Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - Infallibility ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 06/20/2009 4:20:41 AM PDT by GonzoII


403. I see the Catholic viewpoint in this matter, but a far greater difficulty arises for me concerning your Church in so far as she claims within her spiritual sphere to be infallible.

She makes that claim under certain conditions.

404. It is a most remarkable claim.

It is. But then, the Catholic Church is a very remarkable Church. She was not founded by a Martin Luther, or a Henry VIII, or a John Knox, but by Jesus Christ, who guaranteed her as His official representative in this world. Yet although the Catholic Church is a remarkable Church, it is not really remarkable that Christ should have kept His promises to her.

405. Your Church is composed of human beings like any other.

Not like any other. The Catholic Church is composed of human beings knit together by the authority of Christ, and rejoicing in His perpetual protection and assistance.

406. I find the Catholic assumption of infallibility simply appalling!

I should be appalled if a Church claiming to be established by Christ and to speak with His authority did not claim to be infallible. A fine sort of a guide to eternal destiny God would have given us, if that guide calmly admitted that she was not sure of the road herself.

407. Do you deny the claim to be arrogant, to say the least?

I do. It would be an arrogant claim if she pretended to confer the prerogative upon herself. But Christ endowed her with this gift, and she humbly admits the fact that it is not of her own ability. A duly accredited judge is not arrogant. But one who orders you to jail without a vestige of authority for doing so is certainly arrogant.

408. With their infallible Church, Catholics do not need God at all.

They do. In order to live up to their religion, Catholics need God's grace and help individually all along the line. Their infallible Church teaches them with certainty what they must believe and do, but even this infallibility of the Church would be a farce without God. She is infallible because, and only because, God preserves her from error in her official teaching. God, therefore, becomes more necessary than ever.

409. Upon what grounds does your Church claim infallibility?

Christ established His church upon a foundation as solid as a rock, and declared that the gates of hell, or forces of evil, would not prevail against it. This implies the perpetual retention of the truth taught by Christ, forbidding its corruption. He commanded her to teach all nations, "all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Mt 28:20. His presence guarantees that she will ever teach a doctrine identical With His own principles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would abide with the Church forever, undoubtedly a pledge of perpetual infallibility. Jn 14:16. St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine by his words, "Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth." 1 Tim 3:15. The early Fathers insist upon the infallibility of the Church, and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she could fail in her teaching of the truth; her very holiness forbids heresy; her catholicity demands expansion without loss of the self-same teaching; while her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine. Finally, if the Catholic Church be not infallible, then there is no Church on earth which is such as Christ predicted.

410. It is all a matter of viewpoint. In my opinion your viewpoint is utterly wrong, and the foundations of your Church worm-eaten.

Worm-eaten as the foundations of the Catholic Church may seem to you, the fact remains that she keeps adding story after story to her skyscraper heights. The Arians told her that her foundations were worm-eaten in the 4th century; the Greeks in the 9th; the Protestant Reformers in the 16th; the Rationalists in the 18th, and a few still continue to do so, although mere Rationalism is rapidly going out of date. At present the Modernists are the chief people who worry about the worm-eaten foundations of the Catholic Church. The only one who is not worrying about them is the Church herself. She just keeps on her way, never dying, but ever increasing, despite the fact that in every age outsiders have been busy composing her epitaph.

411. We Protestants believe that Christian doctrine was kept pure as long as the Apostles lived, hut after their deaths, errors crept in.

You err both in fact and in doctrine. In fact, for the Apostles complained of errors, not of the Church, but of individual professing Christians even in their own days. In doctrine, because you practically assert that Christ failed to preserve His Church; that the Holy Spirit did not remain with her; and that the gates of hell did prevail against her. In other words, your doctrine is that Christ could not do what He said He would do. No. Individuals in all ages have fallen into error in so far as they departed from the teachings of the Church. And in falling into error, they have fallen out of the Church, even as the Protestant Reformers themselves.

412. If was the Catholic Church which early departed from the doctrines of Christ, and thus forfeited the claim to be the true Church.

If you think that, by departing from the truth, the Catholic Church forfeited the claim to be the true Church, then you believe that the infallible retention of the teachings of Christ must be a mark of the true Church. Is your own Church, therefore, infallible? Does it even claim to be so? I admit that if the Catholic Church has failed in witnessing to the truth she is not true, and I would at once leave her. But as this would mean that Christ was unable to keep His promise, I would also abandon belief in Christ. Certainly, wherever else I might go, I would not return to a Protestant Church based upon the doctrine that Christ has failed to keep His promise.

413. But you cannot tell me that the Catholic religion is carried out today in accordance with the quite simple teachings of Jesus!

Catholicity does not differ from what you call the simple teachings of Jesus, although they were not so simple as you suppose. However, the Catholic Church teaches all that Christ taught, whether His teaching was explicit or implicit. Essentially she exists just as He would have her exist. There may have been many secondary developments during the ages, but they were all foreseen and approved by Christ. After all, Christ established a living Church, and a living Church grows. He likened it to a seed. Even as a boy grows into a man with exactly the same personality, yet with many secondary changes in size, knowledge, and manners, so too has the Church rightly developed.

414. The constantly changing laws of the Catholic Church show that her principles are man-made.

The principles of the Catholic Church are not man-made, nor can her constitution, given her by Christ, ever be changed. But just as many small by-laws can be made and repealed in a country without any essential constitutional change, so in the Catholic Church special disciplinary laws can be enacted at special times to meet special needs without any constitutional change of the religion. At the Reformation, however, men left the Catholic Church and set up new constitutions for themselves, and their sects can be called indeed man-made religions.

415. The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of the Pope were not believed before 1854 and 1870 respectively, yet had to be believed after those dates.

Both doctrines were believed in so far as Catholics believed in the revelation given by Christ, which contained these doctrines implicitly. When the Church defined them she merely made explicit and of faith what had been up to that time implicit. She gave, not a new truth, but simply made these matters clear by defining these doctrines to be part of the revelation brought us by Christ. The Church is here for that. Indeed, of what use is a teaching Church if she does not teach? All doubts concerning the correct interpretation of the original Christian doctrine on these two subjects were cleared away by these definitions, and today the 400 million Catholics in the world know the truth and accept it without hesitation.

416. The Catholic Church is described in 1 Tim 4:1-3. In the latter times some shall depart from the faith — teaching doctrines of devils-speaking lies in hypocrisy — -forbidding to marry — commanding to abstain from meats. Where is her infallibility?

I am afraid this is a case of mistaken identity. The Catholic Church is not involved in this description. All through the ages men have departed from the faith in departing from the Catholic Church. Thus in the 16th century the Protestants departed from the original faith, and have been departing from each other ever since, going further and further into conflicting heresies. The Catholic Church does not teach doctrines of devils. No Church warns her children so earnestly against the devil as the Catholic Church. She clearly teaches that lies are never justified. The references to marriage and the eating of meats you simply do not understand. St. Paul warns the early Christians against those who would say that marriage of itself is evil, as also the eating of meat. But the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. She certainly says to her young men, "You may marry, or if you feel that you are called to such a life, you may become a Priest. But if you become a Priest, you may not marry." That is a very different thing. Meantime, the fact that she forbids meat especially on Fridays shows that she permits it on other days.

417. Did the Church depart from the faith when she condemned Joan of Arc, a condemnation reversed 500 years later?

The Church did not condemn Joan, but was responsible for her canonization. Joan died a good Catholic, receiving Holy Communion the morning of her death. A renegade and recalcitrant French Bishop, in the pay of the English, condemned Joan, and violated the laws of the Catholic Church in doing so. Joan had appealed to the Pope as she had a right to do, but her appeal was illegally disallowed. Within 25 years of her death Pope Calixtus III declared her mock trial to have been null and void and ordered a new examination of the evidence. Joan, who had been burned to death in violation of Church law in 1431, was re-habilitated in 1456, the Pope's tribunal declaring that she was innocent of all charges. This was the only official judgment of the Church at the time. And her canonization in our days is in full accordance with that judgment.

418. If a civil judge gave an unjust verdict because of a bribe, would you deny that the judiciary was part of the legal system?

I would deny that such a verdict had the true authority of the state behind it. And the state would disown the verdict if the facts were manifested, just as the Church disowned the verdict of the unjust ecclesiastical judges.

419. Was the Church right or wrong in condemning the theory of Galileo?

The Committee or Congregation appointed to consider his teachings declared that his theory was wrong. In doing so, the members of the Committee were mistaken. But as no infallible decision was given on the subject in the name of the Church, infallibility is not involved in this matter. Meantime Galileo had advanced no really satisfactory proofs of his theory, and the prudence of the prohibition forbidding its being taught is more than defensible, in the light of the circumstances of the times. But that is another question.

420. No one would guess from the lives of bad Catholics that their Church was infallible.

The Catholic Church is infallible in her official teaching on faith and morals. But she does not claim to be infallible in making people live up to those teachings. Her infallibility does not deprive her subjects of their freewill. After all, you yourself would admit that God is infallible, yet you would not account for people who violate the commandments by denying God's infallibility. You would account for it by the evil dispositions of the people concerned. And as the infallibility of God does not take away freewill from men, neither does the infallibility of the Catholic Church take it away from her subjects.

421. If your Church is infallible; why does she not impose peace upon earth, and banish poverty and suffering?

Because ability to do these things is not included in the gift of infallibility. The Church is infallible in teaching us what we must believe, and what we are morally obliged to do.

422. It is strange that there is so small a percentage of Catholics in Australia, if your Church alone has the accurate teachings of Christ!

It is far from strange. Australia was colonized chiefly by Protestants. And because 75 per cent, of the population happens to be derived from Protestant forbears you prove, not that the Catholic Church is wrong, but only that the majority in this country happens to be Protestant. Again, this Protestant majority has not become Catholic because the greater number of Protestants go contentedly on, taking things for granted, and not bestowing much thought at all upon the subject of religion. Or, if they start thinking, many stop abruptly when the Catholic Church looms on the horizon, because social, family, business, or personal interests stand in the way of their becoming Catholics. Many, too, labor under an almost invincible prejudice which prevents them from admitting that there can be anything good at all in the Catholic religion, and they would not dream of inquiring into the claims of the Catholic Church. Finally, if you base your position upon relative numbers, then you have but to take a broad and world-wide view to find that there is a larger percentage of Catholics in the world than all Protestants taken together, regardless of the kind of Protestantism they support. It is absurd to restrict your outlook to Australia alone.

423. It is intelligible that the whole Church would be preserved from error; but you go further, and claim that the Pope is personally infallible.

It is the Catholic doctrine that he is infallible when he speaks for the whole church in defining a question of faith or morals.

424. Do you mean that he is the mouthpiece of a General Council, or that he is infallible independently?

The Pope is not merely the mouthpiece of a Council. He may, and usually does, consult other Bishops before giving an infallible decision. But he need not do so, and in the ultimate analysis the infallibility of a definition is due to his own personal authority. The infallibility of the Pope simply means that in his official teachings or definitions, provided he speaks as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals and with the intention of binding all the faithful, God would not allow him to define erroneous doctrine. The Pope, as successor of St Peter, is Vicar of Christ, and the final court of appeal in the Church. But all the conditions I have enumerated must be present. The Pope's word is not infallible whenever he speaks, though his decisions are always to be received with respect. But if he speaks merely as a private theologian, expressing his own views his opinions could be mistaken. Infallibility attaches to his decisions only when he speaks in his supreme and official capacity as supreme teacher of all the faithful.

425. Was not this doctrine invented in 1870?

No. Papal Infallibility was promulgated as a dogma in 1370, but the doctrine was not invented then. The Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX merely said definitely, "This is the Christian doctrine contained at least implicitly in the revelation originally given to mankind by Christ." This prerogative of infallibility was conferred upon St. Peter, and upon his successors, in virtue of Christ's choice of St. Peter as the rock-foundation oi the Church, His prayer for St. Peter that his faith might not fail, His commission to him to confirm his brethren and to feed the whole flock, lambs and sheep. The Church does not say in her definitions, "I now reveal this doctrine," but, "I definitely declare this to be the doctrine revealed by Christ." If she never taught with such authority, men would say, "What is the good of the Church?" If she does teach with authority they say, "She is inventing new doctrines." After all, the Catholic Church defined the "Filioque" in 1439, and you accept that without complaining that she invented a new doctrine. Why complain when she exercises the same functions in 1870? She will define other doctrines more explicitly in future times as need arises, doctrines we already believe in believing all that has been revealed by Christ, though we do not advert to the fact that these particular doctrines are certainly included. For although the definitions will be new, they will not involve new truths of religion. Now that the personal infallibility of the Pope has been defined we know that it belongs essentially to the original teaching given by Christ.

426. There is only one who is infallible — God. Satan tried to be equal to God, and the Pope who makes a similar claim will meet with a similar fate.

God alone is infallible of His very nature. But God can certainly safeguard a particular man so that he will be also infallible in certain matters on certain occasions. Thus Christ guaranteed that Peter would not fail in his teachings of the Faith. And if an infallible God says that He will make a certain man infallible, then that man will infallibly be infallible. Again the claim of the Pope is nothing like the claim of Satan. Satan claimed to be independent of God; the Pope claims to depend very much upon God. Nor does the Pope make himself equal to God. An infallible Pope is capable of sinning and losing his soul. And should a Pope do so, he would meet with a fate similar to that of Satan because of his unrepented sins. But he would not meet with that fate because of his claim to an infallibility which God insists upon giving him for the good of the Church whether he likes it or not.

427. Do you say that God makes a man infallible who has to be voted for just like politicians?

God says He does. But the Pope is not infallible because voted for. He is elected by votes, and when elected he receives infallibility from God. The Pope does not derive his infallibility from those who elect him.

428. If God makes the Pope infallible, why does he need theologians to go into questions first and arrange what he is to define?

Infallibility is not inspiration. If God inspired the Pope in his official teachings there would be no need of human research. But infallibility means that the Pope acts according to all the laws of ordinary prudence, studying and comparing the doctrines of the Church before coming to a decision. When research has concluded, the Pope may decide simply that the matter does not warrant definition. But if he does decide to define a given doctrine, the Holy Spirit will certainly preserve him from any error in doing so. And the defined dogma will owe its infallibility, not to previous human research or ability, but precisely to the assisting influence of the Holy Spirit.

429. The early Church did not admit that the Pope was infallible, nor did any Pope before Pius IX claim such a privilege.

The doctrine is contained in Christ's words to St. Peter, and the early Church was well aware of the fact. Tertullian, about the year 200 A.D. wrote concerning St. Paul's rebuke to St. Peter, "If Peter was rebuked by Paul, it was certainly for a fault in conduct, not in teaching." St. Cyprian, about 256, wrote of the See of Rome, "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come." St. Augustine in the 4th century gives us the famous expression, "Rome has spoken; the cause is finished." The early Popes had little need to insist often upon a doctrine which was denied by none of the faithful. The Council of Ephesus in 431 thus expressed its firm convictions, "No one doubts, nay it is known to all ages, that Peter, the chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ .... Peter, who even to these our own days, and always in his successors, lives and exercises his authority." In 451 Pope Leo wrote his decision to the Bishops of the Church assembled at Chalcedon, and when the letter was read all cried out, "Peter has spoken through Leo."

430. A later infallible Pope condemned Pope Honorius for having taught heresy.

Firstly, Honorius did not give an infallible decision concerning the matter in question. Secondly, his personal opinion was not heretical. Within a few years of the death of Honorius, Pope John IV wrote, "Some men have distorted the meaning of Honorius to their own purposes and contrary to the truth." Thirdly, no later Pope condemned Honorius as a heretic, but for imprudence and neglecting to settle die controversy of the time and thus prevent the growth of further heresy. He was blamed rather for not using his infallibility than for misusing it.

431. If the Popes are infallible, the laws of earlier Popes must be those of later Popes — yet the laws of the Catholic Church have varied.

It is not necessary that all the laws of earlier Popes must be those of later Popes. Infallibility concerns doctrine, and morals, not necessarily discipline. Disciplinary laws adapted to particular times change with the times.

432. Did not bad Popes do acts which their successors thought wrong?

Yes. The conduct of some Popes in their personal lives it is impossible to justify. They ought to have been thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

433. Then where was the protection of Christ?

With His Church, preserving her as a Church, in spite of the personal iniquity of these men. I have never claimed that the Pope can do no wrong. As a man he will have temptations like other men, and he will be free to resist those temptations, or consent to them. After all, he must save his soul like anyone else. He is not going to be preserved from sin in spite of himself. Why should he be compelled to be good? Goodness results in Heaven, and Heaven must be earned. Every man, infallible or not, must have his own struggle to be good and to save his soul. The Pope is not, and has never claimed to be impeccable. But for our sake, not for his own, God endows him with infallibility that he may tell us with certainty what we must believe and do in order to save ourselves; whether he lives up to it himself is quite another matter and his own business. It is quite possible to give splendid advice and not live up to it oneself.

434. What an elastic system! The Pope can be evil, and your doctrine from a sink of iniquity will be good!

The Pope cannot be evil in the sense that he is free to be wicked. He is not morally free to do as he pleases. But if some rare and individual Pope did happen unfortunately to be wicked, then we say that God would infallibly preserve him from error in such ex cathedra definitions as he might be called upon to make for the good of the whole Church. After all, under God's providence, the false prophet Balaam and Caiphas the Jewish Priest, both men of evil dispositions, predicted and taught the truth in spite of themselves.

435. Have you to believe the Pope whether what he says is true or not?

If a thing be not true, it is not to be accepted as true, no matter who says it. But when the Pope defines infallibly, he cannot say what is not true, and Catholics accept his official teaching precisely because it is infallibly true. If, prior to a definition, a Catholic was of a diverse opinion, then once the Pope has given the definition, such a Catholic becomes aware that his conjecture was erroneous, and abandons it in order to have the truth.

436. If you are not obliged to believe all that the Pope says, how say that he is infallible?

Because he is not infallible in everything. He is infallible only when he speaks in virtue of his supreme office as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals. He notifies us when he intends to define in accordance with all the conditions required for infallibility. This restriction to set occasions is as reasonable as the restriction of the jurisdiction of a civil judge to his official decisions in court.

437. Why does not the Pope define the facts about evolution?

That is a question of science, not of faith or morals. The Pope is not infallible on every possible question, nor has the Church ever maintained him to be so. If you have difficulties because the Pope is not infallible when he is not supposed to be infallible you have only yourself to blame.

438. Many things show the utter futility of your infallible Pope's blessings. Sixtus V blessed the Armada, yet it was destroyed as much by the wrath of Heaven as by the English leaders.

You mean by a storm. There is a great difference between the wrath of Heaven and the wrath of the heavens. On your principles every man who has ever suffered shipwreck or been drowned or struck by lightning is a wicked wretch and the victim of God's anger. I am as happy as you are that the Armada failed, but I do not admit that God gave no graces to the poor men on that ill-fated fleet in virtue of the Pope's blessing. Nor will I admit that God's curse was on the fleet as a whole any more than that God's curse rested on Englishmen when they lost the American war of Independence. We are too ready to distribute God's curses and blessings according to our own prejudices, regarding ourselves as the fitting object of the blessings only. In any case, blessings bestowed upon various enterprises by the Pope have no connection whatever with the prerogative of infallibility.

439. The Archbishop of Peru was blessed by the Pope, and died of poison forty-three days later.

You do not say which Archbishop; but even so, infallibility does not come into the question. Meantime, the blessing of the Pope, or even if you wish, of God, is not intended to ward off every possible temporal evil, including death. God blessed Job, yet it did not preserve him from temporal trials. If the Pope blessed me. and a few days afterwards you put arsenic in my tea, I fully expect that I should die. Nor would death within 43 days prove the futility of the Pope's blessing any more than death within 43 years. The Pope did not bless the Archbishop, if your facts be true, in order that poison would have no effect upon him. There are much more important things than that. But all such difficulties as these are beside the point where infallibility is concerned. First find out exactly what the Catholic Church teaches concerning infallibility, noting the limits within which her claims are confined, and then restrict your examination of the question to those limits.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; cult; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

1 posted on 06/20/2009 4:20:41 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

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.


