Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey
 Radio Replies

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")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

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

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

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

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

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

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

4 posted on 07/02/2009 4:42:06 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

http://www.goarch.org/


9 posted on 07/02/2009 6:27:06 AM PDT by gitmogrunt (For Christ sake..............................Educate your selves!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Thanks.


17 posted on 07/02/2009 9:51:33 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

18 posted on 07/02/2009 10:16:11 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View 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.

19 posted on 07/02/2009 10:25:44 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Kolokotronis
Please do not mistake the opinions expressed in Radio Replies with official Church teaching

That may very well be true, but coming from two Cagtolic priests it is difficult to separate one from the other. Wearing their habits and making public statements, they do represent the Church in the official capacity unless their statemts are expressly identified as private opinions, which they are not.

Your comment, however, still doesn't answer my question: what is the PURPOSE of continuing these posts? In light of your comment above, these posts are not only damaging to the Catholic-Orthodox relations, but also do a disservice to the Catholic Church because they are presented as views of two Church clerics whose answers somehow must be interpreted as not really reflecting the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

So, who or what do these two fathers represent? And wouldn't a little warning box need to distance the Church from their answers as I originally suggested? Instead, we are given promotional biographies of these priests along with the excuse that in the 1930's things were just more 'in your face.'

21 posted on 07/02/2009 11:22:55 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; GonzoII; kosta50

“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.”

Its heresy to deny the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. In particular, they are denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Quite aside from what we Orthodox might think of that, if I recall correctly, Trent had something to say about that...along the lines of “Let them be Anathema”.


22 posted on 07/03/2009 4:55:21 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; gitmogrunt; Petrosius; kosta50

“To show Catholic teaching, and where understandings of certain elements therefrom have changed I have attempted to make that clear.”

Interesting excuse, G. I will say that exposing the public, unpunished, heretical teachings of priests in the Latin Church as recently as 70 years ago is something of a service. At a minimum it demonstrates how far Rome had drifted from the Faith by the 1930s.


23 posted on 07/03/2009 5:03:15 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; GonzoII; kosta50
While Frs. Rumble and Carty were clearly wrong concerning Orthodox orders, simple error does not equate to heresy. Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt of an article of faith. For the fathers to be justly described as heretics rather than just erroneous there must be shown that there was an attempt by Church officials to correct them that they then refused to accept. There are many among the Orthodox who today refuse to recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, as has been made clear by this very forum. I do not recall you ever describing them as heretics.

Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault. Radio Replies is filled with hundreds of answers and I would suspect that this is not the only mistake. Unless this had been brought to the attention of the hierarchy I doubt that they took the time to read it.

The denial of the validity of Orthodox orders was not the accepted view at any time. This is clear by the fact that the Orthodox bishops and priest who came back into union with Rome have never been required to seek reordination, contrary to what is required of the Anglicans.

I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information. I seriously doubt that he is doing this to just to get this one response posted.

24 posted on 07/03/2009 6:58:24 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Kolokotronis; GonzoII
There are many among the Orthodox who today refuse to recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, as has been made clear by this very forum. I do not recall you ever describing them as heretics

Are they wearing the cassocks of Orthodox clergy and speaking as representatives of the Orthodox Church? I doubt that any of them identified himself as a priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church.

I would really like you to tell us in more detail what you are referring to. As far as not sharing the Eucharist, this is not because we deny the Catholic Eucharist is True Body and True Blood, but because communion is an expression of unity of faith (rather than a means of achieving unity of faith) which we have yet to achieve, no matter how close it may be.

I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information.

Fair enough, but it should be prefaced with a "box" saying that references to Eastern Churches are wrong and that the authors, although ordained Catholic priests, are not necessarily presenting the official Catholic doctrine.

Besides, how can information that is clearly not official Catholic doctrine be "good" when it is shown to be misleading? How can you characterize the fathers as being wrong on the issue of Eastern Churches but right on other issues?

And on whose authority (since they don't necessarily reflect the Catholic doctrine) are these replies good information?

What is left of their credibility?

25 posted on 07/03/2009 9:28:06 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; kosta50; GonzoII; gitmogrunt

“For the fathers to be justly described as heretics rather than just erroneous there must be shown that there was an attempt by Church officials to correct them that they then refused to accept.”

Really? So unless a hierarch catches a heretic there’s no heresy? I find that extremely hard to believe, P. But this case would never have gotten that far.

“Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault.”

Well, P, this tripe and the two further heretical works of these characters received the imprimatur of “Joannes Gregorius Murray, Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli”. Did the imprimatur mean something different in the late 30s and early 40s than now?


26 posted on 07/03/2009 11:08:42 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; GonzoII; gitmogrunt
You seem to mix up the important difference between heresy and simple error. Both you and I have made many posts concerning theology and both of us have tried, as best we can, to present these according to the mind of the Church. This does not however guarantee that from time to time we have not made mistakes. As long as we are willing to correct our views and conform to church teaching there is no heresy, just error. Is it not possible that Frs. Rumble and Carty just made a mistake and no one corrected them?

Unless you can show a pattern of official statements that support the view presented in Radio Replies please refrain from attempting to portray this as the then generally accepted view; the actions of the Catholic Church show that it was otherwise. (The system for approving and imprimatur has never been perfect.) Or should I scourer every book ever written by Orthodox writers and portray the most extreme and bigoted opinions as the norm among the Orthodox?

27 posted on 07/03/2009 11:23:24 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Petrosius
"Its heresy to deny the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. In particular, they are denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist."

I don't know where you got that from, but the Fathers clearly admitted that the Greeks have valid orders and the Mass.

"They may retain valid orders and the Mass — things which Protestantism lost ".

Source: 307. How does the Greek Church differ from the Catholic Church?

28 posted on 07/03/2009 12:22:20 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
"I seriously doubt that he is doing this to just to get this one response posted."

LOL.

29 posted on 07/03/2009 12:24:20 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; kosta50; GonzoII; gitmogrunt

“Is it not possible that Frs. Rumble and Carty just made a mistake and no one corrected them?”

I doubt it. I was told the very same thing as an elementary school student by Sisters of Mercy in 1957. That experience, coupled with the imprimatur, tell me that this was the belief of the Latin Church.

“Or should I scourer every book ever written by Orthodox writers and portray the most extreme and bigoted opinions as the norm among the Orthodox?”

Please feel free. You won’t surprise any Orthodox, at least not any cradle Orthodox. That a cleric, especially I hierarch, might teach heresy isn’t exactly news, P. We Orthodox avoid the hierarch worship apparently endemic in the Latin Church. The difference between you and your heretic clerics and us with ours is we can get rid of them.


30 posted on 07/03/2009 3:25:48 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Petrosius; GonzoII; gitmogrunt
I was told the very same thing as an elementary school student by Sisters of Mercy in 1957. That experience, coupled with the imprimatur, tell me that this was the belief of the Latin Church

Well, given that the Catholic Church did nothing to stop forced mass conversions of Orthodox Serbs in fascist puppet-state of Croatia (1941-1945), one is led to believe that this was indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. I would like to think otherwise, but for the imprimatur to make such an oversight just seems a little too naïve.

By the way, Petrosius, what was the official teaching of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 1930's?

31 posted on 07/03/2009 3:40:38 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; gitmogrunt; kosta50; Petrosius

“I don’t know where you got that from, but the Fathers clearly admitted that the Greeks have valid orders and the Mass.”

Gonzo, think about what these clerics are saying. Orthodoxy is not Apostolic. Their “Mass” and Orders are valid. Gonzo, that’s theologically and ecclesiologically impossible. They are not just heretics from an Orthodox pov, they are from a Latin one too...and the crowned head who gave them an imprimatur was a disgrace, though I doubt Rome ever did anything about him.

Once again, why do you post this tripe?


32 posted on 07/03/2009 3:45:10 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; GonzoII; gitmogrunt
When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he had of conferring Orders. Furthermore, the power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders. But the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain. Further, as the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry, so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither therefore does he lose the power to ordain.
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. 38, 2.

Those ordained by schismatic bishops, who have been otherwise duly ordained, the due form having been observed, receive, indeed, ordination, but not jurisdiction.
--Pope Clement VIII, Instruction concerning the rites of the Italo-Greeks (1595), D1087.

Can. 2372. He who presumes to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, ipso facto contracts a suspension a divinis, reserved to the Apostolic See; however he who should be ordained in good faith by any of them lacks the exercise of the order so received until he shall be dispensed.
--Code of Canon Law (1917).
[Note: The implication is that such ordinations are valid.]

Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (sent. cert.).
--Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1955), p. 458.

33 posted on 07/03/2009 5:27:27 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

Interesting comments which seem to fly in the face of this from the Second Council of Carthage:

“...therefore, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of our colleagues, men of most holy memory, that all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church must be baptized; and moreover, that those who appeared to have been ordained must be received among lay people.”

Of course 2d. Carthage was a local council....


34 posted on 07/03/2009 5:54:10 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Kolokotronis

7th council of Carthage! Sorry!


35 posted on 07/03/2009 5:55:47 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
"When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he had of conferring Orders...."

Thanks for that input, Petrosius.

Of course the Anglicans wouldn't fall into the category having lost valid orders.

36 posted on 07/04/2009 3:38:44 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Of course the Anglicans wouldn't fall into the category having lost valid orders.

Unfortunately this is not true. Anglican orders are invalid not because of heresy or schism but because of defect of form and intention of the Edwardian ordinal. From Pope Leo XIII, Aposolicae Curae:

25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.

28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium .

29. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum , on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa . So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.


37 posted on 07/04/2009 9:37:58 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson