Quizzes on the Episcopal and the Anglican churches


tumble anb Cartp
&atuo &eplieg

ftt. $anll,Mm..W. ft. a.



1. RADIO REPLIES 60c

2. RADIO REPLIES 60c LIBRARY EDITION $2.00 EA.

3. RADIO REPLIES 60c

CHATS WITH PROSPECTIVE CONVERTS $1.00

THE CLEAN OBLATION $2.75

THE FAIR FLOWER OF EDEN $1.00

THE FRAGRANCE OF THE LITTLE FLOWER $1,00

THE LIFE OF FATHER PRO $1.00

WHAT SAY YOU $2.75

SUICIDE BENT $2.00

LETTERS HEBREW CATHOLIC TO MR. ISAACS $2.00

JEWISH PANORAMA $3.00
i

FORTY YEARS AFTER - PIUS XI - SOCIAL ORDER $2.00

THE LIFE OF FRANCIS OF ASSISI $1.00

RETREAT NOTES $1.00

DEATH OF CHRIST THE WARRIOR 50c

CORRESPONDENCE COURSE IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 50c

THE UNAVOIDABLE GOD 50c

BIBLE QUIZZES 10c

PURGATORY QUIZZES 10c

INDULGENCE QUIZZES 10c

CONFESSION QUIZZES 10c

MARRIAGE QUIZZES 10c

HELL QUIZZES 10c

BIRTH PREVENTION QUIZZES 10c

EUCHARIST QUIZZES 10c

TRUE CHURCH QUIZZES 10c

VIRGIN WORSHIP QUIZZES 10c

BOUND IN BOOK FORM FOR INSTRUCTOR, QUIZZES $1.50

Copyright 1943

by the

RADIO REPLIES PRESS
Printed in U. S. A.



QUIZZES ON EPISCOPALIANISM OR ANGUCANISM 1

Imprimatur

*JOANNES GREGORIUS MURRAY,
Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli

Die 9a Augusti, 1942.

1. Is there any essential difference
between the Episcopalian Church in
America and the Anglican Church in
England?

No. There is no essential diiierence. The
Episcopalians in Canada and the U. S. A.
claim that the Anglican Church in England is
their Mother Church. The Episcopalian and
Anglican Churches are Protestant although
they speak of being Catholic. If Anglicans
are not Protestants, no Anglican could be king
of England, for the king, when crowned takes
a solemn oath that he is a Protestant and will
safeguard the Protestant succession to the
Throne. Another point to notice is this: When
America declared independence of England,
the Church of England in America had to
adapt itself to the new conditions. It promptly
took the title: "The Protestant Episcopal Church
of the United States of America." No doubts
existed amongst those Anglicans or Episco-
palians at the time of their separation from
England as to the Protestant character of their
Church.

2. The Episcopal or Anglican Church
does not think of herself as a sect or
denomination.

Deaetdied



2 THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE

The Episcopal or Anglican Church has no
definite mind to express even concerning her-
self. High Churchmen claim kinship with
Rome and Constantinople/ and repudiate all
other Protestant Churches as sects and de-
nominations. And the sects, Methodists, Con-
gregationalists, Presbyterians, and others, are
as indignant at such treatment as High Church-
men are when Rome refuses to recognize
them! On the other hand. Low Churchmen
deny any kinship with Rome, and insist that
they are brethren of the sects and denomi-
nations.

3. The Church of England or the
Episcopal Church in America thinks of
herself as the true representative of
that historic Church founded by Jesus
Christ through the Holy Ghost at Pente-
cost.

At least we have there the admission that
one ought to belong to the historic Church
founded by Jesus Christ through the Holy
Ghost at Pentecost. But the only Church which
answers to the description is the Catholic
Church. I deny that the Anglican or Episcopal
Church thinks of herself as the true represen-
tative of that Church. Some Episcopalians and
Anglicans think their Church a true represen-
tative of the historic Catholic Church, and a
part of it. But the Church of which they claim

to be a part rejects their claim.

4. The Episcopal or Anglican Church



PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 3

has no other foundation day than
Pentecost.

The Episcopalian or Anglican Church, as a
separate religious body, independent of the
Catholic Church, dates from 1534, when Henry
VIE rejected the authority of the Pope, and
usurped his jurisdiction over the Church in
England, claiming that as well as the authority
over the State which alone rightfully belonged
to the King. Prior to 1534, Episcopalianism or
Anglicanism was unheard of. There is a gap
of 1500 years between Pentecost and the found-
ing of the Church of England, a gap which
can never be bridged. If one wants to belong
to the historic Church founded by Jesus Christ,
one has no option but to become a Catholic,
subject to the Pope as Bishop of Rome and
head of the true Church.

5. The Episcopal or Anglican Church
claims to be a part of the Catholic
Church founded by Jesus Christ.

That High Church claim cannot stand the
test of history. There is no doubt that, at
the time of the Reformation England broke
away from the Catholic Church every bit as
much as, in the national sphere, America
broke away from England by its declaration
of independence in 1776. And the Church
of England could not break away from the
Catholic Church, yet still belong to it.

6. The Reformation did not mean a
break from the tradition of the Church,
but merely renounced a claim to au-



4 BREAKING FROM TRADITIONS

thority by the See of Rome which had
no justification in the Bible or in the
early Church history.

The vast majority of Protestants would in-
dignantly repudiate such a description of the
Reformation. They would deny that it meant
merely the rejection of Papal jurisdiction.
Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Pres-
byterians, Low Church Anglicans, Lutherans,
and representatives of all other Protestant
Churches will insist that the Reformation broke
with the traditions of a thousand years' stand-
ing, and that it rejected what it called blas-
phemous doctrines and idolatrous worship
which it said that all professing Catholics had
until then maintained. The Anglican Articles
of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer
tell us that, not only the Church of Rome, but
the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and
Antioch fell into error. High Church Angli-
cans may now think that a mistake. They
may want to restrict the error to Rome, and
only to Papal claims to authority. They may
desire to restore the doctrines and worship
wrongly thought blasphemous and idolatrous
by the Protestant reformers. But that does
not give them the right to say that such doc-
trines and worship were never rejected; and
that, because they are maintained now, they
have always been maintained by the Church
of England.

7. In the fifteenth century the cor-
ruption of the Roman Court and the
exactions of the Papacy became so
scandalous that a great revolt took



JUSTIFYING REVOLT 5

place in the following century, and the
Church of England set itself free from
Papal domination.

I have no wish to deny or even to palliate
the disedifying lives of many of the Catholic
clergy, and Bishops, and even of some Popes
prior to the Protestant Reformation. But whilst
these things clamoured for reform, they did
not justify revolt and the establishing of new
Churches, as Lutheranism in Germany, Cal-
vinism in Switzerland, Anglicanism in Eng-
land, Episcopalianism in America, Presbyter-
ianism in Scotland, etc. Also I must point
out that, when Henry VIII broke with Rome,
compelling the English Parliament to substi-
tute his own supremacy for that of the Pope,
it was his own personal corruption that insti-
gated the move. For he wished to get rid
of his lawful wife Catherine, in order to marry
Anne Boleyn. The Pope refused to grant the
divorce; whereupon Henry left the Catholic
Church, and set up his own Church by law
established in England. That was in 1534.

8. The authority which was repud-
iated in the Reformation had been rec-
ognized in England only for the last
quarter of the Christian era up to that
date.

As the Reformation occurred in the sixteenth
century, that means that the authority of the
Pope had been recognized in England only
during the four hundred years preceding it.



6 CRANMER AND THE BISHOP OF ROME

But how can any man assert that the author-
ity of Rome was not recognized in England
before the twelfth century with the historical
fact staring him in the face that Pope Greg-
ory I sent St. Augustine in the sixth century
to England, made him first Archbishop of
Canterbury, and delegated authority to him
over all the other Bishops then in England,
Bishops who also acknowledged the suprem-
acy of the Pope?

9. Four hundred years ago Cran-
mer wrote: “I declared that the Bishop
of Rome was not God's Vicar on Earth,
as he was taken; and although it was
taught so these three or four hundred
years, yet it was done by means of
the Bishop of Rome, who compelled
men by oaths so to teach, to the main-
tenance of his authority, contrary to
God's word."

Firstly, little authority attaches to any de-
claration made by Cranmer. Secondly, it is
historically false to suggest that the supreme
authority over the whole Catholic Church
possessed by the Pope was taught only dur-
ing the three or four hundred years before
the Reformation. It was taught and accepted
from Apostolic times. A thousand years be-
fore the Reformation it was Pope Gregory the
Great who exercised his supreme authority to
send St. Augustine to England and make him
the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Thirdly,
even if the doctrine were accepted by all



NO NEW CHURCH 7

Catholics for over four hundred years only
prior to the Reformation, do Anglo-Catholics
hold that the whole Catholic Church could
fall into error on so vital a point? If they do
they have no real notion of what the Catholic
Church is when they declare their belief in
it. Fourthly, it was Henry VIII who compelled
men by oaths to acknowledge his own royal
supremacy, contrary to God's word, and thus
originated the Church of England.

10. If England was right, the Church
of England is ho new Church, but still
a part of the Catholic Church founded
by Christ at Pentecost.

England, as such, had no clear notion of
what was happening, and no say in it. Henry
VIII, as absolute monarch, decided to break
with the Catholic Church for his own pur-
poses. And he imposed his will upon all,
sending to the block those who opposed him.
even men like St. Thomas More. His con-
duct in thus leaving the Catholic Church was
not right, and the Church over which he pre-
sided was a new Church, no longer part of
the Catholic Church.

11. This is the basis of the Angli-
can claim to the orthodoxy and con-
tinuity of its faith.

As the claim is no stronger than its basis,
the claim is worthless. The Anglican Church
certainly did not continue to teach the faith
held by all Christians in preceding ages; nor



8 CONTINUITY OF FAITH

can its doctrines/ even could anyone tell us
precisely what they are, be termed orthodox.

12. No part of the Catholic Faith
was rejected at the Reformation, but
only an uncatholic and pernicious ac-
cretion to the faith.

At the Reformation/ the Church of England
rejected the doctrine of the real objective

presence of Christ in the Eucharist/ the Mass
as a Sacrifice/ belief in purgatory/ belief in
the seven Sacraments/ devotion to the Blessed
Virgin Mary, and the doctrine of the interces-
sion of the Saints. Yet High Church Clergy-
men are trying to reintroduce these things
into the Church of England. If they believe
these to be part of the Catholic Faith, how
can they say that no part of the Catholic
Faith was rejected at the Reformation? And
if they think they ought to be restored, how
can they call them pernicious accretions?

13. Bishops of the ancient Orthodox
Eastern Churches have joined with
Anglican Bishops in services at West-
minster Abbey.

Some Greek Orthodox Bishops of recent
times have thus acted, inconsistently with the
principles of Greek Orthodoxy. But that does
not make the Anglican case any better. Recog-
nition by schismatic Bishops counts for noth-
ing. And matters are worse when we realize
that the Greek Bishops have only High Church



THE GREEK BISHOPS 9

theories put before them, and not the pre-
dominant Low Church views which they would
utterly reject. Also, one cannot but doubt
the sincerity of the Greek Bishops. There is,
of course, a bond between Constantinople and
Canterbury in their fellow feeling of opposi-
tion to Rome. But there are other things also.
One Anglican clergyman, the Reverend L. G.
Lean, has recently written that "one is com-
pelled to regard certain aspects of the Anglo-
Orthodox alliance with suspicion." He points
out that the Orthodox Church finds temporal
advantages in cultivating the friendship of
England even at the price of a certain recog-
nition of Anglicanism. The Greek Church
has lost the protection of the Russian Gov-
ernment. England has the Palestine Man-
date, and is strong in the East. It pays the
Greek Bishops to modify the uncompromising
attitude they maintained when they were true
to their real principles.

14. This is an interesting manifesta-
tion of the faithfulness of the Church
of England to the Catholic Faith.

The suggestion is that the faith of the
Church of England must be sound because
it is one with that of the Greek Orthodox
Church. But the Greek Church still retains
most of the things which Anglicanism rejected
as uncatholic and pernicious accretions, with
the exception of its rejection of Papal author-
ity. Why are the same thinas pernicious ac-
cretions in the Roman Church, yet not in the
Greek Church? Do the compliments paid by



10 GREEK AND ANGLICAN COMPLIMENTS

a few Greek Bishops to High Church Angli-
cans make such a difference? It is difficult to
give credit for sincerity and honesty to such
remarks about Roman accretions. If the aver-
age Anglican studied Greek Orthodox doc-
trine and worship, its Sacrifices of Masses, its
belief in purgatory, seven Sacraments, its
worship of Mary, and of the Saints, and its
cult of Ikons or Images far more extravagant
than anything in the Catholic Church, the
average Anglican would certainly deny the
similarity between Anglican and Greek Ortho-
dox beliefs.

15. The present Archbishop of Can-
terbury is the ninety-fifth of an un-
broken line stretching from St. Augus-
tine to the present day.

That is not true. The last Archbishop of
Canterbury in the line of unbroken succession
from St. Augustine was Cardinal Pole, who
died in the year 1558. In the year 1559 Queen
Elizabeth called upon all the Catholic Bish-
ops in England to take the oath of Suprem-
acy, acknowledging her as supreme in all
things, spiritual as well as temporal, and re-
pudiating the authority of the Pope. Every
Bishop in England refused, except Kitchin of
Llandaff. Without any ecclesiastical sanction
of any kind, the Queen deprived every Bish-
op except Kitchin of his office and liberty.
The whole of the existent Catholic episcopate
with the exception of one solitary Bishop was
abolished as far as civil law could accom-
plish this. And Elizabeth set up a new hier-



CHURCH OF ENGLAND BORN IN 1534 11

archy in place of the evicted Bishops, a hier-
archy unrecognized by the lawful Bishops of
the Catholic Church throughout the world to
this day. For the first time a married man,
Parker, was declared to be Archbishop of
Canterbury; and, he was not a lawful succes-
sor of St. Augustine, who had been appoint-
ed by the Pope. Parker and his successors
may have held the old ecclesiastical build-
ings and titles since 1559; but they are no
more lineal descendants of St. Augustine than
an intruder would belong to a family merely
because, having thrown that family into the
street, he had established himself in their
house and taken their name.

*

16. You have said that the Church
of England came into being in 1534,
the year in which Henry VUI refused
to recognize the jurisdiction of the See
of Rome in England.

That is so. The unity of any society,
whether religious or national, depends upon
the acknowledgment of one and the same
supreme authority. Thus the United States
of America became a new and independent
national society in 1776 when the authority
of the British Throne, hitherto acknowledged,
was repudiated. In the same way, when
Henry VIII, in 1534, rejected the supreme ec-
clesiastical authority acknowledged previous-
ly in England, substituting his own for that
of the Pope, he broke away from the old
Church, and created a new one. He estab-
lished the Church of England, therefore, in



12 HENRY VIII CREATED A NEW CHURCH

1534. And the two greatest historians of Eng-
lish Law, Professor Maitland of Cambridge,
and Professor Holdsworth of Oxford, insist
upon this as a legal fact.

17. After that event, did not the
same bishops continue to preside over
English Sees, the same priests to ful-
fil their office, and to minister to Eng-
lish Christians?

Those who conformed to Henry's wishes did
so. Bishop Fisher of Rochester, and St.
Thomas More, of course, died rather than
renounce the jurisdiction of the Pope in favor
of that of Henry. But the bishops and priests
who yielded to Henry became schismatics
with him, and went on ministering in the new
schismatical Church.

18. How could their orders, which
were given them by God, be destroy-
ed by the action of a civil magistrate?

Their orders were given them by God
through their lawful ordination or consecra-
tion at the hands of the Bishops of the Cath-
olic Church. Those orders could not be de-
stroyed by any civil magistrates. Therefore
the bishops and priests who ministered in
Henry's new and schismatical Church retain-
ed valid orders. But when Henry died and
Edward VI came to the throne, Cranmer
changed the rite for ordination in such a way
that priests ordained and bishops consecrated



CRANMER'S ORDINAL 13

under the new Ordinal were not validly or-
dained or consecrated at all. Cranmer's Or-
dinal came into effect in 1550. Until then
Henry's Church of England had retained a
truly ordained priesthood. But after 1550
future Anglican ministers were not priests at
all in the former sense of the word.

19. At the reconciliation of the
Church of England with the Holy See
some twenty years later, did any
question arise as to the validity of
the English Orders?

Yes. Queen Mary came to the throne in
1553, and at once set to work to bring the
separated Church of England back into unity
with Rome. At once there commenced a series
of re-ordinations, those who had been ordain-
ed under the Edwardine Ordinal being or-
dained according to the Catholic rite.

20. If not, how could a new Church,
which was not a Church, have come
into being in 1534?

As I have pointed out, the break with Rome
by Henry VIII in 1534 did not then affect the
question of valid Orders. But his was a new
Church as distinct and separate from the
Catholic Church to which he and England
had previously belonged as the Greek Ortho-
dox Church is a separate Church even though
the Greek Orthodox Church has ever retained
valid Orders. The question as to whether



14 VALIDITY OF ENGLISH ORDERS

a Church retains unity with the Church of the
ages, or is in a state of separation from it
depends primarily upon jurisdiction, not upon
the validity of Orders.

21. Why was there no pronounce-
ment against the validity of English
Orders for three and a half centuries
after the breach with Rome?

You wrongly suppose that there was not.
In abrogating Henry's laws, and legislating
for the restoration of the Catholic religion in
England, Queen Mary herself published a
decree on March 4th, 1554, declaring in its
fifteenth article that those ordained accord-
ing to the Edwardine Ordinal were not or-
dained in very deed, and that they had to
receive valid Orders. On June 20th, 1555
Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Praeclara Car-
issimi in which he said that the Edwardine
ministers had to be ordained correctly, and
that until they had been so ordained they
were not to exercise any ecclesiastical duties
in the restored Church. Mary, however, died
in 1558 and Elizabeth broke with Rome once
more, adopting the Edwardine Ordinal, and
giving the Church of England a ministry
whose Orders cannot be accepted as valid in
any Catholic sense of the word.

22. Why does the Roman Catholic
Church recognize the Orders of the
Eastern Churches, which have not
been in communion with her since the



ORDERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES 15

eleventh century, and deny those of
the Anglican Church which are recog-
nized by the Eastern Churches?

Rome recognizes the Orders of the Eastern
Churches because, although they fell into
schism by breaking away from Rome, they
did not alter their ordination rites; nor did
they adopt Protestant doctrines repudiating
the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, the
Sacrifice of the Mass, and the priesthood.
Never at any time did they introduce a new
Protestantised ordination rite, as Anglicans
did in the reign of Edward VI. It cannot be
said

.

that the Eastern Churches recognize
Anglican Orders as valid. Listen to these
words of an Anglican writer, the Reverend
T. H. Whitton, M. A., in his book on Reunion
published in 1933. He writes as follows:
"Recently five of the twenty independent
Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church
have reconsidered their former attitude, and
pronounced in favor of Anglican Orders."
But he adds that they paid great attention
to the Anglo-Catholics by whom, said the
Bishop of Durham "the Synod of Constan-
tinople was deliberately misled."

23. Was not the so-called reforma-
tion of the Church of England by the
State strongly resisted by the English
laity, and also by a large proportion
of the clergy, for generations.

No. It was Elizabeth who protestantised
the Church of England, and the bulk of the



16 QUEEN ELIZABETH

people, not understanding deeply the relig-

ious principles at stake, blended patriotism

with Protestantism, and regarded refusal of

the Queen's Acts of Supremacy and Uniform-

ity as treason. In the twenty years between

1580 and 1600 under Elizabeth, one hundred

and thirty priests and sixty of the laity were

put to death for. resistance to the Protestant

settlement of religion. Of course, many others
suffered lesser penalties, but they could

not

be called a large proportion of the popula-

tion. Later on, besides Catholic
opposition,

there was widespread opposition on the part

of non-conformists who wanted Protestantism,

but also their independence of the State-con-

trolled Church of England. However, all
this

is really irrelevant to the fact
that the Church

of England was a new Church originated
as

a schism by Henry VIIL and
protestantised

by Edward VI and Elizabeth.

24. Why did the Church of Eng-
land continue to maintain that only

by adherence to the Apostolic Succes-

sion could she remain a true Church?

Professor Holdsworth, in his History of Eng-

lish Law, puts that tradition down to the

Tudor genius for trying to make their inno-

vations seem to be based on ancient rights.

And he shows how Henry Vm was particu-
larly given to this habit. When Elizabeth
protestantised the Church of England, how-

ever, little was made of the need of Apostolic

Succession. Bishop Jewel did not
hesitate



APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP 17

to write/ "If it were certain that Orders must

pass from Bishop to Bishop* the Church of

England has neither Bishops nor Priests, nor

Deacons." With the Anglo-Catholic revival

in the Church of England, however, since the

Tractarian movement of the 1830's onwards,
the attempt has been more ardently made to
vindicate Apostolic Succession for Anglican

Orders, and to rank the Anglican clergy as

true priests together with Roman and Greek
priests, and as opposed to the Protestant min-

istry of the Nonconformists. But despite all

theories, their efforts cannot avail against his-

torical facts.

25. Was this not in distinct contra-
diction to the teaching of the great

Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin,

and their successors, who taught that
the Church was something outside the
Apostolic Fellowship?

As I have pointed out earlier, when Henry
Vm broke with Rome, he founded a schis-
matical Church. That is. he repudiated the

authority of Rome and usurped authority over
his Church for himself. But he repudiated

the teachings of the Protestant reformers on

the Continent. Under Edward VI and Eliza-
beth. however, the Church of England was
protestantised, and Apostolic Succession was
rejected. Thus, in our own days. Doctor Ryle.
Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, did not hesi-

tate to write in his book. What we Owe to
the Reformers. "The ecclesiastic of the An-

glican Church is in no wise a priest although



18 ANGLICAN TITLES

we call him such. The Reformers stripped
the office of the clergy entirely of any sacer-
dotal character. They found the clergy sacri-
ficing priests, and made them prayer-reading
preaching ministers/' The Anglican Bishop
Knox of Manchester, in the National Review
for September 1925, said that the Pope from
the Cfatholic point of view was unquestion-
ably right in condemning Anglican Orders.
"No one reading the Roman Ordinal," he
writes, "can doubt that it is full of the inten-
tion of ordaining sacrificing priests. No one
reading the English Ordinal can suspect that
it has any such object."

26. I would like you to settle a
friendly argument between an Angli-
can acquaintance and myself.

My decision will be quite impartial and
just.

27. My Anglican friend says that
the Anglican clergy from pre-Reform-
ation days carried the titles of Bishops,
Priests, Deacons, Doctors of Divinity
and other Catholic titles right through
with them from the beginning, and
were always known by these titles.
I denied this.

Your Anglican friend was right, and you
were wrong.



“POPISH PRIESTS" 19

28. At what time in their history
did the Anglican clergy begin to use
these titles?

They retained them from the very begin-
ning of their Church, when it was first sepa-
rated from the Catholic Church in 1534. But
they very soon lost the reality signified by
the titles. For in 1550, Cranmer published a
new Ordinal for the ordination of Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, from which he care-
fully excluded all ideas of the Priesthood as
formerly understood in England, and through-
out the Catholic world. He wanted a min-
istry of preaching and administering Sacra-
ments, but not, at any price a Priesthood for
the offering of Sacrifice by the celebration of
Mass. And of course that was the end of
Priesthood, as we Catholics know it, so far
as the Church of England is concerned.

29. I refused to agree because in
the Penal Days a price was put on
the head of the Priest, and he was
hunted like a wolf.

That does not alter the fact that the titles.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were retained
in the Anglican Ordinal and Prayer Book.
A price was put on the heads of "Popish
Priests."

30. I did not think the Anglican
clergy would covet the dignity of the
Priesthood.



20 ANGLICAN MINISTERS

Though they retained the titles, they did
not intend them to signify the same Priest-
hood as that acknowledged before the Re-
formation. In fact the early Anglican divines
most vehemently denied that the Anglican
Clergy were Priests in the Catholic sense of
the word. They insisted that they were not
Priests, but ministers. For example Hooker
wrote, "Seeing then that sacrifice is now no
part of the Church ministry, how should the
name of Priesthood be thereunto rightly ap-
plied?" Sandys, Archbishop of York wrote,
"Antichrist is the author of the Popish priest-
hood." Bishop Jewell declared that there
was no essential difference between a Priest
and a layman. Fulke, an Anglican professor
of Divinity at Cambridge, gently expressed
his estimate of the Catholic Priesthood they
had renounced by saying, "With all our
hearts we defy, abhor and detest your anti-
christian Orders." In accordance with the
new notions, of course, celibacy was abolish-
ed, and Anglican Parsons were free to marry
just as any other laymen. And in general
usage the term Priest gave way to Minister,
or parson.

31. Not Henry VIII, but the ancient
Church of the English people broke
with the Papacy.

The admitted break with the Papacy meant
the cessation of the ancient papal Church of
the English people; and the non-papal Church
to be established henceforth was a new thing
altogether. Meantime, not the ancient Church,



A NEW TYPE OF CHURCH 21

but Henry VIII himseli broke with the Papacy,
and at his dictation. Parliament imposed a
similar defection upon both clergy and laity
in England. To Henry, therefore, the new
Church of England owed its origin.

32. If Henry originated a new
Church with a completely changed
constitution, how could it be recon-
ciled with Rome under Mary in 1554?

Quite easily. I do not say that it was re-
united with Rome remaining as it was. The
fact that it had to be reunited with Rome
shows that it had got out of unity with
Rome, and therefore was different in its char-
acter from the Church previously known in
England. It was a new type of Church, es-
sentially different from the old. But when it
was reunited with Rome, it repudiated the
new constitutional authority imposed upon it
by Henry, and also the heretical importations
under Edward VI.

33. Did Anglicanism then cease to
be in England?

Yes. But in 1559- Elizabeth revived the
ideas of Royal Supremacy first put forward
by Henry Vm, and commenced Anglicanism
anew, protestantising it in a way which
Henry would have most certainly rejected
with indignation, and probably much blood-
shed. Present Anglicanism is the lineal des-
cendant of Elizabeth's foundation, and really



22 HENRY VIII AND CATHERINE

has no organic continuity with the Anglican
schismatic establishment set up by Henry
VIII. It is perfectly true, however, to say that
Anglicanism was unknown to England until
Henry VIII came on the scene, and that he is
the author of the Anglican demand for a na-
tional Church independent of Roman author-
ity and jurisdiction. And therefore he is cer-'
tainly the originator of Anglicanism in Eng-
land. Elizabeth was the originator of a still
newer type of Anglicanism, and the foundress
of the present Anglican Church.

34. The Pope himself was respon-
sible for the Reformation in England.
In declaring Henry's marriage to Cath-
erine valid, he acted against the ad-
vice of Wolsey and dozens of others
all over Europe.

The Pope acted according to the evidence.
I admit that the decision was against the
hopes of Wolsey who was a time-server, and
against those theologians and lawyers who
were friends of Henry. And Henry was in no
way justified in making the decision an ex-
cuse to abandon the Catholic Church and
foist himself upon the people of England as
their chief Apostle and guide.

35. Can a 14 year old boy be be-
trothed in the eyes of the Church? If
not, where was Henry's sin.

It was the custom in those days for royal
houses to arrange suitable marriages for



THE 14 YEAR OLD BOY 23

princes and princesses well before the mar-
riage was to take place. Henry's brother
Arthur had been married to Catherine, though
the two had never lived together. Arthur
died before they could do so. A dispensa-
tion was obtained to enable Henry to marry
Catherine. Catherine was about 18, and
Henry was about 12 when the dispensation
was obtained from Rome. The actual mar-
riage could not be gone on with then, for
Henry had the right to protest his unwilling-
ness as soon as he was 14. When Henry
came to the age of 14, his father, Henry VII,
made him record a formal protest on the
score that the marriage had been arranged
without his consent. Henry VII had other
political schemes in mind, and prince Henry
certainly had the right of refusal. But, when
Henry VII died, and Henry VIII came to the
throne in 1509, the new king changed his
mind, and decided after all that he wanted
to marry Catherine. He was then 18 years
of age, and there can be no doubt about the
validity of his self-chosen marriage to Cath-
erine.

36. The law of the Church forbade
Henry's marriage to his brother's
widow, and therefore the dispensation
for that marriage given by the Pope

—

not by the English Church—was be-
yond papal authority.

That objection was urged by Henry, when
his belated scruples had been provoked by
Anne Boleyn. But, firstly, the little aside that



24 MARRYING HIS BROTHER'S WIDOW

the dispensation was granted by the Pope,
and "not by the English Church" is absurd.
If what you call the English Church were not
merely the papal Chinch in England, but
quite independent of the papal Church, why
on earth was Henry appealing to the Pope to
grant him a dispensation? Secondly, if only
the law of the Church stood in the way of the
marriage, then the Pope could dispense from
it. Henry was not so foolish as to make that
a plea in order to show that the Pope had
no right to grant such a dispensation. Hav-
ing submitted five other pleas which were all
rejected, he submitted that the dispensation
for his marriage to Catherine was invalid, not
because it was opposed to any merely ecclesi-
astical law, but to positive divine law. This
plea was also considered, and proved to be
erroneous. Henry's marriage to Catherine
was valid, and the Pope would have exceed-
ed papal authority had he permitted Henry
to put away Catherine and marry Anne
Boleyn. However, whilst the Pope's refusal
to grant a divorce occasioned Henry's revolt,
the divorce question makes no difference to
the problem of Anglican continuity, or rather
discontinuity. Whatever the reasons for it,
the fact remains that Henry set up a schis-
matical Church, and that Anglicanism is as
much excluded from the Catholic Church as
Anglicans themselves would exclude Judge
Rutherford's Witnesses of Jehovah from their

own Communion.

37. Apart from his matrimonial af-
fairs, did not Henry live and die a
Roman Catholic?



CONTINUITY OF ANGLICANISM 25

Since Henry had renounced all allegiance
to Rome, and had constituted himself head
of the Church in England, he ceased to be a

Roman Catholic, and did not live as such.
He did retain Catholic doctrines other than
that of the necessity of obedience to the Holy

See, and also Catholic forms of worship.
But that did not make him a Catholic. A
Catholic is one who is a subject of the lawful
authority of the Catholic Church. Henry re-
fused to be a subject of that authority, and
died in his schismatical state.

38. The Anglican Church in Eng-
land has unbroken continuity for 13
centuries. The Roman Catholics are
the dissenters.

If such continuity be a fact, then the Angli-
can Church established by Henry Vm was
exactly the same Church as that which exist-
ed previously. Now St. Thomas More was
one of the wisest and best men in England
at the time. He was a very clever lawyer/
and a man of the utmost integrity. He knew
that Henry's action meant the creafion of a
new Church altogether, and said that he
could not accept a Church of which a lay-
man, even though a king, was in supreme
authority. And he died on the scaffold rather
than abandon the Church of his fathers. But,
if the new Church proposed by Henry was
the same as the old Church, then Thomas
More was a fool for his pains. And St.



26 A STATE DEPARTMENT

Thomas More was no fool. The question will
always be there. Why did St. Thomas More
lay his head on the block? The answer is

—

because continuity with the previously exist-
ent Church was being wrecked. If ever there
was a dissenter, it was Henry VUL who re-
pudiated the constitutional authority of the
Pope, and established a dissenting Church.
If the nonconformists were called dissenters
because they would not accept the royal
supremacy. Anglicans are dissenters because
they refuse to accept papal supremacy.

39. The Anglican Church is not a
state department subject to the Crown.
It goes back to Apostolic times.

No Catholic Bishop in the world would
admit that an Anglican Bishop possesses either
apostolic orders or jurisdiction. It is histor-

ically certain that Henry VIII rejected the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction which prevailed un-
til the Reformation, and brought the Church
in England under his own supreme jurisdic-
tion. Queen Elizabeth exacted this oath from
Anglican Bishops:

1%

I, A. B., do utterly testify
and declare in my conscience that the Queen's
Highness is the only supreme governor in all
spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes
as in all temporal matters." In the Book of
Common Prayer, just before the Articles of
Religion, we read an announcement made by
Queen Victoria; "Whereas addresses were
presented to us by both Houses of Parlia-
ment with a view to discontinuing certain



“HEAD OF THE CHURCH" 27

forms of prayer and service, it is our will and
pleasure that they be revoked." "Being Su-
preme Governor of the Church, w6 hold it
most agreeable to our kingly office to con-
serve the Church committed to our charge."
In 1928 the British Parliament rejected the

new Prayer Book proposed by the Anglican
Bishops. The Church of England, as by law
established, is subject to civil law, both in
theory and in practice, despite the denials of
High Churchmen.

40. No English Sovereign has taken
the title of "Head of the Church" since
the days of Mary.

Henry VIII usurped that title when he re-
pudiated the authority of the Pope. When
Mary came to the throne, she repudiated
Henry's usurpation, and returned to papal
supremacy. Elizabeth revived Henry's revolt
against papal supremacy, making herself “Su-
preme Governor of the Church of England."
She said that Christ was the Head of the
Church, and that she herself was its supreme
authority on earth only.

41. No spiritual function has been
claimed by or assigned to the Crown
since her time.

It is difficult to understand why you say
“since her time." Mary declared the royal
supremacy to be blasphemy, and abolished
the law by which Henry established it.



28 BISHOPS BY THE CROWN

Elizabeth revived that law, and it still stands.
If you insist that the present king is not head
of the Church of England, and exercises no
spiritual function, how will you explain the
preface to the "Official Year Book of the
Church of England for 1937"? There the Dean
of Westminster, Dr. F. W. Norris, says that
the king "is anointed, consecrated, set apart
for his high office with the fullest spiritual
sanctions. Henceforth he represents in his
own Royal Person both Church and State."
This Anglican Dean of Westminster then pro-
ceeds to justify the appointment of Bishops
by the Crown, and says, "An elected Presi-
dent is one thing—a consecrated King is
something quite different. The King is a
spiritual person, and is qualified in his own
person to represent both Church and State."
If the Official Year Book of the Church of Eng-
land declares that the king is equally head
of Church and State, you can hardly quarrel
with me for my agreeing with it. And if
one feels that he cannot accept such a state
of affairs, it is no remedy to shut his eyes to
it. One should seek the religion which is in
conformity with the will of Christ.

42. If people of foreign nationality
became Anglicans, would they have
to admit the king of England as head
of their Church on earth?

Logically they would have to do so it they
thought of Anglicanism as one united Church.

If they acknowledged only some particular
independent Bishop who supported Anglican



THE BREATH OF GOD 29

forms of worship, then they would not deem
real unity to be essential to their Church at

all.

43. As a child I was taught that
the Church of England was but a sec-
tion of the Catholic Church—reformed.

I myself, as an Anglican child, was more
correctly taught that the Church of England
was given us by the Reformation as our own
English Protestant Church.

44. At the Reformation the Breath
of God moved over the nations and
revived the spirit of true religion.

If the Breath of God moving over the na-
tions were responsible for the Protestant Re-
formation, it is strange that one and the same
God should inspire Lutheranism in Germany,
Calvinism in Switzerland, Anglicanism in Eng-
land, and other conflicting and contradictory
types of religion in various sections of the
world. Henry VIII certainly did not believe
that the Breath of God inspired Luther. And
he himself was inspired chiefly by Anne
Boleyn.

45. In the Church of England the
faith was preserved, whilst everything
of doubtful authenticity was carefully
removed.



30 HENRY VIII'S CLAIM

Henry VIII's claim to be head of the Church
was promulgated; and that claim at least was
not of doubtful authenticity; it was quite in-
valid, and a blasphemous usurpation. But
beyond the repudiation of the Pope's author-
ity Henry would not go. Only after Henry's
death, in the reigns of Edward VI and Eliza-
beth, did other Protestant principles invade
the new Church of England. And then, not
things of doubtful authenticity, but the most
essential doctrines and practices of the Cath-
olic Faith were swept away. So it is that
today we find High Church Anglicans labor-
ing to get back into the Church of England
the very things that were thrown out at the
Reformation. They are trying to restore a be-
lief in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Sacra-
ment of Confession, in Purgatory and prayers
for the dead, in devotion to Mary and to the
Saints. If these things are of doubtful authen-
ticity, why are they trying to get them back?
If not, why were they ever rejected.

46. Anglicanism preserves the es-
sentials of the Faith, Ministry, and
Sacraments.

The effort to identify the Anglican Church
with the pre-Reformation Church in England
is doomed to failure. The pre-Reformation
Church accepted the same faith as all Cath-
olics throughout the world, and subject to the
Pope at that time. It accepted the Sacrifice
of the Mass, the same Catholic Priesthood,
and the seven Sacraments. The Catholic
Church on the Continent and throughout the



FAITH, MINISTRY, AND SACRAMENTS 31

world today has the same essentials of Faith,
Ministry, and Sacraments. Yet, far from re-
taining the same essentials of Faith, Angli-
canism tolerates the most radical denials of
the Faith. No one can say what the Church
of England as a Church does teach. Evan-
gelicals, Anglo-Catholics, and Modernists, all
teach radically opposed doctrines, yet claim
to do so in the name of the Anglican Church.
As for the Ministry, does Anglicanism retain
a sacrificial priesthood, and the Sacrifice of
the Mass? It does not. Anglicanism is out
of harmony with the Catholics of all nations
throughout the world. If a General Council
of all Catholic Bishops in the world were
called by the Pope, no Anglican Bishop would
be invited to attend. Yet, prior to the Re-
formation, every Bishop in England would
have been invited. The Anglican Church to-
day is definitely not the Church all English-
men acknowledged before the Reformation.

47. If there were a break in the
continuity of the Church of England
it must have occurred in the first years
of Elizabeth.

It occurred in 1534, under Henry VIII.
Mary restored the Church to unity with Rome
in 1554. Elizabeth restored Henry's break in
1559. And continuity without continued unity
is impossible.

48. No historical document can be
found to show that Elizabeth abolish-
ed the old Church to found a new one.



32 ELIZABETH FOR PROTESTANTISM

Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558. Since
she was borne of Anne Boleyn whilst Henry's
first wife Catherine was still living, she knew
that the Pope would never recognize her as
legitimate. She reacted in the direction of
Protestantism, selecting a Council of advisers
who were all Protestants. They were headed
by Sir William Cecil, who became Secretary
of State. This Council drew up a document
called ”A Device for the Alteration of Relig-
ion", demanding rigid persecution of those
of the clergy who would not abjure their
allegiance to the Pope. This "Device" was
to be presented to Parliament as soon as it
should meet. Parliament met in 1559, and
the recommendations of the “Device" were
applied in the Act of Supremacy and the Act
of Uniformity in Religion. The Act of Suprem-
acy hit Catholics who held to the authority
of the Pope, and to the old religion in Eng-
land; the Act of Uniformity hit the new Pro-
testants who did not like Anglicanism and
who were therefore nonconformists. The pen-
alties for non-compliance with this Device for
the Alteration of Religion vPere, for a first
offence—total confiscation of property; for a
second offence — imprisonment during the
Queen's pleasure; for a third offence—death,
on the score of high treason. This Device
succeeded in its purpose, and the English
people were robbed of their Catholic Faith.
The laws for the persecution of Catholics last-
ed from 1559 till 1829, when the Catholic
Emancipation Act was passed after 270 years
of hardship and repression. A deadly fear
seemed to prevail lest Englishmen would
wish to return to the Catholic Faith of their



APOSTOLIC INHERITANCE 33

forefathers, were they granted liberty to do
so. And in reality that fear has been justi-
fied by the remarkable revival of Catholicism
in England since the repeal of the penal laws.

49. You cannot deprive us Angli-
cans of our Apostolic inheritance like
that.

The Church of England deliberately cut it-
self off from the Apostolic Church, and has
no living connection with it. The Anglican
clergy inherit neither valid Orders, nor any
jurisdiction from the Apostles. Listen to these
words which were addressed to the Anglican
Bishop of Ely by Queen Elizabeth, "Proud
Prelate, I would have you know that I who
made you what you are can unmake you;
and if you do not forthwith fulfil this engage-
ment, by God I will immediately unfrock you."

50. Historical sources show that
the Roman Church had but a small
part in the establishment of English
Christianity.

Lingard, whose reliability as an historian
no well-informed man would question, says
that "the earliest notice which we find of a
British Church occurs in the writings of Bede,
the Anglo-Saxon." Now the Venerable Bede,
in his Ecclesiastical History Bk. I, c. IV, has
these words: "In the year of Our Lord 156,
whilst the holy Eleutherius presided over the
Roman Church, Lucius, king of Britain, sent



34 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA

a letter to him, entreating that by a mandate
from him he might be made a Christian. He
soon obtained his pious request, and the
Britons preserved the faith which they had
received uncorrupted and entire/' It would
be an anachronism of the deepest dye to
identify Anglicanism with this early British
Christianity received from Rome in the 2nd
century. Bede himself, who lived in the 7th
century, was of course a Catholic monk, who
professed the religion of all Englishmen at
that time, and who constantly vindicates the
supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Anglicanism was quite unknown to him.

51. Did not Joseph of Arimathea
bring Christianity to Britain, and die
at Glastonbury in 82 A. D.?

That is a purely legendary story. G. P.
Fisher, Protestant professor of Church History
at Yale University writes as follows: "Though
history is silent about the origin of the early
British Church, the credulity of later genera-
tions has never wanted for legends to supply
its place. Some of these tell of Joseph of
Arimathea, and of the Church he founded at
Glastonbury. Setting aside these and like
tales as unsupported by evidence, we may
safely conjecture that the gospel was carried
to Britain soon after the Romans gained a
firm foothold there." Of course, even were
the story of Joseph of Arimathea true, it in
no way affects the case for the Church of
England. You would have to prove that he
preached, not the Catholic, but the Anglican
religion—an impossible task.



CHRISTIANITY FROM GAUL 35

52. Tertullian/ writing in the year
200, said that there were in Britain
people not subject to Rome, but al-
ready won for Christ.

Tertullian did not mean that they were not
subject to the Bishop of Rome. He meant
simply that they were outside the confines of
the Roman Empire, so widespread had Chris-
tianity become. So, too, one could say that
there are people not subject to the British
Flag who speak English. The Christians in
Britain were members of the one true Church
ruled over by the Bishop of Rome.

53. British Christianity most prob-
ably came from Gaul.

That is true. Pope Eleutherius probably ar-
ranged that missionaries should go from Gaul,
for the Christians in Gaul were as Catholic as
Christians in France today. Nobody would
suggest that there is no continuity between
the Catholic Church in France now, and the
Catholic Church in Gaul then. But if the
Church of the British was in communion with
the Church in Gaul then, why isn't the Church
of England now in communion with the Cath-
olic Church in France today?

54. The Scots, however, caused the
greater part of the Christianization of
England.



36 ST. AUGUSTINE

This effort to trace British Christianity to a
non-Roman source fails utterly in the light
of history. The missionaries drawn from Iona
and Lindisfame came originally to Scotland
from Ireland with the religion they had de-
rived from St. Patrick who had been sent to
Ireland by the Pope, and who frequently ex-
horted his people, "As ye are children of
Christ, so be ye children of Rome." Aidan,
Columba, Finan, Colman, and their monks
all belonged to the Catholic Church, and were
subject to the Pope.

55. As Augustine came later from
Rome, the Church of England is rooted
in early British, Celtic, and Roman
Churches.

All these sources were Catholic and Roman.
But the Church of England is no more rooted
in the previous Church in England than pres-
ent white Australians are rooted genealogi-
cally in the black aborigines who occupied
Australia prior to English settlement. There
is not an English Bishop or Priest who would
not turn in his grave, be he British, Celtic, or
Roman, at the very thought of his name being
coupled with Anglicanism.

56. In 314, long before Augustine
brought Roman Christianity, three
Bishops of the British Church were
present at the Council of Arles, in
Gaul, representing London, York, and
Lincoln.



COUNCIL OF ARLES 37

That proves that there was a Church in
England prior to the arrival of St. Augustine.
But this Church was not the "Church of Eng-
land" as we know that expression. It was the
Catholic Church extended to England from
its common centre—Rome. The Council of
Arles was held in France. Every Bishop there
was subject to the Pope. The Legate of Pope
Sylvester presided, and the Decrees were sent
to the Pope for his confirmation of them. The
document sent began with the words, "As-
sembled here at Arles, united in the bonds of
fraternal charity, and in communion with our
Mother the Catholic Church, we salute you,
most glorious Pope, with the respect due to
you." After describing the scope of their de-
liberations, the document concludes, "In the
presence of the Holy Spirit and of the Angels,
we have drawn up regulations here as we
judged best according to our poor ability. It
is for you who enjoy wider jurisdiction to use
your authority for their promulgation in all
the Churches." Such expressions are any-
thing but Anglican.

57. It was St. Augustine who
brought Rome in, thus causing schisms
and divisions.

You are not familiar with the history of
those times. St. Augustine did not bring Rome
to Britain. The British Bishops before his time
were all in union with Rome. When the
Saxons invaded Britain, however, they drove
the early British Christians into the fastnesses
of Wales, and settled down in their paganism



38 SCHISMS AND DIVISIONS

to enjoy the occupied territory. To these pa-
gan Anglo-Saxons Pope Gregory sent St. Au-
gustine in 597, with instructions to convert
them to the Catholic religion, and unite them
in one and the same Church with the British
Bishops already in England. That all those
British Bishops were subject to Rome is evi-
dent from the documents given to Augustine
by the Pope. For the Pope made St. Augus-
tine the first Archbishop of Canterbury, giving
him authority over all the Bishops then in
Britain. “We give you no authority," the Pope
wrote, “over the Bishops in Gaul. But as for
all the Bishops of Britain, we commit them to
your care, that the unlearned may be taught,
the weak strengthened by persuasion, the per-
verse corrected by authority." Some years
were required thus to organize the Church in
England, but in 664 at the synod of Whitby
all the Bishops agreed that henceforth all
jurisdiction would be centralized at Canter-
bury. Far from his advent causing schisms
and divisions, therefore, the influence of St.
Augustine was all the other way, intensifying
the spirit of unity in belief, worship, and dis-
cipline.

58. The English never fully accept-
ed the rule of Rome, and in 1215 the
chafing culminated in the Great Chart-
er, whereof the first clause was, “The
Church of England shall be free."

Those words did not mean that the Church
in England was to be free from the Pope.



PRESENT ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 39

They meant that it was to be free from King
John's tyranny. In other words, Magna Char-
ta was aimed at the king, not at the Pope.
Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury,
together with the Barons, wrung the Charter
from King John—a Charter of liberty for the
Church and for the people. John was forced
to acknowledge that the Church in England
was not subject to the Crown, and to grant
full access to the Pope, and full liberty to the
Church in its dealings with Rome. So a
threatened royal supremacy was prevented.
To pretend that Magna Charta meant free-
dom from the Pope rather than from the op-
pression of King John who was being forced
to sign and grant its provisions is the height
of historical dishonesty.

59. Do you deny that the present
Archbishop of Canterbury is the 97th
to occupy that See in the long line of
succession from St. Augustine in 597
A. D.?

I certainly deny that. The present Arch-
bishop of Canterbury may retain the ancient
title, but he does not succeed in the long line
of succession inaugurated by St. Augustine.
He does not belong to that same Church as
St. Augustine. St. Augustine acknowledged
that he had received his jurisdiction from the
Pope. The present Archbishop of Canterbury
has no such jurisdiction. He is a State created
Anglican Archbishop who cannot become the
lineal descendant of St. Augustine merely by
retaining the external title.



40 OLD ST. MARTINS

60. Did not Ethelbert, King of Kent,
give Augustine a Church to worship
in which had been built before the
Saxon invasion?

Yes. But the fact that it was built before
the Saxon invasion has no particular bearing
on the subject of Anglican continuity. It was
built by ancient Britons who had been con-
verted to the Roman Church by earlier mis-
sionaries; and since St. Augustine belonged
to the same Church as that which had inspired
the building of St. Martin's at Canterbury, the
king suggested that St. Augustine should
there establish his headquarters.

61. The same Church is still stand-
ing and is the Anglican parish Church
of St. Martin, Canterbury.

It would not affect the subject under dis-
cussion whether it were still standing' or not.
However, as a matter of fact, it is not still
standing. Old St. Martin's has been rebuilt
many times, and only portion of the ancient
ruins is incorporated in the present walls.
Meantime, the relics of the old Church build-
ing show that the old building once existed.
They do not prove that ancient St. Martin's
was built for Anglican worship, nor that the
Anglican Church created by Henry VIII in
1534 is the same Church as that known in
England in previous centuries. The Church
of England did not exist when old St. Martin's
was built. Nor would Church of England



ANGLICANISM AND THE ANCIENT CHURCH 41

authorities build a Church in Honor of St.
Martin# who was a Bishop of Gaul# in full
communion with the Bishop of Rome.

62. In England at least all who
want to belong to the true Church are
obliged to join the Church of England.

That is rather hard on the Anglicans out-
side England. But taking the statement as it
stands, once an Anglican sets foot on French
soil, as a member of the one true Church he
becomes a Roman Catholic, for that is the
true Church in France according to the “Branch
Theory" you apparently hold. Back across
the channel, he automatically becomes an
Anglican again, though the true Church in
France declares Anglicanism to be heresy and
schism. It is all very bewildering.

63. Anglicanism adheres to the
Creeds, Ministry, Sacraments, and
Discipline of the ancient Church.

Some Anglicans claim that it does so. But
the Creeds are denied by Anglican authori-
ties daily; Anglican Orders are invalid; var-
ious groups profess to accept various Sacra-
ments. variously interpreting those they do
accept; whilst the whole Anglican Church is
in rebellion against the discipline of the one
true Church. Anglicanism has not even dis-
cipline in its own ranks, and is certainly not
subject to the same discipline as Catholics
throughout the world who belong to the



42 A REFORMED BRANCH

Church of Rome which you concede to be
part of the True Church. However, Anglican-
ism is not "a part" of the true Church. It is

"apart from" the one true Church. The one
true Church is the Catholic Church under the
rule of the one supreme shepherd—the Pope.64.

We are but a reformed branch
of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does not acknowledge
Anglicanism as a branch. Anglicans should
not complain of that, for whilst they speak of
themselves as part of the Catholic Church,
they tell nonconformists that no recognition
can be extended to them as branches of the
one true Church. Rome merely tells Angli-
canism that it is no more a branch of the
Catholic Church than are the Quakers, or
Christadelphians, or any others amongst the
Protestant sects. Rome cannot view the Church
of England in any other way save as one of
the Protestant denominations.

65. We hold the Catholic Faith.

There is scarcely an article of the Catholic
Faith which the Church of England does not
allow both to be denied and to be taught by
her authorized officials.

66. Is not the King of England
called the “Defender of the Faith"?



"DEFENDER OF THE FAITH" 43

He is, and the title still appears on all Brit-
ish coinage with the letters F. D. But that

title was conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope
for his defence of the Catholic Faith and of
Papal authority against the attacks of Mar-
tin Luther. Later, Henry rejected the Church
which conferred it upon him, yet retained the
title, as have all succeeding British sovereigns.
In the Coronation Oath the King of England
now has to say, "I do solemnly and sincerely,
in the presence of God, profess, testify and
declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and
that I will, according to the true intent of the
enactments which secure the Protestant suc-
cession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold
and maintain the said enactments to the best
of my power according to law/'

67. Has the title any real signific-
ance today?

No. As regards the actual defence of any
particular tenet of the Christian Faith, the title

is no more than nominal. The very Anglican
Church which the king represents in his royal
person lacks the power to define what is of
Christian Faith, or to exclude the introduction
of error. The Anglican Church is compelled
to tolerate most conflicting doctrines taught in
the name of Christian truth by both Bishops
and Clergy. The problem for Anglicanism is
to decide what is the Faith before any official
declaration could be made as to the signific-
ance of the title "Defender of the Faith" today.



44 REQUIEM MASSES

68. In some Anglican Churches
Requiem Masses are celebrated for
deceased Anglican clergymen.

Some High Church clergymen adopt the rit-
ual of the Mass, and go through its external
rites, even offering their celebrations for the
repose of departed souls. But this is a viola-
tion of the doctrines of their own Church, and
often in defiance of their own Anglican Bish-
ops. Also High Church clergymen who bor-
row the ceremonies of the Mass from Cath-
olic Liturgy, and profess a continued belief in
Anglicanism, show a mental dexterity which
is quite baffling to the ordinary, common-
sensed man who still believes in his simplicity
that contradictory things cannot be simultan-
eously true. It is not possible, of course, for
an Anglican clergyman to celebrate a gen-
uine Mass. The Mass supposes the valid
priestly ordination of the one celebrating it,
and also the Catholic doctrine of the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But An-
glican Orders are not valid for that purpose,
and the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is
rejected by the Anglican Church. I might
mention, too, that Requiem Masses presup-
pose a belief in Purgatory, which is another
un-Anglican doctrine.

69. You speak of High Churchmen
as opposed to Low Churchmen. What
is a Low Churchman?

A Low Churchman, or, as he is sometimes
called, an Evangelical, is one who adheres to



TBACTAR1AN MOVEMENT «

the Protestant outlook of the Church of Eng-

land which prevailed generally before the

advent of what is known as the Tractarian
Movement. He stands for the Church of Eng-
land as essentially a Protestant institution,

clinging to the Book of Common Prayer and
the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion in their

original Protestant sense. He regards the in-
troduction of Catholic ideas and ways of wor-
ship as disloyal and "Romanizing" tendencies;

and he would be more at home in a Wesley-
an Church, or even with the Salvation Army,

than in an Anglican Church belonging to the
Anglo-Catholic party of his own Church of
England.

70. What was the Tractarian Move-
ment?

The Tractarian or Oxford Movement (not
to be confused with the Oxford Group or
Buchmanism) really commenced in the year
1833. It was commenced at Oxford by Pusey,
Newman, and other Anglican clergymen when
the British Parliament suppressed 10 bishop-

rics of the Anglican Church. They disliked
this evidence of the subjection of the Church
to the Crown, and set out to awaken a con-
sciousness of a Church spiritually independ-
ent of political interference. In doctrine, wor-

ship. and discipline, they began to think along
more Catholic lines, and labored to restore
much that had been rejected at the Reforma-
tion. They published various "Tracts" to

show that the Anglican "Articles of Religion",
and the Anglican Prayer Book could be in-



46 NEWMAN

terpreted in a Catholic way. However their
efforts awakened a storm of opposition; polit-
ical, because the Movement was towards
emancipation from secular domination; relig-
ious, because the majority of Anglicans re-
joiced in their Protestantism. The opposition
made Newman and many others realize that,
if they wished to be truly Catholic, there
could be no home for them in the Anglican
Church- So they left the Church of England
and joined the Catholic Church in reality. In
1845, and again in 1850 there came two waves
of secession to Rome, accounting for almost
900 clergymen altogether. Low Churchmen re-
garded the Movement as a calamity, both be-
cause so many left to join the Roman Church,
and because it meant the introduction of so
many un-Protestant doctrines and practices
into the Church of England. They denounced
the Movement as treason to the Established
Church and apostacy from the Gospel. How-
ever many of the Tractarian sympathizers re-
mained in the Church of England to form a
new party. The result is that there are now
in the Church of England the Low Churchmen
who cling to the Protestant outlook, and who
are called "Evangelicals"; and the High
Churchmen who accept many of the new
Catholic tendencies, and who are called "An-
glo-Catholics."

71. I think it speaks volumes for
the magnanimity of the Anglican
Church that men of such different
theological opinions are united in their
loyalty to Christ.



MULTIPLE BELIEFS 47

How can men be united in their loyalty to
Christ when they are not united in acceptance
of what He taught? In Anglicanism we see
a body of men, some of whom believe in the
Articles of Religion, and some of whom do
not; some profess to say Mass, others reject
the Mass as a blasphemy; some hear confes-
sions, others are horrified by the idea; some
pray for the dead, others call this superstition;
some permit remarriage after divorce, others
regard this as a great sin; some insist on
eternal punishment, others scout the idea as
absurd. If one set of these teachings be true,
their opposites are not true. If one set be in
accordance with the teachings of Christ, the
other set is a denial of the teachings of Christ,
branding the Eternal Son of God with a lack
of veracity. Yet you see a united loyalty to
Christ in this teaching of truth and lies sim-
ultaneously! It says much, not for the mag-
nanimity of Anglicanism, but for its muddle-
headedness. If you insist on the idea of mag-
nanimity, who gave the Anglican Church the
right to be magnanimous at the expense of
Christ?

72. Ii a particular shade of theolog-
ical thought helps a man to serve
Christ better than the shade held by
somebody else, he should be allowed
to retain it.

II we Catholics are right, and it is the will
of Christ that His followers should be subject
to the Pope, how can one serve Christ better
by not being subject to the Pope?



48 DIFFERENT SHADES OF THOUGHT
73.

Anglicans are of many differ-
ent shades of thought, and are not
afraid to admit it.

If one Anglican minister says that the con-
secrated Host must be adored as God. whilst
another declares that to be sheer idolatry,
would you call that a merely different shade
of thought?

74. Such tolerance of different doc-
trines provokes thought.

It does. And if a man has any sense of
the consistency of truth, and any real loyalty
to Christ as the truth, such thought ends in a
very nightmare of distress and doubt, and in
the loss of all belief in Anglicanism.

75. It keeps our religion alive in-
tellectually.

It is killing the Anglican Church. The An-
glican Bishop Knox wrote in 1928, “Within the
Church of England there are followers of two
fundamentally distinct religions. This situa-
tion has been recognized as scandalous by
all who believe that a Church ought to teach
consistent truth in all matters essential to sal-

vation." In 1913 the Anglican Bishop Gore
wrote to the Times, “Unless the Anglican
Church can speedily arrive at some statement
of principle which will pull it together into
unity, it will go the way to certain disruption."



A BROAD CHURCH 49

76. It shows how broad our Church
is that such diversity can exist side
by side.

It shows that the authorities in the Angli-
can Church do not know what is the true
teaching of Jesus Christ, and that they have
no authority from God to declare and impose
what they believe to be that true teaching.

77. In speaking of the Mass you
denied Anglican Orders to be valid.

Yes. The Apostolic ministry is a truly sac-
ramental sense was lost to the Church of
England in the reign of Edward VI. The out-
ward appearances of a hierarchy of bishops,
priests, and deacons may have persisted; but
Rome is compelled to declare Anglican Orders
invalid for the purposes intended by Christ;
and, of course, there is no trace of Apostolic
jurisdiction in Anglicanism.

78. Do you say that Anglican Bish-
ops are nothing more than laymen?

All depends upon what you mean. It is
true that, since Anglican Orders are invalid,
they have no priestly or episcopal power and
jurisdiction derived from Christ. They are not
truly Priests or Bishops in the genuine sense
of the word, as are, for example, the Priests
and Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Clerical converts from Greek Orthodoxy have
not to be reordained as Priests in the Cath-



50 ARE ANGLICAN BISHOPS LAYMEN?

olic Church. But Anglican clergymen and
Anglican Bishops, who are converted to the
Catholic Church and desire to exercise the
ministry, must be reordained, fulfilling all that
is required of any other aspirants who have
never received Holy Orders. But whilst, in
this sense, Anglican Bishops are merely lay-
men in the eyes of the Catholic Church, we
must remember that, so long as they remain
members of the Anglican Church, they are
accepted by members of that Church as dis-
tinct from the laity. For whatever it may be
worth, they have a commission and jurisdic-
tion to officiate within Anglicanism; a com-
mission and jurisdiction not possessed by
Anglican laymen. Therefore we cannot say
that within the Anglican Church they are
merely laymen. All we can say is that they
have no Orders, commission, or jurisdiction
derived from Christ and the Apostles. In the
end, of course, this is the one thing that mat-
ters for the purposes of our discussion. We
offer to Anglican Bishops a due measure of
respect as to cultured men who are accepted
in civil life as possessing honor and dignity
amongst our fellow citizens. But we cannot
accept them as true Bishops.

79. Why does the Roman Church
refuse to recognize Anglican Orders
as valid?

Because Cranmer, in his efforts to protes-
tantize the Church of England, altered the
Ordinal for the ordaining of Priests and the
consecration of Bishops in the year 1550. The



INVALID ANGLICAN ORDERS 51

form he evolved was useless for the ordaining
of Priests in the Catholic sense of the word.
Nor did he have any intention of ordaining
such Priests. Cranmer himself wrote: "Christ
made no such difference between the priest
and the laymen that the priest should make
oblation and sacrifice for the layman . the
difference that is between a priest and the lay-
man in this matter is only in the ministration."
(A Defence, p. 350) Dr. Ryle, Anglican Bishop
of Liverpool, rightly says, "The Reformers
stripped the office of the clergy entirely of

any sacerdotal character. They cast out the
words 'sacrifice' and 'altar' from the Prayer
Book, and though they retained the word
'priest', retained it only in the sense of elder
or presbyter The Reformers found our
clergy sacrificing priests, and made them
prayer-reading preaching ministers." (What
We Owe To The Reformation, p. 14.) Writing
in the National Review of Sept. 1925 the Angli-
can Bishop Knox, of Manchester, said, "The
Prayer Book and ordinal are simply un-
Catholic." See Radio Replies Vol. 1, N. 286.
When this same Bishop Knox was ordaining
a group of young Anglican ministers he said
to them quite clearly, "Young men, I am not
ordaining you priests in the Roman sense of
ihe word." Can you blame the Catholic Church
for not admitting that they are priests in her
sense of the word?

80. The Pope declared Anglican
Orders invalid under pressure from
Cardinal Vaughan who insisted that



52 AN "EX CATHEDRA" UTTERANCE

a favorable judgment would end Ro-
man Catholic progress in England.

That is certainly not true. Pope Leo Xm
hoped against hope that Anglican Orders
could be admitted as valid, for he thought that
the reunion of the Anglican Church with the
Catholic Church would be ever so much
easier if Anglican Orders were valid. If the
evidence could have permitted a declaration
of validity, no force in the world would have
prevailed upon Leo XIII to condemn Anglican
Orders. To Leo XIITs disappointment the evi-
dence was quite against them, and he had
no option buf to give a negative decision.

81. No Catholic can say whether
the Pope's condemnation of Anglican
Orders in 1896 was an "ex Cathedra"
utterance, or not.

The technical point as to whether it was
an infallible ex Cathedra decision or not has
no bearing on the fact that the Pope has
irrevocably decided that Anglican Orders are
invalid for the purposes of the Christian priest-
hood. Catholic theologians discuss the ques-
tion as to whether this decision, which deals
not with a definition of doctrine, but with
what is known as a “dogmatic fact", complies
with all the strict requirements of infallibility.
But no Catholic theologian questions the truth
of the decision. The technical discussion has
no practical importance. The matter is final-
ly settled. And no Anglican clergyman could
become a Catholic on the understanding that



ANGLICANISM IS PROTESTANTISM 53

his Anglican ordination would be recognized
by the Catholic Church.

82. You constantly rank the Church
of England as a Protestant Church.
But it is entirely erroneous to apply
the term Protestant to Anglicanism.

The term Protestant was freely used by
Parker, Pilkington, GrindaL and others in the
time of Elizabeth. Laud professed that in his
Prayer Book there was nothing contrary to
the Protestant religion. The king, when
crowned by the Anglican Archbishop of Can-
terbury, takes a solemn oath that he is a Pro-
testant and will safeguard the Protestant suc-
cession to the Throne. If Anglicans are not
Protestants, no Anglican could be king of
England I Another point to notice is this:
When America declared independence of
England, the Church of England in America
had to adapt itself to the new conditions. It
promptly took the title: "The Protestant Epis-
copal Church of the United States of America."
No doubts existed amongst those Anglicans
at the time of their separation from England
as to the Protestant character of their Church.

83. The Anglican Church justly
claims to be Catholic.

/

Protestant and Catholic are irreconcilable
terms. Protestants protest against that Church
which was in existence at the time of the Re-
formation and which their ancestors aban-



54 “I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"

doned. They cannot claim to have left it. yet
still to belong to it. Again, the word Catholic
means whole and entire. The Catholic Church,
which has its headquarters at Rome, is Cath-
olic in time—existing in all ages since Christ;
in place—being found in all countries; in doc-
trine—teaching all the doctrines of Christ; in
extent—adapted to and embracing subjects
of all nationalities. But the Church of Eng-
land is not Catholic in time. For over 1,500
years it did not exist in this world. Christ
simply could not have founded Anglicanism.
It is not Catholic in place. Go through Italy,
Spain, France, Germany, and other foreign
countries, and you will search in vain for
Anglican dioceses and parishes. It is not
Catholic in doctrine, for it omits to teach much
that is Christian, and does teach much of
merely human invention. It is not Catholic in
extent, but is a national Church, chiefly for
English-speaking peoples. Anglicanism is but
one of the forms of Protestantism, and has no
more right to call itself Catholic than any
other of the various Protestant Churches.

84. We Anglicans say in the
Apostles' Creed, “I believe in the Holy
Catholic Church."

It does not follow that you are therefore
Catholics, or that your Church is part of the
Catholic Church. Many nonconformists also
recite that Creed, yet Anglicanism does not
admit them to be Catholics. The repetition of
the formula can no more make Anglicans
Catholic than the repetition of the words, “I



BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER ss

believe in America" could make a man an
American citizen. We have to study, not what
Anglicans say, but what the Anglican Church
is. And in faith, worship, and discipline, the
Anglican Church is a Protestant Church. The
Creed should remind Anglicans that they
ought to become Catholics instead of remain-
ing where they are.

85. Our Catholic heritage is to be
found in the Book of Common Prayer,
and in the 39 Articles of Religion.

The Book of Common Prayer condemns ar-
ticles of faith held right through the ages by
both the Roman and Greek Churches. It re-
jects the sacrificial worship of the Mass, and
maintains the supremacy of the Crown in
matters of religion and Church government,
which is a complete violation of discipline.
The Anglican Bishop Knox, in the National
Review for 1925, does not hesitate to say,
“The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-
Catholic." And is it not significant that the
New Prayer Book controversy arose because
the new Book tried to incorporate many Cath-
olic things which had been rejected at the
Reformation? The British Parliament took the
attitude that the Book of Common Prayer is
the legal manual of the Church of England.
And as that Book rejects Catholicism, the new
importations of Catholic tendencies must be
rejected.

86. The Anglican and Roman Cath-
olic Churches are both parts of the
one true Church.



56 ALTAR AGAINST ALTAR

The Roman "part" does not agree, and re-
pudiates the would-be Anglican relative just
as Anglicanism rejects nonconformity. It is
impossible that "Roman Catholicism" is right
in France, Italy, Spain, and other countries,
yet wrong in England.

87. Roman Catholicism did wrong
in setting up altar against altar in
England.

Firstly, under Edward VI and Elizabeth, the
existing altars in England which had been set
up by the Catholic Church, were pulled down
and desecrated by the newly-formed Angli-
can Church. Grindal (died 1583), elected suc-
cessor to Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury
in 1575, gave orders that all altars were to be
pulled down and the altar stones defaced and
put to common use. The Mass he declared to be
"an accursed abomination and a diabolical
profanation of the Lord's Supper." And the An-
glican Church to this day has no sacrificial
altars. The genuine Catholic Church, seeing
her Churches confiscated, had to build new
Churches and set up altars once more in Eng-
land. But they were not set up against any
Anglican altars. The High Church party is
trying to restore the idea of altars and of the
sacrifice of the Mass. But that party is not
truly representative of Anglicanism. Second-
ly, if Anglicanism is a true part of the Cath-
olic Church, why does it establish its Churches
in foreign missions where the Roman Cath-
olic true part already exists? And how could
it sanction the appointment of an Anglican



ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH 57

Bishop of Jerusalem with a lawful Bishop al-
ready there? Thirdly, why is the true Church
in France subject to the Pope, but not the
"true Anglican part" in England?

88. What are the relations and dif-
ferences between the Roman Catholic
Church, and the Catholic Churches
throughout the world?

There is but one Catholic Church, and that
Church is subject to the one supreme shep-
herd on earth, the Bishop of Rome. In a local
sense we can speak of "Catholic Churches"
in so far as there are Catholic Churches in all
the countries, cities, or suburbs, of the world.
But all these local dioceses and parishes are
united as one Holy Catholic Church in faith,
worship, and discipline, all being subject to
the Pope. No Churches not subject to the
Pope can rightly be called Catholic. Other
Churches differ from the Catholic Church in
faith, worship, and discipline, and are but
sects which originated by unjustified separa-
tion from Rome, or by subsequent invention
of unauthorized individuals.

89. Why is the Roman Catholic
Church so eager to bring England un-
der its yoke once more?

You pay the Catholic Church a very great
compliment by such a question. If indeed she
believes herself to be the one true Church of
Jesus Christ, must she not, like a good shep-



56 ROMAN YOKE

herd, seek to bring back to the fold the sheep
that have been side-tracked and lost? Con-
scious of her commission by Christ to teach
all nations, she must be ever active in spread-
ing the Catholic Faith in foreign lands, and in
seeking to win back those who have drifted
from it in older countries. You make it a re-
proach that she should be fulfilling this ele-
mentary duty, whereas it would be a reproach
were she not attempting to fulfil it. She does
not want to win the non-Catholics of England
any more than those of other countries. But
she does want to win them just as others;
and that, for their benefit rather than her
own. Their lack of Catholic Faith is their
loss, after alb not hers. See the condition of
England today. Protestantism robbed Eng-
lishmen of the Catholic Faith, and has not
been able to hold them for Christ. The vast
majority of the people in England are simply
indifferent to religion. Can you blame the
Catholic Church for trying to win them back
to Christianity, even as Pope Gregory origin-
ally sent St. Augustine to win our ancestors
to the Faith? The one real hope for England
is her return to the Catholic Church.







QUIZZES ON SECRET SOCIETIES 10c

QUIZZES ON EPISCOPALIAN AND ANGLICAN CHURCHES 15c

QUIZZES ON CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 15c

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS 10c

NON-CATHOLIC DENOMINATIONS 15c

NEW LIGHT ON MARTIN LUTHER 15c

SPIRITUAL LESSONS FROM THE PASSION 25c

THE IEHOVAH WITNESSES 10c

THE MOSAIC MANIFESTO 50c

FRANK YOUTH QUIZZES ON SEX 10c

WHY SQUANDER ILLNESS 15c. DELUXE $2.00

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE IEWS 10c

IEWISH PROBLEMS 15c

ANTI-SEMITISM 15c

GUIDE POST TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE 10c

AMERICAN GIRLI HALT! 10c (WHY A TEACHING SISTER)

WHY A HOSPITAL SISTER 15c

WHY A MISSION SISTER 15c

TO BE A PRIEST 10c

VAN 15c

CATHOLIC THEOLOGY OF THE CRUCIFIXION 10c

SIX PRE-MARRIAGE INSTRUCTIONS 10c

CATHOLIC AND NON-CATHOLIC INSTRUCTION
CARD SERIES 25c. BOUND FORM 50c

TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD 10c

SIX COMMANDMENTS OF CHURCH 5c

INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL, BOUND SI.00

WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH ANYWAY 20c

QUIZZES ON HOSPITAL ETHICS 35c



MUSIC OF IRELAND 20c

MUSIC OF THE MASS 25c

THREE HOURS AND ALL FRIDAYS OF THE YEAR 35c

DEVOTIONS TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN 15c. DELUXE 12.00

JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT 15c

FIRST FRIDAY AND JUNE DEVOTIONS 15c

WAY OF THE CROSS FOR ADULTS 10c
*

WAY OF THE CROSS FOR CHILDREN 15c

FORTY HOURS FOR PRIEST AND PEOPLE 35c

FUNERAL MASS AND BURIAL SERVICE 50c

THE PARACLETE 15c

CONFESSION AND COMMUNION CARDS lc

CONFIRMATION CARDS lc

FIRST CONFESSION PRAYER CARD l/ic

CONFESSION CARD NO. 2 i/2c

COMMUNION CARDS. NOS. 1 AND 2 y2c EA.

ALTAR BOY CARDS. LOOSE 2 FOR 5c

ALTAR CARD. BOUND 50c

CONGREGATIONAL HYMN CARD 2c

MARRIAGE CEREMONY CARD S2.50 PER HUNDRED

FUNERAL CEREMONY CARD $2.50 PER HUNDRED

BLESSING OF V/OMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH, CARD 2i/2c

ACTS OF LOVE OF GOD, LEAFLET lc

LOW OR HIGH MASS CARDS lc EACH

NURSES UNIFORM POCKET NOTEBOOK 15c

NURSES CLINICAL EXPERIENCES 75c EACH

For copies address

FATHERS RUMBLE & CARTY
Radio Replies Press

Saint Paul 1, Minn., U. S. A.