Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - Apostolicity
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 07/02/2009 4:38:43 AM PDT by GonzoII
Apostolicity
524. What do you mean when you say that the true Church must be Apostolic?
I mean that the true Church must be able to exhibit as an historical fact that she possesses lawful and uninterrupted succession of her Bishops from the Apostles, her faith, worship and discipline remaining ever the same in all essential things. Briefly, this means the identity of the Church today with that of the Apostles.
525. Are not the Greek Churches Apostolic?
No. The mere fact that they are in schism involves secession from the Church of the Apostles, and a direct violation of the constitution of the Church. Prior to their secession the Greeks admitted the absolute necessity of union in the bond of Apostolic authority. The early Greek ecclesiastical writers afford sufficient evidence of this.
526. What of Protestantism?
Protestantism is in a still worse plight, involving a more far-reaching constitutional change. Most forms of Protestantism do not even claim to inherit Apostolic authority.
527. The Anglican Church has retained Bishops.
Omitting for the time being the question of the validity of their episcopal consecration, Anglican Bishops are not even conscious of Apostolic authority, nor can they claim uninterrupted legitimate succession. To rebel against the lawful authority of the Church, abandon it, and set up for oneself is no way to succeed by lawful title to transmitted jurisdiction.
528. The Old Catholics are as Apostolic as your Church.
The Old Catholics are really new Protestants dating from 1870. Even though Sheir Driers "be correct, they "lost Apostolic jurisdiction by leaving the Cathoiic Church.
529, The very name of my Church is the "Catholic Apostolic Church."
Your difficulty would be to prove your right to that title. The name alone proves nothing. Your Church owes its origin to Rev. Edward Irving, an ex-Presbyterian minister, in the early part of the nineteenth century. It is neither Catholic nor Apostolic, despite its title and claims to be a revival of an Apostolic Church which had perished — an idea quite foreign to the true notion of Apostolicity. The Catholic Church alone is truly Apostolic, and she alone rejoices in all those notes, marks, or characteristics which Christ manifestly intended His true Church to possess. She alone, therefore, is the true Church. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 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
07/02/2009 4:38:43 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
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.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
2
posted on
07/02/2009 4:39:22 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
3
posted on
07/02/2009 4:40:17 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
4
posted on
07/02/2009 4:42:06 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: annalex
525. Are not the Greek Churches Apostolic? No. The mere fact that they are in schism involves secession from the Church of the Apostles, and a direct violation of the constitution of the Church. Prior to their secession the Greeks admitted the absolute necessity of union in the bond of Apostolic authority. The early Greek ecclesiastical writers afford sufficient evidence of this.
I could use some help here, annalex, my understanding is that some of the Greek Churches are Apostolic.
5
posted on
07/02/2009 4:46:26 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
This is incorrect. Apostolic Succession and Historic Episcopate are two different things. Historic Episcopate is the unbroken episcopal succession going back to the Apostles. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Communion and some Lutheran national churches can claim and prove such episcopal succession: each bishop was consecrated by a bishops who consecrated by a bishop, etc all the way back to the Apostles.
Apostolic Succession is adherence to the Apostolic Faith. That means obedience to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord Himself. Any minister, pastor, bishop, etc who adheres to the Apostolic Faith in his teachings and manners is in Apostolic Succession. It matters not who consecrated him.
What does this mean? It means that Gene Robinson is in the Historic Episcopate but not in Apostolic Succession. It means that Billy Graham is not in the Historic Episcopate but is in Apostolic Succession. It means that the Roman bishops who shuffled known pedophiles from one parish to another are not in Apostolic Succession.
6
posted on
07/02/2009 5:05:23 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: bobjam
Actually, the Bishop of Rome split from the Church in an attempt to enforce a misguided sense of supremacy. The so-called Eastern Churches have kept the original sense of Christian Community.
Personally, I do not begrudge the Bishop of Rome, nor the Roman Catholic Church for this. I do find the position of the RC Church with regards to its relationship with the rest of the Church, mildly interesting, at the least.
7
posted on
07/02/2009 5:45:17 AM PDT
by
firebasecody
(Orthodoxy, telling it straight since AD 33)
To: GonzoII
"
Are not the Greek Churches Apostolic? No.
How wrong you are!!! Don't get my Ire up.
8
posted on
07/02/2009 6:25:09 AM PDT
by
gitmogrunt
(The stupidity of the American Liberal never ceases to amaze me.)
To: GonzoII
9
posted on
07/02/2009 6:27:06 AM PDT
by
gitmogrunt
(For Christ sake..............................Educate your selves!!!)
To: GonzoII; annalex; gitmogrunt; kosta50
Inflammatory posts from a Latin source, especially as they are posted here by a known and respected Roman Catholic poster, are not at all helpful, especially when the posts are quoting the discredited ravings of heretics. What exactly is your purpose in posting these screeds?
10
posted on
07/02/2009 7:03:05 AM PDT
by
Kolokotronis
(Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
To: Kolokotronis; GonzoII; annalex; gitmogrunt
Inflammatory posts from a Latin source, especially as they are posted here by a known and respected Roman Catholic poster, are not at all helpful, especially when the posts are quoting the discredited ravings of heretics. What exactly is your purpose in posting these screeds? We have been through this before already. These 1938 posts are out of synch with the official Catholic teaching today (in a way they show very vividly how the Latin Church radically changed her teachings within the same century!).
A warning box pointing to the year of publication would be in order, as well as stating the purpose of such posts. First time it can excused as an omission, the second time not. All of us need to send these subversive posts to Catholic archbishops and the Vatican because some Catholic posters seem hellbent on ruining Rome's attempt at bringing the divided Church closer to a reunion.
11
posted on
07/02/2009 8:42:27 AM PDT
by
kosta50
(Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
To: Kolokotronis; GonzoII; annalex; gitmogrunt
Okay, I just say the "box" which explains the tone but not the PURPOSE of these posts. The "box" tries to attenuate the tone as well by giving the background of the authors and the 'in your face' manner of dealing with issues in the 1930's. Whatever the historical context, it doesn't explain why this is relevant today or what they are expected to accomplish. Please, cease and desist.
12
posted on
07/02/2009 8:50:21 AM PDT
by
kosta50
(Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
To: GonzoII
The infallible understanding of the Church of Rome is that they are apostolic despite lack of union with Rome. I cannot speak to the status of affairs in 1938, which is before the anathemas of the Great Easter Schism were lifted.
From RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH:
|
FOURTH QUESTION Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church? RESPONSE The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15] “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17] On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]
[13] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.
[14] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
[15] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.
[16] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
[17] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
[18] Ibid. |
13
posted on
07/02/2009 11:06:41 AM PDT
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: bobjam
It means that Billy Graham is not in the Historic Episcopate but is in Apostolic Succession On several theological instances, the teaching of Baptist pastors contradicts the teachings of the Apostles. For example, the Baptist doctrines of formal sufficiency of the (truncated by Luther) Bible for salvation, or salvation by faith alone, or slavation by personal relationship with Christ without mediation of the properly consecrated Church were not taught by the Apostles, and in fact something diffirent was taught.
14
posted on
07/02/2009 11:18:34 AM PDT
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: gitmogrunt; Kolokotronis
See post #13, the thinking has changed since 1938 it seems, that is why I asked to have that answered clarified.
15
posted on
07/02/2009 9:36:12 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: Kolokotronis
"What exactly is your purpose in posting" To show Catholic teaching, and where understandings of certain elements therefrom have changed I have attempted to make that clear.
16
posted on
07/02/2009 9:39:51 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: annalex
17
posted on
07/02/2009 9:51:33 PM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: Kolokotronis
Inflammatory posts from a Latin source Would inflammatory posts from a Greek source be OK? : )
especially when the posts are quoting the discredited ravings of heretics.
And when were they declared heretics? Heresy is a serious charge and should not be spread lightly. See comment above. This is not to say that I do not take issue with some of the more extreme opinions in the Radio Replies.
To: kosta50
These 1938 posts are out of synch with the official Catholic teaching today (in a way they show very vividly how the Latin Church radically changed her teachings within the same century!). Please do not mistake the opinions expressed in Radio Replies with official Church teaching. The teaching of the Catholic Church has not changed. Remember that Anglican orders were not deemed invalid because of their separation from Rome but because an early Anglican order of consecration of bishops, under the influence of Calvinist theology, was lacking in form and expressed a denial of the transmission of priestly powers. This defect has never been charged against the Orthodox. Frs. Rumble and Carty were wrong even in 1938.
To: annalex
Great Easter Schism Eastern, of course, not "Easter".
20
posted on
07/02/2009 10:42:01 PM PDT
by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
