Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - Freemasonry
Posted on 11/04/2009 9:01:34 PM PST by GonzoII
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
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: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity
Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion
Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution
What I really like about Catholicism is that it doesn’t tolerate false doctrines.
What I don’t like about it is that it has quite a few of them itself.
I wish other christian denominations including my own (baptist) would be at least a little more bold in confronting false teachings that make their way into the church through organizations like the Masons.
Freemasonry = Universalism + Secular Humanism.
At least that’s my read on it.
The Mason’s actually worship Satan, whether they call him that or not, their religion is one of the recognition (in their own mind) of the supremcy of man, and therefore deny Christ!~ I would pray for anyone require to join such an organization. STRONGLY, and WARN THEM!~ Thanks for posting this..am not Catholic, but am a Christian! Thanks brother.
NOPE, have been one since I was 21. Will be 62 in December.
Know a fair amount about the history of our “differences”.
Most self proclaimed authorities are “lacking” in honesty.
An honest discussion is one thing, but the usual discourse is not.
Yeah, Masonry is dangerous business.
Most Masons don’t realize that or worship satan themselves. But from what I understand, the organization’s manual or whatever it’s called, contains the words, Lucifer, our father, or something to that affect.
CNN on congressional masons
pretty interesting stuff!
Most EVERYONE, authority or not, self proclaimed or not is “lacking” in honesty... moreso with self than with others.
And it’s kind of hard to know when we are less than honest with others, when we don’t even know when we are lying to ourselves.
It has been a number of months since I entered a discussion on this subject with a similar tone.
Out of that discussion I found a couple of individuals that were knowledgeable to a point, and honest enough that away from the post we had exchanges for a couple of weeks.
A couple were Knights of Columbus and still did not understand where the divide began. Had been told all these horrible things that were simply not true, and after a time we, I think, gained some respect for each other.
We did talk about subjects that were unrelated to this topic also.
I generally resist the impulse to tread this turf. And probably should have tonight.
Hey, I really like your animated gifs on your bio. LMAO
Witch hunts and pogroms on FR?
Free masonry teaches religious indifference, and is not very compatible with Christianity.
>>> I generally resist the impulse to tread this turf. And probably should have tonight.
Never know what you can learn from an argument until you get into it. If conversion of the other side is the only means by which you can measure success or benefit of the argument, then all you get is a fight... which of course is something you are correct in avoiding.
My experience has been that the deeper we go with truth, the more controversial it is going to get... so at some point we are going to have to learn how to deal with the controversy, or we will simply stagnate in our own growth.
I’m more than willing to take an argument as far as it will go until feelings completely overtake reason.
Love it, only the nose escapes.
I respect an honest discussion.
Unfortunately this “difference of opinion” is never likely to be overcome. It is based in a now foggy past that neither side any longer remembers accurately (none alive partook in the conflict and atrocities). But they none the less did take place. Although many deny them now.
Treachery has a way of cementing these things.
I have spent 40 years on the other side of the trench. And have spent a fair amount of time studying what is written about the events. Have many good Knights of Columbus friends who I have great respect for. And I have had open frank discussion of this with some of them, and we parted still as good friends. The top official in our state is a member of my lodge, and I am the secretary for that lodge. (member since my Junior year in College- 1969)
My Great Grandfather missed being a charter member by 2 weeks. We had our 100th anniversary a little over a year ago. My father and I are both actively involved.
I guess i’m not quite sure what your position is on the matter, other than it sounds like you defend the craft against christian views which oppose it.
As for events/KoC, i’m not familiar with them.
I tend to focus on what literature is promoted as the defining documents/teachings of an organization.
The further we get away from the source, the muddier the water gets.
My perspective is that our organization has been force for good since it’s inception. It is not at all clear when that actually was, public in 1717, but was active much before that.
There is a big difference between Grand Orient (in Europe) and Ancient Free varieties in the U.S. and England.
Your side denies many of the atrocities that happened early on. It also generally makes apologies for those who defend Monarchies as an acceptable form of government.
Yes, our organization has left it’s impression on this nation. You can see it in the opening and closing of the sessions of Congress, hear it in oaths of office for public officials.
I know of no other organization that is as careful about preserving truthfulness amoung it’s members.
And we admit NO athesists. None, Zero. Never have and never will.
We have protected persecuted groups on several continents. Fact.
In Texas the traditions are especially strong. Of the “old 300” of Austins colonists the number was significant. We are an old man’s organization today, but it has not always been that way.
I apologize to no man for my membership.
>>> I apologize to no man for my membership.
I certainly hope that no-one expects you to.
Would the world be a better place without this or any other organization like it? surely not.
But... Is it the man that defines the organization, or the organization which defines the man? Tricky question? maybe... but then again, maybe the question itself is faulty.
I look at it this way... What organization for the common good or evil for that matter will ever face the judgment seat of Christ? Where is the heart and soul of any organization that will be held responsible for the good or evil that the organization stood for or against?
The unification of a large number of peoples with a common goal will inevitably lead to a diverse range of individual beliefs within the group which must eventually face either resolution or compromise when the beliefs of the group are being defined for public record. The question is, at what point does the individual choose to sacrifice or compromise his/her beliefs to remain part of the group, and at what point do they conclude that separation from the group is required in order to remain true to their individual principles? Clearly, responsibility rests with the individual when making these types of choices. No one will be able to say “Lord... the organization is at fault for my actions and beliefs”. Conversely true, nobody will be able to say “Lord... my membership in this organization which did great things should count for me in sharing in it’s rewards” (because again... the organization itself is not judged in the hereafter).
Jesus said that we are either For Him, or against Him.
When He said this, he wasn’t talking to any group or organization. He was talking to individuals. We are individually responsible for making that determination as to whether an organization is For Christ or against Him... and it is our affiliations and memberships which do carry strong influence which will either lead people to Christ, or away from Him.
At the real heart of the matter though is this question...
Assuming for a moment that the Masonic organization is FOR Christ (insert reason), Does that righteousness automatically transmit itself from the organization to it’s members? Let’s say that it does (for argument sake)... How are the good deeds or righteousness of the individual going to affect whether or not he/she will go to heaven or hell?
What reward is there in Hell?... What punishment is there in Heaven? Is it more important for us eternally that we did the right and good thing on earth? Or is it more important that we restore our relationship with God first, and let the good works come as a matter of His leading?
In other words, is the individual saved by Grace or by Works?
The Christian teaching is that we are saved by Grace.
The world teaching is that we are saved by works.
Individually, we are responsible first for answering that question for ourselves. We are then held responsible for determining what parts of our lives support our convictions and what parts of our lives oppose them... and respond accordingly.
Is it the good deed we do? or is it what the good deed leads to which is more important?
“Assuming for a moment that the Masonic organization is FOR Christ (insert reason)”
Open prayers in Christ’s name are always said, beginning & ending. Contrary to what some of you have stated and been taught (in error).
Exclusivity of “Sect” is not. And yes, each of us must answer for his own actions. We have no differences along these lines.
But I see no need to answer to anyone but God and Christ. I worship no “human” in any capacity. Pope, Prince, King other than Christ.
Christianity is not about Compulsion, but Free Will. Some “sects” do not seem to understand that.
And yes, there are lodges where Jews, Muslims, and other monotheistic religion believers attend. In the U.S. I have never met a Muslim Mason. There are lodges that I am familiar with in Wichita KS that are almost totally Jewish. I have no problem with that. The organization is not a religion, but an association of men.
>>> The organization is not a religion, but an association of men.
An organization does not have to be a religion in order to teach religious principles.
Frankly, i doubt we can find any organization that does not teach religion in some form or fashion.
My point was that the more diverse the beliefs within an organization, the farther you get from the truth AS an organization. That goes for any group... not just masons.
And if Jesus does not occupy the center of ALL things which guide it, error cannot help but follow.
It is certainly a good thing that the name of Jesus is spoken as you say... But it is my point that Jesus doesn’t like sharing the stage. I think that is the primary christian argument against the masonic lodge.
Oh.. and of course there’s that Grace vs Works thing.
But please keep in mind that it is not you and your beliefs that I examine. It is the teachings that are put forth by the organization... such as the oaths of the first 3 degrees if we were to parse them word for word.
My father is a 32nd degree mason. He is also a very loyal and loving christian. I don’t question his salvation status at all, even though I seriously question this organization that he so deeply loves as well.