2 posted on 06/20/2009 4:21:10 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; mel
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”


3 posted on 06/20/2009 4:22:03 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility

4 posted on 06/20/2009 4:24:00 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

How long will it be before a poster - of the Protestant persuasion most likely - confuses impeccability with infallibility?

5 posted on 06/20/2009 5:01:21 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The author has a great name for the job.


6 posted on 06/20/2009 5:02:15 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother


7 posted on 06/20/2009 5:07:05 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"How long will it be before a poster - of the Protestant persuasion most likely - confuses impeccability with infallibility?"

Just for the record, in case there are any misunderstandings out there:

infallible #3


8 posted on 06/20/2009 5:19:03 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The body of Christ is the church, not the Roman church which is referred to as Catholic. The Roman Church is much the same as the Synagogue of Satan in that the of the pharisees that the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked in the days of His ministry some 1500 years after the Laws of God were committed to Israel. These laws were corrupted by the very same people who considered themselves holy and scriptural but were in fact the children of hell.
this is the condition of the roman church that has forsaken the right ways of God and His doctrines for the doctrines of men that Jesus Himself condemned, they did not know Him at His first coming and they should have and therefore they sinned against God and crucified the only begotten Son of God and Israel has borne the double of His wrath for it.
Nevertheless, Israel will return to the land the second time, as they are, and will be restored to the right ways of God during the tribulation when the whole world will suffer the wrath of God for the rejection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. And the roman church are the pharisees of today and have rejected the Word of God as the only source of all truth and come under the doctrine of an apostate church.
Nevertheless, God will rapture the Body of Christ and most of the roman church will attend the local catholic denomination the next Sunday. The sin of amillenialism is a great heresy as they deny that the Israel of God will always be a nation as God states in Jeremiah. I wish that the Roman Church would return to the scriptures and stop worshiping men and Mary.
My Father is God because I believe how that Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose again the third day and forgave me all my sin by grace through faith as all my sin was laid upon Jesus the Christ at the cross and I was joined to those of Israel who worship God in Truth and in His Spirit.
Tradition has destroyed the roman church as God will prove when the Lord Jesus Christ will descend from the heavens with a shout and (1Thessalonians,chapter 4, verse 16.)

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

11. And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
12. That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.
13. But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

9 posted on 06/20/2009 5:45:57 AM PDT by kindred (The third party conservative is the home of conservatism. Jesus is Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred

“I wish that the Roman Church would return to the scriptures and stop worshiping men and Mary.”

I wish anti-Catholics would stop insisting I worship Mary when I don’t.

10 posted on 06/20/2009 7:03:31 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kindred
Sheesh! We have three Scripture readings at Mass, PLUS one of the Psalms. How can we "return to the Scriptures" when we never left?

P.S. . . . psst! You know who compiled Scripture, right?

And as for worshipping Mary . . . I keep hearing this, but I've never seen a Mary-worshipper. It's like Bigfoot.

11 posted on 06/20/2009 7:08:08 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kindred; All
The sin of amillenialism is a great heresy as they deny that the Israel of God will always be a nation as God states in Jeremiah. I wish that the Roman Church would return to the scriptures and stop worshiping men and Mary.

As Petronski pointed out, you do not understand the Catholic Church's relationship to Mary, the Mother of Christ Our Lord. We do not worship Mary, we honor Her, in imitation of Christ who, in keeping with the commandments, Honors His Mother. To denigrate the holy Mother is just as shameful as to worship her. Those in the Church who are not in heresy do not worship Mary, nor denigrate her. We honor (venerate) her. I don't know if you can take that in, but if not, at least it's for those looking over our shoulder, who might mistake your point to have validity, when in fact it is entirely without merit.

Secondly, the Catholic Church is far from rejecting the Word of God. Everything the Church does is entirely consistent with the Scriptures, and you can take that to the bank. Name a single Catholic doctrine that you believe is unscriptural, and you can be shown to be wrong by reference to scripture. I mean, think about it -- why would the Church accept a Bible canon that contradicts it's own teaching? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course not.

