Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - Hierarchy of the Church
Posted on 06/11/2009 2:32:32 AM PDT by GonzoII
331. Where in Scripture does it mention that Christ founded any such system?
In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom, which supposes some organized authority. However the explicit steps in the establishing of an authoritative hierarchy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you." Jn 15:16. He gave them His own mission. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." Jn 20:21. This commission included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations . . . whatsoever I have commanded you." Mt 28:19; His power to sanctify — "Baptising them," Mt 28:19 — forgiving sin, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven," Jn 20:23 — offering sacrifice, "Do this for a commemoration of me," 1 Cor 11:24; His legislative or disciplinary power — "He who hears you, hears me, and he who despises you despises me," Lk 10:16; "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," Mt 18:18. "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen," Mt 18:17. The Apostles certainly exercised these powers from the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," Acts 2:42. St. Paul himself did not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian. 1 Cor 5:4. And he wrote to the Hebrews, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them," Heb 13:17.
332. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a universal spiritual brotherhood, but with local independence of churches?
There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in London under one Bishop, and Catholics in New York under another. All true Christians certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do today; but local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in charge of various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St. Peter, and after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.
333. I am loyal to Christ, not to any supposed representatives on earth.
No one wants you to be loyal to any supposed representatives on earth. But loyalty to Christ demands loyalty to those commissioned by Him to teach and guide in His name. Test the claims before you reject them on prejudice only.
334. While I walk in the spirit, I do not think it necessary to be subject to any visible organization.
You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words of Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to map out the kind of religion we are to accept. If Christians had to accept such disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now. Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. Jn 10:14. You would have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.
335. I admit that the way Catholics are taught by their hierarchy is a most successful policy.
The Catholic method is not a method of human policy. We accept it because Christ imposed it. Yet the mere fact that Christ chose such a method is a guarantee of its wisdom. And the scepticism and irreligion which are the fruits of non-Catholic systems are but a further tribute to the wisdom of Christ.
336. Why do you reserve the hierarchical authority to men? Why not give women a chance?
Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with His authority. St. Paul explicity forbids women to attempt to exercise such functions. 1 Tim 2:11-12; 1 Cor 14:34. People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that they know more about Christianity than St Paul.
337. I don't agree with any of these priestly claims. Anyway, the searchlight of modern science is gradually breaking them up.
The searchlight of science is doing good work in destroying superstition, and showing the fallacies of false religions which are due to the natural instinct of religion in all men, and the ignorance of the true religion revealed by God. But sound science is doing a great work for the Catholic Church and helping many towards her. What is called modern science and thought keeps men away from the Catholic Church only when what is modern but not scientific is falsely supposed to be scientific, or when men, in their attempts at thinking mistake sophisms and fallacies for legitimate conclusions.
338. Are not your priests a great army of drones who neither toil, nor spin?
That idea may arise in the minds of those who do not personally ask their services. But you cannot argue that, because they do nothing according to your specifications, they do nothing at all. Earth worms might similarly argue that men do nothing because they don't burrow in the mud as they. Priests are regularly occupied in their own duties and studies. They would have less hours of employment in a worldly career. And if the Church allowed them to engage in secular business, our Catholic people would be uncared for, and religion would become a mockery. The man who slaves at some mechanical trade or in a commercial office, with little opportunity for regular prayer or continuous study, is not the man to teach religion to others and devote himself to the sanctification of their souls.
339. Do you think society will allow them to continue in existence, despite their place in economics?
Society has no say in the matter. For two thousand years society — the world — has hated the Catholic Church and her Priests. But society has not made much progress against the Catholic Church. Nor have economics anything to do with it. The omnipotent power of God guarantees that the Church will last till the end of time, and as long as the Church lasts, the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered, which means that there will be Priests to offer that Sacrifice.
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
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.
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
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
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
This is a lie. No lie is of the truth. Those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
Paul the apostle of God was chosen of God and commissioned and taught by the revelations of Jesus Christ after God saved Him by Jesus Christ, Paul went to Mt.Sinai (read the book of Galatians) and received the grace age revelations of Jesus Christ for us, the Body of Christ, who are the Church and saved by grace through faith only by believing God's testimony of Jesus Christ, namely how that He died for our sins and rose again the third day unto everlasting life. This is God's testimony and Catholics have forsaken the right ways of doctrine over the centuries through traditions and doctrines contrary to God's doctrine. Read the book of Galatians to verify that if you will.
Our doctrines are of the Scriptures and Paul is the wise master builder God used to build the Church on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe the Holy Bible is the source of all truth and all heresy is unacceptable if the doctrine taught is unscriptureual. This a huge problem with the religion of Catholicism which teaches so many heresies and practices so many traditions that are contrary to the Word of God in the Scriptures.
It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in mankind.
Hence, sola scriptura.
I am not saying Protetants need a Pope but just pointing out that some things Catholics seem to be "doing right".
Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men. Can you show me where this doctrine originated? It is surely not biblical.
Isn't it commonsense that if you're going to establish a society intended to last forever when you're gone that you establish a leader for it?
