty that I was right. Not only did the Church Fathers confirmthe correctness of my interpretation, they did so must emphatically. And so didall of the great Christian apologists of succeeding centuries. Indeed, I foundthat it was not until comparatively recent times, until modernism beganinfecting Christianity with its fondness for reckless theorizing, that anyprofessed Christian held a contrary view.

What apredicament! There in the Bible was Christ my Lord telling me that I needed toeat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood in order to have eternal happiness withHim in Heaven; there in the Bible was the Apostle Paul telling me that I shouldprove my faith by discerning the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecratedbread and wine of the altar; there in history were the Church Fatherscondemning as heretics all Christians who do not associate themselves with theReal Presence; and there I was without this divine soul-saving food, withoutthis discernible Body and Blood of Christ on the altar, without this blessedassociation with the Real Presence.

There I was withmy eternal salvation in obvious jeopardy. It was a desperate situation,one that called for immediate and positive action. And act I did, following thesame positive course of action I am sure you would have followed, dear friendin Christ, under identical circumstances: I went calling on churches, I went insearch of that particular church which could give me the true and living Christin Holy Communion, not common everyday bread and wine such as I could find downat the corner market place.

First I called onthe other Protestant churches, hoping upon hope that one of them would have thetrue Eucharistic Christ. But no success. Wherever I called, the answer wasnegative. Invariably the consecrated bread and wine of Holy Communion were only"symbols" of Christ's Flesh and Blood, or were "abodes of His Spirit," or were"temples of His Sacramental Presence," or were "vehicles of His hidden Fleshand Blood," or were "bread and wine mysteriously merged with His Fleshand Blood." Invariably the physical substance of bread and wine substituted forthe physical Reality of Jesus Christ.

Some ministersdid indeed call their communion bread and wine the real Body and Blood ofChrist, but invariable, when I pinned them down, asking if by "real" they meant corporeal ,they said no. Invariably, when I asked if one receives a new influx of divinegrace at their Holy Communion service, the answer was: "No, we believe thatHoly Communion is not productive of grace but is a reflection of the gracealready present in the soul through faith," or words to that effect. Such ananswer is, of course, tantamount to rejecting the doctrine of the RealPresence, for to receive the real Christ is to receive His real grace, not amere reflection of His grace.

Now it was up tothe Catholic Church to show the glorious fulfillment of Christ's promise. Andshow me she did. Yes, it was in the Catholic Church, the "Roman" CatholicChurch, that I found the manna which has come down from Heaven, the Communionbread and wine that are truly the Body and Blood of Christ my Savior. TheCatholic Church declared that it was so, and when I witnessed the profoundsolemnity of the Consecration on her altar, when I witnessed the radiance andpeace that shone on the faces of the communicants, when I myself felt His DivinePresence pervading the atmosphere , I had to agree that it must indeedbe so.

How could it beotherwise? Could those Catholics and the hundreds of millions that precededthem back through the centuries to the very dawn of Christianity ALL be thevictims of hallucination? Hardly. Mass hallucination becomes less prevalentwith the advance civilization, not more prevalent. Hallucinations do notinspire the building of the world's greatest private network of universitiesand scientific laboratories. Hallucinations do not attract and hold such peopleas Augustine, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo, Copernicus, Aquinas, Dante,Petrarch, Pasteur and Marconi, people to whom finding the truth is a veritablemania, a sort of religion in itself.

No, this was nohallucination I was witnessing. Pure and simple, it was faith in the power andintegrity of Jesus Christ. Those Catholics had come to a most realisticconclusion: Jesus Christ is God; therefore He has the power to change bread andwine into His Flesh and Blood on the altar without effecting a change in theappearance of the transformed bread and wine; and Jesus Christ promised that Hewould do just that for the spiritual nourishment of His faithful; therefore itmust be confessed that He is keeping His promise.

The sacrament ofthe Real Presence is also called the Blessed Sacrament in the CatholicChurch - but to me it was a blessed sacrament in more ways than one. For it wasmy discovery of the true and living Christ in this sacrament of the CatholicChurch that inspired me to inquire into her six other sacraments. Did the othersix also enjoy an abundance of scriptural support? I wanted to know. Not that Iexpected to find them without scriptural support. I was quite convinced thatthe church wherein dwelt the Real Presence of Christ would be the churchwherein dwelt the full complement of His sacraments - but I considered itexpedient that I should make a complete survey of the Catholic sacraments whileI was on the subject, so that my conviction would be confirmed.

Needless to say,my conviction was confirmed. One by one I went over the other six with aCatholic priest, and one by one they turned out to be thoroughly grounded inScripture. No doubt about it, each and every one of them was instituted byChrist, and no doubt about it, each and every one of them imparts grace to thesoul, exactly as the Catholic Church teaches.

"Jesus answered:Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the HolyGhost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). "Do penanceand be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remissionof your sins..." (Acts 2:38) "And Jesus coming, spoke to them saying:All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye allnations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost." (Matt. 28:18-19). "And he said to them: Go ye into thewhole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and isbaptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16).

" ...where thedisciples were gathered together... Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saidto them: Peace be to you... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you...Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiventhem; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John20:19-23). Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall bebound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall beloosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18)

"Having heardthese things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paulhad imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them..." (Acts19:5-6). "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samariahad received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, whenthey were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For hewas not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the nameof the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received theHoly Ghost." (Acts 8:14-17)

"Take heed toyourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed youbishops, to rule the church of God..." (Acts 20:28) "For every highpriest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertainto God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins... Neither doth anyman take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb. 5:1-4). "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke; and gave to them,saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration ofme. " (Luke 22:19). " ...the disciples were gathered together... Jesuscame and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you... As the Fatherthat sent me, I also send you... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins youshall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, theyare retained. " (John 20:19-23). "And when they had ordained to thempriests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them tothe Lord, in whom they believed." (Acts 14:22). "For this cause I [Paul]left thee [Titus] in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things thatare wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointedthee..." (Titus 1:5). "For which cause I [Paul] admonish thee [Timothy],that you stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of myhands." (2 Tim. 1:6). "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which wasgiven thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." (1 Tim. 4:14.).

"For this cause aman shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And theytwo shall be one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Whattherefore God that joined together, let not man put asunder... Whosoever shallput away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And ifthe wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committethadultery." (Mark 10:7-12). "Let women be subject to their husbands, asto the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the headof the church. He is the savior of his body. Therefore as the church is subjectto Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands,love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up forit.So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that lovethhis wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hateth his own flesh; but nourishethand cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members ofhis body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave hisfather and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in oneflesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church." (Eph. 5:22-32).

Thus, just asChrist and his Church are inseparably united, so are a man and womaninseparably untied in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

"And going forththey preached that men should do penance: and they cast out many devils, andanointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." (Mark6:12-13). "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of thechurch, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of theLord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raisehim up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." (James5:14-15).

And those werenot the only Bible passages shown to me. My priest consultant brought myattention to many others. He made it so glaringly obvious that the sevenSacraments of the Catholic Church are Christ's true Sacraments that I foundmyself blushing with embarrassment, confessing that I must have been in somekind of trance when those passages were in front of me before.

There was noalternative left now but to become a Catholic and to become one as soon aspossible. Every mental reservation I had ever entertained about the greatMother Church of Christendom was now gone, thanks to three great Biblerevelations. The Catholic Church, I was firmly convinced, is everything sheclaims to be; either she is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, His MysticalBody, His infallible teaching voice, His Eucharistic abode, or the Bible isnothing more than a book of fables and the writings of the primitive ChurchFathers nothing more than a collection of pipedreams.

Once my mind wasmade up it did not take me long to make the transition from Protestantism toCatholicism. And what a glorious adventure it was, too, to become a Catholic,to receive those several weeks of instruction in true Apostolic theology, tomake that solemn profession of faith, to receive a Catholic Baptism, to cleansemy soul in the Sacrament of Penance, and then, finally, to receive the livingand true Christ in Holy Communion. Believe me, dear reader, there is noadventure more glorious, more satisfying to the soul, this side of Heaven.

The transitionwas really much easier than I thought it would be. I had imagined that therewould be a great storm of resentment within my family and that I would lose agreat many very dear friends. I was quite certain that not a single one of myformer ministerial colleagues would ever again speak to me, except perhaps tocastigate me for being a "traitor." But, surprisingly, that was not the case atall.

After thatinitial shock, which an announcement of this kind invariably produces, I wasconfronted not with a wave of bitter resentment, but with a wave of curiosityand wonderment. There were a few instances of ridicule - a few of myacquaintances were more protest-ant than Protestant, more anti-Catholic thanpro-Christian - but by and large the freedom of my conscience was respected. Byand large the reaction was not "Curse you for doing it!" but "WHY did you doit?" My family and my really close friends knew that I would never defect fromChrist - they knew that my loyalty to God and His revealed truth superseded allother loyalties. They simply could not understand why my loyalty to God and Hisrevealed truth had become so suddenly and drastically altered in the mode ofits expression.

That took a greatdeal of explaining, a great deal of very difficult explaining, for it is noteasy to translate into words all the things that motivate the soul. But Imanaged somehow - and with singular success. I say with singular successbecause shortly afterward my entire family and several of my close friendsfollowed me into the Catholic Church. Yes, once they had the facts, they, too,confessed that the Catholic faith is the true Bible faith - they, too, wantedthe ineffable joy of being united to Christ in the fullness of His Gospel, inthe fullness of His Sacraments and in the fullness of His grace.

How tremendouslygratifying that was, to realize that God had not only chosen me to be an objectof His grace, but an instrument of His grace as well. My gift of faithwas indeed a blessed gift of faith, for I could say with another convert namedPaul: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated untothe gospel of God." ( Rom. 1:1).

If I should writea thousand confessions before I die I would be able to sum them all up withthat one sentence taken from the Bible. For henceforth my life's principaldedication will be serving Christ. I will not be wearing clerical cloth and Iwill have no pulpit, but that will not constrain me. I will have His truth andHis grace, and I will have my thankfulness for His truth and His grace, whichis all I need to outfit me as one of His apostles.

So call meanything you want to. Call me a religious enigma, call me a slave of papaltotalitarianism - call me anything. But while you are calling me these thingsplease keep this in mind: I would not have it any other way. Before I wouldrelinquish one little particle of my Catholic faith I would gladly face thescorn and derision of the entire world. For now, at last, I know real peace ofsoul, real oneness with Christ my Savior.