I merely followed the points as they were brought up in the article: The author proceeds to list the things

that he will not discuss, but then brings up randomly throughout his essay. He presupposes that all of these points are invalid and based on false teaching. Often he uses the assumption that these are false to state the following type of argument. 1. We all know A is false. 2. B believes A to be false. 3. Therefore, B is false. Worship of and prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary Infallibility of the Pope Purgatory Prayers for the Dead Burning and Torture of Heretics On page 2 the author correctly states that all similarities with the Catholic Church end with the teaching on the Eucharist. Then he proceeds to list teachings that are mostly correct. For some of these he presents refutations, for some he just allows the reader to deduce that the teachings must be false simply because they sound incredible. This is brings to mind God's speech to Job 38: [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? This is a tactic used quite frequently by the author and I attribute it to his innocent simplicity. He is not a scholar and not versed in the ways of argument. He believes in his childish innocence that if something is incomprehensible to man that it can not be true. A thorough philosopher or scientist does not find that argument appealing and I will not point out each instance of it in this piece. Another illogical tactic used by the author is to state that many Catholics do not believe in a certain teaching or follow a certain precept of the Church. Then he uses that fact as if it were enough to prove that the teaching was false or the precept proof of the Church's false authority. I agree that many Catholics do not believe certain teachings of the Church and that many do not follow the minimum requirements of a Catholic in good standing. (see these precepts as described in the Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P75.HTM) This is unfortunate to say the least, but does nothing to prove the invalidity of the Church. In examining the teachings of the Church on Transubstantiation quoted or paraphrased by Green I found no fault. But I am not an expert by any means. When it comes to the teaching of the Church regarding those who do not believe her teachings I decided to let those more learned than I speak: The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell," but "let him be cut off." There is a great difference. (from the Catholic Answers tract referenced below)

The Church is quick to receive those who realize their errors and wishes to remind its members of the dangers of cutting themselves off from what is true. I believe that anybody who believes a truth would wish to warn those who deny these truths of the danger. For example we do not hesitate to show those who believe that ending the life of an unborn human is a choice. We show the vileness of the act for what it is and also show comparisons to help the unbeliever understand what it is that they say they believe in. Those who oppose us cry foul and say our arguments are unfair and cruel. There is much to this answer and I link the full answer here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-church-condemn-those-who-disagree-with-itsteachings The author declares that the teaching that Jesus is present in the Eucharist is false, not biblical and was not taught by the early Church Fathers. Green states that Catholics rely only on two lines from scripture to back their claim that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. All this is untrue. The New Testament letters contain references to the Eucharist. Among them Paul writes : "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). Again there is much to this refutation including references to Early Church Fathers who do speak about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence Green also states that our behaviour towards our Lord present in the Eucharist is odd and idolotrous. Again, he does this presuming that perhaps we ought to know that we are wrong and the host is not worthy of our respect. Naturally Green finds it strange that, "In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord" (Catholic Catechism 1378). We also reserve the hosts left over from mass with great reverence and many faithful Catholics will spend time in prayer in front of the tabernacle knowing that they are in front of Christ Himself. Calling this idolatry and the worship of a wafer is ridiculous - we worship God and God alone. The "little wafer" is incidental and meaningless without Christ's presence. It is Christ truly present! Acting as if reason can supply the truth would have us rejecting many core mysteries of the faith, such as the trinity, the incarnation, the resurrection and the ascension - not to mention the atonement. Some of these beliefs are held by our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they cannot explain them without referring to faith in a particular interpretation of Christ's words in the bible. Later, Green attempts to prove that Jesus could not be present in the Eucharist at the last Supper, because he was still visible to the Apostles at the time. The only reason why I mention this absurd attempt at argument is to point out that Green is not the guy to follow if you want a good refutation of the Catholic faith. Does it have to be explained that the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who is one God in three divine and distinct persons, can coexist with Himself in two different forms if He so chooses. He made Time and Space!!

On page 4 Keith Green asks when did the Church begin teaching that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. He completely ignores the writings of the church fathers in the first three centuries of the church. He is probably simply unfamiliar with them; a study of these early church fathers (some who even knew the apostles personally) would show that the doctrine of transubstantiation is taught in the first three centuries of the Church. I am sure you will see that it is suspect to make such claims and not quote Ambrose, Radbertus, Tertullian or the texts produced by the Catholic councils themselves. Green finds fault with relying on the Church's interpretation of the Bible. Her says that we ought to judge the teachings of any preacher or interpreter of the bible by the bible. So we ourselves should be the judges and the arbitrators of what is the true interpretation of the bible. I do not believe that this is logical or scriptural. Ask yourself these questions: Why would God leave us to our own devices in interpreting His Bible? Why would He leave His children without a shepherd? Prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith. How do you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place? Prove that you have the authority to interpret the Bible and that your interpretations will always be accurate. Moreover, the Scriptures themselves refer to the importance of teachings that were transmitted verbally and not recorded in the bible itself. Paul wrote, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, "Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). Green states that the Church is not biblical on p. 1. This is not true. Where did we get the bible from? Apart from that argument there are many arguments that how that the Church is founded in scripture and none of its teachings would ever contradict it. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scriptural-reference-guide0 Green finds fault with what he calls the Pagan origins of the Eucharist. There are more things in the Church that can be said to have Pagan origins. C.S. Lewis said that it didnt bother him that Christianity has links with earlier religions: What would have bothered him was if it didnt have links with earlier religions. The fact is, you can find echoes and connecting points between Christianity and all the other religions both ancient and modern, and it is this fact which validates rather than invalidates Christianity. If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true. To read more on this line of reasoning please see: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/paganism-prophecies-and-propaganda Green is also committing a fallacy when he attacks the Church using the Pagan influence argument. The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer"). More on this line of reasoning here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan Green has trouble reconciling Catholic teaching on personal responsibility on accepting salvation with the fact that Christ's sacrifice is complete. God gave us free will and He respects this free will even to the point of allowing us to choose to turn our backs to Him. I love how Screwtape complains about this in

the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. He says, He really does want to fill the world with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself-- creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like his own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. I quoted that to remind you that you too believe in freewill!! I know C.S. Lewis is not scriptural or even Catholic. God desires for us to accept His gift of salvation. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:3146). The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christs death on the crossChristians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2)but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response. Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has entered into the holy place in heaven to appear before God on our behalf. Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born "saved," with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family. (more of this answer here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/assurance-of-salvation) Also the Church has condemned that one can obtain salvation by works. This was embraced by an early heresy called Pelagianism, from which we have the not often heard phrase: Pull yourself up by your Pelagian bootstraps!! More here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-does-the-church-teachthat-works-can-obtain-salvation Furthermore, reward and merit are not to be confused as Green does. Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:611; cf. Gal. 6:610). more on this: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/reward-and-merit Green complains that Jesus is the only priest, how can we have these men we call priests!! Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament. The Church developed over time. It didn't start out immediately with large Cathedrals, an organized means of serving the laity and orders of monks, priests and sisters. The methodology of delivering the Gospels and administering that sacraments developed over time. More on this here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon and here: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-priesthood-is-both-ministerial-and-universal I find one point refreshing and amusing. Green keeps proving that the Church has not changed. Contrary to what many in and outside of the Church like to say it really has not changed. I couldn't agree more!!! What is more, the fact that over 2000 years of human frailty was not able to destroy the Church is a testament to God's glory and Jesus's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail!!

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass. Green states the opposite of this and objects to the necessity of this re-enactment. Green quotes many truths as taught by the Catholic Church, and does nothing to refute them, he only objects that they can not be possibly true. All of his objections are refuted here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass One of the beautiful aspects of the Catholic Church is how logical it is. Green's objections to his own misunderstanding of the disctinction between mortal and venial sin are silly. Here is the definition of a mortal sin: In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: (1) The sin must have grave matter, (2) one must have adequate knowledge that it is a grave offense, and (3) one must commit the offense with deliberate consent (CCC 18571859). If one of these conditions is not met, the sin will be venial, not mortal. More on sin and forgiveness and repentance here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-possiblefor-a-person-with-a-mortal-sin-still-on-his-soul-to-die-and-go-to-heav Some clear discussion on venial sins are here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-are-someexamples-of-venial-sins Green unfortunately never realizes the gift that Confession is. Properly understood it is the most freeing act one can perform. Apart from being therapeutic it also allows receive help from God. A good article on the joy of confession is here: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/confession-set-me-free Confession is also supported by scripture and explained by the Early Church Fathers. read more here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/confession Certain aspects of the form of confession such as when penance was done or how heavy the penance was has changed over time as the Church emphasized different things. For example having too harsh of a penance could cause people to think that Christ's suffering was not complete they had to suffer to obtain salvation. Or too light of a penance could perhaps cause one to believe that this was easy enough so one could repeat the offense with a small penalty. But in this case Catholics are taught that they ought to have a firm resolve NOT to offend again. Planning on repeating the offense confessed would be a far cry from a firm resolve. There is much teaching and guidance on being overly scrupulous or permissive. I can't continue refuting all of Green's points, but rest assured they are refutable. Good places to search for answers is in the Catechism of the Church, catholic.com, EWTN.com. Green is not the first to bring up these points and it is amazing how few new arguments have cropped up since before 1000 AD. You had asked for an opinion on the timeline and footnotes. I think the quotes from the Church documents must have been correct. I believe that some supposedly Catholic pamphlets and booklets Green quoted from may have been mistaken and worded in a way that does not agree with Church teaching. Unfortunately this does happen. As for the timeline, it is full of errors and doesn't merit too much discussion. There are just too many

errors to bother. Okay I'll bother with one: The VENERATION of angels and dead saints and the use of images. Martyrs were venerated from the beginning. The first Martyr's death is recorded in Acts. The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarps martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. In it, the Christians describe the events following his burning at the stake: "We took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom." more here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/relics A complete History of the Catholic Church is always going to be missing something. I haven't finished Triumph an overview of the Church's history, but I recommend it. For a shorter on-line source I only found one from the beginning to the middle ages. I imagine someone is working on the rest, but as you will see it is time consuming work to put together an over view of such a long time span. http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Curricula:_Church_History