Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - The reading of the Bible
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 07/13/2009 7:39:53 AM PDT by GonzoII
The reading of the Bible
552. Does she herself forbid the reading of Scripture in the vernacular?
No. There are various Catholic societies for the diffusion of the Holy Gospels in the vernacular, such as the Society of St. Jerome, approved by the Church. Pope Pius X granted special blessings to those who would read Scripture daily and recommend others to do so. But it is essential that the teachings of the living Church be kept in mind as a key to the true sense of the Bible.
553. Then why did Pope Clement XI in 1713 condemn the doctrine that the Bible is for all to read?
He did not condemn the doctrine that it is good to read Scripture. He condemned the theory that it is necessary to do so in order to attain Christian knowledge. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church, it being necessary to be taught by that Church. He did not order the Apostles to multiply and scatter copies of the Scriptures. If the reading of Scripture were necessary to salvation, what of the immense number of Christians through all the centuries prior to the invention of printing, when it was impossible to transcribe by hand sufficient copies for the multitudes? Could Christ make the possibility of His religion dependent upon the invention of the printing machine? And did He intend His religon to remain forever impossible as far as the illiterate are concerned? It is absurd to say that His religion essentially depends upon a printed book. The Pope wisely condemned the proposition that the reading of Scripture is necessary to all. Every reasonable man would condemn so unreasonable a proposition.
554. May a Catholic read the correct Word of God, or only the Bible as written to suit the Catholic Church?
He may read the correct Word of God in those translations which are approved by the Church. He is forbidden to read the Protestant versions in which there are many mistranslations, and in which the text is often distorted to suit the enemies of the Catholic Church. But then, distorted texts are no longer the Word of God.
555. You seem afraid that Catholics will be harmed by the reading of Scripture.
Even granted a correct version, thousands of people have been harmed by the reading of Scripture, thinking themselves capable of interpreting it right. The Pharisees read Scripture, yet managed to use, or misuse, quotations from the Bible as an argument against Christ, just as men today quote Scripture as an argument against the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.
556. You say that Catholics may read the Bible. But do they do so?
Some do. Some do not. All are free to do so, but it is not absolutely necessary that they should give themselves to the private reading of Scripture.
557. Why do not Catholics have a Bible in the house?
Catholics are quite free to possess and read approved versions of the Bible. As you cannot have searched every Catholic home in the country I can but wonder at your credulity in thinking that Catholics do not have Bibles in their homes.
558. I have known Catholics to admit that they have never read the Bible. Why does not the Catholic Church teach it to them?
The doctrines of the Bible are taught to her people by the Catholic Church more faithfully than by any other Church. The Gospel is read to them, and explained every Sunday morning at Mass, and far more people are there to hear it than you will find in the Protestant Churches. Some Catholics do not read the Bible privately very much, but they know the doctrines taught by the Bible more clearly than any other people on earth. Non-Catholic Bible-readers may know many texts of Scripture, but they know very little doctrine. A Catholic may be at a loss when you quote some particular text, but he knows clearly what must be done to save one's soul — the true conditions required for this being simply unknown to hosts of non-Catholic Bible-readers.
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
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
07/13/2009 7:39:53 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
07/13/2009 7:40:20 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
3
posted on
07/13/2009 7:41:43 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
4
posted on
07/13/2009 7:43:21 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
He did not order the Apostles to multiply and scatter copies of the Scriptures.Even tho the Catholic church perverts the scriptures so drastically, where would the Catholic church be without scripture to pervert???
What a completely lame argument your religion has for rejecting the word of God...
One of the attributes of the Holy Spirit is that He gave the remembrance of what Jesus said to the Apostles (and only the Apostles) so they wouldn't have to rely on their own memory...Now what good would it have done to have the Apostles remember every little detail if they weren't expected to write it down???
Your church claims Apostolic succession with the same power and leading of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles had...Ask the pope then to handle some poisonous snakes...Or ask the pope to quote the scripture from one end of the bible to the other, without opening a bible...Or ask your pope to raise someone from the dead like Paul did...
The Holy Spirit then states in the scripture that the words that you claim God never told anyone to write are inspired by God...Does any intelligent person believe that the scriptures could have been handed down orally without error for the last 2000 years??? And yes Jesus is recorded to have told some apostles to WRITE...
If the reading of Scripture were necessary to salvation, what of the immense number of Christians through all the centuries prior to the invention of printing, when it was impossible to transcribe by hand sufficient copies for the multitudes?
By preaching to crowds the words that were written in the scriptures that were available...That whay the apostle Paul demanded that those scriptures were to be read in the churches...
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
The word of God is the written word of God...Again, where would your religion be without the written word of God???
He may read the correct Word of God in those translations which are approved by the Church. He is forbidden to read the Protestant versions in which there are many mistranslations, and in which the text is often distorted to suit the enemies of the Catholic Church. But then, distorted texts are no longer the Word of God.
Again, not true at all...The vast majority of available manuscripts warn about the workings of the Catholic church including warnings to stay away from the religion who has priests, that wear long robes, that claims you can't eat meat on Friday, that claims a priest must NOT be married, etc..
And of course the Catholic would object to it's members reading these scriptures but again, they are in the vast, vast majority of manuscripts available...
Even granted a correct version, thousands of people have been harmed by the reading of Scripture, thinking themselves capable of interpreting it right. The Pharisees read Scripture, yet managed to use, or misuse, quotations from the Bible as an argument against Christ, just as men today quote Scripture as an argument against the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.
More than anyone else in the scriptures, these Pharisees resemble the Catholic church more than any other group in the scriptures...
556. You say that Catholics may read the Bible. But do they do so?
Some do. Some do not. All are free to do so, but it is not absolutely necessary that they should give themselves to the private reading of Scripture.
Not what God says...
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
A command from God to STUDY the scriptures...The Catholics took this out of their bibles so you wouldn't know that...
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
These people searched the scripture to find out if their teachers were telling them the truth...
1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
1Th 5:18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
God says 'prove all things'...And how do you do that, by using the scripture to judge your teachers with...
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Another command from God to get into the scriptures and prove to yourself that you have salvation...And why do this???
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Even in Paul's day people were corrupting the scriptures...You need to study the scriptures so you can search the scriptures to prove all things...
5
posted on
07/13/2009 8:43:24 AM PDT
by
Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)
To: Iscool
LOL. It's hard to know where to begin.
So if "even in Paul's day people were corrupting the scriptures," how can I know that I have a uncorrupted version of the Scriptures to "judge [my] teachers with"?
By the way, if the Scriptures are truly all-sufficient, why do I need "teachers" at all?
Come to think of it, if I have a $2 paperback KJV and that makes me qualified to judge "my teachers," why can't I just proclaim myself a "teacher"?
(Of course, that gets kinda snagged up with my preceding question, but consistency isn't fundamentalism's strong suit.)
Oh, and, BTW, "the Catholics" didn't take any verses out of "their bibles". However, "the Protestants" did omit six whole books from theirs.
6
posted on
07/13/2009 2:11:37 PM PDT
by
Campion
("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
To: Iscool
And not just believe what the Church has to say about them. Investigate, read, peruse them for yourself.
7
posted on
07/13/2009 2:38:57 PM PDT
by
Marysecretary
(GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
To: Campion
Believers believe God Himself is able to use the Word of God in the mind of the believer to further sanctify that believer, independent of any other man other than the work of Christ. Faith is the work of God, not the Catholic Church.
The anthology of some 66 books called the Bible is not a sacred document, rather, the Word of God contained and communicated in the Bible as the written Word of God, is available for our nourishment and edification.
8
posted on
07/13/2009 2:49:23 PM PDT
by
Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
To: GonzoII
I suppose some in the Catholic Church would prefer that the faithful learn about the Prodigal Son by looking at a stained glass window rather than reading (or hearing) the Scripture.
9
posted on
07/13/2009 7:08:38 PM PDT
by
bobjam
To: Campion
*** “the Protestants” did omit six whole books from theirs.***
Six books of historically inaccurate pious fiction that found it's way into the Greek Septuagint. I have read them several times and believe all Protestants should give them a once over to see why they are irrelevant.
10
posted on
07/13/2009 8:26:33 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: bobjam
"I suppose some in the Catholic Church would prefer that the faithful learn about the Prodigal Son by looking at a stained glass window rather than reading (or hearing) the Scripture." That's how it was done when most people couldn't read. They "heard" the preaching and "saw" the pictures.
11
posted on
07/14/2009 7:39:26 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
“That’s how it was done when most people couldn’t read. They “heard” the preaching and “saw” the pictures.”
That’s assuming four things:
1) Preaching occurred. Sermons were not regular features of worship in the Middle Ages (something the Order of Preachers tired to correct).
2) The person doing the preaching could read and knew what he was preaching about. Clergy training was pretty thin in the Middle Ages. The more educated clergy were usually found in monasteries and universities with poorly educated clerics serving the parishes.
3) The preaching was done in a language the people could understand.
4) The people were actually paying attention. Medieval churches did not have pews for people to sit quietly in while the Word was being read aloud or preached. Instead, they would sort of mill about, talk to each other, sell stuff, or sneak out to the tavern.
King Henry VIII ordered that an English language Bible be placed in every parish and be made available for anyone to read. The result was astonishing. Men and women would sit in the churches for hours listening while someone read the Bible in English. They had never heard the Beatitudes, the Decalogue or the Lord’s Prayer.
12
posted on
07/14/2009 9:02:34 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: bobjam
Preaching occurred.
—
If it didn’t it is strange how all Europe was converted.
13
posted on
07/14/2009 10:49:53 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
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
