Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism

The Anglican Church did not exist then. But when later established it gradually adopted Protestant principles, and is a Protestant Church.

273.    The Church of England repudiates the term Protestant, and, as far as I am aware, has never used it.

I myself was brought up as an Anglican, and in the firm belief that I was a Protestant. An Anglican paper. The English Churchman is subtitled A Protestant Family Journal, The King of England is an Anglican, and in his coronation oath uses the words, "I solemnly and sincerely profess, etc., that I am a faithful Protestant."

274.    We Anglicans strongly claim to be part of the Catholic Church.

Some Anglicans do; some do not. In any case, if a stray child wandered into some home and declared that it was a member of the family, it would not avail much if the whole family declared that it was no relative at all. And despite the claims of a few Anglicans, not only Catholics, but practically everyone knows that the Church of England is not a part of the Catholic Church, and that it is as Protestant as the Plymouth Brethren. Catch an Anglican off his guard, whoever he may be, and his own Church never enters his head when asked to direct someone to a Catholic Church. The oath taken by the King of England is as un-Catholic a formula as could well be conceived, and it definitely declares Anglicanism to be a Protestant sect cut off from, and distinct from, the Catholic Church.

275.    We Protestants look upon the King, not as head of the Anglican Church, hut as the representative of the British Empire.

If you have any respect for the law of England you must regard the King as head of the Anglican Church. The law says that he is, and to deny it is disloyal. As an Anglican I always accepted the King as head of the Anglican Church. As a Catholic, I still look upon him as head of that Church. Every loyal subject must do so. In the Book of Common Prayer, prior to the Articles, you will read the profession of the King, "Being supreme governor of the Church which is committed to our care." By law the very Bishops of the Anglican Church are subject to him in things spiritual as well as in things temporal. A man is loyal if he respects the laws of his country. We Catholics admit that the King is head of the Church of England, and we are loyal in doing so. But whether the Anglican Church is the true Church of Christ is another question. That we deny, and no law asks us to admit it.   Nor could any valid law demand such an admission.

276.    But your Church is the Roman Catholic Church.

It is the Catholic Church, a Church which has its headquarters at Rome, subjection to the Bishop of Rome being the test of true Catholicity. Anglicans, or at least some of them, would like to pretend that we have the Roman form of Catholicity, and that they have the English form. But this is mere pretense. The Catholic Church is international. The Church of England is national, its authority being vested, not in a successor of the Apostles, but in a successor of Henry VIII.

277.    What is the difference between the Church of England and the Catholic Church?

The differences are legion. Firstly, there is all the difference between a Church established by Henry VIII., King of England, and that established so carefully by Christ. Secondly, the Anglican Church is still subject to parliament; i3 national in character; is chaotic in doctrine and discipline; has no valid orders; rejects the Mass, and the obligation of Confession. But why continue! All is summed up in the fundamental difference that the Catholic Church is the true Church, whilst the Church of England is a man-made substitute Church.

278,    I want to know tlxe difference between the English Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church?

If you mean by the English Catholic Church that Catholic Church in England which is under the jurisdiction of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, there is no difference. But if you mean the Church of England I can only reply that that Church is not Catholic at all.

279.    The Church of England is Catholic^ because she is sending missionaries throughout the whole world as far as possible.

Other Protestant Churches are doing as much as the Church of England in this matter, yet you will not admit lhat they are Catholic because of that. But apart from that, what does the word Catholic really mean in its technical Christian sense? It does not refer to area alone. To be really Catholic a Church must have originated with Christ; must have existed in all ages since Christ; must be suitable for all nations and be ever expanding amongst them; must possess all the doctrine of Christ; and must ever retain all its members within the same unity of authoritative discipline. The Church of England fails in all these requirements. In origin, it was by British law established, and remains subject to the crown of England. In time, it dates from the 16th century, and therefore has certainly not existed in all ages since Christ. Nor is the Church of England adapted to all peoples. If a man seriously accepts the Church of England Prayer Book, he has to accept the King of England as the supreme head and governor of the Anglican Church. How could you ask a Frenchman to accept the President of France as his civil ruler, yet the decisions of the British parliament as his rule of faith? If we turn to facts, we find no trace of a truly Catholic expansive principle in Anglicanism. In spite of iU belated and isolated missionary efforts since the 18th century, some hundreds of years after its establishment, it is not even attempting to convert all peoples. I have never met any body of Italian Anglicans, or Spanish, or German, or French, or Austrian Anglicans. No European nation accepts your Church except the British. Why does the Church of England make no effort for these peoples? Have they not the right to the truth taught by Christ? Or is it because the Catholic Church is quite all right for them? Yet if this be the case, why does the Church of England plant missions in newer lands where the Catholic Church already exists? The fact that it neglects other European countries shows that it has not a truly Catholic spirit, whilst the fact that it does set up isolated missions in opposition to already existing Catholic missions shows that it is not really conscious of being part of the Catholic Church at all. But let us turn from origin, time, and extent, to doctrine. Catholic doctrine demands that all members of the Church accept the same truths. Otherwise it cannot be a question of the same religion everywhere. Now the Church of England does not accept all the doctrines of Christ It terms many of them fables and blasphemies. Nor only that. In such part of Christian doctrine as it does accept, Anglicanism is a house of confusion. Bishop Barnes and Lord Halifax claim to belong to the same Church, yet would cheerfully excommunicate each other as heretics. A low-church missionary will establish a Church in Papua which can scarcely be recognized as being of the same religion as that established by a high-church man in Fiji. Finally, I need scarcely speak of unity in discipline. There is hardly any such unity within the Anglican Church in practice, and whilst some Anglicans claim unity with the Catholic Church, that Church denies any such bond. So great is the difference between the Church of England and the Catholic Church that we can safely say that, if the Anglican Church be the true Church, then the Catholic Church is certainly wrong, and vice-versa.

280.    You have said that Henry VIII. started the Church of England in the sixteenth century. But history shows that the Church was in England long before Henry VIII.

History shows that the Catholic Church was in England before the time of Henry VIII. To-day we have the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, in addition, of course, to many others. The Anglican Church was unheard of, until Henry VIII. determined to establish it. Previously, he had been as subject to the Pope as I am. The Church which history records as being in England before Henry corresponds exactly with the Catholic Church in England to-day under the Archbishop of Westminster.    Anglicanism is the intruder.

281.    Henry reformed the Churchy giving back to England a purified Church. If you remove foreign matter from the eye, the eye is not destroyed.

Henry gave no Church back to England. To give back is to restore what was possessed before. But nothing like the Anglican Church had previously existed in England. You cannot term Henry's action the removing of foreign matter from an eye. Rather he removed the eye, and filled up the cavity with foreign matter. The Catholic Church was suppressed, and a new Church of England was created.

282.    But the very word reformation supposes a continuously existing body.

Historians use the word reformation to designate the religious changes of the 16th century, but the radical change cannot be called reform. The Church of England began with a new constitution altogether, with Caesar as supreme in the things which should belong to God. Before the Reformation the Mass was the very centre and essence of religion, yet before very long it was banished and ridiculed. The new religion meant a change in both worship and discipline.

283.    The Roman Church has often changed its constitution.

Never. The Catholic Church, subject to the Bishop of Rome, has the same constitution as that given her by Christ when He said to St. Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church." She has the same foundation as the one and only Church in England until the substitution of himself by Henry VIII. as the foundation stone of the Church of England. The Anglican Church came into existence by a complete change of constitution which every previous Archbishop of Canterbury from the time of Augustine would have rejected with horror.

284.    The constitution was changed by that very Augustine. The Church in England before him was not in communion with Rome.

Your statement is erroneous, and in any case you cannot claim that the present Church of England has any connection with the Church which was in England prior to the coming of St. Augustine. Let us put it this way. There are two sets of Bishops in England to-day. There are the Bishops of the Church of England, and the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—if you like such a phrase. The Anglican Bishops are not subject to the Pope—the Catholic Bishops are. Now in the year 1500—we need not go back to the pre-Augustine Church, though the same thing was true then—there was but one set of Bishops in England. Which of the two sets of Bishops now corresponds with the one set of Bishops then? If we can solve that, we shall be able to find the intruder.

Without dwelling upon probable traditions concerning the sending of missionaries by Pope Eleutherius about the year 170 A.D., it is certain that the very first elements of Christianity came to England from the Continent, where all true Christians were subject to the Pope.    In 314 A.D., English Bishops were present at the Council of Aries, in Gaul. This was over 200 years before St. Augustine set foot in England. Now every Bishop of the Council of Aries was in communion with Rome. The Council was held under authority from Pope Sylvester, who sent his legates, and who received from the assembled Bishops this greeting, "In the unity of our mother the Catholic Church, we salute thee, most glorious Pope, with the reverence due." No Anglican Bishops to-day would be invited to sit in Council with the Bishops of Italy, Spain, France, Africa, Germany, and other regions, as those early English Bishops did at the Council of Aries. Something has gone wrong somewhere!

In 596 Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England, giving him authority over all the Bishops already in England. They must all have been Roman Catholics for the Bishop of Rome to use such words as these: "We give you no authority over the Bishops of Gaul. But as for all the Bishops of Britain, we commit them to your care, that the unlearned may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, the perverse corrected by authority."

In 735 the Venerable Bede wrote, "The Pope bears pontifical power over the whole world." St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote, in the 11th century, "It is certain that he who does not obey the Roman Pontiff is disobedient to the Apostle Peter, nor is he of that flock given to Peter by God." In 1154 a member of the Church in England at that time was elected Pope. His name was Nicholas Breakspeare. You cannot imagine a member of the Anglican Hierarchy to-day being elected Pope! In 1170 St. Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, "Who doubts that the Roman Church is the head of all Churches, and the source of doctrine." In 1208, Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, "Pope Alexander, possessing plenitude of power, gave back this Archbishopric to Thomas independently of the royal assent." This was the one set of Bishops in England before the reformation, and the Catholic Bishops in England to-day are their corresponding Bishops. Where were the Anglican Bishops before the reformation? They did not exist. Or take this simple reasoning. St. Thomas More was beheaded because he refused to give up the old religion. Then whatever religion he was clinging to, was the old religion. But he was clinging to what you would call the Roman Catholic religion, refusing the oath of supremacy which Henry VIII. claimed over the new Church of his own creation. If this new Church of England was the same as the old Church in England, St. Thomas More was a fool indeed to lose his life. Yet he was an exceedingly good and wise man.

285.    Does the present Archbishop of Canterbury enjoy the jurisdiction granted to his pre-reformation predecessors by the Pope, or is he linked with them only by orders?

He has no link with them either by jurisdiction or by Holy Orders. He merely retains the name without the reality, and owes his position to the crown. All the privileges once granted to the Archbishops of Canterbury by Rome are now granted to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. If the present Archbishop of Canterbury were converted to the Catholic Church, and wished to exercise priestly functions in that Church, he would have to be ordained as if he had never claimed to be a cleric of any description previously.

286.    How can you deny the Orders of Anglican Bishops? They go back to the Bishops of the Reformation period.

There have been Anglican Bishops continuously since the Reformation, but valid Orders have not been continuously handed on. Henry VIII. began the Church of England in 1534. The Bishops who submitted to him were validly consecrated, and validity lasted until 1550.    But in that year, under Edward VI., a great effort was made to protestantize still more the Church of England both in doctrine and in practice. The form of Ordination was deliberately changed, all reference to priesthood in the true Christian sense of the wo*d being eliminated. This defective form, utterly useless for the true ordination of priests, remained unchanged until 1662— 112 years later. Then the mistake was realized and the form was corrected. But the correction was too late, for those with correct Orders had died, and only those who had been invalidly consecrated remained to hand on their pretended Orders. Not a few Anglicans have tried to make sure of Orders by re-ordination at the hands of schismatical Bishops. The Anglican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions."

287.    Have not the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church admitted our Orders?

Firstly, there is no such thing as a united Orthodox Church. Nor can the admissions of one or two sections of that Church be quoted as the universal judgment of the Greek Church.

Secondly, the Greek Bishops do not claim infallibility. They may say, "This is our opinion," but they cannot add, "And our opinion is certainly true." In other words, the admissions of some isolated Greek Patriarchs prove nothing.

Thirdly, such opinion as some Patriarchs may have expressed was based upon defective information. They could judge only upon the information given them. But the true facts were not put before them. High-Church men submitted an exposition of the case against which Anglican newspapers in England protested strongly as being a most distorted view of Church of England principles. The verdict of a misinformed Greek Bishop cannot avail against the verdict of a well-informed Anglican Bishop, such as Bishop Knox.

288.    Is the decision of Rome regarding Anglican Orders irrevocable?

Yes. It is an infallible decision concerning a secondary object connected with and necessary for the defence of revealed dogma. We have to accept the decision, not from a motive of divine faith, but because of the infallible authority of the Church. The question was submitted to a thorough and even sympathetic consideration, the Pope knowing that if Anglican Orders could be admitted as valid the road to re-union would be much easier. But the evidence compelled the Pope to declare them invalid. Pope Leo XIII. definitely adopted the decision of die appointed Commission, and published the condemnation with his own infallible authority to support it. No Anglican clergyman could officiate in the Catholic Church without being ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

289.    At least you cannot quarrel with Anglican teaching.

I am afraid I would have to ask you to tell me what you believe to be the teaching of the Anglican Church. Anglicans hold all kinds of conflicting beliefs. Dr. Gore writes a book on Church of England doctrine, and Bishop Barnes flatly contradicts it    I have a dozen Anglican books on Church of England doctrine, and all explain it differently.    Anglican teachings, however, do contradict those of Christ.

290.    Could you tell me how?

All Anglicans at least accept an Erastian Church subject to political and parliamentary authority in England, and throughout the world they deny the necessity of submission to the lawful authority of the successor of St. Peter, the present Bishop of Rome. Again, half the members of the Anglican Church say that they believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and half say that they do not. Now Christ said, "Hear the Church." If the Anglican Church were the true Church, which half must men hear? As a teaching Church Anglicanism fails, and is compelled to tolerate such men as Bishop Barnes, who openly deny the explicit doctrines of Christ.

291.    We Anglicans have the same Apostles9 Creed as you Catholics.

You recite the same Creed, but you do not believe in it in the true Catholic sense. Catholics recite and accept the Apostles' Creed in practice. Anglicans recite it. All Anglicans say, aI believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord." Many Anglicans do not believe that He is truly the Son of God. All Anglicans say, "Born of the Virgin Mary." Many deny the Virginity of Mary. All Anglicans say, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." But none of them joins it, or if he does, he ceases to be an Anglican. All Anglicans say, "I believe in the Communion of the Saints," but few dare enter into communication with the Saints. All say, "I believe in the forgiveness of sins," but the vast majority ignore the Sacrament of Confession. Anglicans may recite the Creed, but most Anglicans certainly do not realize what the words imply.

292.    Would you say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is preaching an anti-Christian doctrine?

He preaches the doctrine of the Church of England as he understands it, and being in good faith, no fault probably attaches to him. But the real question is, "Are the doctrines of the Church of England anti-Christian?" The reply is, "Not in every single matter. Various groups within the Anglican Church have kept some parts of Christ's teaching intact. But in many things all Anglicans reject certain doctrines without warrant. The present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is, of course, a heretic and a schismatic objectively. Catholic Bishops throughout the world will enter into no official relations whatever with those Anglican Bishops who have appeared on the scene only since the 16th century."

293.    Are not Anglo-Catholics passing slowly to Catholic ways?

Why should they have to do so, if the Anglican Church is right, and has ever been right? But, even so, Anglo-Catholics are not passing to Catholic ways. The Catholic way is obedience to the God-given authority of the Catholic Church, and Anglo-Catholics are as far off from that as ever.

294. They are practically the same in their services.

They imitate many of our external practices. But even this attempt is in defiance of their own Bishops. Nor does their imitation of Catholic worship make them Catholics. If some stranger were my double in appearance, that would not make him my blood brother. The only way to be a Catholic is to be one. We went from God by disobedience, and the one way back is by obedience. Obedience is the very essence of religion, and it is obedience to the Catholic Church in belief and practice which makes a man a Catholic.

295.    I am an Anglican, and I was present in the Anglican Church of St. James in Sydney where a Requiem Mass was celebrated for the repose of the soul of one of our deceased priests.   This occurred in 1930.

The Clergy of that Church wish to adopt the titles and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, but not the obligations of Catholics. No Requiem Mass was really celebrated. A service was held, and called a Requiem Mass. At the Synod held shortly after this event Bishop D'Arcy Irvine protested most strongly against the whole affair. Here are his words, as reported in the Daily Guardian, October 13th, 1930, "Requiem Masses are in direct contrariety to the plain and emphatic statements both of the Articles and also of the devotional language of the Book of Common Prayer. They are repugnant to Anglican theology; they are repugnant to Anglican authority; they are repugnant to the Anglican Liturgy and worship. From the fable, or deceit, or folly—from the practice and doctrine of Requiem Masses may God preserve the Church of England. From cover to cover the Book of Common Prayer has no place for Requiem Masses."

296.    I belong to the High Church party, but I think it is tvrong to criticize other parties.

I presume you are High Church because you think it right, and not Low Church because you think that wrong. If you think them equally right there is no reason why you should insist that you are High Church rather than Low Church. You could not defend your own position without criticizing the position you cannot accept.

297.    In spite of all that you say, I still believe that Henry VIII. was justified in establishing the Church of England. He purified English religion.

Had he left the Catholic Church in order to become a better man himself, and in order to make his people better, you might have a case.   But he did not.

298.    He left the Church merely because he was not going to be told by the Pope what to do.

You have said it. Henry was not going to be told even by the Pope to keep God's law, so he rebelled, and his rebellion was the genesis of Anglicanism. It began in disobedience, even as all the world's troubles began in the cry of Satan, "I will not serve." When men refused to obey God, they found everything else refusing to obey them, even their own passions. And when Anglicanism refused to obey the Catholic Church, it lost the power to secure obedience even from its own clergy.

299.    Old England still stands under the Protestant flag of liberty !

The Protestant flag of what liberty? You are dealing with a very dangerous word. There is no absolute liberty. Liberty always implies relative restriction. If I am free from truth, I am subject to error; if free from virtue, subject to vice. When science proved the world round, it took away my liberty to believe it to be flat. But I do not want to be free to believe it flat. When God revealed His law, that revelation took away my liberty to do what that law forbade. When He revealed a definite religion, He took away my liberty to belong to any religion I might wish. His law takes away the liberty of divorce and re-marriage. Good old England gives her subjects the liberty to have it. But that is the liberty of the devil and refusal of submission to God. A man can be free from God and be the servant of Satan, or be free from Satan and be the servant of God. Choose which liberty you will have.   But quite a lot of England's liberty is liberty from the law of God. I am of purely English descent, and there is no national prejudice in what I say. But if my own mother commits murder, I refuse to be so blinded by my love for her as to deny that it is a crime.

300.    Since the opening of the Bible to her people, God has favored England as no other nation since Israel.

England has progressed materially, but no argument can be deduced from that. God gives temporal benefits to good and bad alike. Spiritual blessings are the real blessings. England is rapidly drifting to irreligion altogether, and the Book you say she has opened to her people is being torn to shreds and ridiculed by Englishmen in a way which Catholic reverence for the Word of God could never tolerate.

301.    Christian conditions came to England with Protestantism.

Christian conditions are rapidly fading in England as a result of Protestantism. Protestantism gave men so-called liberty to think for themselves, and men have interpreted it as license to think whatever they please.

302.    England icould still be Catholic had not men taken to thinking.

Englishmen left the Catholic Church originally through fear for their property and their lives. Not many desired to share the fate of St. Thomas More, and dear old Henry VIII. had the delightful habit of confiscating all the possessions of those who would not transfer their allegiance from the Pope to himself. Four hundred years have dimmed the memory of these things, and no real thought is given to the matter by the average Englishman. But those who can and do think are rapidly giving up Protestantism, and becoming either Agnostics or Catholics. Unfortunately there is no particular prejudice against becoming an Agnostic, whilst there is still a strong lingering prejudice against becoming a Catholic. Also to become a Catholic requires more thinking than to become an Agnostic, and thinking is too much like hard work on such an unimportant matter as the rights of God over mankind.

303.    Could you give me six short reasons why you left Anglicanism?

Certainly. (1) It is a national Church. (2) It has no Apostolic succession. (3) It has no spiritual authority. (4) It omits much Biblical teaching. (5) It is chaotic and contradictory in so much as it does retain. (6) It has produced no Saints of its own.   There are many other reasons, but you ask for six.

304.    The Roman Church is built upon one interpretation of Scripture, the Anglican Church upon another. The latter may be as equally right as the former, for all we know.

Since the Anglican Church is a contradiction of the Catholic Church, it could not possibly be equally as right. If one of the two is right, the other must be wrong. Meantime, the Anglican Church is not based upon Scripture. It is based upon the revolt of Henry VIII. from the Catholic Church. Later on interpretations were read into Scripture to suit the Church he founded. That is a matter of history. Many other non-Catholic churches have been originally based upon peculiar misinterpretations of Scripture, and it would be possible to build up hundreds of other churches upon further such misinterpretations. The Catholic Church, however, whilst in full accord with the true sense of Scripture, is not built upon it She existed before a line of the New Testament was written. Her members wrote the New Testament, and she tells us what they really meant when they wrote them. She is built upon the historical Person of Christ, and proves her divine commission by her continued possession of the attributes Christ conferred upon her. Now that the Gospels are written they confirm her claims when rightly interpreted—but that is all    H not a Ifns of [ If not a line of ] the New Testament had ever been written, the Catholic Church would still be here.

305.    Anglican ministers are just as good and intelligent as you are, and have studied the Bible just as deeply.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that to be true. But that does not make the Anglican Church true. If they are just as learned as Catholic priests, so also Catholic priests are just as learned as they. So too, they are just as good. And if the learning and character of Anglican ministers make the Anglican Church true, so the learning and character of Catholic priests would make the Catholic Church true. You are forced to the conclusion that the Anglican Church is the only true Church, and that the Catholic Church is also the only true Church. But you cannot have two only true churches.

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."

Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

There are so many historical falsehoods here, I don’t know where to begin.

1) Henry VIII did not start the Church of England or the “Anglican Church”. Anglicanism dates to the martyrdom of St Alban in the year 303. When St Augustune of Canterbury arrived, he encountered a missionary church of the Celtic tradition that was converting the Saxon pagans to Christianity.

2) Henry VIII did not attempt to eradicate Catholicism from England. In fact, he enforced it. Check out the Six Articles.

3) Thomas More was not executed for being a Papist. He was executed for being a traitor. He was caught trying to subvert Henry VIII’s authority as King- a capital offense throughout Europe at the time. Many Roman Catholics remained Roman Catholics and survived Henry VIII. Keep in mind that Henry VIII was very tolerant of differing points of view. However when he made a decision he expected all to obey and none to attempt to undermine. This is why Cranmer survived the Six Articles.

4) Does the Pope have the authority to lay aside God’s law?

5) The King’s title of governor-general is an administrative title that reflects the King’s responsibility to see to the maintenance of the church- paying bills, erecting buildings, funding education, filling vacancies, etc. These were the things Kings, Counts, Dukes and Emperors had been doing since Constantine the Great.

6) Priests do not offer sacrifice. That is heresy. Christ’s one oblation on the Cross is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Offerring another sacrifice is to claim Christ’s work on the Cross is insufficient. The only sacrificing that is done is what we believer do when we take up our crosses and follow Him.

"Henry VIII did not start the Church of England or the “Anglican Church”. Anglicanism dates to the martyrdom of St Alban in the year 303."

Original loyalty to Rome

Before the breach with Rome under Henry VIII there was absolutely no doctrinal difference between the faith of Englishmen and the rest of Catholic Christendom, and "Anglicanism", as connoting a separate or independent religious system, was unknown.

The name Ecclesia Anglicana, or English Church, was of course employed, but always in the Catholic and Papal use of the term as signifying that part or region of the one Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of the Pope which was situated in England, and precisely in the same way as the Church in Scotland was called the Ecclesia Scotticana, the Church in France, the Ecclesia Gallicana, and the Church in Spain the Ecclesia Hispanica. That such national or regional appellations were a part of the style in the Roman Curia itself, and that they in no sense could have implied any indication of independence from Rome, is sufficiently well known to all who are familiar with pre-Reformation records.

Pope Honorius III, in 1218, in his Bull to King Alexander speaks of the Scottish Church (Ecclesia Scotticana) as "being immediately subject to the Apostolic See" (Papal Letters I, 60).

The abbots and priors of England in their letter to Innocent IV, in 1246, declared that the English Church (Ecclesia Anglicana) is "a special member of the Most Holy Church of Rome" [Matthew Paris (Rolls Series), IV, 531].

In 1413 Archbishop Arundel, with the assent of Convocation, affirmed against the Lollards the faith of the English Church in a number of test articles, including the Divine institution of the Papacy and the duty of all Christians to render obedience to it (Wilkins, Concilia, III, 355).

In 1521, only thirteen years before the breach, John Clerk, the English Ambassador at Rome, was able to assure the Pope in full consistory that England was second to no country in Christendom, "not even to Rome itself", in the "service of God: and of the Christian Faith, and in the obedience due to the Most Holy Roman Church" (Clerks' oration, ed. Jerome Emser).

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia "Anglicanism"

Your post is filled with so many errors that I hardly no where to begin. SO, let’s start at the beginning:

“1) Henry VIII did not start the Church of England or the “Anglican Church”.”

Actually he did. The evidence is overwhelming that Henry forced a break between the Church and the Church IN England. Communion was broken by Henry. He seized control of the Church through illegal laws enacted by parliament. That was not at all in keeping with either existing law within England or with the traditional practices of English monarchs or parliaments.

“Anglicanism dates to the martyrdom of St Alban in the year 303.”

Incorrect. St. Alban never once referred to himself as an Anglican nor did he know anything about the concepts or system of secular government that would given to Anglicanism because they were centuries off into the future. Also, the following facts must be stipulated by anyone who has any idea of what they’re talking about in regard to the history of the Church in England:

1) St. Alban was not English. He was a Celt.
2) England did not yet exist.
3) Britain was merely a province of Rome and not an independent state.
4) The Church in Britain was, in fact, in union with Rome - unlike Henry VIII’s novel sect.
5) St. Alban, great martyr that he was, did not establish a Church hierarchy.

How ironic that St. John Fisher was martyred on St. Alban’s feast day!

You wrote:

“When St Augustune of Canterbury arrived, he encountered a missionary church of the Celtic tradition that was converting the Saxon pagans to Christianity.”

Not really. When he arrived....wait, strange how you didn’t mention that St. Augustine was SENT BY THE POPE!!! Anyway, when he arrived, Augustine found Christians there already. They were descendents of the Romano-Celts and some Celtic Christians from Scotland and Ireland. The Venerable Bede (who was most DEFINITELY Catholic and not Anglican) says that Augustine was received by King Ethelbert who was married to a Christian Frankish princess named Bertha. Notice, there was already a Christian queen in the land and she was most definitely CATHOLIC. And, Bede tells us, that Ethelbert, “whom he had received from her parents, upon condition that she should be permitted to preserve inviolate the rites of her religion with the Bishop Liudhard, who was sent with her to support her in the faith.”

Did you see that? There was already a Frankish bishop in the land - most definitely Catholic - with the already established - most definitely Catholic queen.

We also see this in Bede: “There was on the east side of the city, a church dedicated of old to the honour of St. Martin, (Note: St. Martin was regarded with special reverence in Britain and Ireland. Possibly some of the earliest missionaries may have been his disciples, e.g., St. Ninian and, St. Patrick. The Roman church of St. Martin at Canterbury has been frequently altered and partly rebuilt, so that “small portions only of the Roman walls remain. Roman bricks are used as old materials in the parts rebuilt”) built whilst the Romans were still in the island, wherein the queen, who, as has been said before, was a Christian, was wont to pray.”

So, there were churches still there - or the remnants thereof - of ROMAN churches built with the usual long flat bricks employed by the Romans in their buildings. Imagine that.

“2) Henry VIII did not attempt to eradicate Catholicism from England. In fact, he enforced it. Check out the Six Articles.”

Utter nonsense. Henry VIII killed off those who remained loyal to the pope. You can’t be Catholic without the pope. You can be Protestant, but you can’t be Catholic. How could Henry have been Catholic without embracing the very idea of the Catholic hierarchy? The Six Articles are essentially meaningles in that regard. Henry created a schism, murdered those who remained Catholic and refused to recognize his illegal seizure of the Church and was more than willing to bump off his wives too.

“3) Thomas More was not executed for being a Papist. He was executed for being a traitor.”

According to the illegal parliamentary laws pushed through by Henry, being a “papist” was being a traitor. Remember, the Act of Supremacy, a law which would have been incomprehensible to any previous generation of Catholics in England or Britain, demanded that all the English people, from whatever walk of life, acknowledge Henry as the head of the Church in England and not the pope who everyone KNEW had always been the leader of the Church in England. Even Henry II, who doggedly tried to rule over the Church in England, must have known he was seizing control of something that DID NOT BELONG TO HIM.

“He was caught trying to subvert Henry VIII’s authority as King- a capital offense throughout Europe at the time.”

Nowhere but in Protestant countries was it viewed as a capital offense to practice the Catholic faith of your forefathers - the only faith almost everyone had known for centuries.

“Many Roman Catholics remained Roman Catholics and survived Henry VIII.”

Yes, they did - because they did not matter much, were not high ranking enough, didn’t embarrass Henry by being more brilliant than he (and everyone knew it), or they bribed Henry’s officials. But even that fact undermines your own argument. If Henry did not create a new sect, then why did those Recusants increasingly refuse to worship in it and why did they deny that it was the same Church that had always been?

“Keep in mind that Henry VIII was very tolerant of differing points of view.”

What? If Henry VIII was “very tolerant” then why did he put to death Lutherans and Lollards BEFORE he started putting to death Catholics? All you can rationally claim is that all people who disagreed with Henry on religion and were exectuted happened also to be traitors. Is that what you’re going to claim? How open minded is that? How tolerant is that?

“However when he made a decision he expected all to obey and none to attempt to undermine. This is why Cranmer survived the Six Articles.”

Henry, like other evil-minded, egomaniacs surrounded himself with bootlickers. Some of these men were more than happy to lick boots while Henry did what was right, but quickly grew a backbone when Henry did what was evil (e.g. St. Thomas More). Cranmer never grew that backbone - not in regard to Henry, not in regard to Edward, not in regard to Mary - until the time he was executed. He recanted his recantation. I kid you not. And such ridiculous behavior could only come from a despicable worm like Cranmer.

“4) Does the Pope have the authority to lay aside God’s law?”

Did he?

“5) The King’s title of governor-general is an administrative title that reflects the King’s responsibility to see to the maintenance of the church- paying bills, erecting buildings, funding education, filling vacancies, etc. These were the things Kings, Counts, Dukes and Emperors had been doing since Constantine the Great.”

Nonsense. Henry, through the Act of Supremacy, seized control of the Church in England in a way that no monarch in the Western world EVER possessed in any age before his time. He robbed and destroyed over 2,100 monasteries, convents, colleges, orphanages, hospitals, shrines, chantries, and chapels. Monks who refused to cooperate were murdered on the spot. The Abbots of Jervaulx and Glastonbury, for instance, refused and were hanged within full view of their monasteries. How does robbing and destroying over 2,100 church properties - many of which served the poor by the way - fit into your seeing “to the maintenance of the church”?

How does that work? You tell me.

“6) Priests do not offer sacrifice. That is heresy.”

According to whom? Do sectarians get to decide what is heresy and what is not or is it up to those Christ sent? Hint: Christ didn’t send you or your sect.

“Christ’s one oblation on the Cross is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Offerring another sacrifice is to claim Christ’s work on the Cross is insufficient.”

I agree entirely - and what is offered is THE SAME SACRIFICE through the power of God. Hence, Christ said, THIS IS MY BODY.

“The only sacrificing that is done is what we believer do when we take up our crosses and follow Him.”

Looks like you’ve sacrificed a thorough knowledge of history in place of something else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Anglicanism

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Chapter Two: Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Original loyalty to Rome