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 05/08/2010 9:30:28 PM PDT by GonzoII

To: fidelis; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; Graing; bboop; ...

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF

2 posted on 05/08/2010 9:31:22 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

3 posted on 05/08/2010 9:32:23 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

4 posted on 05/08/2010 9:38:36 PM PDT by rogue yam

5 posted on 05/08/2010 9:49:40 PM PDT by Cronos (Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")

To: GonzoII; Alex Murphy; JesusBmyGod; Whenifhow; rom; Hanna548; DvdMom; leftyontheright; FrdmLvr; ...

I have but one question for you GonzoII, and other Catholics on FR who have been itching for a fight with FR Protestants lately.....

Why do you wish to pick a fight with those who hold to the Protestant and non denominational faith?

Do you really desire to debate, or just incite a fight? What purpose is there in questioning the very legitimacy of the protestant reformation, which in turn would pit the reasons for it against the well documented heretical practices of the Catholic Church leading up to and since the reformation?

It seems that many Catholics on FR lately are itching for a fight.

My question is why?

What to you expect to gain by it. Do you even realize that all you will accomplish is the ridicule of those on both sides? I say that because history proves that neither the FR Catholics, nor the FR Protestants ever back down. At least never on FR.

Yet you tempt fate anyway?

So far, I personally I have not yet taken the bate. Not in the twelve years of my membership, and very active participation in apologetic Christian discussions. I do admit that it is tempting, but each time I am almost drawn in I back off. Not for fear of losing the debate, but from fear of making us all look like the fools the left desires to see on display here.

All you do, both sides who push the issue here, is divide Christian conservatives who see eye to eye. I ask myself if some of you who wish to start this fight are even true conservatives. After all, the liberals have been wanting to divide Christians for a long time, and what better place to start then with the Catholic vs the Protestant faiths.

It is, after all, a proven fact that election after election Catholics overwhelmingly vote Democrat while Protestants overwhelmingly vote Republican. I also have noticed that in the last few years there has been an increase of new freeper members who are Catholic. It has been since that influx that we have had more divisive arguments here about the reformation vs the legitimacy of the Pope.

I know for a fact that the Catholic Church has been pressing hard to increase the membership of the Catholic Church because of so many who have left because of all the scandals. You and others on FR seem to be like the many Catholics I have ran into in my dealings the last few years, who are beginning to get very aggressive in attacking the legitimacy of the Reformation and thus the Protestant faith itself.

So, I ask you again sir.

What do you expect to gain by picking a fight with the Protestants and Non denominational Christians of FreeRepublic?

6 posted on 05/08/2010 10:07:54 PM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)

Got your back, brother. There’s a word for those who profess a Divine Right: SINNER!

7 posted on 05/08/2010 10:13:22 PM PDT by TruthHound ("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)

Thanks,,, It is always a good feeling to have backup.

8 posted on 05/08/2010 10:18:59 PM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)

I must admit to having the hair on the back of neck raise as I scanned most of the above. However, it is somewhat tempered by the quotes from “Catechism of the Catholic Church” he offers.

Still, it’s making me want to start a consistent series of daily threads against Catholicism.

9 posted on 05/08/2010 10:20:26 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)

10 posted on 05/08/2010 10:25:54 PM PDT by TruthHound ("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)

My answer to #250 would be "Jesus Christ" is my "authority on earth, now and forever."

He and He alone is the Head of my Faith, for their is none other for a true Christian.

To believe other than that is to place mortals above God and that is not Christianity but paganism.

11 posted on 05/08/2010 10:29:57 PM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)

Well Said. I’ll stand by you on that.

12 posted on 05/08/2010 10:30:38 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)

To: ConservativeMind

Still, it’s making me want to start a consistent series of daily threads against Catholicism.

Exactly, I really do not want to become a Catholic basher, but my patience does wear thin.

13 posted on 05/08/2010 10:31:25 PM PDT by OneVike (I am Chuck Wolk, previously known as chuck Ness, a Freeper in Christ since February of 1998)

"My answer to #250 would be "Jesus Christ" is my "authority on earth, now and forever."

That's fine. That Jesus established a Church to be listened to.

14 posted on 05/08/2010 10:47:47 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

"What do you expect to gain by picking a fight with the Protestants and Non denominational Christians of FreeRepublic?"

Who's picking a fight? This concerns doctrine about which Protestants and Catholics have their differences.

15 posted on 05/08/2010 10:50:40 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

16 posted on 05/08/2010 10:55:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))

"I say that because history proves that neither the FR Catholics, nor the FR Protestants ever back down. At least never on FR."

These threads are for Catholics who have an interest in learning more or being more edified about their faith and all others who may be interested in the Catholic faith.

If you choose to define that as picking a fight that is your right of opinion.

In this day and age of PC I would think the straightforwardness of the Fathers would be appreciated if not their doctrine.

17 posted on 05/08/2010 11:02:16 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

It seems unremarkable that Catholic catechisms profess the inerrancy and essentiality of the entirety of Catholic doctrine. What is less clear is why I should simply take the Catholic church’s word for it ... regardless of whether those words are in catechisms or not.

Citing Catholic writings as proof of the inerrancy of Catholic writings creates something of a feedback loop.

SnakeDoc

18 posted on 05/08/2010 11:03:27 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")

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.

Just a note on this. While most of British law was incorporated into Australian law, one big exception were most of the above acts. This is because the Australian Constitution included the following section from the time it became active in 1901.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

(If it looks somewhat familiar, it is because the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as used as a starting model for it).

This section rendered most of the anti-Catholic laws that had passed in Britain over the years irrelevant within Australia.

There was some anti-Catholic prejudice here, certainly, but at about the time Father Rumble began his radio broadcasts in Sydney, Australia elected its first Catholic Prime Minister. He may well have experienced anti-Catholic feeling - I'm sure he did at times - but it wasn't down to the effects of Acts of Parliament.

19 posted on 05/08/2010 11:05:02 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)

"Citing Catholic writings as proof of the inerrancy of Catholic writings creates something of a feedback loop."

Previously Radio Replies has given purely historical evidence as to why the Catholic church is believed to be the true doctrinally inerrant body esablished by Christ.

20 posted on 05/08/2010 11:10:52 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

The Radio Replies Series: Volume Two

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 Protestant Reformation