I seem to be stuck at a place where I would like to see Christian leadership speak out and be heard but I suppose with the MidStream Media we have that isn't possible. It is curious that the Catholic leadership does seem to be able to voice cultural concerns and the MSM can't just spin them away. I suppose that is what I am praising about the Catholic Church, just not in a very eloquent way.
Absolutely not...First of, we nor your church established a Christian society...Jesus Christ established his church with Jesus as the Head...There is only one head...And it ain't a Catholic pope...
Beyond the head is the body...There is nothing between the body and the head...
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
IT IS WRITTEN...Doesn't say a thing about living by any word that comes out of the mouth of a pope...
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
Islam could say the same about the Koran, it's just common sense that it is the word of God.
Does God ask us to throw out our reason that he gave us? By no means.
I believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Catholic Church, miraculously preserved for two thousand years, tells me so, thus my reason is satisfied.
“Islam could say the same about the Koran, it’s just common sense that it is the word of God.”
But this isn’t about Islam !
God wants us to trust in HIM, no one else.
The miracle that God’s Word was preserved was of HIS doing, just like the Old Testament, when there was no Catholic church.
Can’t you just get rid of the part you feel is potty language and repost the rest ? I Thought it was a well resoned and civil post !
Moderators cannot edit reply posts, we can only remove them. If you need to see the post again to edit it, let me know by Freepmail.
For those who think Sola Scriptura is untrue, I have yet to hear specifically, any sane reason why anyone would knowingly choose to follow the traditions of men that are fallible, corruptible and prone to sin, as WE all are ?
I think Sola Scriptura is just common sense. It doesnt have to be written down anywhere, because we are trusting Almighty God.
Is it that you think God forgot something in His Word ?
Is is that you dont think Gods Word is sufficient for us ?
In Pauls letters to Timothy regarding matters of faith, it is the Gospel, that he says to follow and teach. 1st Timothy 4 v11-13 11 Command and teach these things. 12 Dont let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.
1st Timothy 6 20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you.
2nd Timothy 1 8 So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy lifenot because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
Paul mentions NOTHING, other than the Gospel. IF there were to be any extra scriptural writings, or persons to look to for sound doctrine, dont ya think he would have mentioned it ? He doesnt. Gods Word IS truth. No need to look anywhere else, why even think of looking elsewhere ? No matter where else you look, you wont find Gods perfect truth.
No one is talking about extra scriptural writings, I'm saying along with St. Paul there are other teachings outside of the Bible that must be kept, and this being so means Sola Scriptura is false:
2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Paul also mentions the church as being the pillar and ground of truth not scripture alone:
1Tm:3:15: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
This pillar and ground of truth is what tells me the Scriptures are the Word of God.
Paul referred to the "Gospel" as preached and taught by the Apostles. When Paul wrote, there was no New Testament (how could there be, if his own letters would be included?). There is, of course, disagreement about the dating of the books of the New Testament, but I think the most common view is that the letters of Paul were the earliest written -- so he couldn't have been referring to what we have as the four Scriptural Gospels.
“Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men. Can you show me where this doctrine originated? It is surely not biblical.”
Scripture = written record of the teachings and actions of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord Himself.
If not Scripture, then what standard of faith do you propose?
Where in those records is Scripture held up to be the sole rule of faith?
"If not Scripture, then what standard of faith do you propose?"
The Bible, Tradition and the teaching Church expounding both.
The word tradition in the Greek means literally things handed down. That’s all it means. Things handed down. And what he is saying then in that sense is this, stand firm and hold on to the things handed down, the things handed down through teaching by word and letter from us.
That’s divine revelation. In the Pauline letters and the revelation God gave him which he preached to them...the oral things and the written things.
You're sounding like a Catholic apologist.
So if the oral things were not written, where can one find them?
The answer is in the Church, the leaders of which were told to go into the whole world and teach all things that were commanded them by Christ. Mt 28:20
So if the Church says one thing, and the Prophets and Apostles taught something else, which do we go with?
Oral things handed down, like divine revelation were taught to Timothy, doctrinal instruction, authoritative teaching. The point being Paul does not mention anybody or anything that he should look to for help in teaching or mattesr of faith, the Holy Spirit was there for him, not some organization.
Tradition from fallible, corruptible men or God breathed Scripture, not a difficult choice.
There can be no contradiction since the the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:16):
1) Has spoken through the Prophets. (2 Pet 1:20-21)
2) Has taught and governed through the Apostles (Acts 2:1-4; 15:28).
3) Works and teaches through His Church. (1 Cor 12:4-11, Jn 14:26)
The whole reply to question 331. above shows that there is indeed an authoritative body ("organization") that teaches, of which St. Paul is a member.
The apostles were the authoritative body and to Timothy, the Holy Spirit did the teaching.
Hey Gonzo. The Scriptures teach that the Scriptures are the Word of God and all doctrines must be scriptural or they are but heresies.
12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And Peter himself;
2 Peter 1:
15. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Okay, for the sake of argument, which books of the Bible are inspired? Where is it written in Scripture that Matthew is an inspired book?