This way to the true Church 1. RADIO REPLIES 75c 2. RADIO REPLIES 75c 3. RADIO REPLIES 75c 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 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 $2.75, BOUND $3,75 JEWISH PANORAMA $3.00 THE MASS OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS $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 1948 by the RADIO REPLIES PRESS Cover Picture: William Floyd Henry Nihil Obstat: RECCAREDUS FLEMING, Censor Theol. Deput. Imprimi Protest: •^EDUARDUS, Archiep, Dublinen., Hibernice Primas. GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH RELIGIOUS HISTORY of CHRISTENDOM A Diagram giving approximate Dates of the Break-away of the various Heresies stagnancy MODERNISM RATIONALISM, ETC. WESLEYANISM CONGREGATIONALISM AND OVER 400 SECTS FOR ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES AND GERMAN PROTS. JUDAISING SECTS JERUSALEM CHRIST CATHOLIC: BECAUSE TEACHING ALL TRUTH TO ALL NATIONS AT ALL TIMES IN ALL PLACES, ALWAYS THE SAME. ROMAN: BECAUSE ESTABLISHED IN ROME BY SAINT PETER UPON WHOM CHRIST FOUND- ED HIS CHURCH. THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH! BY THE CONVERT FROM ANGLICANISM REV. L. RUMBLE, M.S.C., S.T.D. I. THE PROBLEM STATED. Amongst the hundreds of Churches in the world today which profess to be Christian, a most extraordinary posi- tion arises when we ask where the True Church is to be found. The man who has found it, of course, knows where it is. And that man is the Catholic. “Yes, yes,” he would say, pausing in his stride, “Unity House, Holiness Square; take the Apostolic Road to Universality!” And he would be gone on his way. But those who have never discovered it would not listen to him. Were you to ask them to locate the True Church for you, they would say that they know for certain that the Catholic Church is not it. They will admit perhaps that they have attached themselves to some other Church, but when asked whether their own „Church is the one True Church they will admit that they are not sure. In fact, they will even ask calmly, “Does it matter?” I myself was christened in the Anglican Church, yet in my childhood was sent to a Presbyterian Sunday School because it was conveniently near, and was safely Protes- tant. The negative conviction is that Rome is deeply in- grained amongst those outside the Catholic Church. But positive convictions as to the truth of their own Churches are exceedingly rare. So long as one avoids the Catholic Church, it matters little what Protestant Church one attends. Such an attitude, of course, is the logical outcome of Protestant principles. Protestants must say that the Cath- olic Church is wrong, else why are they Protestants? Yet they must also admit that not one of their denominations Deacfdlffed 2 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH has any right to declare itself to be the one True Church* And that, for the simple reason that Christ did not estab- lish any institution which could be known by men to be His Church. I believe that this is the basic principle of Protestant inability to grasp the Catholic position. For them, we Catholics claim to see what cannot be seen. Christ never established any visible and discoverable Church at all. They do not deny that Christ established a Church of some kind. But they must deny that the Catholic Church was the True Church prior to the Reformation, or there could be no excuse for setting up the Protestant Churches. Yet, since these Protestant Churches did not exist prior to the Reformation, where was the True Church then? There is but one way out. It was there—invisible! And it is here today—invisible. Luther said that the True Church consisted of the saints, the saints being true believers whose sins are not imputed to them, but who have the merits of Christ imputed to them instead. People belong to the True Church by the invisible bond of grace. And as no man can judge who are in God’s grace and who are not, no man can definitely locate the True Church in this world! From this we can see that the Catholic Church must be wrong in her claim to be the True Church precisely be- cause she can be identified and located in this world. The Protestant Churches must at least be more right because they don’t claim to be right. For, although the Church is for men, it is undiscoverable by men. The only right an- swer to the question, “Where is the True Church?” is that nobody can say. Even as I write the vague strains from a musical play come to my mind out of the dim past. Its words tell of a little girl of mythical beauty “from nowhere, nowhere at all, in a place very small; no name, or num- ber—so lovers never call on the pretty little girl from no- where at all.” I have no desire to be flippant. It is a very grave matter. But such is the state of mind amongst those outside the Catholic Church. Luther’s idea is not anti- quated by any means. Quite recently I read a Protestant THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 3 clergyman’s article in a Sunday newspaper, maintaining that “the Church does not make saints; saints make the Church.” But alas for the theory. Those alone would then be members of the Church who are in a state of grace. “Fall into sin and you fall out of the Church” would then be the rule! Yet Christ says clearly that many not in the grace and friendship of God will belong to His Church. He likened that Church to a net holding good and bad fish. The net was to be quite good, but there would be bad fish within it. It was to be as a field with cockle and wheat growing side by side. Or again, the members of the Church would be like the ten virgins, five with oil in their lamps, and five without. It is certain, then, that the Church is not composed only of those with the oil of God’s grace within their souls. Some other bond must be found which unites men within the fold of the True Church of Christ. I admit that my own one-time Anglican Church differed somewhat from the non-Conformist Churches. It admitted a visible and discoverable Church which was really in- visible and undiscoverable. But the admission of such contradictions is the special prerogative of Anglicanism. Art. XIX, in the Book of Common Prayer, tells us that “the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached.” We are given a clue. We must look for the preaching of the pure word of God. But the Article proceeds, “as the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred.” It is no use looking, therefore, to any pre-Reformation Church. Presumably the True Church had ceased to exist, until Anglicanism came on the scene. Non-Conformists will not admit this latter conclusion, however they may agree concerning the failure of the pre-Reformation Church. But let us turn to the truth of the whole matter. The invisible theory is useless, unreasonable, and against the teachings of Christ. That the Anglican Church is the visible Church of Christ, the authorized guide of all na- tions, directly established, commissioned, and guaranteed by Him, will not bear examination. The Catholic Church 4 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH alone fulfils requirements. Christ certainly intended that men of goodwill should be able to find and become mem- bers of His True Church in this world. His Church was to be a visible organization. Let me exolain the sense of this : When I say that the True Church must be a visible Church, I intend the word in a very special sense. The Presbyterians have a visible brick Church in my suburb, and I know that the visible ecclesiastical building used by the Wesleyans is certainly discoverable if I follow the di- rections of the signpost they have erected in the main thoroughfare. In that same sense, I can certainly discover the visible building used by the Catholic members of the community. But that is not the sense I intend when speak- ing of the visibility of the True Church. I mean that the True Church must be an obviously existent society in this world, and that it must also have obvious signs distinguish- ing it as the True Church from all other claimants. It is evident that the Baptists have their Tabernacle even as the Catholics have their Cathedral. But it is necessary also that those willing to seek the truth must be able to dis- cover that the Catholic Church is the one True Church rather than any or all of the others; that is, of course, if the Catholic Church be indeed the True Church. Christ certainly intended His Church to be visible and discoverable, not only as an existent fact in this world, but as being His. Talk of a purely invisible bond of grace fails utterly in the presence of Christ’s words likening His Church to a city which, set upon a hill, “cannot be hid- den”. If He establishes a Church to which He invites all men to come, it must be a Church, discernable as His. The Apostles and the early Fathers condemn schism, which can only mean separation from a visible, historical, and organ- ized Church. Were the Church not discernible as being the True Church of Christ, the forbidding of schism would be absurd. No man would know whether he had left the True Church or not! St. Cyprian, who died as early as 258 A.D., had no misgivings on the subject. “Whoever is separated from the Church,” he wrote, “is separated from THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 5 the promises of Christ; nor will he who leaves the Church of Christ obtain the salvation of Christ. He becomes a foreigner and an enemy. One cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church as his mother.” If a man who is separated from the Church is separated from the promises of Christ, it is of the utmost importance that he should be able to know which is the True Church to which he must cling. In my radio lectures, I have frequently been chal- lenged by non-Catholic listeners, “Your replies always seem to come back to the doctrine that the Catholic Church is the one True Church of Christ, and that all others are mistaken.” I can but reply that they do not only seem to do so, but that they actually do. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of authentic information, if the officials had to warn enquirers that there was not even certainty as to whether they had come to the right enquiry office! No. The True Church, which is really Christ’s own bureau for the dispensing of authentic infor- mation to mankind in His name, must be visibly discern- able as His. The invisible and undiscernable Church theory is impossible, and, as I have said, opposed to the will of Christ. To Catholics the case is so clear. They can give full directions by which the veriest stranger to this world should apparently be able to find the one True Church established by Jesus Christ. They often feel like crying out in exasperation to non-Catholics, “Can’t you see, or won’t you see?” But the trouble is that the question, “Where is the True Church?” supposes it to be somewhere, and that it is possible to locate it, whilst Protestants are brought up with the idea that it is not possible for any human being to locate it. So they continue in religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest who follow any- thing that seems like a track, without bothering to ask where it leads. And they so love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them. They will say that the Church is to be like “a treasure 6 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH hidden in a field”, quite overlooking the fact that Christ was not then speaking of the nature of the Church, but of the zeal one should have in searching for it. And the treas- ure was certainly visibly discemable when the digger came across it, or he would dig forever in vain. Again, they will cry in triumph, “Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world”, as though that denies its visible existence in this world. They have urged, too, that the Church must be essentially a spiritual society, and that a spiritual so- ciety is not visible. But they speak as if the Church were a society of purely spiritual beings such as angels. The Church is spiritual in its origin, means, and purpose, to a great extent. But it is composed of visible human beings, united by the external profession of the same faith, parti- cipation in the same worship, and submission to the same discipline. Those who are united in these things within the Catholic Church are alone members of the visible Church established by Christ. Those who are not, are out- side the True Church. Infidels and pagans who have never been baptized are outside the True Church. So also are heretics who do not profess externally the same faith with Catholics. Schismatics, too, who reject the discipline of the Catholic Church, are outside the True Fold. The True Church can be discovered, and there are external tests by which we can discover who do, and who do not belong to it. As surely as I belong to it now, by the great mercy of God, so surely did I not belong to it in my Anglican days. But enough has been said to show that the one True Church can certainly be indicated, and we must turn to the special characteristics by which this may be the more certainly accomplished. II. “UNITY HOUSE”. As I have said before, the world teems wdth various forms of professing Christianity, and there must be few people who have not, at times, been baffled by the mass of THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 7 contradictory claims offered in the name of the Christian religion. But we should not be surprised, since Christ Him- self predicted that “false Christs would arise to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” However, quite early in my own life I adverted, without knowing it, to the only possible key to the problem. Who, upon seeing the “none genuine without this sig- nature” inscription upon a bottle of patent medicine, has not admired the elementary human prudence of the in- ventor of a good remedy, who foresaw that substitutes would soon be flooding the market? Such advertisements warn the public solemnly to look for the signature of the original discoverer, and not to be put off with “something just as good.” Now, although at one period of my ex- istence no religion particularly gripped me, I could never accept the prevalent notion amongst many non-Catholics that “one religion is as good as another.” At first sight it seemed a nice, broadminded principle, but although I could not say quite what was wrong with it, I felt that it was unsound. I could better understand the ignoring of all religion. I know, too, that very few of those who used the expression really believed it. Protes- tants would condemn Catholicism in every mood and tense. Unbelievers usually meant that one religion is as bad as another, generally intending that Catholicism was the worst of the lot. But the early thought that came to me was that, granted Christ’s wisdom, and the fact that He foresaw the rise of false Christs, and substitute forms of professing Christianity, He would certainly have “branded” the genuine article in no uncertain way. He must have endowed His Church with certain notable characteristics. And looking back now, of course, all is as clear as daylight. It is not enough, undoubtedly, to say that Christ would have put up His religion in a “special bottle” with a “Look for the signature” label. No headway could be made un- less He actually did so. Nor could one decide for himself what notable characteristics ought to accompany Christ’s genuine religion, and then reject all other Churches ac- cording to standards of one’s own devising. The only way 8 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH to go about things is to discover whether Christ endowed His Church with certain distinguishing signs, and then to apply those tests accordingly. Now there can be no doubt that Christ at least intended unity to be one of the outstanding signs of His True Church. Even Protestants admit that. Yet since they want to be regarded as members of Christ’s Church even whilst they are divided externally from each other, and above all from the Catholic Church, they have to think out a special scheme of unity adjusted to their circumstances. Once again they deny that the Church was meant to be an ex- ternally visible institution. If only we can believe that all Christ’s references to unity are concerned with invisible bonds of grace, and love, and good intentions, all will be well. So they keep on repeating such expressions as, “We all intend to serve Christ”, or, “We are all going the one road”, as though the one Christ or the one road idea per- fectly safeguarded the unity intended by the Founder of Christianity. Let us be one in the desire to serve Christ, and we need not bother about the way in which we do so. Unity in belief does not matter. The Anglican who be- lieves in episcopacy and the Plymouth Brother who em- phatically does not believe in episcopacy rejoice in all the unity that is required. The Seventh Day Adventist who believes that the Pope is the Beast, and the Catholic who believes that he is the very Vicar of Christ—but no, that won’t do. It’s hardly fair to bring the Catholic Church into it. Our Protestant forefathers had to leave Roman Catholicism, and any talk of unity with Roman Cath- olicism is, of course, absurd. We Protestants mean unity amongst ourselves only—and in that unity, unity of belief does not matter. I remember how, shortly after my ordination as a Cath- olic Priest, an Anglican lady came to me, deeply troubled by the fact that the new rector of her parish was preaching quite an opposite doctrine to that of his predecessor. She came to me because she had heard that I once was an Anglican myself, and thought that I might be able to help her, though she had no intention of becoming a Catholic THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 9 herself. I told her that her difficulty was one for her own Anglican clergy to solve, and that I could give her no ad- vice suitable to her so long as she intended to remain an Anglican. “You see,” I said to her gently, “in the Catho- lic Church no such difficulties occur. Your problem is pe- culiar to Anglicanism, and you must go to a clergyman of your own Church and ask him to solve it for you.” “But, Father,” she said, “I have been to several different clergy- men, and not one of them has given me peace of mind. Some left it to myself to decide; others told me not to worry about it, but just to leave it undecided,, and to serve God in such ways as were clear to me.” She insisted upon my giving her my own advice, but I had only one advice to give, knowing that it was not the advice she wished. “Do as I did,” I replied, “and step from the unseaworthy ship of Anglicanism on to the solid wharf of Catholicism.” At the time she could not bring herself to accept that advice, but two years later I heard that she had become a Catholic. If we turn from unity in faith to unity in worship, we find the same loose principles. Catholics may believe that the essential form of Christian worship consists in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass; Protestants may be- lieve that that is essentially wrong, and that the preaching of the pure word of God is the essential thing. Yet, despite this, the acceptance of neither the one nor of the other is important to unity. Let us be kind to each other united in good intentions, and it matters not whether we go north, south, east, or west in matters of worship. The same idea holds good where discipline is concerned. Unity does not require subjection to the same religious authority. Rome insists upon telling her subjects what they are to do. That is fatal to freedom. How can a man wander where he pleases, if tied by obedience to a guide? Catholics seem to think that unity means negation in a de- sire to get to heaven, without our having to walk along any particular road to get there! Let each man be a law unto himself. If a man wishes to lose his way, he must be free to lose his way. Where is the element of “glorious 10 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH adventure 5 in submitting to the cut and dried discipline of the Roman Church? Now here I must revert to a principle I have given above. All Christians admit that Christ intended a unity of some kind to prevail amongst his followers. But we can- not decide for ourselves what type of unity must prevail. The “All going the one way55 type of unity, whilst each goes his own way, is useless if it be quite foreign to the mind of Christ. Who can accept the invention of Protestants who, noting the numberless ways in which they are divided, de- fine the unity required to suit themselves in their present circumstances, and in such a way that they may remain where they are? What, then, is the unity insisted upon by Christ? He commissioned His Church to teach all things what- soever He had commanded. And He taught a definite something, not a bundle of contradictions. Those who be- lieved all that He had taught would at least be one in faith. Again, He demanded unity in worship. “One Lord, one faith, one Baptism” was to be the rule, and Baptism belongs to worship. The early Christians were told dis- tinctly by St. Paul that participation in the same Eu- charistic worship was essential to unity. “We, being many, are one bread, one body; all that partake of one bread 55 . In other words, “The one Christ is to be found in Holy Communion, and we, however numerous we may be, are one in Him if we partake of the same Holy Communion.” But unity in discipline and government stands out above all. Our Lord had said, “I will build My Church,” not “My Churches.” He had expressed His view of divisions when He said, “Every kingdom divided against itself shall fall,” and in establishing His own Kingdom, the Church, He took good care to insist upon the authority necessary for the continued existence of any society. His prayer “that they may be one as Thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee,” and His prediction, “There shall be one fold and one shepherd,” leave no room for doubt as to His mind. Now I do not think anyone has attempted to maintain that there is unity of faith, worship, and discipline between THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 11 the Catholic and the Protestant Churches. Protestants vehemently proclaim their divergence from the Catholic Church on all three points. And they are also aware of their divergence on all three points among themselves. Yet no one can deny the existence of this unity within the Catholic fold. Catholics of all nationalities receive exactly the same teaching; their worship is essentially the same in all countries; they obey the same authority. I have heard men condemn this rigid unity of the Catholic Church, and I have heard others admire it. “Poor Catholics,” people will say, “they have to follow instructions.” Or again, men have said to me, “Your Church is a marvellous piece of organization. How do you do it?” That question awakens the obvious reply that it is just too marvellous for us to have done it at all. The formation of a unity of intelligences and wills among men of various nationalities, perpetually antagonistic and contending about everything but the faith, worship, and discipline de- manded by the Catholic Church is a work self-evidently divine. Robert Hugh Benson wisely remarked, “It is im- possible to make men of one nation agree even on political matters; yet the Catholic Church makes men of all nations agree on religious doctrines. As a student at Cambridge University I found in one lecture hall men of one nation and ten religions. As a student at the University in Rome I found men of ten nations and one religion. Is it con- ceivable that merely human power makes such a thing possible?” The Catholic Church alone has this remarkable unity. I have studied Protestantism through and through. 'It has no efficacious principle of unity. In falling back on the Bible as each may interpret it for himself, it is falling back, not upon a cause of unity, but upon the very cause of di- visions. Thus we find a different Protestantism in different countries, and even in the same countries. And within the same individual Protestant denominations we find di- versity amongst members as regards doctrine, worship, and discipline. The only unity which one can concede to Protes- tantism is a negative unity, in so far as its supporters unite 12 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH in rejecting the Catholic Church. But this is not the unity Christ promised, and it could not possibly identify Protes- tantism as the true form of Christianity since it is common to Protestants, Jews, Schismatics, Atheists, and Pagans the world over. Positive unity in faith, worship, and discipline is one of the signs by which Christ’s True Church can be located in this world. The wayfarer who seeks the religion of Christ must look for “Unity House”. He must not be put off by any suggestions that Churches lacking the external and visible sign of unity will prove to be “just as good.” He must not rest until he finds himself within the fold of the Catholic Uhurch which has no part with the host of smaller and conflicting Churches outside her pale, and which has no divisions within herself. III. “HOLINESS SQUARE” When one gives the address of the True Church as “Unity House, Holiness Square”, little difficulty occurs concerning the first of these two characteristics. Unity un- doubtedly belongs to the Catholic Church as to no other. But I am aware that I am bound to get into “hot water” when I undertake to show that Catholicism is holy, and that Protestantism is not. I am not in a pagan land prov- ing Christianity to be true, and disproving the prevailing paganism. Protestants, as onlookers, would probably ap- plaud my efforts under those circumstances, whilst the pagans alone would resent them. But I am in a country the majority of whose people are Protestants, and my proof of Catholicism necessarily involves the falsity of Protestantism. Things are not so bad when I endeavor to prove that Protestantism lacks the required unity and con- sistency; or that it is not Catholic; or that it is devoid of Apostolic succession. But when I begin to speak of holi- ness and relative goodness, the moral field is invaded. Heart, as well as head, comes into it. Generosity and THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 13 charity seem to be in jeopardy. To say that Protestanism is evil gives an impression of harshness and severity in the minds of people who promptly recall the memory of good Protestant friends. The distinction between systems and individuals is so hard to grasp. And much distress arises from the confusion of the two concepts. My Catholic religion obliges me to extend charity and the kindest possible interpretation of good faith and sin- cerity to all others, irrespective of their religious beliefs. I am obliged to love them. Yet I cannot love them with- out resenting the “Protestantism” which keeps them from that Catholic religion which could benefit them so greatly. If, then, I have to say anything here to the detriment of “Protestantism”, it will be proposed without any bitter- ness or rancour towards Protestants as individuals. My wish is to bring out the truth of Catholicism as compared with Protestantism, and that’s all. It is a question of system contrasted with system. To make sure of the position in a more concrete way, let me pay a tribute to the many good Protestants who un- doubtedly exist. I myself was brought up in an entirely Protestant environment, and have known, not only good, but really holy people in that same environment. Since becoming a Catholic Priest, I have come more intimately still into contact with the interior lives of good Protestants, spending hours weekly instructing converts from almost every type of denomination. And I have been filled with admiration of their fidelity to God’s commandments in their previous positions, together with their utter sincerity and honesty. Yet I cannot but maintain that “Protestant- ism” is a great evil, and devoid of that holiness which Christ appointed as one of the signs of the True Church. I shall reconcile the apparent conflict between these esti- mates later on. Firstly, let us turn to the will of the Founder of the Church. Christ certainly intended a quite evident holiness to be a sign whereby men might surely locate the genuine institu- tion He established. “I sanctify myself,” He said, “that they may be sanctified in truth.” (Jn. XXII, 19). “I have 14 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH appointed you, that you should bring forth fruit.” (Jn. XV, 16). St. Paul tells us very clearly of Our Lords in- tention. “Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. V, 25). Holiness, therefore, is to be a sign of the True Church. If we have to look for “Unity House,” we must also seek “Holiness Square.” Now in which of all the Churches is this sign of holi- ness to be found? The answer is, in the Catholic Church. I am not saying this because I feel that I have to justify the Catholic Church by hook or by crook. Truth for its ow n sake compels me to say so. At one time I certainly did not believe it, and did not want to believe it. But today I see the Catholic Church as the one great guardian of mor- ality and virtue. There is not a single dogma in her teach- ing which does not tend to confirm in us the will to serve God, whether it be the dogma of our creation by God, or of our redemption by His Son, or of our going back to God and to our judgment. The dogma of hell certainly has never yet been an inducement to sin; nor has the desire to serve God ever prompted its denial. The dogma of pur- gatory is a constant reminder of the necessity of purifying ourselves from all traces of sin by Christian mortification and self-denial. If we turn from dogmatic teachings to moral laws, I challenge any man to keep the laws of the Catholic Church, and not be the better man for it; or to violate them wdthout degenerating. No one sincerely joins the Catholic Church without desiring a loftier standard of living; no one leaves save for a lower standard. People point to ex-Priests and to lapsed Catholics. But why have they gone? It is not that they found the Church untrue, but because they were untrue to their own obligations. The Catholic Church has labored as no other to lift men above the natural and the sensual, fighting for purity of morals, the holiness of marriage, and the rights of God and conscience in every department of life. Outward respect- THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 15 ability and mere humanitarianism can never, in her eyes, replace that true supernatural virtue and charity which demand that the daily life of a Christian, personal, do- mestic, and social, must be inspired by love of God. I do not say that all individual Catholics are saints. It would be a lie to say that every Catholic individual is nec- essarily better than every individual Protestant. But the Catholic Church is holy in her teachings and principles, and in a remarkable way in her members in general. At least ordinary holiness is evident from the fact that Catho- lics do try to keep God’s laws conscientiously, often making great sacrifices to do so. They are often ridiculed as fools for their efforts to do so, by those who regard themselves as advocates of liberty. If through frailty, they sin, they are aware of their sin, and are uneasy until they recover God’s grace and friendship. They can never accept the idea of being in sin with equanimity. But apart from ordinary holiness, which allows for faults of frailty, take the long catalogue of canonized Saints pro- duced by the Catholic Church. They are living miracles, her true pride and joy, and the delight and inspiration of Catholics the world over. In the days of my boyhood as a Protestant, Kitchener of Khartoum was an ideal where a Catholic boy’s heart would find a St. Francis Xavier far more inspiring, and in him a nobler example still. But I know the problem which arises in thousands of minds. If Catholicism is so good, what of bad Catholics? And if Protestantism is evil what of good Protestants? Yet the solution of this problem is not so very difficult. As re- gards bad Catholics, it is not necessary to the holiness of the Catholic Church that every single member must be holy. Christ predicted that sinners would be found in the True Church. There will be bad fish in the good net. Worthless cockle will be found growing side by side with the good wheat. But bad Catholics are those who are not living up to the teachings of their Church. I can account for the bad Catholics without injury to the holiness of the Church. I cannot account for the canonized Saints with- out admitting that holiness. The Saints themselves will 16 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH attribute their goodness to the influence of the Church. Not a Saint has ever wished to leave the Church. That would have been the very last thought which could have entered their heads. If Catholics are evil, then, it is in spite of their Church, not because of it. On the other hand, if Protestants are good, as so many undoubtedly are, it is in spite of their Protestantism, not because of it. Protestantism, as such, is a great evil. I write calmly. I am setting down the simple truth. The very authors of Protestantism, Luther and Henry VIII, were corrupt men. Even today, Protestantism cannot preserve Christian stand- ards intact. Articles of faith have gone overboard. Morti- fication and fasting are not required. The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, with their consequent inspiration of monastic life, are ignored. Protes- tant writings excuse, and even approve, laxity in moral practice. Protestantism has not produced anything equiva- lent to the canonized Catholic Saint. Many of the Sacra- ments of Christ are not even acknowledged by Protestant- ism, whilst the heart has been tom out of its worship by the loss of Christ’s presence in the Blessed Eucharist. Of spiritual authority there is scarcely a trace. The very clergy are not trained in moral law, and cannot advise the laity as they should, even were the laity willing to accept advice. The prevalent notion, “Believe on Christ and be saved”, tends of its very nature to lessen the sense of necessity of personal virtue. What then shall I say of those really holy people whom I have known amongst my Protestant relatives and friends? I say that their goodness was not due to their Protestant- ism, but was due precisely to their refusal to follow Protes- tant principles. They were illogically good. When Protestantism began, the existent religion was Catholic. Protestantism was a movement of heated dissent. Error and rebellion took the first Protestants from the Catholic Church, the various forms of error, or the various countries in which the rebellion occurred, giving rise to the various sects. But any goodness which the first Protestants took with them was derived from the Church they left. THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 17 And any apparent goodness in the teachings of Protestant- ism is still to be found in the Catholic Church. Where, in the Catholic Church, cockle sown by the enemy is found here and there amidst the wheat, Satan was wise enough to allow some wheat here and there to remain amidst the cockle of Protestantism. And it is the presence of this wheat which accounts for the continued existence of Protestantism. But the wheat does not really belong to Protestantism. It is a relic of Catholicism growing in adien soil. A Catholic is good when he lives up to Catholic prin- ciples, refusing to depart from them. A Protestant is good when he unconsciously acts on Catholic principles, depart- ing from those which are purely Protestant. I have been confirmed in these conclusions by a study of Anglicanism since the Oxford Movement. The attempts at a higher and more heroic life by the establishing of Re- ligious Orders of men and Convents of Anglican Nuns is due to the reluctant admission into Anglicanism of Catho- lic doctrines and practices. It is due to an infiltration of Catholic ideals. Catholicism, and not Protestantism, is responsible for such aspirations. In fact, the loftier their aspirations, the less Protestant becomes the outlook of these people upon Christianity; so much so, that the really Protestant protest that such ideas are out of harmony with Protestantism altogether. I trace the goodness of Protestants, then, to things not essentially Protestant. Fidelity to the promptings of na- tural conscience partly account for it, but that is not essen- tially Protestant. It is common to all good men. The study of the Gospels, leading to a love of Christ and a de- sire of virtue contributes its share also. But the Gospel is not proper -to Protestanism. It was not written by Protes- tants nor committed to their keeping. But for the Catho- lic Church they would never have had the Gospels. The goodness of Protestants, too, is partly due to God’s grace, given to them not because they are Protestants, but because they know no better, and are of goodwill. God’s mercy will not deprive them of the necessary means of salvation when the fault is not their own. 18 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH The really Protestant thing in Protestantism is its spirit of independence of, and rebellion against, the authority of Christ vested by Him in the Catholic Church. And in- dependence of Christ’s authority is not holiness. Protes- tants who, by God’s grace, become Catholics, have not to renounce a single good principle. They renounce only what is evil, the principles oroper to Protestantism as such. They renounce its basic element of protest, and submit to the directions of the Catholic Church. They enter that one fold under one shepherd, which has inspired the lives of the Saints, and which is ever urging all her members to bring forth that fruit of holiness which she herself possesses. As the mother of spirituality, and the agent of super- natural holiness in this world, the ‘Catholic Church stands out as the one accredited ambassador of Christ. “Unity House—Holiness Square” are the directions by which one can find the True Church; and they lead to the Catholic Church only. So too does the further advice that ofie must travel the Apostolic Way. IV. THE APOSTOLIC ROAD. As surely as the Appian Way led the traveller of old to Rome, so surely will the “Apostolic Way” lead ever to the Catholic Church. We feel instinctively that the True Church ought to be Apostolic in origin. Unfortunately, however, most non-Catholics just take their religion for granted, and do not see the difficulties of their own posi- tion until they are pointed out to them. Above all is this the case with Apostolicity. Yet there are few of them who do not see the difficulty when it is pointed out. The thought that Protestantism did not begin until the year 1517, which is just 1517 years too late for the man looking for the religion founded by Christ Himself, can never lose its weight. But that simple statement of the problem does not do full justice to the idea of Apostolicity, and we must go more deeply into it. THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 19 In my own Protestant days I always felt uncomfortable when I encountered those texts in Scripture which referred to the Church. I remember having been told by a Sunday- school teacher that they were very obscure and that it was better to ignore them as not having any very vital signifi- cance. But the problem remained a problem for me until I was safely within the fold of the Catholic Church. Christ had said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” How- ever one might interpret “rock”, I could not see how any Church could be built upon it unless the original and identical Apostolic power had continued within it. A building must at least be contact with its foundation—not be suspended in mid-air sixteen centuries above them! If the Church were ruled by any other than that conferred by Christ upon the Apostles, it could not possibly be the True Church. Unity, too, seemed impossible without identity of transmitted Apostolic authority. The admission of any foreign derivation of authority would spell diversity at once. But these vague troubles were not clarified for me until I had actually become a Catholic. The solutions had been offered me outside the Church, apart from the advice to leave the subject alone. The non- conformist idea was that it was quite sufficient to have the same Gospel truths as the Apostles, however those truths might be interpreted. Administrative authority and sacerdotal power need not be derived from the Apostles by an uninterrupted succession. This was the logical position to be adopted by the disciples of pure Protestantism, for Protestantism is essentially conscious of the definite and deliberate break with the authority of the previously ex- istent Church, and of the abolition of priesthood in the Catholic sense of the word. The alternative solution was the Anglican admission of the necessity of lawful suc- cession, and the claim of the Anglican Church to con- tinuity. But that never impressed me much, for the thing about Anglicanism that appealed to my Protestant mind was the glorious discontinuity of the Anglican Church. We of English origin had thrown off the yoke of ecclesiastical authority with the proud song upon our lips that Britons 20 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH never would be slaves! But let me here set down an exact description of the “Apostolic Road”. It is most necessary to be able to identify the road at least. I admit that its appreciation demands both the historical sense and a somewhat legal turn of mind, for it is a fairly complex idea. I would define the sign of Apostolicity as “That special character- istic by which the lawful, public, and uninterrupted suc- cession of Bishops from the Apostles is continued in the Church; faith, worship, and discipline remaining ever the same in all essential matters.” Without this it is impossible to maintain the identity of anv given Church today with that of the Apostles. Episco- pal succession must be legitimate as opposed to unlawful usurpation. It must be public, because we are dealing with a public and visible society. It must be uninterrupted, because any gaps would destroy all hopes of a validly trans- mitted supernatural power. How futile would be the at- tempts of a man to transmit a power confided to the Apostles, if he himself had never received it! St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who died in the year 202 A.D., had no doubts on this subject. “We must obey those in the Church,” he wrote, “who have true succession from the Apostles; for with their episcopal succession they have received the gift of certainty in the truth according to God’s holy will. We must suspect all those who are cut off from this original succession, whoever they may be.” The mere fact that history speaks of such things as schisms is a constant testimony to the necessity of sub- mission to Apostolic authority in the Church established by Christ. Schism, or division, is absolutely unintelligible without the admission of a lawful authority from which it implies separation. Now there can be no doubt about the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church. Non-Conformists try to escape the diffi- culties of their own position by denying the necessity of Apostolic succession. One modernist clergyman not only denied that necessity as regards the Church today, but even told me that he did not believe that the Church as estab- THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 21 lished by the Apostles themselves was identical with that established by Christ! The Greek Church and the Angli- can Church admit the necessity, but ignore the conditions of true succession in order to maintain their possession of it. But neither the Greeks nor Anglicans deny the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church. That Church rejoices in a public, historically evident, and lawful continuation of power and authority derived from the Apostles. A regressive study of history shows that she can trace herself back through all the ages to the Apostles. Every single name of the Bishops of Rome, from the present reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, to St. Peter stands out in clear relief. Since the Pope is the head of the Church, and those Bishops alone are lawful successors of the Apostles who are in communion with him, the docu- mentary history of Papal succession is sufficient of itself to prove the Catholic position. All this is easily stated. But those who wish above all to be free from the “irksome restraint” of Papal jurisdiction will not so easily accept it. I have read with deep curiosity and interest the efforts of Protestant writers to escape the logical conclusion. They have employed all their power and research in their attempts to account for the origin of the Catholic Church in times subsequent to the Apostles. Some were wont to say that the present Catholic Church is but a corruption of the original Apostolic Church, a cor- ruption which occurred in the middle ages, and which led to the Reformation. This is the prevalent view amongst the uncritical, but it is quite untenable theologically and historically. Theologically the plain blunt Catholic wharf- laborer was right when he said, “What’s the good of telling me that the Catholic Church ever went bung when Christ said that it wouldn’t go bung? He said He would be with His Church all days till the end of the world, and being God, He could do what He said He would do. And in any case your Protestantism hasn’t been all days in the world.” Historically, critical scholars of Protestantism have been compelled to “shift camp.” History scouts the idea that the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation was 22 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH but a corruption brought about in the middle ages. Age after age prior to that time reveals an identical Church. Harnack, the German critic, was forced back to the second century, and said that the Catholic Church acquired its present form then. Seeberg, another of the German critics, said that the idea of the Catholic Church as we know it now arose with the Apostles themselves, but quite inde- pendently of the will of Christ. They, without warrant, imposed their Jewish notions of authority upon the Chris- tian Church. These theories are denials of documentary evidence, or are supported by distortions of the sense of that evidence. The one motive is ever present. Somehow or other, submission to the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church must be avoided! Few non-Catholics, however, go so deeply into history as these more learned men. They are content with more shallow objections, and cling to the idea of corruption in the middle ages despite the abandoning of that position by their own Protestant scholars as historically unsound. The average Protestant will accuse the Catholic Church of the crime of change, of having added dogmas, and of having built up a complex and superstitious worship. He does not understand that a dogma is not a new doctrine, but simply a new and definite statement of the original Apostolic doc- trine. He does not see that worship need not be absolutely immutable in every least secondary detail. And he quite misses the question of lawful, public, and uninterrupted transmission of Apostolic jurisdiction and authority. In her essential principles of faith, worship, and dis- cipline, of course, the Church is immutable. But she is a vital and organic society. She must grow and develop even as a tree from a mustard seed. And the foliage and blos- soms of the tree do not interfere with its continuity from, and identity with, the original seed. Such objections mere- ly prove that the Catholic Church is not dead and stagnant. But I have always found such objections very strange in these days from people who are always insisting upon progress. Of course I know where the trouble lies. They really do want progress without the retention of identity, THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 23 and that is where they part company with the Catholic po- sition. The Catholic Church insists upon identity with the Apostolic Church, steadily keeping her vital evolution within the limits of principles laid down by Christ and the Apostles. Protestantism involved an essential constitutional change. At best it claims to have resuscitated an Apostolic Church which had perished—an idea quite foreign to the notion of Apostolicity. Apostolic doctrine has suffered sadly, also, at its hands. Protestants deny today what they taught yesterday. Anglicans may have retained hierarchical form, but Anglican Bishops are not in the least conscious of Apostolic authority, nor can they claim uninterrupted legitimate succession. To rebel against the lawful author- ity of the Church, abandon it, and set up for oneself, is no way to succeed by legitimate title to transmitted jurisdic- tion. An Anglican clergyman in England once assured me that he had Apostolic orders, since he had gone to the Continent in order to be ordained by a schismatical Bishop whose episcopal consecration could stand any test. But even though he thus managed to secure valid orders, that could not possibly have given him the hall-mark of Apostolicity. The Greek Church has valid orders. But it is not an Apostolic Church. The very schism of the Greek Church means secession from the Universal Church in direct violation of the con- stitution of that Church. Prior to their secession, the Greek admitted the absolute necessity of union in the bond of Apostolic authority with Rome. They admitted it at the Council of Lyons in 1274, and again at the Council of Florence in 1439. But national pride and political rea- sons accounted both for the original schism and the re- fusal to heal it. The “Apostolic Road” leads only to the Catholic Church, and one who desires to find the True Church rapidly should take that road. For the True Church is Apostolic in origin and continuity, and must remain so till the end of time. Protestants broke with the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church on the score of corrup- 24 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH tions in teachings and practices. Yet more and more we notice Anglicans borrowing Catholic teachings and prac- tices, urging that it was a great mistake to abandon them at the Reformation! What they fail to see is this. The more they prove that the Reformation was not justified, the more they increase the guilt of their separation from the Apostolic jurisdiction legitimately transmitted in the Catholic Church. Nor will the borrowing of Catholic ex- ternals ever succeed in making them Catholics. There is no Catholicity without genuine Apostolicity. There is but one way to be Catholic, and that is to submit to the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic, a man must become one; and no attempts which wander from the “Apostolic Road” will ever succeed in leading anyone to the True Church of Jesus Christ. V. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I have given as the full address of the True Church, “Unity House, Holiness Square, via the Apostolic Road to Universality.” Let us turn to consideration of the sign of universality, which means simply “Catholicity.” At one time, had I been asked to define the Catholic Church, I would have replied that it was, of course, the “Irish” Church. I myself belonged to the “English” Church. It was later that I adverted to the fact that “Catholic” and “National” are mutually exclusive terms. I knew, however, that I was not a Catholic. I was an Anglican, and a good healthy Protestant. Had anyone in the street asked me to direct him to the nearest Catholic Church, I would never have dreamed of sending him to any Protestant edifice. It is true that we recited the Apostles* Creed, but to the expression, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, no particular significance was attached by the vast majority. We just did not think about that. But the old anti-Catholic bitterness is dying. Minds are THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 25 becoming less clouded. The word “Catholic” in the Creed is awakening a vague idea that somehow or other we ought to be Catholics. Protestants, therefore, are beginning to take their profession of belief in the Holy Catholic Church seriously. And great is the confusion. Imagine the con- fusion if men came in the night and planted at some cross- roads a dozen signposts with the same inscription, but pointing in as many different directions, where hitherto there had been but one! The wayfarer could not but be be- wildered, unless he managed to detect the more recently planted posts, and was thus able to discover the direction indicated by the original signpost. I well remember my first real contact with this problem. I was attending an Anglican Church, where a High- Church Anglican priest had succeeded to a Low-Church Anglican minister. The new rector told us that we were Catholics, and I went round to the vestry afterwards to in- form him that I, as an Anglican, was not a Catholic, but a Protestant. He was a very sincere and genuine man, ex- plained his views gently but firmly, and sent me away more bewildered than I had ever been in my life before on the subject of religion. It appeared that there were “Roman” Catholics and “English” Catholics. But the good man was quite definite that Anglicans alone were “English” Catho- lics, and that all Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and other Protestants were outside the Catholic circle. Of course Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and other Protestant Churches are also laying claim now to inclusion within the great, indefinite, and invisible Catholic Fold. When the word Catholic was a term of reproach, the Roman Church was welcome to the name. But as the obsession of prejudice disappears, the Protestant Churches are beginning to claim and use it. Has Catholicity, then, lost its value as a sign of the true Church? It cannot do so. And non-Catholic Churches which fondly believe that they can share the privilege of inclusion in the Catholic Church can base their claim only upon a misinterpretation of all that the word means. In its right meaning, it can apply only to the Church of which 26 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH I am a priest at the present moment, and as I shall be for the rest of my life, of course. Protestants have protested against our restricting the word to the “Roman Catholic Church”, and they ask indignantly, “Where do we come in?” To which we can make but one sincere reply, “You don’t come in. You went out, and one doesn’t come in by going out!” The sign still exists, and but one Church can righdy lay claim to it. Let us go more deeply into this thorny subject. By “Catholicity” I mean that characteristic of the True Church by which, whilst remaining ever one and the same, it is adapted to the needs of all nations, and has become conspicuously numerous and universal in this world. That Our Lord intended His Church to be Catholic in this sense is most evident in Scripture. He died for all men, and His Church must be for all men. His Commission to the Apostles was that they should teach all nations, being witnesses to Him to the uttermost parts of the earth. “This Gospel”, He said, “will be preached in the whole world as a testimony of me.” St. Paul expressly declares the inten- tion of the Church to obey Christ by preaching to all nationalities, and no longer in a restricted way to the Jews alone. But always he insisted upon the retention of strict unity, forbidding heresy and schism. “Let there be no schisms among you,” and, “a man that is a heretic avoid,” leave no doubts as to his mind. A universal diffusion, then, of a united Church will be a distinctive sign of the True Church. The actual diffusion, of course, had to be gradual. Christ Himself indicated this by His parables of the mustard seed, and of the leaven in the bread. But always the Church had the right and the power of universal expansion as surely within herself as the acorn contains all die principles necessary for its evolu- tion into an oak tree. Actual expansion commenced on the very7 day of Pentecost, and has been going on ever since. Indeed the promises of Christ imply that His Church will be Conspicuously numerous—more numerous, and more widespread than any rival institution set up by the false Christs of the ages. THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 27 Now I do not see how anyone can deny that the Church which is in union with, and under the control of the Bishop of Rome is one everywhere, and conspicuously numerous in this world. That Church has practically 400 million subjects, a number not attained by all the Greek and Protestant Churches taken together. And today we are confronted by the spectacle of the Catholic Church still expanding, whilst even in Protestant countries, Protes- tantism is losing its power over the souls of men. In the Catholic Church God has inspired an ever burning inter- est in the foreign missions, and the Pope is insisting upon the training and consolidating of a native clergy as soon as possible, that missionaries may be free to move on to yet other regions. And always identity of faith and worship is preserved. Such a unified dispersion is of its very na- ture a miracle, for the greater the diffusion, the more hu- manly impossible becomes the task of preservation from corruptions of doctrine. I know that this reservation of the word Catholic to the Church of Rome is resented by many Protestants. They insist that ours is the “Roman Catholic Church”. And they read into this expression a meaning of their own, as if there were other kinds of Catholic Churches. But “Rome” does not mean any sense of limitation. It is rather a mark of identification. The genuine Catholic Church is that which has its administrative centre at Rome. And, after all, that centre has to be somewhere! However, they are driven to regard our allegiance to the Bishop of Rome as a restric- tion, because if it be not so they are excluded from the one True Church of Jesus Christ. “To be Catholic”, they say to us, “you should not exclude Christians who merely in- terpret Christian doctrine in a different way!” Forgetting their one-time desire to be entirely separated from the Roman Church, they wish now to be one with her. But they have to water down the sense of the word Catholic, forgetting that it is an attribute of a Church which must be one and the same everywhere. It is necessarily linked with unity. Christ never intended His Church to be the mother of error. He intended it to be the teacher and 28 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH preserver of truth. Heretical movements may carry off multitudes, but they cannot reject the Catholic Church and still belong to it. And it is absurd to say that the True Church must still include those who left it! But it has ever been the same. In the second century Pacian had declared that he possessed two names, “Chris- tian” and “Catholic”. He did not wish to be mistaken for one of those who protested against the True Church, yet who still called themselves Christians. “If you want to know what I am,” he said, “Christian will tell you, and Catholic will show that I am one.” Yet would heretics leave him in possession of this distinction? By the fourth century we find St. Augustine writing, “All heretics want to call themselves Catholics, but ask anyone of them to direct you to a Catholic Church, and he will not direct you to his own Church.” How history is repeating itself! Those early heretical sects went through the same phases as the modem sects are experiencing. And the modem sects will die even as the ancient heresies have disappeared, leaving the Catholic Church still in this world, even though she will have to deal with yet new forms of error to come. Those very modem sects reflect all the characteristics of the ancient heresies. They vary with national tendencies, and nationality in religion is opposed to Catholicity. St. Augustine said, “There are heretics everywhere, but the heretics of one region have nothing to do with the heretics of another region. There are some heretics in Africa: quite others in Palestine, or in Egypt, etc.” So also we can say today, “There are some heretics in England, quite others in Germany and America, etc.” To my mind an extraordinary phenomenon presents it- self when we turn to the question of missionary enterprise. Amongst Protestants, for example, Anglicans are probably the most urgent in their claim to the title of Catholic. But if they are conscious that Christ wills Anglicanism to be preached to all nations, where is their apostolate on behalf of Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and Austria? And if they say that “Roman Catholicism” is quite all right for those countries, why do they illogically plant Anglican Mis- THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 29 sions in territories overseas in which Catholic Priests are already working? And if they are conscious of belonging to the same Catholic Church, why have they arranged for “spheres of influence” in order to keep out from certain regions those whom they should be obliged by their own principles to call fellow Catholic Priests in the same Church. They are not really conscious of being Catholics at all. Bishop Kirkby was right in saying to the Presby- terian Assembly at Sydney in May, 1933, “I want to assure you that the Church of England in Sydney is really Protes- tant”, although it is very difficult to see any reason for his insertion of the reference to Sydney. But leaving the Anglican form of Protestantism, let us take all the Protestant sects together. Even though they embrace millions collectively, such numbers cannot indi- cate Catholicity. Apart from the multitude of those who are merely nominal members of their Churches, it is not possible to see anything supernatural, or any need of divine power, in a multitude of men disagreeing with the Catho- lic Church and amongst themselves. Nor can confusion and diversity be attributed to the prayer of Christ for the unity of His Church. Whichever way we turn we are driven to the conclusion that Catholicity belongs solely to the Church presided over by the Bishop of Rome. And if we add these considerations to the fact that Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity belong also to that Church alone, we are left in no doubt as to where the True Church of Jesus Christ is to be found in this world. “Unity House, Holiness Square, via the Apostolic Road to Universality” leads to the True Church, and ends in submission to it by men of goodwill. And that means submission to the Church which comes at once to the mind of every ordinary man the moment he hears one speak of the Catholic Church. 30 THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH The World Almanac , 1948 QUIZZES ON SECRET SOCIETIES 10c QUIZZES ON EPISCOPALIAN AND ANGLICAN CHURCHES 15c QUIZZES ON CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 15c SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS 10c THE BAPTISTS 15c 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 WHY A TEACHING SISTER 15c WHY A HOSPITAL SISTER 15c WHY A MISSION SISTER 15c TO BE A PRIEST 10c WHY A RELIGIOUS BROTHER 15c VAN 15c 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 25c MAKING MARRIAGE CLICK 10c MUSIC OF IRELAND 20c MUSIC OF THE MASS 25c THREE HOURS AND ALL FRIDAYS OF THE YEAR 25c 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 25c FUNERAL MASS AND BURIAL SERVICE 35c THE MARRIAGE SERVICE and NUPTIAL MASS 15c THE PARACLETE, TWO NOVENAS TO THE HOLY GHOST 15c CONFESSION AND COMMUNION CARDS lc CONFIRMATION CARDS lc FIRST CONFESSION PRAYER CARD Vic CONFESSION CARD NO. 2 Vic COMMUNION CARDS, NOS. 1 AND 2 Vic EA. ALTAR BOY CARDS, LOOSE 2 FOR 5c ALTAR CARD, BOUND 50c WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT BAPTIZING INFANTS 5c THIS WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH 15c WHY YOU SHOULD BE A CATHOLIC 15c I MUST OBEY THE CHURCH 15c FR. SALLAWAY’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE UNITARIANS 10c FR. SALLAWAY’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE UNITARIANS 10c CHATS WITH LITTLE CHILDREN 15c OUR LADY OF FATIMA 15c A BIRDS-EYE VIEW OF THE FIVE KINDS OF LAWS 15c For copies address FATHERS RUMBLE & CARTY Radio Replies Press Saint Paul 1, Minn., U. S. A.