Third, I'm sorry to tell you, but your premillenial eschatology is a false doctrine that is based on a misreading of Scripture. You can read The Late Great Planet Earth all you want, but it is a false system of belief that is a distortion of God's word that is leading many men into error. Please be aware of the fact that it was not until the mid-19th century that premillenial theology was even clearly formulated. Think about that for a second. Except for a few people here or there, no sizable portion of Christians ever accepted premillenialism FOR OVER EIGHTEEN CENTURIES! And even today, it is almost exclusively confined to a radical fringe group of American Evangelical Christians. That insight should not be very comforting to you.

But don't believe me, take a look at your Bible. I invite you to take a look at one of several verses that demonstrates why premillenialism is in error. As pointed out by David Currie in Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, there is an important verse in St. Paul's letters that should give you much pause. I'm talking about Romans 11:17-26.

What you should notice about Romans 11:17-26 is the metaphor used by St. Paul to explain the plan of God throughout the ages. What is the metaphor? An olive tree. Yes, an olive tree. So, what's the big deal? Well, in the metaphor he is using, the original branches of the tree refer to the Jewish Israel, and these are said to have been cut off the tree. The new branches are understood to represent the church, and these are grafted into the root--the Israel of God.

With a moment's reflection, it should seem clear that, if premillenialism is true, the metaphor falls flat. Right? Think about it. If St. Paul was a premillenialist, he would have used a different analogy. He would have talked about first having the tree, representing the Jewish Israel, go dormant, and then he would have mentioned a second tree, the church, which springs to life and is later removed to heaven in the rapture, at which point the first tree, Jewish Isarel, would have been described as coming back to life again (the millennium). Paul couldn't possibly have had premillenial presuppositions in mind, or else he wouldn't have used the analogy of the olive tree as he in fact used it. St. Paul's metaphor, instead, validates amillenialism, because we have a part that is cut off, representing Jewish Israel, and a new branch, representing the church, grafted onto the original tree, which represents the Israel of God. That's the Catholic Church's teaching, and it fits.

Next, I invite you to take a look at Joel 2:28-32--a prediction about the events that will occur at the start of the Kingdom (millennium). This passage is quoted by St. Peter when he gave his first Christian sermon on the day of Pentecost. Remarkably, however. St. Peter is applying the verse from Joel 2 to the events that were occurring on that very day of Pentecost in which he was speaking! (Acts 2:14-41). St. Peter is telling us that the Kingdom of God had started. Since the birthday of the Curch is the beginning of the Kingdom, the millennium, the implication is obvious: The Church, the Kingdom and the millenium were all different ways of describing the same thing. St. Peter was an amillennialist, which is Catholic dogma!

I hope you do not wish to claim that St. Peter was mistaken or confused. He makes perfect sense, because look what happens after the Pentecost. In a single generation, the sacrifices of the Jewish leaders ceased. The Church, composed of both Jew and Gentile, had become the new Israel of God, working out his plan in the millennium. The structures of Israel were, for the most part, retained, but the leadership had been supplanted.

In addition, Matthew 16:18 refutes premillenialism. In this verse, Jesus uses the word ekklesia to describe the NT Church he promised to build on Peter: "On this rock I will build my church (ekklesia)." Now, at that time, the Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, and in the Septuagint the word ekklesia refers to the Hebrew qahal, which means "church." And this term, ekklesia, is the word at that time which was associated with the Old Convenant people of God. Jesus only used this word ekklesia three times in the Gospels. Each time it refers to the New Testament Church. The implication is clear: For Jesus, the Old Covenant chosen people were completed and fulfilled by the New Convenant chosen people of the Church. In the rest of the NT, the writers follow Christ's lead and use this same OT word to describe the Christian Church as well.

Jesus used the same word for Old Testament Israel and for the New Testament Church because he knew the Church would constitute the new Israel. She would fulfill the messianic prophecies and bring the fellowship of God beyond a holy bloodline to the whole human race. She would carry on the work of God throughout the world after "his own did not receive him" (Jn 1:121). This change in God's agenda would become obvious to everyone when the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. Jesus event predicted the destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24, Mk. 13).

So much for premillenialism.
12 posted on 06/20/2009 11:27:24 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
[Third, I'm sorry to tell you, but your premillenial eschatology is a false doctrine that is based on a misreading of Scripture.]

Wrong. The scriptures teach it and the same apostle Paul that was the one who teaches the Jew and Gentile Christian church that there is indeed a rapture and then the Wicked One will be revealed teaches many other doctrines in the book of Romans that confirm Israel will be the lead nation when the LORD Jesus returns to the earth for His 1000 year rule of all nations, His throne being in Israel.
You know that the Roman church does indeed worship Mary and angels and prays to those who are not God, as Jesus is. The day is near when the Roman church, the apostate church , will declare what they practice already, the worship of Mary as co redeemer with Jesus Christ who is the only mediator between God and man.
If you truly believed God you would know these things but you love the denomination more than the Word of God and that is sin.
No lie is of the truth.

13 posted on 06/21/2009 5:11:09 AM PDT by kindred (The third party conservative is the home of conservatism. Jesus is Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kindred
You know that the Roman church does indeed worship Mary and angels and prays to those who are not God, as Jesus is.

No, actually, I don't. Because when I go to Adoration - the act of being in Church and adoring and worshiping Christ- the angels kneel right with me, as do the Communion of Saints. All of Earth and Heaven adores. That's what we believe. That we have a couple of big statues of angels kneeling in the Blessed Sacrament chapel helps illustrate this.

As for the Blessed Mother, we venerate (or honor) and take our problems to her and pray (meaning: ask) for her her prayers for whatever we need. But there is no worshiping. Mary is not a deity.

The day is near when the Roman church, the apostate church , will declare what they practice already, the worship of Mary as co redeemer with Jesus Christ who is the only mediator between God and man.

Co-redemtrix, not co-redeemer. Mary was not an EQUAL participant in our redemption, but WITH CHRIST as it happened. I found this explanation on the Catholic Answers forum:

"Mary as co-redemptrix is a doctrine not a dogma. When explaining this term to your friend, make sure he understands that the Church does not teach (never has and never will) that Mary as Co-redemptrix is equal to Christ. "Co" is from the Latin "cum" meaning "with". "Trix" is a feminine suffix, so the word means "the woman with the redeemer"---the woman with the one doing the act of redemption.

"Just as Eve participated in the fall by her consent and pride, Mary cooperates with the redemption of man by her consent and humility as handmaid of the Lord. She gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us."

And, as the Church is from God, part of Him, it cannot be apostate. People in it can be, are and always have been, but the Church herself, no.

14 posted on 06/21/2009 7:36:13 AM PDT by Desdemona (Tolerance of grave evil is NOT a Christian virtue.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kindred
Wow, you didn't even try to refute my argument based on Scripture with Scripture. All you've got is authorative statements with nothing to back it up. I guess you don't have a reasonable rebuttal.

Anybody can say "wrong," but I don't think you can refute the scriptural evidence I just presented. Good luck, and God bless.
15 posted on 06/21/2009 11:45:35 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

And where will YOU be when the rapture occurs? Putting your head in the sand will get you exactly nowhere.

16 posted on 06/21/2009 5:14:39 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kindred

I read a couple of prayers to Mary on another thread and believe me, they were pretty worshipful.

17 posted on 06/21/2009 5:15:16 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kindred

I read a couple of prayers to Mary on another thread and believe me, they were pretty worshipful.

18 posted on 06/21/2009 5:15:24 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kindred

I read a couple of prayers to Mary on another thread and believe me, they were pretty worshipful.

19 posted on 06/21/2009 5:15:36 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
And where will YOU be when the rapture occurs? Putting your head in the sand will get you exactly nowhere.

You can point your proverbial finger as much as you like, but the fact is, I backed up my criticism of premillenialism with solid Scriptural evidence. Who is putting their head in the sand? I don't see any valid rebuttal of my arguments using Scripture.

Premillenialism did not exist as a Christian system of belief until John Nelson Darby invented it in the 1800's. Do you think ALL of the early Church Fathers just got it wrong when it comes to eschatology? I don't think so. They knew already what I have already said: it's not scriptural. Never was, never will be.

Recommended reading:

The Rapture Trap

God bless.
20 posted on 06/21/2009 6:34:26 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson