1. RADIO REPLIES 60c

2. RADIO REPLIES 60c

3. RADIO REPLIES 60c

LIBRARY EDITION OF RADIO REPLIES $2.00 EACH

CHATS WITH PROSPECTIVE CONVERTS AND NON-
CATHOLICS BEFORE MARRIAGE $1.00

THE CLEAN OBLATION $2.75

THE FAIR FLOWER OF EDEN $1.00

THE FRAGRENCE 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

40 YEARS AFTER $2.00, BOUND $2.75

JEWISH PANORAMA $3.00

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 1945

by the

RADIO REPLIES PRESS

Printed in U. S. A.

Deac&ffifed
IMPRIMATUR

Joannes Gregorius Murray

Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli



MAJOR HERESIES 1

QUIZZES ON NON-CATHOLIC
DENOMINATIONS

1. How many were the major forms
of defection from the Catholic Church

since the time of the Apostle?

As a general estimate, I would say seven,

namely. Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Arianism,

Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Greek Orthodoxy,

and Protestanism. I have given them in the

order of their appearance on the stage of

history.

2. What was the principle cause of
desertion in each case?

That is a very comprehensive question, and

I can but give here a general answer. In each

case the dissident movement began either in a

denial of the teachings of the Catholic Church,

or in a rebellion against her authority. Both

aspects were always, of course, ultimately in-

volved. Those who began by rejecting the
teachings of the Church soon found themselves

in rebellion against her authority; whilst those

who began by rebelling against her authority
soon found themselves denying her doctrines.

The Gnostics, Manichaeans, Arians, Nestorians,

and Eutychians, began with doctrinal error,

and ended by defying the authority of Rome.



2 GNOSTICISM AND MANICHAEISM

The Greek Church began by defying the au-

thority of Rome, and has ended in a denial of

much Catholic teaching, today becoming more

and more infected by rationalism and modern-

ism. Protestantism began in Germany by

Luther's rejection of Catholic doctrine and his

subsequent rejection of the authority of Rome;

whilst in England it began by Henry VIII's re-

jection of the Pope's authority, followed by

Elizabeth's repudiation of Catholic doctrine.

3. What was Gnosticism?

Gnosticism arose in the second century,

being a blend of Greek philosophy and pagan

mythology with Christian doctrine. It split up

into many independent heresies such as Mar-
cionism and Montanism, and lingered on until

about the seventh century. The history of most

of these heresies is much the same. Protected
by civil authority in many cases, each became
fairly widespread, or even very widespread;

then split up into warring sections, and even-

tually died out, or lingered on in a state of

stagnation.

4. What was Manichaeism?

Manichaeism tried to blend Indian and Per-

sian philosophy and mythology with Christian

doctrine. It commenced in the third century,

became very widespread, but split up, and

lingered on until the thirteenth century in vari-

ous forms, the chief of its later forms being

Albigensianism. It therefore had a long run

of nearly ten centuries.



ARIANS 3

5. What was the heresy of Arius?

Arius was born in Lybia in 256 A.D., and

was ordained a Catholic priest in 313 A.D. In

the year 318, at the Synod of Alexandria, the

Patriarch of that city gave a discourse on the

doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Arius de-

clared that the Patriarch had fallen into error,

and proceeded to set out his own ideas of
Christian doctrine. He denied that Christ was

really the Eternal Son of God, equally sharing

in the Divine Nature with the Father. Accord-

ing to him, the Person of Christ existed before

all other created things, and was nobler than

them all. But God had created that Person of
Christ in eternity, and then through Him cre-

ated all other things in time. Later that created

Personality of Christ became man for the re-
demption of the human race. In 320 A.D. a
second Synod of Alexandria condemned the

doctrine of Arius as heretical because it made
the Eternal Son of God a mere creature, deny-
ing that He was equally the uncreated God
with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Arius

would not submit, but went on teaching and

publicly spreading his errors, securing many
followers and causing immense disturbance in

the Church, and also in the State. The Emperor

Constantine demanded that General Council

be held to settle the matter, and in 325 A.D. the

Bishops met at Nicea. They condemned the

teaching of Arius because he denied the Deity

of Christ, and he was excommunicated because

he would not submit to the authority of the

Church. His heresy led multitudes astray, and

for over four centuries Arian heretics were pro-



4 NESTORIUS

portionately as numerous as the various forms

of Protestantism during the last four centuries.

Arius himself died in 335 A.D., and his move-

ment died out also in the seventh century. In

modem times Unitarianism is really a revived
form of Arianism, at least by its denial of the

doctrine of the Trinity and of the Deity of

Christ.

6. Will you explain the teachings of

Nestorius?

As opposed to the Arians who would not
admit that Christ was God, Nestorius insisted

that we must adore Christ as God. But in ex-
plaining how Christ is God, he fell into error;
and as he had become Patriarch of Constanti-

nople in 428 A.D., his very influence demanded

immediate decision by the Church. Nestorius

said that we must adore Christ as God because
God dwelt in Christ. However we could not
identify Christ with God, and apart from the

indwelling of God within Him, Christ was a
merely human Person. There were, therefore,
two persons as well as two natures in Christ;

not, as the Church held, the One Person of the

Eternal Son of God who, possessing the Divine

Nature from eternity, had assumed to Himself

a human nature in time. Nestorius taught that
Mary was the Mother of a merely human child

whom God used as an instrument for our re-
demption. She may be called the Mother of
Christ, but she must not be called the Mother

of God. In the year 431 A.D., the Council of

Ephesus condemned the teaching of Nestorius,



EUTYCHIAN HERESY 5

and defined the doctrine that there is only one

Personality in Christ, that of the Eternal Son of

God who, after the Incarnation, possessed both

a Divine and a human nature. Insisting that

the Child bom of Mary was truly God, the
Council defined that Mary was the Mother of

God insofar as God deigned to be born ol her

in human form, when the Word was made flesh

and dwelt amongst us. Nestorius refused to

accept the decision of the Council, was ex-

communicated, and originated the Nestorian

Church which lingers on amongst groups of

Eastern Christians to this day in a stagnant

condition, and hopelessly bound up with na-

tional considerations. At no time was the Nes-

torian sect as numerous as the Arians in their

day, but it has lasted much longer.

7. What was the Eutychian heresy?

Eutyches was the Superior of a Monastery
in Constantinople who strongly opposed Nes-
torius. Unhappily his reaction against the

errors of Nestorius led him into an opposite

error. The Catholic doctrine teaches that in

Christ there is one Person only, that of the

Eternal Son of God, and two natures, the one

Divine and the other human. Nestorius had

wanted two persons and two natures. Eutyches,

to safeguard the one Person of Christ, taught

that the human nature was so absorbed into
the Divine Nature as to lose its identity, so that

as a result there was but one Person and one
Nature in our Lord. The Council of Chalcedon

in 451 A.D. condemned this error of Eutyches
as heretical, and redefined the Catholic doc-



6 THE ABYSSINIANS

trine of one Person and two natures in Christ.

Eutyches, despite his first good intentions, mani-

fested a great attachment to his own ideas, re-
fused to submit to the decision of the Church,

and gave to the world the Monophysite heresy.

The Monophysites, or the "upholders of one

nature," have persevered through history to

the present day, forming various sects such as

the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches in Africa,

and the Jacobite Churches in Mesopotamia.

National reasons account for their survival, but

they are without validity.

8. Do not these wrangles seem a

mere matter of words?

That is a very superficial estimate. These

heresies struck at the essential doctrine con-

cerning the very Person of Christ, and were

destructive of the Christian faith in their ulti-

mate consequences. The Church, which St.

Paul calls the "pillar and ground of truth," was

safeguarding the revelation of God given into

her keeping by her Founder, being in turn safe-

guarded by the Holy Spirit in her work of pre-

serving the faith intact.

9. I have read recently that the

Abyssinians belonged to the Coptic

faith, the earliest sect of the Christian

denominations, to which all the Chris-

tian world adhered until the rise of the

Church of Rome.

It is true that the Abyssinians belonged to



COPTIC CHURCH 7

the Coptic Church. But the rest of the state-

ment is erroneous. Firstly, a sect is a group of

dissentient people who abandon a previous

position in order to set up a new form of

Church. If the Coptic Church were the original

Church to which the whole Christian world

adhered, then it is not a sect. All the newer

and independent Churches which broke away

from the original Church would constitute the

sects. Secondly, we come to a question of
fact. Was the Coptic faith the original faith to
which all Christians adhered from the begin-

ning? In other words, did St. Peter and the

other Apostles belong to the Coptic Church?

That is impossible, for the Coptic sect did not

come into existence until the fifth century.

10. It is said that the Abyssinians

were converted to the Christian faith

by St. Frumentius, who was conse-
crated Bishop of Abyssinia by the Pa-

triarch Athanasius of Alexandria.

That is quite correct, but it spells death to

the idea that the Abyssinian Coptic Church is

the oldest form of Christianity, and to the no-

tion that the Church of Rome was subsequent
in origin. For St. Athanasius, who consecrated
St. Frumentius, was in complete union with the

Pope of Rome! In certain difficulties with his

own subjects St. Athanasius appealed to the
Pope, and Pope Julius I wrote back to the

rebels, "Do you not know that the ordinary

practice is first to write to us, and from Rome
to receive the decision as to what is right?



8 ST. FRUMENTIUS

Should any reproach fall upon the Bishop of

your city, you must undoubtedly refer the case

to this Church of Rome." How could St. Ath-
anasius be subject to the Church of Rome if
the Church of Rome had not yet arisen? And
what religion would St. Frumentius preach

save that professed by the Bishop who conse-
crated him? St. Frumentius preached the

Roman faith, and lived and died without ever
hearing of the Coptic Church.

11. How did the Coptic Church come
into existence?

Christianity was first preached in Abyssinia

by St. Frumentius who had been consecrated

Bishop by St. Athanasius in 341 A.D. He

preached the faith of the Roman Church to
which all the Christian world adhered insofar

as it was the faith St. Peter himself had

preached at Rome. Over 100 years after the

consecration of St. Frumentius, Eutyches, an

Archimandrite of Constantinople, was con-

demned as a heretic at the Council of Chalce-

don in 451. Refusing to submit, Eutyches com-

menced the Monophysite heresy. Now some
Bishops from the Abyssinian Church founded

by St. Frumentius 110 years earlier were pres-

ent at the Council of Chalcedon. They then

acknowledged the jurisdiction of Pope Leo I.

But they became infected by the Monophysite

heresy, went back to their own country, broke

away from the authority of Rome, and com-

menced that sect which today is called the

Coptic Church of Abyssinia. The word "Coptic"



16 DIFFERENT ORTHODOX CHURCHES 9

means "Egyptian/' and the "Copts" are simply

the descendants of the Monophysite heretics

in Egypt. As you will notice, the Coptic sect

is very old. It is over a thousand years older

than any Protestant sect. But still it did not

begin until over 400 years after the foundation

of the Catholic Church. And when you realize

that it is now just about 400 years since
Protestantism began, you will understand that

the Catholic Church is a good deal older than

the Coptic Church.

12. What is the Greek Orthodox

Church?

There are some 16 different Orthodox

Churches existing independently of one an-

other. After the first really definite break with

Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constanti-

nople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth

century, the Eastern Church followed in the

path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up

into further divisions. Eight of these separate

sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patri-
archs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria,

Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and

Servia. The others lack definite rule. The term

"Greek Orthodox Church" is popularly applied

to any or all of these Churches; but strictly

speaking it should be reserved for that section

of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patri-

arch of Constantinople. This is really one of

Ihe smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Ru-

manians, Russians and others of Slav national-

ity, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it



10 GOVERNED BY BISHOPS

is clear that there is no one united Orthodox

Church at all, any more than there is one

united form of Protestantism. However, since

the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with

the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constanti-

nople against Rome in the ninth century, we
can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as be-

longing to the Greek Schism.

13. Was the Christian Church gov-
erned from the beginning with the

Bishop of Rome as supreme and infal-
lible head, or by a Council of Bishops?

The Church from the very beginning was

governed by the Bishops, including the Bishop

of Rome, all the other Bishops being in union

with and subject to the universal jurisdiction of

the Bishop of Rome. At times the Bishops met

together in Councils for more important delib-

erations, and the decisions of these Councils

were acknowledged as binding provided they

were approved and sanctioned by the Bishop

of Rome as supreme head of the Church.

14. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek

Orthodox Church at any stage after

the death of Christ recognize the Pope

as supreme and infallible head of the

Church?

We cannot speak of the "Patriarchs of the
Greek Orthodox Church

,#

prior to the Greek

Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D.



REPUDIATION OF SUPREMACY 11

Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Con-

stantinople, presiding there and subject to the

Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalism

wrote, "An examination of the circumstances

of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern

Church did then repudiate a supremacy which

it had previously been in the habit of conced-

ing to the Roman Patriarchate." The First

Council of Constantinople in 381, which only

Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the

Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after

the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of

Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chal-

cedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops,

ended its discussion with the unanimous cry,

"Peter has spoken by Leo," when the Pope's

decision was given. A century and a half later
Pope Gregory I could still write, "Who doubts

that the Church of Constantinople is subject to

to the Apostolic See?" No one then doubted

it; and no one disputed it until Photius came

along in 867 to plunge the East into schism.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the

Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormis-

das, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That for-

mula contained these words, "We follow the
Apostolic See in everything and teach all its

laws. I hope to be in that one Communion

taught by the Apostolic See in which is the

whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian

religion." Dean Milman writes, "Before the end

of the third century the lineal descent of Rome's

Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly

claimed and obsequiously admitted by the

Christian world."



12 CAUSE OF SPLIT

15. What reasons led to the break-
away of the Greeks?

The reasons were chiefly political. Accord-

ing to the most recent research work of Jugie,

Grumel, Amann, and Dvronik, the schism com-

menced by Photius in 867 would never have

happened had it not been for political rivalry

concerning jurisdiction over Bulgaria. In 861

the Bulgarians were converted by missionaries

from Constantinople.. In 866 Pope Nicholas I

appointed Bishops for the Bulgarians in order

to bring them under the jurisdiction of the

Latin Patriarchate of the West rather than have

them under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The motive to maintain Rome's political author-

ity over Constantinople was not absent, and

from this point of view the move was a grave

political mistake. The Greeks resented it, and

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote a

reprehensible letter to the Pope in 867 in which

he condemned the Catholic Church and made

various charges against her even from the doc-

trinal point of view. The undeniable provoca-

tion did not justify his doing this. The Pope

excommunicated Photius, who retaliated by ex-

communicating the Pope, and the schism com-

menced. Photius made peace with Pope John
VIII, and was duly recognized as Patriarch of

Constantinople; and the reconciliation endured

so long as Photius lived. But trouble had been

set on foot; and intermittent difficulties with

Rome continued until 1054 when Michael Ceru-

larius, the then Patriarch of Constantinople,

renewed the break with Rome, moved by sheer



VALIDITY OF ORDERS 13

ambition to be universal Patriarch over the

whole Church. He won the Emperor to his side

by appealing to national pride in the political

importance of Constantinople. From that time

on, no Patriarch of Constantinople has sought

confirmation of his appointment from Rome, nor

submitted to the jurisdiction of the Pope. Greek

Delegates to the Second Council of Lyons in

1274, and again at the Council of Florence in

1439, admitted that they should do so, and re-

turn to unity with Rome. But on each occasion

on their return to the East their admissions were

repudiated through national interests. So the

Greek Churches continue in their schismatical

state. Political quarrels and personal antagon-

isms, with faults on both sides, were the orig-

inal cause of the schism, not dogmatic differ-

ences. But from a doctrinal point of view, the

Eastern Churches are gradually drifting from

orthodoxy, and yielding to the inroads of mod-

ernist influences.

16. I have been told that Greek

priests have power to consecrate the

Eucharist.

Priests of the Greek Orthodox Churches

have valid Orders, and when they offer the
Sacrifice of the Mass, they consecrate validly.

17. As the Greeks are schismatics

and heretics also, how can you admit
their Orders whilst denying Anglican

Orders?



14 MARRIED GREEK PRIESTS

The Greek Orthodox Churches are separat-

ed from the Catholic Church by schism, or divi-

sion from its authority; and also by heresy,

insofar as they refuse to admit certain Catholic

dogmatic teachings. But these things do not

necessarily affect the question of Orders. If,

after leaving the Catholic Church, such ecclesi-

astical bodies retain the correct form of ordina-

tion, and administer the Sacrament of Holy

Orders with the right intention, then the priests

will be truly ordained, even though in a schis-

matical and heretical Church. This is the case

with the Orthodox Greeks. And since Greek

priests are truly ordained, they cannot be re-

ordained should they seek admission to the

Catholic Church. Even in the Anglican Church,

after its separation from Rome by Henry VIII,

in 1534, the ordinations continued to be cor-

rect for the first sixteen years, until 1550. But

in 1550, during the reign of Edward VI, the

form for ordination was altered, and the inten-

tion of ordaining priests in the Catholic sense

of the word was repudiated. From then on,

Anglican Orders have been simply invalid, and

converted clergymen from the Anglican Church

must remain either as Catholic laymen, or be

ordained as Catholic priests without any allow-

ance being made for their previous ordination

as ministers in the Church of England.

18. If a married Greek priest be-

came a Roman Catholic, would he be
allowed to officiate as a priest and still

live with his wife?



GREEK CHURCH AND REAL PRESENCE 15

He could not do so if he adopted the Latin

rite. But he could do so if, as would probably

happen, he joined one of the Uniate Greek

Churches which retain their Greek customs and

Liturgy even whilst subject to the Pope.

19. Do the Greek Churches believe

that Christ is really present in the

Eucharist? If so, do they celebrate a

valid Mass?

The Greek Churches believe in the Real

Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and since

their priests have valid Orders, they possess

the power of consecrating the Blessed Euchar-

ist in the true sense of the word. The Sacrifice

of the Mass in Greek Churches is, therefore,

every bit as valid as the Mass in the Catholic

Church, even though it is not celebrated in

Latin.

20. May a Catholic hear Mass, then,
in a Greek Church?

He may do so in a Uniate Greek Church,
but not in any of the schismatical Orthodox

Churches. Those Churches are not part of the

Catholic Church, but are in a state of schism

and of protest against the authority of Christ

in His true Church. Churches separated from

the unity of the Catholic Church are not ac-

cording to the will of Christ, who demands that
His followers should form one flock under one

shepherd. No Catholic therefore may take part



16 SACRAMENTS FROM GREEK PRIESTS

in, or sanction in any way, the services of the

Greek Orthodox Churches.

21. I have heard that, when a Cath-
olic priest is not available. Catholics

may receive the Sacraments from
Greek Orthodox priests. Is that con-

sistent?

When no Catholic priest is available, the
Catholic Church permits a dying Catholic to

receive one Sacrament only from a Greek

priest, and that is the Sacrament of Confession.

The very law of the Catholic Church forbidding

participation in Greek rites during life is to

preserve a Catholic from danger of schism, and

within the true Church, for the sake of his very

salvation. And if, at the hour of death, that

salvation can be the better secured by the re-

ception of absolution from a Greek priest rath-

er than go without such absolution, the Church

wisely and mercifully permits it. But, as is

clear, this exception avails only in the case of

extreme necessity, when no Catholic priest is

available, and on condition that the Catholic

merely accepts absolution from the Greek priest

as a priest, and in no way approving his posi-
tion as schismatic.

22. In what doctrines do the Greek

Orthodox Churches differ from the

Roman Catholic Church?

They differ on many essential points, al-



DIFFERENCES WITH GREEK CHURCHES 17

though they are much nearer to Catholicism

than they are to Protestantism, insofar as they

retain the bulk of original Christian doctrine,

and a valid priesthood. They acknowledge the

doctrine of the Trinity, but deny that the Holy

Ghost proceeds from both Father and Son.

They deny the supremacy and infallibility of

the Pope; the right of the Church to baptize by

pouring the water instead of by completely

immersing the subject; the right to give Com-

munion under one kind only; the Catholic doc-

trine of the particular and general judgments;

also the Catholic doctrine on the nature of

purgatory, although they admit the existence

of purgatory. Whilst believing that Mary was

quite sinless, and maintaining a great devotion

to her as the Mother of God, they deny the doc-

trine of the Immaculate Conception. This, how-

ever, is a more recent denial. The Greek

Churches believed in the Immaculate Concep-

tion until the advent of Protestantism. Under

pressure of Protestant opinion they wavered

without denying it. The denial came when the

Pope defined the doctrine in 1854, but merely

because they were opposed to the Pope and

wished to manifest their opposition. They have

nothing against the doctrine in itself. The

Greeks also differ from Rome concerning the
nature of original sin, and of justification. These

are the chief differences, some of them render-

ing the Greek Churches heretical as well as

schismatical.

23. I belong to the Greek Orthodox

Church, and regard my religion as



18 GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH

identical with the Roman Catholic ex-
cept for the fact that you acknowledge

the Pope as head, whilst we acknowl-
edge the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Even were that true, you are confronted

with a great problem. Christ declared definite-

ly that His Church would be one fold under one

shepherd. And. your duty would be to inquire

as to the relative merits of the Pope and of the

Patriarch of Jerusalem in their claims to be

head of the Church. Both cannot be. But, as

a matter of fact, you cannot speak of one Greek

Orthodox Church with the Patriarch of Jeru-

salem as its head. The Rev. C. J. MacGillivray,

in his book, "Through the East to Rome," 1931,

says that, as an Anglican clergyman, he spent

some years in the East amongst the Greeks

and Syrians, working for the reunion of Greeks

and Anglicans. He found it impossible, and

in the end became a Catholic. On page 91 of
his book he writes: "To begin with, there is no

such thing as the 'Orthodox Church'. There

is a group of some 15 or 16 independent

Churches, recognizing no common authority,
but loosely connected as being all 'Orthodox'.

And again, if you leave out Russia, the whole

number of the Orthodox is exceedingly small;

and the Russian Church was only held togeth-

er by the power of the State. Compared to the

Roman Catholic Church the so-called Orthodox
Church is just a collection of fossilized and

moribund fragments of what was once a great

and living Church. Indeed it seems to me to
be a great object lesson in the disastrous con-



A SCHISMATIC CHURCH 19

sequences of abandoning the rock on which

the Church of Christ was built. The Orthodox

Church has ceased to be a living teacher. It

is incapable of any sort of development/ or of

that constant advance in thought and undying

vitality which are characteristic of the Roman

Catholic Church. It is not, indeed, carried

about with every wind of doctrine like the

Protestant Churches. It has, in the main, kept

the old Faith, but only at the cost of ceasing

to think. On all the vital questions which have
been discussed, and in many cases settled in
the West, it neither has, nor can have anything

to say." Such is the impression formed from

first-hand knowledge by the Rev. C. J. Mac-

Gillivray during his sojourn amongst Eastern

Christians as an Anglican clergyman. You

cannot, therefore, speak of the Greek Church

as one Church; and not all the groups compris-

ing it acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Patri-

arch of Jerusalem by any means.

24. Even though in schism, the

Greek Orthodox Church is at least an

Apostolic Church.

That cannot be admitted. The word "Apos-

tolic" in general signifies the identity of a pres-

ent Church with the Church of the Apostles.

This identity can be either adequate or inade-

quate. Adequate apostolicity is present when

a Church of today has not only the same doc-

trine and worship, and the same episcopal con-

stitution, but also the same uninterrupted and

lawfully transmitted jurisdiction or authority.



20 THE GREEK CHURCH

Without this latter requirement, any vestiges of

apostolicity are inadequate, and useless as a

mark of identification. The chief thing, there-

fore, is the continued juridical succession of

apostolic authority. Now this element precisely
is missing from the Greek Orthodox Church.

By the mere fact of being in schism, apostolic

authority is forfeited. In addition, the Greek

Church has not preserved the Faith intact in

many points. The Greek Church cannot there-
fore be called apostolic in the technical sense

of that word.

25. Do you deny the Greek Church

to be truly Catholic?

Yes. By Catholic we mean a given Church,
i.e., one united Church, which remains every-

where essentially the same, and inherits the

commission of Christ to teach all nations as a

right, exercising that right by constantly propa-

gating itself in continual expansion. Now, in

the first place, there is no one Greek Orthodox

Church. For example, there is no authoritative

bond of union between the Greek Churches of

Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia,

Servia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Es-

tonia, etc. Moreover, these Greek Churches

are not even conscious of a Divine commission

to teach all nations. They consent to be na-

tional in their outlook, and show no sign of the

expansive power which seeks to propagate it-

self amongst all peoples. The Greeks declare

the Latins to have fallen into schism, yet make

no effort to convert them back to "Orthodoxy."



NEARNESS OF GREEK ORTHODOXY 21

Is it not significant that, whilst no Latins ever

followed the Patriarch of Constantinople, many
in the East, including many Patriarchs of Anti-

och and Alexandria, remained in Communion

with Rome after the schisms of Photius and
Cerularius? It is impossible to regard the

Greek Orthodox Churches as Catholic in the

true sense of the word.

26. Since Greek Orthodoxy is so

near to Roman Catholicism, why
change from one to the other?

The mere fact that they are not identical is

sufficient reason for a change from Greek Or-

thodoxy to Catholicism. It is necessary to be

subject to the right authority. Obedience is the

very heart of religion. We went from God by
disobedience; the road back is by obedience.

And the authority of the Pope is that of Christ.

Of him Christ said, "He that heareth you, hear-

eth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth

Me." Lk. X, 16. Again, Christ said, "If a man
will not hear the Church, let him be as the

heathen/' Matt. XVIII, 17. Our Lord could

never have commanded men to obey two con-
flicting authorities. That would spell chaos.

The very reasons the Greeks urge for not be-

coming Catholics show that they do not really

believe their Churches to be as near to Cath-

olicism as they pretend. Moreover, Greek

priests are getting more and more into the

habit of fraternizing with Protestants in com-

mon services. But no Greek Orthodox priest
would be allowed to participate in any Cath-



22 BORN AFTER THE REFORMATION

olic rites. The Greeks acknowledge a bond

with definitely heretical Churches; but they

have no real bond with the Catholic Church.

They are outside Catholic unity.

27. I was taught by my parents that
the Church of England has always

been a distinct Church on its own
right from the second century.

Your parents apparently belonged to that

school of Anglicans which refuses to admit that

the Church of England origniated only at the

time of the Protestant Reformation. Those who

belong to that school of thought persuade

themselves that the present Anglican Church

is one and the same as the Church which was

established in England by the first Christian

missionaries to that country. But this theory

cannot stand the test of history.

28. You insist that it originated at

the time of the Protestant Reformation?

Yes, until the Reformation, England was a

Catholic country. The first missionaries

preached the Catholic religion, and were as

subject to the Pope as I am. Henry VIII was

a Catholic, and subject to the Pope until 1534,

when he rebelled against the Catholic Church,

left it, and made himself head of his own new

Church within his own kingdom.

29.

Is your verdict historical?



PRE-REFORMATION CHURCH 23

It is the normal and correct verdict of the

ordinary historian who judges simply in ac-
cordance with the facts, and who has no par-

ticular ecclesiastical theory to maintain. Thus

Lecky, an agnostic, in his "History of England

in the Eighteenth Century," says that the

Church of England was founded at the Refor-

mation as an institution most intensely and

distinctively English.

30. The Church of England, then,

is not one with the pre-Reformation

Church in England?

No. If it were, it would still be subject to

the Pope, one with the Catholic Church

throughout the world, observing the same

Canon Law, offering the same Sacrifice of the

Mass, and teaching the same doctrines as those

held by all Catholics today, whether in Italy,

Spain, France, Germany, Austria, America,

Australia, India, Africa, and elsewhere through-

out the world. But on all points, doctrinal, de-

votional, and disciplinary, the Church of Eng-

land is out of harmony with the Catholic

Church. Any one who believes that the reli-
gion of England for over a thousand years

prior to the Reformation was correct, has no

option but to leave Anglicanism and return to

the Catholic Church—as I myself did.

31. Will you briefly explain how the
Anglican Church came about?

Until the year 1534, Henry VIII was in full



24 BIRTH OF ANGLICANISM

communion with and subject to the Pope, and
England was a Catholic country. In fact, after
Luther in Germany had rebelled against the
Pope in 1517, Henry wrote a book to refute

him, and received in return for this from the

Pope the title, "Defender of the Faith." Un-

fortunately Henry grew tired of his lawful wife,

Catherine of Aragon, and wished to put her

away and marry Anne Boleyn. He asked the
Pope to annul his marriage with Catherine;

but, as his marriage to Catherine was quite

valid, he failed to secure the favor he sought.

He therefore broke with Rome, and had himself

created head of the Church of England by the

Act of Royal Supremacy in 1534. He thus set

up the Church of England as a Church inde-

pendent of the Catholic Church, and took the

divorce he wanted. Whilst repudiating the au-

thority of the Pope, however, Henry also re-

pudiated the new Protestant doctrines apart

from the denial of Papal authority. He insisted

on all other Catholic teachings and practices,

persecuting Catholics who denied the royal

supremacy, and Protestants who denied tran-

substantiation and the Mass. After Henry's

death, however, his new Church could not

remain as it was, neither Catholic nor Protest-

ant. Under Edward VI, who was but a boy,

Cranmer protestantized both the doctrines and

worship of the Church of England. Edward

died before the work was consolidated, and

was succeeded by Mary, who was an ardent

Catholic. She determined to undo the work of

both Henry and Cranmer, banishing the for-

mer's royal supremacy, and the latter's Protest-



THE FOUNDER OF ANGLICANISM 25

antism. She restored the Catholic religion, and

the deposed Catholic Bishops, and brought the

Church once more into unity with Rome under

the jurisdiction of the Pope. That ended the

first phase of the Church of England as a

separated Anglican Church. This was in 1554,

twenty years after Henry's first break with

Rome in 1534. Mary died, however, in 1558.

And in the first year of her reign, 1559, Eliza-

beth renewed the Act of Royal Supremacy, and

set up the independent Church of England

again, this time on a definitely Protestant basis.

The Protestant Church of England has con-

tinued unbrokenly since then, though it has

exhibited an interior spirit of dissension and

turmoil such as few other Protestant sects can

boast.

32. Anglicans deny absolutely that

Henry VIII. was the founder of the
Church of England.

That denial will not stand the test of history.

It is certain that prior to 1534 the Church in

England was subject to the authority of the

Pope. After 1534, when Henry repudiated the
authority of the Pope and set himself up as

supreme head on earth of the Church in his

realm, a new Church was the result—just as
America became a new and separate nation
when, in 1776, it repudiated the authority of the

King of England, despite its retaining the same

customs, traditions, language, and possessions

as before.



26 THE HENRICIAN CHURCH

33. Henry insisted that the Church

should remain just as it was.

You forget that the Church is essentially a

unified society, and that it is utterly dependent

upon the bond of authority binding it together.

The authority and jurisdiction of the Pope is

the very heart of the constitution of the Church.

When Henry rejected the authority and juris-
diction of Rome, and declared these things to

be centered in him as far as the Church in his

realm was concerned, he dragged that Church

into schism and altered its essential character,

by the radical constitutional change he had

imposed upon it. The Henrician schismatical

Church was by the very fact cut off from, and

outside the true Catholic Church.

34. There was a true continuity with

the previously existing Church in Eng-

land.

The new Church continued to retain the

Church property and buildings that belonged

to the old Church, but did not retain identity

with that Church. It could not break away

from that Church and still belong to it. The

Anglican Dr. Goudge rightly says, "The English

Church has in England supplanted the Roman,

and we hold the Cathedrals, the parish

Churches, and the little that the State has left

of the ancient endowments. ... If English

Roman Catholics were not hostile to the

Anglican Church, it would be a miracle of

grace."



SIR W. S. HOLDSWORTH, LL.D. 27

35. The continuity of the Church

of England with the pre-Reformation

Church is recognized by the law of

England.

To that I will let Sir W. S. Holdsworth, K.C.,

D.C.L., LL.D., professor of English Law in the
University of Oxford, reply. In his "History of

English Law/' published 1931, he writes that,

because the Pope would not grant Henry VIII

a divorce, "a break with Rome became neces-

sary. Although the break was accomplished

with as little external change as possible, it

necessarily involved an altogether new view
as to the relations between Church and State.

In the preamble to Henry's Statutes we can see
the gradual elaboration of the main character-

istics of these changed relations . . . the theory

of the Royal Supremacy. The dual control over

things temporal and things spiritual is to end.

The Crown is to be supreme over all persons

and causes. The Canon Law of the Western
Church is to give place to the 'King's Ecclesi-

astical Law of the Church of England' ... In
the preamble to the Statute of Appeals in 1533

the relations between the new Anglican Church
and the State were sketched by the king him-

self with his own hand . . . Henry VIII often
inserted in the preambles to his Statutes rea-

soned arguments designed to prove the wisdom

of the particular Statute. And ... he never

hesitated to color facts and events to suit his

purpose. But the preamble to this Statute of

Appeals is remarkable, partly because it manu-

factures history on an unprecedented scale, but



28 THE TUDOR SETTLEMENT

chiefly because it has operated from that day

to this as a powerful incentive to its manufac-

ture by others on similar lines. Nor is the rea-

son for this phenomenon difficult to discover.

The Tudor Settlement was a characteristically

skillful instance of the Tudor genius for creating

a modern institution with a mediaeval form.

But, in order tocreatethe illusion that the new
Anglican Church was indeed the same institu-

tion as the mediaeval Church, it was necessary

to prove the historical continuity of these two

very different institutions. ... It was not till an

historian arose who, besides being the great-

est historian of this century, was both a con-

summate lawyer, and a dissenter from the

Anglican as well as the other Churches (i.e.,

F. W. Maitland, LL.D., D.C.L., late Downing

Professor of Law at Cambridge) that the his-
torical worthlessness of Henry's theory was

finally demonstrated." Such are the words of

Sir W. S. Holdsworth on the recognition of

Anglican continuity by English Law. They will

be found in his "History of English Law," 5th

Edit., 1931.

36. The Church of England is Cath-

olic, because it holds to the old truths

which are patently cardinal.

It permits the denial of those truths even by

its own Bishops. In his book, "The Necessity

for Catholic Reunion," published in 1933, the

Rev. T. Whitton, M.A., an Anglican clergyman,

writes, "The Anglican Communion is very un-

like the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox



CHURCH OF ENGLAND IS NON-CATHOLIC 29

Communions. Each of the latter are at least

one in faith. In the Anglican Communion, on

the contrary, there is no such unity. Not only

are there at least three different and contradic-

tory religions calling themselves 'Catholic',

'Evangelical', and 'Modernist', but also these

three religions are divergent."

38. To these the Church of England

is as a whole unalterably faithful.

The unalterable fidelity of the Church of

England as a whole to the basic truths of

Christianity is a mere dream. It is necessary

to face realities. The Protestant Bishop Weston,

of Zanzibar, published a book in 1914 entitled,

"Ecclesia Anglicana." In it he wrote that the

Church of England, of which he himself was a

Bishop, is "puffed up with a sense of what she

calls her broadmindedness," but that she

"stands today at the judgment bar, innocent

alike of narrowmindedness and broadminded-

ness, but proven guilty of double-mindedness.

And until she recovers a single mind, and

knows it, and learns to express it, she will be of

use neither in the sphere of reunion nor in the

mission field." He added that ministers of the

Church of England treat "the fundamental

articles of the Christian Faith as open ques-

tions."

39. Neither by addition as some, nor

by subtraction as others, do we allow
the Apostolic deposit of Faith to be im-

paired.



30 SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

Ideals, and not a vision of the real dictate

such statements. Deploring the different and

contending parties in the Church of England,

the Rev. T. Whitton, in the book above quoted,

says, "In this confusion and contradiction what

can be expected of the people? Seeing these

differences, and the teachings of the Modern-

ists, and that the Bishops do not repress these

contradictions, they naturally conclude that the

parsons themselves do not believe that Jesus

Christ is God. They think that the Bishops

would never allow these important doctrines

to be denied if they believed them themselves.

. . . The Church of England is simply unable

to cope with a situation which is rapidly chang-

ing from bad to worse on account of these

divisions. . . . There are Bishops and others

who boast of their divergence from the Catholic

Church even in the fundamental doctrines of

the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation . . . and

there is no court in the Church of England

competent to declare the truth or condemn

error." How can it be said the Church of
England does not allow the Apostolic deposit

of the Faith to be impaired? The safest posi-

tion for an Anglican to adopt is to say that it

does not matter whether his Church holds to

the old truths or not; that those truths cannot

be cardinal; and that it is the genius of Angli-

canism to allow any kind of teaching at all.

40. At the Reformation we brought
back the doctrine of the sufficiency of

Holy Scripture.



REV. MR. WHITTON 31

Anglicanism adopted that principle from

the Continental reformers. But it no longer

believes in that doctrine. The Rev. Mr. Whitton

writes, "The real Evangelicals are in a difficult

position, for tl^e Church of England no longer

believes in the Inspiration of the Bible, as she

allows it to be denied by those who teach in

her name." As for the Reformation, he says

that the Anglo-Catholic or High Church clergy-

man "regards the Reformation as thoroughly
bad. He yearns for the time when it shall be

undone, and the Church of England be one in

faith under the Pope as she was until the

catastrophe of the sixteenth century, since

when she has lost the mass of the people. He

gradually learns to repudiate the whole of the

present regime. He sees that the so-called

Ecclesiastical Courts derive their authority

from the State, and that there are no Spiritual

Courts whatever left. He sees that the Book

of Common Prayer is a schedule to an Act of
Parliament, and that spiritual authority it has

none except the promise made to use the form
contained in it; also that this promise is made
by order of, and to the State, and therefore is

to be interpreted in a sense as strictly mini-

mized as possible."

41. Together with Scripture, of

course, we accept the authority of the
Church.

Mr. Whitton writes, "Membership in the

Church of England determines nothing; in that

comprehensive body all beliefs are called in



32 DENIAL OF DOCTRINES

question except perhaps the existence of God.

No one can say that a man, just because he is
a member of the Church of England, must hold
any one doctrine. Anglo-Catholics and Evan-

gelicals will probably dispute this." But the

Rev. Mr. Whitton adds that each of these

groups follows its own theory, and it is not in
obedience to any authority of the Church. In

fact, "they know that the Church of England

does not demand it; that others in the same
Communion believe and act quite contrarily,

and are allowed to do so quite freely by their

Church." How then can it be said that Angli-
cans believe in the authority of their Church?

42. Anglicanism insists on belief in

the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the

uniqueness of the Incarnation, and the

Holy Spirit as proceeding from the

Father and the Son.

I would that the Church of England did

maintain such Catholic teaching. But it does

not. The Report of the Girton Conference of

Modern Churchmen, 1921, records the words of

the head of an Anglican Theological College

as follows: "Christ did not claim Divinity for

Himself. ... I do not suppose for a moment

that Jesus ever thought of Himself as God. . . .

We must absolutely jettison the traditional
notion that His person was not human but

Divine." How can it be said that the Church
oi England insists on belief in the Trinity and

the Divinity of Christ? In their book, "Is Chris-

tianity True," Cyril Joad, the rationalist, chal-



THE SACRAMENTS 33

lenges Arnold Lunn, an Anglican at the time

of their controversy, in these words, "The only

branch of Christianity which has not declined

is Roman Catholicism. Logical, coherent, defi-

nite, and above all, dogmatic, it offers a sure

foundation to those whose feet are beset by

the quicksands of modern doubt. I find it in

the highest degree significant that, although

you have so recently controverted against

Father Knox and taken up the cudgels against

Catholicism, when you come to a rough-and-

tumble with me over the whole field of Chris-
tian controversy, you have over and over again

adopted the Catholic point of view, and . . .

retreated in safety behind the ramparts of the

citadel of Rome." So speaks the rationalist.

And, as a matter of fact, shortly after this con-

troversy with Joad, Arnold Lunn found no

alternative save to be received into the Cath-

olic Church.

43. The Church of England retains

the seven Sacraments.

Some Anglicans or Episcopalians venerate

seven Sacraments; some venerate two; some

have no faith in any. The 39 Articles declare

that there are two Sacraments properly so-

called, Baptism and Eucharist. The other five

are not to be regarded strictly as Sacraments.

And, of course, even though the Holy Euchar-

ist is declared to be a Sacrament, it is not

accepted in the orthodox sense, and that it

contains the Real Presence of the Body and

Blood of Christ is denied. Both the Catholic



34 REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST

Church and the Greek Orthodox Church have

retained seven Sacraments as coming down
from the very beginning, and as instituted by

Christ Himself.

44. The Church of England believes

in the Real Presence of Christ in the

Eucharist.

At the Reformation the Church of England

abolished that doctrine. Thomas Cranmer,

who had gone to the Continent and absorbed
the spirit of Protestantism in Germany, decided

after the death of Henry VIII to protestantize

the Church of England. And one of the fore-

most planks in the new Protestant platform was

the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the

Mass, and of the Real Presence of Christ in the

Eucharist. As Archbishop of Canterbury under

the boy king Edward VI, Cranmer had prac-

tically a free hand to do as he pleased. And

having lost the Catholic Faith himself, he made

the fullest use of his position to rob the English

people of that same faith. Rejecting any idea

that the bread can actually become the Body

of Christ, the Anglican Articles have to find

some other explanation for the Eucharist. They

say that the Body of Christ is received by faith.

The bread still remains bread after the conse-

cration. There is no trace of Christ's Body in

the bread, or under its appearances. At most

the bread is but a symbol of Christ's Body. If

the one receiving the bread has faith, it will be

as if it were Christ's Body for him, though it

isn't in itself. That is the authentic Anglican



MASS IN ANGLICAN CHURCHES 35

doctrine, invented as a substitute for the Cath-

olic and Greek Orthodox doctrine of the real

objective Presence of Christ's Body. John

Jewel (1571), Bishop of Salisbury, wrote: "The

bread we receive with our earthly mouths is
an earthly thing, and therefore a figure, as the

water in Baptism is also a figure . . . the Sacra-

mental Bread is bread; it is not the Body of

Christ." In 1898, April 4th, the then Anglican

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Temple, wrote

to a lady who asked him whether the doctrine

of the Real Presence was according to Anglican

teaching: "Dear Madam, The bread used in

Holy Communion is certainly not God, either

before consecration or after; and you must not

worship it." Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham,

repeats the same doctrine today: "There is no

real objective Presence of Christ attached to

the bread and wine used in Holy Communion."

45. I have attended Anglican

Churches in which Mass is celebrated

and the blessed Sacrament reserved

for the adoration of the people.

Both practices are quite out of harmony

with Anglicanism or Episcopalianism. The 31st

Article of Religion, setting forth Church of Eng-

land doctrine, says, "The sacrifices of Masses,

in which it was commonly said that the priest

did offer Christ for the living and the dead to

have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphem-

ous fables and dangerous deceits." In his

book, "What We Owe to the Reformation," p.
19, Dr. Ryle, Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, says.



36 HIGH CHURCH

"The Reformers found the Sacrifice of the Mass

in our Churches. They cast it out as a blas-

phemous fable and a dangerous deceit. . . .

The Reformers found our clergy sacrificing

priests, and made them prayer-reading, preach-
ing ministers—ministers of God's Word and
Sacraments. The Reformers found in our

Church the doctrine of a real corporal presence

of Christ in the Lord's Supper under the forms

of bread and wine, and laid down their lives
to oppose it. They would not even allow the

expression 'real presence' a place in our Prayer

Book."

46- Is there much difference between
the High Church section of the Church

of England and the Roman Catholic
Church?

There is a profound and radical difference.

For High Church Anglicans equally belong to

the Church of England with Low Churchmen
who hold the Protestant teaching and outlook;
and equally with them repudiate the divinely-

given authority of the Catholic Church. No in-

troduction of similar forms of worship could

make the High Church section of the Church

of England identical with the Catholic Church.

For the essential thing in religion is obedience.

We went from God by disobedience. Our way
back is to retrace our steps by obedience. And

if religion is to get us back, it must essentially

demand obedience. So Christ said, "If you

love Me, keep My commandments." Jn. XIV,
15. And again, "If a man will not hear the



REV. J. M. LLOYD THOMAS 37

Church, let him be as the heathen." Matt.

XVIII, 17. Similar rites and ceremonies can no

more make an Anglo-Catholic a member of the

Catholic Church than the similar language

makes an American a member of the British

Empire. For the United States repudiates the

unifying bond of authority proper to the British

Empire. The profound and radical difference

between High Church Anglicans and the Cath-

olic Church will cease to exist only when these

High Churchmen sever their connection with

the Anglican Church and submit to Rome.

47. Whatever her doctrinal differ-

ences, the Church of England has nev-

er failed in her moral witness.

Writing in the "Hibbert Journal" for July,

1930, apropos of the Lambeth Conference of

that year, the Rev. J. M. Lloyd Thomas, a

Protestant minister of Birmingham, said, "We
can be magnanimous enough to recognize that

Rome in a uniquely tenacious temper, is a
steward of the mysteries and of the moral wit-

ness of the Christian Church. The supreme

attraction of Rome is to be found in its ethical
rigorism. Rome is the one uncompromising

corporate witness to that moral code of Chris-

tendom which preserves Western Civilization

from final collapse. It represents the last loyal-

ty of the human race to its own highest moral
standards. It is the iron bulwark of Christian-

ity against the overwhelming invasion of the

corrupting neo-paganism of our times. There

is no authoritative moral theology which can



38 FREE CHURCHES

tell us what is the final judgment of Anglicans

and Free Churchmen on questions such as

marriage, divorce, birth control, companionate

experiments, abortion, euthanasia, suicide.

Only Rome speaks with one voice on such
themes, and these are the issues of life and

death, of the survival or decline of the West."

After the Lambeth Conference of that year, the

London "Daily Express," Aug. 15th, 1930, said

that the Anglican Church "could not hope to

control the conduct of men by debated meas-

ures conceived in fear and born in compro-

mise." And the Anglican Rev. T. H. Whitton

wrote in 1933, "So the defense of Christian

morals is left to Rome, and the Anglican Com-

munion, and all of us within it, stand dis-

graced before the world . . . the only remedy,

and the only safeguard against other breaches

in the Christian moral code, is Catholic re-

union." The Necessity for Catholic Reunion,"

pp. 116-117.

48 . I have heard it said that the

Free Churches could not have with-

stood the onslaughts of Rome had it

not been for the Anglican Church.

Never was a statement farther from the

truth. The very term "Free Churches" arose

from a refusal to submit to Elizabeth's "Act of.

Uniformity in Religion" by which she tried to

make all Englishmen submit to the Anglican

Church. Protestants who refused to submit

were called "Noncomformists." They would

not conform to the Established Church any



PRESBYTERIANISM 39

more than Catholics. They wanted Churches

free from Rome, but also free from domination

by the Crown. They suffered persecution to-

gether with Catholics and, as the "Pilgrim

Fathers" fled from England to America to es-

cape the State-established Church of England.

The truth, therefore, is not that the "Free

Churches" withstood the onslaughts of Rome

with the help of the Anglican Church, but that

both Catholics and Nonconformists have sur-

vived the onslaughts of the Anglican Church

in England. All that, of course, is past history;

but it is past history which should not be for-

gotten whilst such things as you have heard

are being said.

49. How did the Free Churches
originate in England?

Their origin can be traced back as far as

1567, when there were small independent con-

gregations of religious people, strongly Protest-

ant, who rejected not only Catholicism, but also
the very idea of an established and national

Church. In 1593 Henry Barrowe and John

Greenwood were put to death for denying that

the national Church of England was the true

Church of Christ, that the Queen could make
laws for the Church, and for insisting that each

particular Church should govern itself. The

idea of independent Churches gave rise to the

Congregational Churches of today.

50. Whence came Presbyterianism?

Presbyterianism was founded by John Knox



40 METHODISTS

in Scotland. John Knox was a Catholic priest
who had thrown in his lot with John Calvin at
Geneva. He began to preach Calvinistic
Protestantism in Scotland about the year 1555.

He was expelled from the country, but returned
in 1559. By Acts of the Scottish Parliament

Protestantism under the form preached by John

Knox was made the established religion of
Scotland in 1560. Presbyterianism, therefore,

was founded by John Knox, and dates from
1560 as an organized Church.

51. Are not Methodists very sincere

people?

Many of them are. There are sincere people
in every Church. But the Methodist Church

cannot be the true Church of Christ. Traced

back historically, it merges into Anglicanism.

In 1728 John Wesley was ordained as an Angli-

can clergyman. He gathered together a group

of earnest Anglicans who met for study and

prayer, and who lived according to such strict

rules that they were called "Methodists." They

had no intention of leaving the Church of

England. In 1738 John Wesley began his cam-

paign as a revivalist preacher, and the hostility

of Anglican authorities who resented his un-

orthodox ways led to the establishment of the

separate "Wesleyan" or "Methodist" Church.

Methodists teach salvation by faith in Christ

and an experienced interior conversion. Apart

from that they do not stand for any distinctive

point of teaching or Church discipline. Formal

Creeds and set forms of worship have little

appeal for them.



"CHURCH OF CHRIST" 41

52. Is not the "Church of Christ" the

only true name for a Church mentioned
in the Bible?

No. Christ described His Church in very

many significant ways—all of which apply to
the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church

only.

53. The "Church of Christ" was es-

tablished on the Day of Pentecost.

The true Church of Christ commenced then,

but not what are called the Protestant

"Churches of Christ." These can be traced

back to a Rev. Alexander Campbell, who was
bom in 1788, and who was originally a Presby-
terian. As Mr. Campbell grew up, he pressed

the Protestant principle of "The Bible Only" to

its extreme limits, and repudiated all creeds or

statements of doctrine. He therefore felt com-

pelled to leave the Presbyterians who clung to
the Westminster Confession, based on Calvin-

ism, and became a wandering preacher affiliat-

ed with the Baptists. However he was never

strictly a Baptist, and soon began writing and

lecturing as a free lance religious teacher. He

soon gathered some devoted followers, and in

1827 these followers formed themselves into a

sect called the "Disciples of Christ." The Rev.

Mr. Campbell died in 1866, and his followers

fell into disputes concerning methods of organ-

ization. As a result two sections arose, calling

themselves respectively the "Progressives," and

the "Conservatives." The "Progressives" re-



42 "CHURCHES OF CHRIST"

tained the title "Disciples of Christ/' whilst the

"Conservatives" took the new title "Churches
of Christ." As the division took place about

the year 1900, the "Church of Christ" as an

independent body dates from the beginning of

this century.

54. What are the doctrines of the
Church of Christ?

Since those who form what are called the
"Churches of Christ" repudiate creeds, it is not

possible to state their doctrines very clearly.

They say at least that people must be Chris-

tians, but they will not state what Christians

must believe. They demand, of course, that

the Bible be accepted as God's Word, but no

exact statement of what the Bible means can

be imposed on anybody by those who main-

tain the right of private interpretation. Prob-

ably the members of the "Churches of Christ"

would like to be described simply as "Bible

Christians," and nothing more.

55. On what grounds do you reject
the claim of the "Churches of Christ"

to be the true form of Christianity?

On the score that they ignore or reject the
faith, worship, and discipline Christ intended

to prevail in His Church. Also their basic prin-

ciple, held together with other Protestants, that

the Bible only is the one rule of faith is false.

Moreover, a Church which cannot trace back

its history beyond 1827 is 1827 years too late



ORIGIN OF BAPTISTS 43

to be the Church founded by Christ Himself.

We have seen the force of that reason when
dealing with the truth of the Catholic Church.

56. I am a Baptist, and I believe
that St. John the Baptist himself was

the founder of our Church.

You are mistaken in that; and in any case

such an origin would be of no real value for

one who professes to be a Christian. The New
Testament insists that we must follow Christ,
not St. John the Baptist. For the preaching of

John the Baptist was essentially a preparation

for Christ. He himself told his followers not to

remain his disciples, but to become disciples of

Christ. "He must increase/' he said, "and I

must decrease." To inquirers he said clearly,

"I am not the Christ." In Acts XIX, 3-5, we find
the Apostles baptizing again in the name of

Christ those who had received only John's
baptism. However, as a matter of fact, the

Baptist Church cannot trace itself back to St.

John the Baptist.

57. How and when did it begin?

The first traces of the Baptists appeared in

1521. Martin Luther began the Protestant re-

volt against the Catholic Church in Germany

in 1517. In 1521 a certain Thomas Munzer set

up as a prophet on his own account, claiming

that Luther did not go far enough in abolishing

former ideas. He taught that no one who had

been baptized as an infant was really baptized



44 NUMBER OF BAPTISTS

at all. His adherents, therefore, had to be bap-

tized again. From this his followers got the

name of "Anabaptists," or the "Rebaptizers."

It was almost 100 years before this movement

spread from the Continent to England, although

the English Baptists disclaim any connection

with the Anabaptists. The first English Bap-

tists were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys; and

the first Baptist Chapel was commenced in

London in 1611. John Smyth had been an

Anglican minister prior to his becoming a Bap-

tist, which he did in Germany through his asso-

ciation with the Anabaptists there. The Baptist

Church, therefore, traces itself back to 1611 in

England, and indirectly to 1521 on the Con-

tinent. Prior to that it was non-existent.

58. How many Baptists are there in
the world today?

The Baptists have gone off into many inde-
pendent subdivisions, but all told they would

number about 12 millions.

59. What are their doctrines?

They are much like the Congregationalists

or the Methodists, save in their main point of

adult baptism only, and by immersion. For

the rest. Baptists are required to accept the

Bible as the Word of God and as the only and

sufficient rule of faith; and, of course, they must

believe in the Divinity of Christ and the atone-

ment for sin wrought by His death on the Cross.



CATHOLIC CHUBCH AND SALVATION ARMY 45

60. Does the Catholic Church rec-

ognize the Salvation Army as in any
way representative of genuine Chris-
tianity?

No. As a religious body the Salvation Army

is a form of Protestantism which the Catholic

Church cannot but reject. It was founded by

William Booth, an ex-Wesleyan minister. Dis-

agreeing with Methodist ways, he left the

Wesleyans in 1861 to become an independent

evangelist. In 1865 he and his wife began to

devote themselves to street preaching and res-

cue work in the slums of London. In 1877 he

organized his converts into the Salvation Army,

with himself as General, with the avowed pur-

pose of working for the conversion of the poor

and the alleviation of their temporal needs.

But the whole movement is characterized by an

un-Catholic, and even an anti-Catholic outlook.

61. Does not the Army agree with

the Catholic Church that men owe their
redemption to the Precious Blood of

Christ?

Yes. But the Salvation Army has an ex-
tremely Protestant view of the nature of the
Christian religion in other vital points—a view
radically opposed to the Catholic concept.

Where the Army preaches, "Believe on Christ
and be saved," the Catholic Church insists that
no one, whilst still in this life, can actually be
termed "saved"; and that it is the will of Christ



46 SIMPLE PEOPLE

that all should believe in the Catholic Church,

accepting all that she teaches and commands

in the name of Christ, This involves accept-

ance of the Catholic Faith, the worship of God

by assistance at the Sacrifice of the Mass, the

reception of the Sacraments instituted by

Christ, and the fulfillment of those good works

for the love of God which are demanded by
Christian virtue.

62. Through the Salvation Army God
provides for a certain class of people

not reached by the Catholic Church.

God does not need the Salvation Army for
that. He can provide by divine grace for men

outside the fold of the Catholic Church in a

thousand and one ways. He does so for in-

fidels, Mahometans, Anglicans, Presbyterians,

Methodists, Adventists, and a host of others.

If the apparent good done by the Salvation

Army is proof that God Himself inspired its
creation, then the apparent good done by all

other Protestant organizations is proof that He

inspired them also. And we cannot admit that
God inspired all these conflicting religious

bodies—bodies, also, which unite in denying
the claims of that Catholic Church which Christ

did undoubtedly establish.

63. Are not Salvation Army methods

preferable for simple people incapable

of intellectual study to the Catholic

Sacramental system?



SALVATION ARMY METHODS 47

Under no circumstances could we say that.

For, firstly, we can never admit that any means

devised by men could be preferable to those

instituted by Christ Himself. Secondly, we can-

not .say that the Catholic Sacramental system

is in any way unsuitable for simple people; for
Catholic children are well able to appreciate

the significance of the Sacraments and to bene-

fit by them. The value of the Sacraments does

not depend upon the intellectual capabilities

of the recipients. Thirdly, you seem to argue

on merely natural grounds, not making suf-

ficient allowance for the fact that Catholic

Faith is a gift of divine grace, which is as diffi-

cult for intellectual people to attain as for

simple people, and as easy for simple people

as for intellectuals.

64. The Catholic way may be better
for some types of people, but the Sal-

vation Army way is superior for others.

Our Lord gave His religion for all mankind,

and that religion is the Catholic religion. Had

He thought variations necessary for different

types. He would have incorporated them in the
religion He established. He did not do so.
Nor can a way which involves the preaching
of heresy be better for anybody in reality and

absolutely speaking, whatever good it may ac-
cidentally accomplish or occasion. I am dis-
cussing the matter from the viewpoint of prin-

ciple, of course. Though I do not think the

Salvation Army justified as a substitute for the
true Catholic Church, I have an immense ad-



48 SALVATION ARMY WAY

miration of the zeal and sincerity of its mem-
bers; their demonstration of the courage of their

convictions, and the sacrifices they make; the

indifference to the world on the part of women
members exhibited by their modest dress and

behavior. But, with all their good will, they

support and continue a movement which ig-

nores and is independent of the true Church

established by Christ.

65. The conclusion would be that

the Salvation Army has a God-ap-

pointed, and not merely a man-de-

signed place in this world.

Though the Salvation Army has the best of

intentions, there is no doubt that it is a man-

designed enterprise for religious purposes.

General Booth was a good man who wanted
to do something for God and the salvation of

souls. Being a stranger to the Catholic religion,

and not satisfied with any other Church, he

had to fall back on his own ideas. But they

were very much his own ideas. However,

though not God-appointed, the Salvation Army

has resulted in much good, and in many genu-
ine conversions from evil ways of living. And

the explanation of that is simply this: Many a
good man mistakenly does what is wrong with
the best of intentions. In such cases, God
overlooks the mistake, and even in spite of it

blesses that man, and makes his work an occa-

sion of blessing to others. But it always re-

mains true that the work itself was really in

opposition to God's will. Such is the position



SPIRITUALISM 49

of General Booth and the Salvation Army. We
Catholics rejoice at the sight of dny good the

Salvation Army may accomplish. But we are

compelled to regret that it should be regarded

by its members as a sufficient form of the Chris-

tian religion, and be allowed to occupy that

place in the lives of its adherents which should

really be held by Catholicism only. Many are
thus contented to remain outside the Catholic

Church, and to have so much less than our

Lord really intended them to possess.

66. How does the Roman Catholic
Church view Spiritualism?

On April 24th, 1917, the Holy See issued the
following decree: "It is not lawful to assist at

any spiritualistic meetings, conversations with

spirits, or manifestations of spirits. It matters

not whether a medium be present or not, nor

whether the meeting seems to be above board

and apparently conducted from motives of

piety. A Catholic may not be present at such
meetings even as an onlooker, let alone asking

questions of departed spirits and listening to

their supposed replies."

67. How do you account for the
supernatural powers of some spiritual-

istic mediums?

Some of the phenomena produced by spir-
itualistic mediums are due to dexterity and
fraud; some to natural clairvoyant and tele-

pathic powers; some to the influence of evil



50 RETURN OF DEPARTED SOULS

spirits. None can be ascribed to good spirits.

God does not work that way, nor do His good
ministering angels.

68. Do departed souls return to

speak at spiritualistic meetings?

No. With God's special permission, and by

His power, it would be possible for a departed

soul to communicate with those still in this

world. But I deny that this occurs at spiritual-

istic seances. Supposed communications from

deceased people at such weird gatherings are

due to fraud on the part of the mediums; or are

only imaginary and due to mental suggestion

imposed by a medium; or are created by some

dupe's own excited and expectant psychologi-

cal state; or due to impersonation, some evil

spirit exerting its influence and pretending to

be this or that departed personality. Not only

the Catholic Church condemns spiritualism. No

professing Christian should have anything to

do with it and its occult practices.

69. Catholics believe in the com-

munications of the Saints.

We do not believe in any communication
with the souls of departed human beings in
any spiritualistic way. Those souls are not in

a condition of life adapted to such communica-

tion with us in this world. If God wishes. He
can by a miracle permit such communications,

but that very rarely happens and is quite ab-

normal. The Communion of Saints means



THE CHURCH AND SPIRITUALISM 51

simply that we who belong to the same Christ
as fellow members of Him can benefit by the

merits of the Saints and by their intercession.

Communication with them is by prayer on our

part. We are certain that they enjoy the very
Vision of God, in which Vision they are aware

of our prayers to them. But souls which have

riot attained to the Vision of God have no nor-
mal medium by which they can be aware of

our doings in this world.

70. By not believing in spiritualism

the Church discourages inquiries

which could lead to the discovery of

knowledge not possessed by herself.

The Church does not believe in spiritualism

as a semi-religious cult. She does believe in

the existence of a spirit-world. God Himself is

a pure spirit. Angels are spirits. So, too, are

departed souls, and likewise devils. But the

Church does not rely on spiritualism to provide

her with the truth she must teach to mankind.

She has received that truth from Jesus Christ

who commanded her to teach mankind all that

He had taught her. In the natural order the

Church encourages men to discover all that
science can teach them. In the supernatural

order, she remains strictly faithful to the teach-

ings of Jesus Christ. And she condemns spir-

itualism as a movement with all its works. If

men want supernatural progress, let them seek
to unite themselves with God by prayer and by
the Sacraments of Christ, not with spirits by

superstitious incantations in dark corners.



52 VISIONS AND VOICES

moved rather by a morbid curiosity than by

any desire to serve God and sanctify their
souls. Baron Von Hugel rightly said, "One

never gets any spiritual ideas out of spiritual-

ism."

71. The Bible speaks of visions re-

ceived by men, and of voices heard

prompting to a certain course of action.

The Bible records that such things happened

at times to certain people. But it does not say

that they will happen to all. If you came to me
to say that you had received a vision of some

departed person, you would not convince me
by producing documentary proof that St. Paul

had a vision whilst on the way to Damascus.
His vision would not prove yours; and I would

certainly not take your mere word for it.

72. Why do you doubt visions to-
day, or treat them as being of the devil,

or as due to insanity, or a temporary

delusion?

The presumption is against God's departure

from His ordinary ways. And the giving of

visions is not God's ordinary way of acting.

Therefore I would take it for granted that a

supposed vision would be due, not to God, but

to some physiological or psychological cause,

or to the influence of some evil spirit. Certain-

ly all such causes would have to be positively

disproved before I would go on to consider the



THE BIBLE PROPHESIES 53

vision in a supernatural light. That is ordinary

prudence, from which the Christian religion

dispenses no one. If a case were submitted to

me, I would first weigh very carefully all the

natural qualities of the person concerned. Is

he neurotic, nervous, hysterical? Or is he of a

calm, well-balanced temperament, and in good

bodily health? Is he normal mentally, or en-

dowed with an extravagant imagination? I

would weigh well his virtue. Is he utterly sin-

cere and humble, or eaten up with pride, and

given to vanity, boasting, and untruthfulness?

Then I would examine the nature of his vision,

and ask myself whether it in any way conflict-
ed with the doctrines of Christian Faith already

revealed by God; or whether it was in strict

accordance with Christian holiness and moral

decency. I would note also its effects upon

himself—good, or bad. The Catholic Church
has laid down many such tests. She does not
deny the possibility of such things; but she does

deny the right of any man to accept them as
from God with blind credulity.

73. The Bible prophesies that such

things will be.

The Bible does not say that such things will

occur always to everybody. Nor are they at

all necessary. Visions do not make the recipi-
ent of them any better or holier. God may
grant visions at times to the Saints because

they are Saints. But they are not Saints be-

cause they have visions. They are Saints

because they avoid sin as a very plague, and



54 SPIRIT MANIFESTATIONS

courageously practise Christian virtue. It is

virtue and goodness that matter, not visions.

74. T&e Bible should at least dispose

you to accept spirit manifestations

claimed by spiritualism.

That is not so. The evidence produced by

spiritualists has nothing like the value of the

evidence of Sacred Scripture. I do not deny

that, at times, spirit-beings may be responsible
for some of the manifestations at spiritualistic

seances. But, if they are, they are not good,

but evil spirits. God has given His complete
revelation through Christ. Also, since good

spirits are in perfect accordance with the will

of God, they could not be sent by Him to reveal

the contradictory and often blasphemous doc-

trines claimed by spiritualists to come from the

spirit-world. Moreover, if Scripture has any

authority, we must obey its precepts. What
are they? "Let there not be found among you

anyone that seeketh the truth from the dead."

Deut. XVIII, 10. In Lev. XX, God absolutely

condemns the man or woman who claims to
have a "divining spirit"—not a very comfort-
ing reflection for the modern medium. The

Prophet Isaiah (VIII, 19) says, "When they shall

say to you: Seek of people with a prophesying

spirit and of diviners who mutter in their en-

chantments, should not the people seek of their

God instead of seeking comfort for the living

from the dead?"

75. I John, IV., 1, tells us to "try the



TRY THE SPIRITS 55

spirits, if they be of God."

St. John is not referring to spiritual beings

of another world than this. He is speaking of

impulses and inclinations which come into our

minds, and which can lead to disaster if people

insist on following private judgment. He also

refers to the spirit of other people's teachings.

Immediately he makes this clear. "Believe not

every spirit," he says, "for many prophets have
gone out into the world." I Jn. IV, 1. We must
try the spirit of these teachings to see if they

be in conformity with the true doctrine revealed

by Christ. How are we to know that true doc-
trine? If every man is to decide for himself
what that true doctrine is, we are back in chaos
again. Christ knew this, and took the precau-

tion of establishing the Catholic Church, prom-

ising to preserve it from error till the end of

time. If any doctrine contradicts the authentic

teaching of the Catholic Church, it is false.

76. What is your judgment of Chris-

tian Science?

I regard it as a violation of Christian teach-

ing as well as of science and reason. Those

good people who take it up so enthusiastically
have not lost their attachment to a vague Chris-

tian sentiment, but they have lost their grip on

the fundamental truths of Christianity, and

have no real idea of science and the demands

of logic. Mrs. Eddy, the accepted prophetess

who gave this new religion to the world in
1875, denied that Jesus is the Eternal Son of



56 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

God made man. Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, Warden
of New College, Oxford, is right when he says
that "for the Christian Scientist, a brilliant

pioneer in drugless healing has taken the place

of the suffering Figure on the Cross." The

whole religion depends on faith in Mrs. Eddy

as a substitute for faith in Christ. As for sci-

ence, when a woman rules out anatomy and
physiology on the score that they suppose mat-

ter, and that matter is unreal and non-existent,

she stands condemned as the very embodiment

of the unscientific. And the system is absurd,

because the absurd violates reason and logic.

Mrs. Eddy tells us that "matter is an erroneous

belief of mortal mind." Then she declares that

"mortal mind is nothing." How nothing can
begin thinking, and produce a real thought,

even though it be an erroneous thought, is be-

yond all comprehension. Page after page of

her book "Science and Health" is filled with

similar nonsense. It simply doesn't make sense.

And it is an insult to the God of Truth to assert

that such a religion is His responsibility. The

only excuse for good and sincere people who
take up Christian Science is that they are in-

capable of logical thought, and do not under-

stand Sacred Scripture.

77. Christian Science is based ab-

solutely on the teachings of the Holy

Bible.

It is based on the un-Christian and unscien-

tific nonsense written by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy,

and falsely ascribed by her to the Bible.



POWER TO HEAL 57

78. Jesus meant all generations of

His followers to have the power to heal

the sick.

Had He intended that, you can be quite

sure that all His followers would have pos-

sessed the power. For Christ, being God, could

undoubtedly accomplish His designs. The fact,

therefore, that not all His followers have pos-

sessed the power is indication enough that

such was not His intention. Any explanation

which does not fit in with the known facts must

be rejected. But, in reality, there is not a text

in the New Testament which implies such a
continued power to be manifest in all followers

of Christ. He came to save men from sin, and
to induce them to live holy lives. He did not

come to bestow upon all men the powers of
miracles. Holiness does not consist in doing

startling things, or in seeking an escape from

the cross of suffering.

79. Jesus said, "He that believeth

on Me, the works that I do shall he do

also." Jn. XIV., 12.

Jesus had just told the Apostles that He

would soon leave them, but He consoled them

by saying that He was going to the Father

whose work He had come to accomplish, and
who would continue to work through them in
their task of establishing the Church He had
inaugurated. And He promises that the power
of God will not be less evident in their work
than in His. But there is no suggestion what-



58 THE PRAYER OF FAITH

ever that the special providence watching over

the initial stages of the Church would continue

to operate always and in the same way
through all generations. And, as I have said,

the facts themselves exclude the possibility of

such having been the intention of Christ.

80. He mentioned the signs that
would follow those who believe.

The signs He mentioned did follow the first

believers in Jesus, being verified now in this
individual, now in that. And they contributed
greatly to the solid establishing and rapid ex-

pansion of the infant Christian Church. But it

is going far beyond anything contained in the

text to suggest that such signs were meant

always to follow all believers in all ages, so

that they should be a permanent feature in the

lives of all who profess the Christian religion.

Moreover, once more, the facts of history ex-

clude such an interpretation.

81. St. James says, "The prayer of

faith will heal the sick man." Jas. V.,

15.

Those words occur in the midst of a passage

describing the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

Immediately prior to them, St. James declares

that the priests of the Church should anoint the

sick with oil in the name of the Lord. And he

adds that, if the sick man be in sin, his sins will
be forgiven him. There is no reference to an

infallible and ever-ready panacea for all tern-



GRIN AND BEAR IT 59

poral ills. The idea of holding out the recovery

of bodily health as a bribe to attract recruits

is utterly foreign to the religion of Christ Who •
said, "If anyone will come after Me, let him

deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me/'

Matt. XVI, 24. Christian Science, with its im-

pression that Christ came to the world primari-

ly to heal the sick, labors under a complete

misconception of the nature of His life-work on

behalf of humanity. lesus came to teach us to

avoid sin and all moral evil, and to practice

virtue in the midst of the trials of this life. And

He died on the Cross to expiate our sins, and

to make a heavenly and eternal destiny pos-

sible to us as the result of our efforts to serve

Him.

82. Catholics say that sufferings

can't be helped, and that it should be

our joy to suffer; but Christian Science

says it is one's own fault if one suffers.

Suffering has ever been a problem to man.

Deeply sensitive to this problem, some people

have cried out that there is no God. But that

does not better things. They have their suffer-

ings just the same, and merely forfeit the one

source of consolation. As G. K. Chesterton

remarks, "These people say: Grin and bear it

like a Stoic. But the trouble is that if you bear

it like a Stoic, you don't grin." Other people,

religiously-minded, insist that there is a God,

but deny that there is any real suffering. Thus

the Christian Scientist will tell you that suffer-

ing is unreal, a mental mistake. You wrongly



60 PEACE IN THE MIDST OF SUFFERING

think you are suffering, and if only you decide

to think that you are not suffering, you won't

suffer. But this fantastic solution does not solve

the problem. It merely violates common sense,
leaves people suffering just the same, and dries

up the wellsprings of human sympathy. Com-
passion is necessarily lessened by a mental

contempt for those we do not believe to be
really suffering at all, but who have merely

given way to a weakness of mind. It is hard
to respect one whom we think to be a sham.
On the other hand. Catholics deny neither God
nor suffering. They say that a genuine love of

God will give peace in the midst of suffering,
and that this alone can do so. Genuine love of

God always means happiness. It does not

always mean pleasure. It is as much at home
with pain as it is with pleasure, for it proves

itself by self-sacrifice. Catholics see the love

of Christ choosing such intense suffering for

them on the Cross, and their love of Him makes

them glad to share in suffering, blending their

pain with His. And that gives the peace of

Christ in their souls, a peace the world can

neither give nor take away from them. And it

is this attitude which gives the power to com-

municate peace to others.



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 JEHOVAH WITNESSES 10c

THE MOSAIC MANIFESTO 50c

FRANK YOUTH QUIZZES ON SEX 10c

WHY SQUANDER ILLNESS 15c, DELUXE $2.00

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE JEWS 10c

JEWISH PROBLEMS 15c

ANTI-SEMITISM 15c

GUIDE POST TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE 10c

AMERICAN GIRL! 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 $1.00

WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH ANYWAY 20c

QUIZZES ON HOSPITAL ETHICS 35c, 25c FOR 10 OR MORE



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 $2.00

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,TWO NOVENAS TO THE HOLY GHOST 15c

CONFESSION AND COMMUNION CARDS lc

CONFIRMATION CARDS lc

FIRST CONFESSION PRAYER CARD 'fa

CONFESSION CARD NO. 2 \fa

COMMUNION CARDS, NOS. 1 AND 2 'fa EA.

ALTAR BOY CARDS, LOOSE 2 FOR 5c

ALTAR CARD, BOUND 50c

CONGREGATIONAL HYMN CARD 2c

MARRIAGE CEREMONY CARD $2.50 PER HUNDRED

FUNERAL CEREMONY CARD $2.50 PER HUNDRED

BLESSING OF WOMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH, CARD 2'fa

ACTS OF LOVE OF GOD, LEAFLET lc

LOW OR HIGH MASS CARDS lc EACH

NURSES UNIFORM POCKET NOTEBOOK 15c

NURSES CLINICAL EXPERIENCES 80c EACH

For copies address

FATHERS RUMBLE & CARTY

Radio Replies Press

Saint Paul l t Minn., U. S. A.