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.

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

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

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

The author has a great name for the job.

"LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!"

Lol.

"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

impeccable

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.

“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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

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

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism