By

The Convert From Anglicanism

REV. DR. RUMBLE, M.S.C

|

/otw bf&
,
Ue.yj ( <?—

tov/qioir

I MUST OBEY

THE 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 $2.00, BOUND $2.75

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
Printed in U. S. A.



I MUST OBEY THE CHURCH!

BY

REV. DR. RUMBLE, M.S.C.

I write in a spirit of reparation and gratitude. At

one time I was amongst those who entertained an un-
reasonable enmity towards the Catholic Church, an

enmity which does little real harm to the Church, but
which does cloud one’s vision of the city set upon the

hill of the centuries. My one-time enmity demands
reparation. And one who has gladly entered within the
city’s gates cannot but be filled with a sense of deep

gratitude to God. As one who abandoned Anglicanism
oyer twenty years ago, I write chiefly for those who
still lack the explicit and the authentic directions given

by God to men through the Catholic Church, that
Church which alone can tell men the things that are to
their peace. Yet descriptions of that wonderful' city of
God, with which they have long been familiar, can
never lose interest even for Catholic hearts, above all
when those descriptions come from the lips of those
who have known what it is to be without the faith. I
cannot, of course, describe the full appeal of Catholi-

cism in so brief a booklet. But I take what is to me
the most outstanding characteristic of Catholicism

—

the sense of law and order which prevails in the
Church, and the spirit of obedience to be found
amongst Catholics as among the members of no other
religion.

Deacldified



I.

WHO FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

I remember having studied Ransome’s Short History
of England during my schooldays, rather proud of
“Bluff Old Hal’s” bout with the Catholic Church. We
were told that the Pope had, until then, been head of

the Church in England, and that Henry had won
liberty for himself and for his people from Papal

domination. To my schoolboy enthusiasm it had
seemed a brave thing to have accomplished, and it

awakened the loyal strains of “Britons never will be

slaves” within my patriotic heart.
The ecclesiastical significance of the step never en-

tered my head. The fact that England had been under
obedience to the Pope was quite clear; but it was

obvious that it ought never to have been so subject. As

for the continuity of the Anglican Church, that theory

would have robbed the whole proceeding of its chief

glory. The splendid discontinuity was the thing that

appealed. Henry VIII. had grown tired of slavish sub-

jection to Rome, and had built for his English subjects

a new and independent Church, to be the splendid

privilege of the British race. It differed from the re-

ligions of the benighted foreigners on the Continent,

whether Catholic or Protestant; and I could never

understand the disloyalty of both Catholics and

Protestants in England who refused to accept the

Royal Supremacy.

But my chief point here is the fact that historically
we were clearly told the names of those who had in-

augurated the new religious movements. Henry cer-

tainly was the founder of the Church of England; John

Knox, in Scotland, countered by organising the

Presbyterians; and each new phase of the religious

variations could likewise be traced to some given indi-

vidual. But the Catholic Church seemed to fade out

of the picture and lose interest by the mere fact that it

2



was not in contact with later English history. At most
it seemed a lingering influence, to be noted and dis-

missed with relief with each crushed rebellion or con-

spiracy; or to be made an occasion of a vague gratitude
to God that I was born of Protestant parents, when I
read of its wretched subjects in such books as West-

ward Ho.” Later on, however, the problem of the
origin of the Catholic Church presented itself to me in
a way which would admit of no shirking. Who was
the founder of the Catholic Church? I had never been
told. It was in the world, and seemed to have been in
the world a mighty long time. But I had just taken this
for granted as a fact, and a sad one at that, with a touch
of the bogey thrown in. Certainly Christ had nothing
to. do with it. It was an anti-Christian institution of
human, or even of diabolical, origin, and not for the
descendants of Old England. But this boyish view could
continue to exist only by refusal to think. The view is
still met with among certain types of people with
whom English sentiment as a form of snobbery has
usurped the place of religion, or with those whose re-
ligion has been built upon obscure and mystical pas-
sages of Scripture wrapped around the Second Coming
of Christ. George Tyrrell’s mother objected to his be-
coming a Catholic because he would have to attend the
same Church as the cook; whilst a Judge Rutherford,
the self-constituted witness of Jehovah, knows that
every form of organised Christianity is simply due to
the instigation of the devil. In these types an obsession

renders any other point of view invisible. What of
the man without such an obsession

Since my ordination as a Priest I have frequently
entered into discussion with various Protestant clergy-
men, met as fellow travellers on trains and boats. In
response to my enquiry as to their views concerning
the origin of the Catholic Church, I have met with sur-
prising replies. Not one, of course, would admit that
Christ personally established a society such as is the

Catholic Church to-day, intending and actually pre-
scribing its present constitution. One said that Jesus
did not really intend to establish a new and distinct
Church at all, and that St. Paul took it upon himself to



rebel against the Synagogue and to organise Christians

in a separate body, though with no notion of an insti-

tution such as the Catholic Church to-day. He found
difficulty in explaining Our Lord’s prediction, “They

shall deliver you up to councils, and in the Synagogues

you shall be beaten.” Mk. xiii., 9. Separation from and

opposition to the Synagogue was certainly in Our

Lord’s mind then. Still greater difficulty did this

clergyman find in attempting to justify his position as

minister in a Church separated from the Jewish relig-

ion owing to the influence of St. Paul against the

intentions of Christ.

But the majority of those with whom I have con-
versed on the subject have fallen back upon the magic

word evolution. Christ taught moral principles only.

St. Peter and St. Paul, who believed in Christ, persuad-
ed others to do so also, regarding their converts as

friends and brothers, equal in authority and standing

to themselves. The Apostles never thought of legislat-

ing for their supposed subjects. Practical needs led

later Christians to adopt a discipline and create

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons for themselves. In fact,

not until the 2nd century did anything like the present

Catholic Church manifest itself. It is no use trying to

prove that Christ intended to establish an organised

society such as the Catholic Church when the early

Christians simply knew nothing about it! “What were

the ideas of the early Christians on the subject?” I

asked one such clergyman. “Well,” he replied, “I

think they were simply a group of pious Jews who

believed in Christ, and that was all. Their only rule of

faith was Scripture, each reader depending upon pri-

vate guidance by the Holy Spirit. Certainly they had

no set doctrines, no regulated worship, and no idea of

organised Apostolic authority.”

Now, granted acceptance of the Gospels, it is most

difficult to understand how men can really advance the
theory that the Catholic Church as it is to-day was

quite unexpected by Christ, even apart from the fact

that He was God, with a clear knowledge of all future
events. Such men also have their obsession that every-
thing must be attributed to evolution. “Even the re-

4



ligicus spirit of man,” they say, “is in constant evo-

lution, and the present Catholic Church is the result of

purely human and natural factors. By further evo-
lution men will outgrow it, and arrive at better
things.” So they insist upon interpreting all in the

light of this their first principle. Yet what avails a

preconceived theory against the facts? Things are not

true because I would like them to be true. The theory

that Christ could not have established such a Church

as the Catholic Church to-day because it had to evolve,

and the thought that the early Christians could not

have known such a Church because evolution demands

time, avail nothing against the fact, if it be a fact, that

Christ did establish just such a Church, and that the

early Christians were quite aware of it.

Catholics hold that God sent His only begotten Son
into this world for the redemption of mankind, and

that that Son established His Church, commissioning it

to teach all nations. But was He the Author of the es-
sential constitution which we find in the Catholic
Church to-day? The evidence that He was is over-
whelming. He called the work He came to establish a
kingdom, and a kingdom means organised unity, not

anarchy. To establish that kingdom was one of the car-

dinal points of His mission. “I must preach the King-

dom of God, for therefore am I sent.” Lk. iv., 43. That
kingdom He identifies with His Church in this world.
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys of the king-

dom.” Matt, xvi., 18. Peter, the rock, was obviously a

foundation in this world. In any case, when Our Lord

compared His kingdom to a net holding good and bad

fish, He was speaking of an earthly kingdom, and not
of heaven, where no bad fish are to be found. More-

over, He prescribed its teaching, worship and author-
ity. He told His Apostles, “All things whatsoever I

have heard of My Father I have made known to you.”
Jn. xv., 15. He commanded them, “Go, teach all na-
tions ... to observe all things whatsoever I have com-

manded you.” Matt, xxviii., 20. The essential rites of
Baptism, forgiveness of sins, and of Eucharistic wor-

ship were clearly prescribed by Christ personally; and

5



whatever the nature of their powers, the Apostles were

evidently to be rulers. The power to bind and loose on

earth can have no other implication; and this is con-

firmed by the very serious words, “He who despises
you, despises Me; and he who despises Me, despises
Him that sent Me.” Lk. x., 16. And, notwithstanding
all theories to the contrary, the early Christians were

quite aware of all this. “They were persevering in the

doctrine of the Apostles, and in the breaking of bread,

and in prayers.” Acts ii., 42.

But the theory of the evolution of the Church led me
to a deeper study of the early Christian Church than

perhaps I might have undertaken had I not met these

Protestant clergymen. Most of them admitted that the

Catholic Church existed with the essentials of its pres-

ent organisation by the end of the 2nd century, the

authority of the Bishops and Priests being evolved as a

practical measure to cope with heresies and also in

some degree in imitation of the organisation of the

pagan Roman empire. Alas for the theory! A deep
study of the early Christian writers of the second cen-

tury, writers who lived in different and far apart lo-
calities, and who fcould not have known each others’
works since they were contemporaries, shows that they

were familiar with a Church rejoicing everywhere in

the same doctrine, worship, and form of government.

The same new idea would not start simultaneously in

all sections of the Church at once. One has but to notice

all the varying forms of teaching, worship and govern-

ment which arose in different localities under the in-

fluence of Protestantism. And we know how the new
ideas of one section led to violent opposition from other

sections, the world of the 16th century seething with

controversies, not only between Protestants and Catho-

lics, but between Protestants themselves. But where

were the controversies amongst the early Christians

concerning the introduction of a newly usurped author-

ity, and a newly imposed organisation within the

ChurcFf? They were non-existent. As a matter of fact,
even the very earliest forms of the Apostles’ Creed de-

manded an act of faith in the Church just as they de-
manded faith in God and in Christ. It would be ridicu-

6



lous to ask a well-read man of the 2nd century to make
an act of faith in the divine origin of the Church as it

then stood if an obviously natural, human, and merely

historical evolution were responsible for its being. It

would have been so easy to prove the opposite. I do

not say that the constitution of a society could not be

changed within a space of 150 years. But such a change

would be known to all, and no one would admit that
the new condition was the original condition. If Ireland
becomes a Republic, Irishmen will not be so foolish

as to say that Queen Victoria gave them their republi-

can constitution. Nor will they say so in 150 years time.

But the whole process of reasoning adopted by these

men is based upon a supposition that Our Lord did not
establish the Catholic Church as it is at present con-

stituted. It is a mere supposition, based in turn upon

nothing save a desire to avoid submission to that

Church. They have not a sound historical argument to

produce. They seem unconcerned that, in order to de-

velop their theory, they must even ignore historical

facts. They are undismayed by the dreadful conse-

quence that they impute to St. Paul, and to the Bishops

who were trained by the Apostles themselves, the
gravest of sins—the deliberate perverting and distort-

ing of the work of Christ for their own ends; and this

by men, most of whom died as martyrs for the love of
Christ. They care not that they attribute to the faithful

of those early times a bland indifference to things that

mattered enormously, and a folly which would submit

to so fraudulent and dishonest an imposition as it grew

and intensified step by step. I have pointed these things

out to many a non-Catholic with whom I have discuss-
ed these matters. In many cases such discussions have

led them to the faith. But in others they have failed.

A Priest can explain the faith, but he cannot give it.
God reserves that to Himself. And very often a man

who has a theory before he starts can see all that fits

in with his theory, and be quite blind to the most

obvious facts which militate against it.

Yet to the question as to who actually founded the

Catholic Church as that Church is at present consti-

tuted, there is but one answer worth consideration.

7



Christ personally did so. He who denies this fact must
either deny existence to the Catholic Church or must

call the problem insoluble merely because he has

buried his head in the sand, refusing to face the prob-

lem at all. But the Catholic Church cannot merely be

taken as an existent fact and left at that. She did not

just grow as did Topsy. She was established by Christ,

given all the necessary information by Him, and sent

to teach the nations with His authority vested in the

Apostles and in their successors.

8



II.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Every institution has some system of discipline and

management. We cannot do without officials. Anyone
who so much as starts a club will draw up a consti-
tution of some sort, and assign to some individuals of-

ficial duties. Even the Soviet, with its hatred of kings,

emperors, presidents and rulers, has had to create its

very officious officials. It is a fundamental law of any

society, and the natural dictate of ordinary human pru-

dence. And Christ, Wisdom itself, established a Church
for men which was perfectly adjusted both to the

spiritual welfare of humanity and to natural human

propensities. In any case He would not want chaos.

Somehow or other the faithful must be united in some

order, those in control being endowed with the neces-

sary authority by the Founder personally.

The supreme officials in the Catholic Church are the

Bishops, and we say that they constitute the hierarchy.
But the very word “hierarchy” means a sacred body

of rulers, and once the sacred element enters into a

question, feelings are apt to run high. Rulers in mat-

ters of religion seem so opposed to liberty of con-

science, according to the notions of a world badly in-

fected by Protestant principles. For the consecrated

officials claim not only the right to dispense informa-

tion to enquirers as to the route to heaven. They claim

the right to issue orders to all who are subject to them,

and also the power to fit their subjects spiritually for

the heaven they wish to attain.

Outsiders, of course, regard the Catholic system as

a system of despotism. I remember so well the idea
prevalent amongst my own circle of pre-Catholic
friends, an idea of priest-ridden Catholic countries, and

the slavish subjection of the masses. All priests were

born tyrants. I am a Catholic priest to-day, and I am
sure many of my Protestant relatives and old-time

9



Protestant friends would be surprised to learn that I

do not belong to the Church-teaching, but merely to

the Church-taught, and that the Bishops alone consti-

tute the Church-teaching. The authority of the Church
is vested in them, and delegated according to their dis-

cretion to simple Priests. It is true that I am separated
from the laity by my ordination. I have the power to
offer the sacrifice of the Mass, and the duty to explain

Catholic doctrine; but all my activities as a Priest are
subject to the authority and directions of the Bishops,

who alone are rulers in the strict sense within the

Kingdom of Christ. However, even this humble

avowal will not pacify all.

The vast majority of non-Catholics will have nothing
to do with priesthood or episcopacy. They say that such
spiritual domination is not only not the will of Christ,

but that it is directly opposed to His principles. There

is no such thing as distinction between Priest and lay-

man. If there be any spiritual power in the Church, it

is given to every Christian. AH alike must possess it,
and it cannot be the prerogative of an ordained clergy.

It is true that the Anglican Church, to which I belong-

ed, has kept an outward semblance of Bishops and

Priests, but apart from the recent High-Church move-

ment, ardent Protestant sentiment denied any real

priestly power to Anglican ministers. They were not

to be considered priests in the Catholic sense of this

word. As late as 1925 the Anglican Bishop Knox wrote

in the “National Review,” Sept, issue, p. 73: “The

Pope refused to recognise our Anglican orders on the

ground that our Church does not ordain Priests to offer

the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of the attempts made

by our Archbishops to conceal this defect, the Pope

from his point of view was unquestionably right.”

And the very Bishops, whatever their outward status,
certainly lack authority in the Church. A Protestant-
minded Bishop cannot control his Catholic-minded

clergy. Some years ago I met a High-Church Angli-

can minister who confided to me that he said Mass
every morning out of a Latin missal, and that he was,

therefore, as Catholic as I was. I pointed out to him

that his Bishop was quite opposed to such proceedings.

10



“Don’t you obey your Bishop?” I asked. “Oh, yes,”

he replied, “I do—when he is right.”
But leaving the Anglican Church, which does retain

an outward hierarchical semblance without possessing
the priestly reality, what of the non-conformists?
Amongst them we find a repudiation of Bishops al-
together, and no pretence to a priesthood in the strict

sense of the word. Many ministers go so far as to wear
a Roman collar, but others disapprove even this dis-
tinction from the laity and insist upon a collar and tie.

The more Protestant, the less priestly is the rule. And
of course that means also the less authority. Years

ago I remember the indignation of a good Congre-

gationalist concerning the presumption of his minis-

ter. I was an Anglican at the time, and rather sympa-

thetic. It appears that the minister in question was

an ex-Catholic Priest who had violated the discipline
of the Catholic Church, and had betaken himself, not

happily, elsewhere. Unable to dig, and ashamed to beg,

he became a Congregationalist, before passing to the

Presbyterians. But, alas, he still spoke as one having

authority, only to find himself waited upon by repre-

sentatives of the congregation, who informed him that
he must preach what they wanted, not what he

thought best. He had believed that he could behave
still as an authorised guide, but he had joined a

Church where the sheep are the leaders and the shep-

herd must follow. The Catholic notion of the hier-

archy is not acceptable to Protestants.

I have lately read a Seventh Day Adventist treatise,
setting forth a widespread view of the Catholic posi-

tion. “The Priest of Rome,” it says, “presumes to fill

the office Christ alone can occupy. The Papacy has

tried to rob Christ of His continual mediation. Thus

Rome destroys the very essence of Christianity. What
a frightful tragedy is the attempt of the Roman Catho-
lic Church to interpose its system of priestly mediation

between man and his God! Direct communion with
God .through Christ, without the intervention of Pope

or Priest—such is the true message of Protestantism.”
But do they know the true essence of Christianity? And

what if the Christ they would worship insists upon

11



Pope and Priests? Surely He has the right to decide
upon the way in which they will come to Him, not
they!

It is certain that, by terming His Church a Kingdom,
Christ implied an organised society with ruling officials

distinct from those to be ruled. And His actual selec-
tion of some men rather than others, upon whom He
conferred His own mission and authority, leaves no
possible doubt. “You have not chosen Me; I have
chosen you.” “As the Father hath sent Me, I send

you.” “He who hears you, hears Me.” “Whatever you
bind on earth is bound also in Heaven.” The texts flow

on, all converging to the one conclusion that Christ

appointed certain rulers, endowing them with sacred

and spiritual power to guide the faithful and minister

to the worship of God. They were to have magisterial

power to teach all nations; sanctifying power to bap-

tise, forgive sin, offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, and, as

St. Paul expresses it, to dispense the mysteries of God;

disciplinary authority, demanding that their subjects

observe all that Christ had commanded, and making

further use of their legislative power according to the

needs of the times. St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews,

“Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.” He
did not hesitate to excommunicate the scandalous

Corinthian.

It is all in keeping with sound reason, and with what

we already know of God’s ways. I would find it indeed
hard to understand why God should depart from His
love of order where religion is concerned. In regulat-

ing the universe He has ordained a hierarchy of planet-
ary and stellar systems all subject to law. All through

nature we find secondary ruling causes adapted to par-
ticular and effectual control of other beings. And in
the spiritual order we will find a reflection of God’s
normal providence in the natural order. He is the same
God whose touch we can recognise when we find Him
using secondary agents for the instruction of men in
the Gospel; for their direction and sanctification.

Then, too, man is a social being. Whilst the dignity
of the individual demands that he must co-operate per-

sonally in the work of his salvation, it is also fitting

12



that the race as a whole should co-operate in the ser-

vice of God. By social organisation true progress comes
in the natural order. Experience shows that men at-
tain an end more successfully by such means. Societies

are organised for the promotion of all kinds of objects,

civil and religious. Why should the whole Church of
Christ, ordained to the chief end of all, the salvation of

souls, lack so useful a means? Will not souls be saved

more surely by social co-operation, some men being

endowed with power and authority? As a matter of

fact, those Churches which have renounced an authori-

tative hierarchy have failed to keep the faith intact,

and lack all real power to maintain Christian standards

in moral matters. Yet, notwithstanding the success of

the Catholic Church in holding her people, ever -ex-

panding without loss of unity, and in retaining stan-

dards of Christian virtue which other Churches see

abandoned without daring to protest, few aspects of

the Church are attacked as this hierarchical character

of Catholicism.

The objection proceeds from misunderstanding and
from wrong principles. Protestants do not understand

the Catholic position. They seem to think that the hier-

archy can decide as it pleases what is right and wrong.

No such claim is made by the Church. The Church
claims the right to explain God’s laws, and to make her
own laws within the limits of the jurisdiction given
her by Christ; and that means that she can make and
impose no law which conflicts in any way with divine
positive legislation, or with the principles of natural

moralty. Wrong principles contribute to the oppo-
sition. Protestants insist that each man’s own con-
science must be his guide. No one must be told what to
do by any hierarchy of Bishops. But such independ-

ence is against all the laws of moral behaviour. There

must be absolute standards apart from our own per-
sonal judgment. For conscience is simply man’s intelli-

gent judgment applied to moral matters, just as the

same faculty is applied to mathematics or" literature.
And it is human to err. If a man’s judgment can be at
fault where literary ideals are concerned, it can be at

fault where moral ideals are in question. Conscience

13



can be right or wrong. It is certainly wrong if it bids
one do what the known law of God forbids. A right
conscience is one perfectly adjusted to God’s laws. If

a Protestant tells me that he has at least the ten com-
mandments, I can but reply that even these command-
ments need interpreting every bit as much as civil law,
and that, in the name of liberty of conscience, Protes-
tants have come to the most contradictory conclusions

in moral matters. Catholics at least have a consistent

guide to help them to form their conscience correctly.

God has given moral precepts which stand out as sign-

posts along the track to heaven, but He has also given
us an authoritative Church to explain and conduct us

along that track.

I am quite certain that my own spiritual welfare and
ultimate salvation is the more assured the more faith-
ful I am to the directive precepts of the Catholic
Church, whether in my private or social life. And that
applies to every single Catholic. Christ instituted an

authorised teaching and ruling body in the persons of

the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Obedience to their

authority is the outstanding characteristic of Catho-

lics. It is the contrast between Catholicism and

Protestantism. Even in Anglicanism, with its appar-

ently hierarchical constitution, a secular parliament

can forbid a prayer-book, and lay-representation can

out-vote the shepherds of the flock.

Rebellion against the authority of the Catholic

Church did not bring a blessing to the sects which de-

parted from her principles and authority. Nor can it

ever bring a blessing. Apparent benefits prove in the

end to have been but apparent. If I have any hope of

God’s blessing, I can expect it in proportion to my sub-
mission to the guidance of His Church in all religious

matters, and even in temporal concerns where moral

principles are involved. That is the conviction of every

truly Catholic soul. For the Catholic Church is God’s

authentic bureau on earth for the dispensing of relig-

ious truth to mankind, and her Bishops have been

commissioned by Christ to regulate and to conduct to

their eternal happiness the souls confided to her care.

But if the Catholic Church claims the right to rule

14



over her subjects, she also claims the power to sanctify

them, preparing them for the Vision of God even as

she conducts them towards that wonderful goal. And
this is a still more arrogant usurpation of the preroga-

tives of Christ in the eyes of those outside the Church.

It demands our consideration.

15



III.

THE POWER TO SANCTIFY

Christ founded His Church to continue His work

through the ages, the redemption and the sanctification

of souls. The Church must not only teach the truth;

she must destroy the sins of men in the confessional,
and nourish their spiritual lives with the very Bread of

Life in Holy Communion. The Catholic Priest, under

the direction of the Bishop, is not only guide, but

father. Catholics lovingly and reverently call him

“Father,” to the horror of those brought up in alien

religions. When I was out in the cold as a Protestant,
the term jarred upon me as it does upon most non-
Catholics. Yet the Priest is commissioned by Christ to

fulfil all parental duties in the spiritual sphere. By his
agency at the baptismal font the children of the

Church acquire the very life of grace. He instructs and

educates his flock in the truths of religion; binds up

their spiritual wounds; provides the food of their

souls; and stands at their death-bed, seeing each soul

safely off to God.

Such ideas are foreign to Protestants, owing to their

strange upbringing. They do not even regard their

ministers as agents of sanctification. They do not even

regard their Church, as a rule, in the light of a really

sanctifying power in this world. For them, such an

association is useful for the regulation to some extent

of worship, and for the exchange of views. I have

heard more than one minister of modern evolutionary

tendencies say that the Church has no purpose except

to foster and develop the collective instinct of religion.

Each one’s religious consciousness will thus evolve and

progress more perfectly. But the Church has no direct

power to sanctify souls by destroying sins and confer-

ring grace; nor is it really necessary to join any

Church at all in order to attain salvation. The work of

sanctification must ever be God’s own personal and
immediate work. It could not be delegated to men.

16



What would be my personal work? Believe! Have
faith in Christ my Saviour!

I must admit that, even before I became a Catholic,

this always seemed to me vague. I had often noticed
the axiom “Believe on Christ, and be saved” painted

on tree-trunks and fences, whirling past the windows

of trains in which I happened to be travelling. Pre-

cisely what it meant baffled me so much whenever I
bestowed any thought upon it that I just gave up

thinking about it at all. Was there nothing to be done?

Was Christianity so indefinite? Could the repetition of

a formula save anybody? Of course I knew that many

people obtained some deep interior conviction on the

subject, and that Christ personally meant very much

to them. But if all the food in the world were piled up

in front of a man, he would starve if he did no more

than believe that it was there.

Then, too, the idea of “being saved” was puzzling.

Was it possible for any man to say that he was already
saved while still in this life? What was it like to be

among “the saved”? Yet again, some people have

the intense conviction that they are bound to attain to

salvation, and that there is no possibility of forfeiting

their eternal happiness. This attitude of mind, or

rather of religious sentiment, I found well illustrated

by an incident which I heard some few years ago from

the lips of a very holy, old Priest.

He was travelling to a distant place in order to give
a retreat, and the only other occupant of the compart-

ment was a fervent young lady of Protestant persuas-

ions. She was impressed by the old Priest's absorption

in his Breviary, and when he had finished timidly
spoke to him of the Christ she undoubtedly loved.

“And oh, sir,” she said, as she poured out her heart,

“isn't it lovely to be saved?”

“And are you saved?” asked the old Priest gently.

“Why, yes!” she replied.

“Then you are very fortunate,” the old Priest
answered, “and I wish I were as certain as you. But
I am not saved yet. Meantime, what did St. Paul mean
when he said that he who thinks himself to stand must
beware lest he fall; and why did he fear lest, having

17



preached to others, he himself might become a cast-

away? He even spoke of those who were once illumin-
ated, and who had tasted the heavenly gift and be-

come partakers of the Holy Ghost, yet who had fallen

away!”

Her only reply to this was the pathetic plea, “Oh,
sir, don’t rob me of the lovely feeling I have!”

Unconsciously she fell back upon the basic founda-
tion of her comfortable persuasion, religious sentiment,

and where mere sentiment is concerned, self-deception
is almost second nature to man. But it is not difficult

to understand that people imbued with such ideas of
immediate uplift to Christ will resent the intervention

of any third party. Christ is the immediate object of

their faith, and if nothing more is required save to be-
lieve in Him, if there is nothing more concrete to be
done for sanctification and salvation, the Priest is

certainly unnecessary.

Yet surely, in the end, it is for Christ to dictate the

conditions of salvation, and He did not restrict Himself
to the words, “He who believes shall be saved.” He es-
tablished a Church which He identified with Himself in
almost every possible way. When Saul persecuted
members of the Church, He made the startling protest,
“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” That Church
received identity of mission, doctrine and authority.

What was the purpose of Christ? “The Son of Man is
come to save that which was lost.” To the Church He

said, “As the Father hath sent Me I send you—whose
sins you forgive, they are forgiven.” And these words

He said to her in the persons of His selected apostles.

They were to continue His redemptive work.

St. Paul demanded that the early Christians should

regard him as set apart for this purpose. “Let men

esteem us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the

mysteries of God.” (I. Cor. iv., 1.) The Catholic Priest-

hood still dispenses sacred and mysterious gifts of God

to men. Under the direction of the Bishops, they teach,

rule, and sanctify souls. And in order to sanctify, they

must have at their disposal a certain control of divine

grace, the only means towards the attaining of a super-

natural holiness. The Church does not exist merely in

18



order to produce natural goodness and to stimulate

humanitarian activities. She exists in order to pro-

duce supernatural virtue, and eternal salvation. She

exists to destroy sin, and to infuse grace into the souls

of her children.

It is absurd to quarrel with the Church for not

smoothing out all individual and social troubles in this

world, as if her mission were to establish an economic

paradise on earth. The communist who objects to the

Church on the sqore that she offers you “pie in the sky

when you die” is more intelligible, for he at least has

a more correct idea of her mission. She is there to

prepare men for a supernatural, eternal, and unearthly

destiny. And her work is to sanctify us now, through

her sacraments and priestly directions, in order to

secure our salvation and the glory of God.

I know well the host of objections which arise in
the non-Catholic mind when it is suggested that Priests
can forgive sins and confer grace. But these objections

all arise from the false premises of Protestantism, or

from a misconception of Catholic theology.

It is a false principle to say that Christ has paid the

price for our redemption, that He has expiated our sins,
and that nothing more is required. There is a differ-

ence between the paying of the price in general, and

the application of it to individual souls. Christ has paid

sufficiently and perfectly. But it does not follow that

all men by that very fact participate in the benefits of
Christ. He sent His Church to apply His merits,
already acquired, to the souls of men. She continues

His mediation and His redeeming work.

The very word, mediation, however, awakens the

stock objection that Christ is the only mediator, an ob-

jection which derives its force solely from a miscon-

ception of Catholic teaching. “The Priest,” men say,
“arrogantly usurps the place of Christ!” Did he do

so, it would be unpardonable. But no Catholic has ever

believed that he could do so. No Priest claims to exer-
cise his power as being proper and natural to himself.

He has a very secondary place. Christ is the principal
source of all sanctity and grace, and He has the right

to make use of human agents as instrumental means.
19



The work is as much His as ever. My pen is utterly
incapable of writing a letter by itself. I am the cause
of the letter I write, and the fact that I am using a pen
does not render me any the less the cause of my work.
The human being who happens to be a Priest is utterly
incapable of forgiving a sin as a merely human being.
But as a Priest he is the instrument of the Priesthood

of Christ, has been incorporated in Christ by Christ in
an altogether special way, and fulfils the will of Christ

at the bidding of Christ. And far from coming between
the soul and Christ, or hindering union with Christ, he

removes and destroys the one obstacle to union with

Christ by absolving the sins of his penitents, and urges

access to Christ, making such access possible at the

altar rails in the Catholic Church as it is possible in no

other church. It is the thought that the Priest claims to

act instead of Christ rather than on behalf of Christ

that causes the difficulty in so many Protestant minds.
And if we add the prejudiced caricature of Priests

which is latent in some Protestant minds, the difficulty

becomes formidable indeed. If I think that this man
claims to possess in his own right the power to sanctify
others, and I also think this man to be evil in himself,
I am naturally puzzled as to how such a wicked speci-
men could givQ what he does not possess. If he be not
merely the channel, but the source of <grace, and he be

evil, how can it be? I do not say that all Protestants

believe Priests to be evil merely because they are

Priests. But that is because 100 per cent. Protestantism

is on the wane. Luther called all Priests agents of the

devil. Judge Rutherford teaches the same to-day. I

certainly absorbed the tradition as a boy.

One of my own earliest and most unreasonable ef-
forts at versification was based upon a vague and in-

stinctive suspicion of the “Roman Priest.” I was but

fourteen at the time, and had no personal knowledge of

Priests. Protestant novels, and perhaps tendencies in-

herited from remote ancestors, prompted these lines:—

“There was a Priest,

A wretched beast,
Quite subject to the Pope;

He'd cast his spell.

And threaten hell;

But never would use soap."

20



I record the words in a deep spirit of contrition, and

as a groundless and sinful calumny for which perhaps

I have somewhat atoned by becoming a Priest myself.

But what I would like noted is that in each line save

the first I managed to embody a definite characteristic

of the dread being I thought I was describing—every
Priest is an object of contempt, cringing and subservi-

ent, given to magic, trading on fear, and a complete

stranger to the Englishman’s morning tub! How diffi-
cult for one with such impressions to imagine a Priest

as the sanctifier of souls! And, above all, when the

Priest is imagined as the supplanter of Christ.

People who labour under such a delusion should
awaken, not indignation, but an immense and surging

compassion in every Catholic heart. But I have said

that such an attitude towards things Catholic is dying

rapidly.

But I must return to our principles. The Catholic
Priest is not the source of grace, but the channel of

grace. Were the Priest the source of grace, his personal
worthiness or unworthiness would affect his ministry.

But Christ is the source of grace, dispensed by His own
Priesthood operating through those whom He has
called to receive it within themselves. And the Priest
operates, not instead of Christ, but on behalf of Christ,

and in the name of Christ. St. Paul describes the
priestly office in the Church as being “for the perfect-

ing of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the

building up of the body of Christ, until we all meet in
the unity of faith, and that henceforth we be no more
children tossed to and fro, and carried about with

every wind of doctrine.” (Eph. iv., 12-14). The Church

must conduct to their eternal salvation the souls of

men. Her Priests must teach, preserve from error, and

sanctify those entrusted to their care. So great is the

scope of the Catholic Church. No one can wulfully

ignore it, or refuse to comply with its requirements,

without definite spiritual loss, and the endangering of

his salvation.

21



IV.

THE THREE GUARANTEES

That I obey the Catholic Church supposes an im-

mense confidence in the trustworthiness ot that Church

as my guide. Is that confidence justified? At one time,
of course, I thought that the last thing to be reposed in

the Catholic Church was trust. The Catholic religion

was to me the symbol of all that was disloyal, anti-
social and decadent. The first two of these three no-

tions are almost inevitable amongst Protestants. The

third is prevalent amongst those who are particularly

blind, and who are characterised by an almost total

lack of thought upon the subject. Looking back now,

I am able to analyse with some degree of clarity my
typically Protestant obsessions.

The impression of Catholic disloyalty was due to

both the nature of Catholicism itself and to my own
extraordinary confusion of religion with national pat-

riotism. If a man is taught and becomes firmly con-
vinced that loyalty to the king demands acceptance of

the religion of the king, then he is bound to think those

who reject the religion of the king to be disloyal. And
then, too, it is a fact that Catholicism, as an inter-

national religion, cannot be subject to any individual

earthly rulers. My ideas of the anti-social character of
Catholicism arose from the fact that I attended as a

boy a large city state school. Amongst the hundreds at

that school, as far as I remember, there was but

one boy who was known to be a Catholic. As a body

we were all Protestants. Catholic boys would pass our
school, and go on further to a school of their own. They

were a class apart. However wrong my ideas on the
subject, there was some reason behind the impression

of the anti-social character of Catholicism. Catholics

would associate neither with the irreligion of our State

schools nor with the religion of our churches. That

this was due to some wrong element in our schools and

22



churches I did not then, of course, realise. That the

Catholic Church was doomed to decay was an im-

pression due solely to tradition, and to an obvious

blindness to the continual growth and activity of the

Church in all spheres, educational and charitable.

In this analysis I have been led to indicate three out-

standing characteristics of Catholicism. I call them the
“Three Guarantees/' guarantees which Christ includ-

ed in the very charter He gave to His Church. The
Church established by Him was to be independent of
every other earthly society; infallible in its guidance;

and indestructible, quite unable to decay from with-

in, or be suppressed from without. Let us take each of

these three guarantees in turn.

The Catholic Church is a society independent of any

other social organisation in this world. New South
Wales is a State society/with its own State laws and
governing body. But it is an integral part of the Com-
monwealth. It is not completely independent and self-

sufficient, The United States of America is a complete

and independent society. It needs, certainly, the help

of other nations by trade relations; but it has its own
proper constitution and regulates its own right to se-
cure what it deems necessary to its well-being. The

Catholic Church is a complete and independent society

in this latter sense. It is independent of all other so-

cieties, subject in no way to their jurisdiction. Such
independence appears chiefly in the character of a

society's ruling power. Does the prince, governor or

administrator owe allegiance to any other power?

That is the end of real independence. Now the Catho-
lic Church has defined that the Pope has supreme

jurisdiction over the faithful. There can be no appeal

to any authority higher than his. And in the matter of

Church affairs, no civil authority has the right to define

the limits within which she must confine her activities.

I am sure that it is not difficult to see how such
claims cannot but arouse the indignation of ardent

Protestants. Protestantism has always shown an im-

mense respect for, and subservience to, civil authority.

To them the Catholic claims seems outrageous. They

denounce this independence. I have just read a Pro-

23



testant booklet on the solution of the “Roman Ques-
tion/’ proving to the author’s satisfaction that the Pope
is undoubtedly “The Beast,” lustful of power, because

he refuses to be a subject of Italian civil authority,

and has at last secured an acknowledged independence.

At the time of my conversion to the Church, the “Ne
Temere” dispute was in full swing in Australia. The

whole trouble was simply that the Catholic Church

here in Australia regarded her legislation concerning

the Sacrament of Marriage as independent of and un-

affected by any legislation to the contrary made by a
civil parliament. In America, this Catholic claim to

independence was made the stock argument against
the candidature of Al. Smith for the presidency, and

the charge that it was impossible for a Catholic to be

loyal succeeded in defeating his cause.

And yet, this aspect of independence is one that most
appeals to all who can think sanely on the question. A
parliament consisting of Catholics, Protestants, Jews

and complete unbelievers, which can prescribe the

doctrines and services of Anglicanism, rejecting as un-

suitable a prayer-book sanctioned by the Anglican

Bishops, provokes smiles the world over. And such a
state of affairs is the logical outcome of the denial of

independence. Such a denial, too, is so opposed to the

very concept of the true Church of Christ. How can
that Church be subject to any civil power when no

civil power had anything to do with its origin? Christ

certainly founded His Church independently of any

civil power. He simply said, “All power is given to

Me in heaven and on earth.” He did not even consult
civil authority. He bade his apostles go and teach all

nations. And far from accepting authority from earthly

rulers, they were to ignore any legislation opposed to

their mission.

The charge of disloyalty was bound to come. And

Our Lord said clearly, “They shall deliver you up to

councils—you shall stand before governors and kings
for my sake.” Mk. xiii., 9. Catholics will be forced to
cry at times, “We ought to obey God rather than
man!” Acts v., 29. After all, since the purpose of the

Church is to guide men to heaven, and no natural and
24



human legislation can do that, her legislative power
must be independent of human parliaments. Then, too,
being universal, she cannot adapt herself to every

whim and caprice of local human legislation. The
Catholic Church, therefore, has the right given her by

God to exist anywhere, and freely to fulfil her duties.
She must be legally free, and any civil legislation op-

posed to her mission is simply invalid and not binding

in conscience.

If this principle leads to the persecution of the

Church, it is due to the false principle of her adversar-

ies that all things are under the control of Caesar, and

that there are no rights independent of civil power.

Even religion must be but an aspect of patriotism, and

the Church a branch of the civil service. It won’t do.

I am a Catholic precisely because my religion has to
do with God, and must be independent of any earthly

allegiance. Yet I am not less patriotic than those who
talk much of patriotism, but who know not how to
distinguish between the things that belong to God and

those to which Caesar may rightly lay claim.

If independence, however, was included in the char-

ter of the Catholic Church as a thing to be guaranteed

by Christ, so, too, was infallibility. This was simply a

gift of God by which the Church, through the per-
petual assistance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from

teaching error in matters of faith and morals. In other

words, the true Church of Christ issues instructions of

which it is quite certain. And Catholics naturally in-
sist upon learning those instructions, and as decidedly

refuse to follow guides who ignore or contradict them.

And if those instructions cannot be learned in State
schools, and are violated in Protestant churches, Catho-

lics sedulously keep away from both State schools and

Protestant churches. In a Protestant environment,

where Catholics are in the minority, the majority are

almost bound to cry out, “Be sociable. Come with
us!” Catholics cannot do so, and what I once believed

to be the anti-social character of Catholicism is really

the penalty of infallibility. Such a claim, of course,

appeared to me in my Protestant days to be arrogant
25



assumption; the death of free thought and human
liberty; and anyway quite opposed to facts.

I did not know much about such things then. But I
laboured under the idea that the Catholic Church

simply conferred upon herself any prerogatives she

wished—which would-be arrogance. I had no know-
ledge of her humble admission that she had no power

to give herself anything, and that all she had, she had

to receive from Christ.

I did not see that all freedom implies restriction. No
one can be free in all directions. If I am free from
error I am “shackled” by truth. The conviction that
the world is a globe takes away my freedom to believe
it flat. My freedom from gaol means that I am content
to submit to the restraint of civil law. The normal man
does not want to be free to fall into error, or to go to

gaol. But multitudes are not normal where religion is

concerned. They denounce interference with their

liberty to believe any absurd error in this matter. And

as an infallible Church takes away the freedom to think

erroneously, they won't have it. But this view did not

occur to me in the days when I entertained the strange
notion that Catholicism meant the death of free

thought, a phrase which sounded a glorious vindication

of human liberty, yet which really meant simply

freedom from thinking at all where religion was

concerned.

That infallibility was opposed to facts was a theory

linked with my school-day history of Joan of Arc. The
Catholic Church burned her as a witch, and then turn-

ed right round and canonised her as a Saint. My
“fact,” of course, was not a fact. The Church did not

condemn Joan. A renegade Catholic Bishop, in the pay
of the English, did so; but his action was not in ac-

cordance with, but a violation of the laws of the

Church. Within the lifetime of Joan’s own mother,

Pope Callixtus III. had declared her mock trial null and

void, and rehabilitated her reputation and orthodoxy.

But our school histories did not tell us that.

If, however, at one time I felt rather appalled by the

arrogant claim to infallibility, to-day I would be ap-

palled did the true Church not make such a claim. A
26



fine sort of a guide to our eternal destiny would have
been given us by God if that guide had to admit that
she was not sure of the way herself! As has been so
often pointed out, the Church was endowed by Christ
with the essential notes of unity, holiness, catholicity,
and apostolicity. The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Church is an expression familiar to all. Yet not one of
these characteristics could persevere were not the
Church infallible. Unity would soon go if the Church
could teach erroneous doctrine; the sin of heresy
would deprive her of her essential holiness as an in-
stitution; the separation of groups would destroy
utterly the catholicity of one single Church; and
the self-same faith and authority derived from the
Apostles would be lost. Anyway, Christ included
the gift of infallibility in the charter of His Church.
His promise that the gates of hell, or the forces
of evil, would never prevail against His Church
can only mean that His Church will last just such as
He established it, ever retaining the faith He commit-
ted to her care. His promise of the perpetual presence
of the Holy Spirit, and that He Himself would be with
her “all days even till the end of the world” suppose
also infallibility, or inability to teach a doctrine which
is not identical with principles laid down by Himself.
Above all it is inconceivable that Christ would send a
church to teach all nations, putting an obligation upon
all nations to be taught by her, and even making
eternal salvation dependent upon one’s submission to
His Church, saying, “He who does not believe will be
condemned,” if that Church could possibly teach doc-
trines in conflict with His!

I turn to my last thought of days gone by, that the
Catholic Church is but a decaying relic of mediaeval
times. I was familiar with the view that she is a purely
human organisation, bound to collapse in due time.
But the facts are against this idea completely when one
looks into them. The fact that she is still standing is
proof enough that she is bound to last. Not of itself,
of course. But when I consider her teachings, her
difficult moral obligations, and the obstacles she has
met and overcome, I am certain that no natural rea-

27



sons can account for her vitality. She demands so
much that human nature dislikes. I can find a reason
for the perseverance of pagan religions, or for Moham-
medanism, or for Protestantism. Man is naturally re-
ligious, and deprived of Catholicity, will have some
form of religion. But in substitute religions most of
the things difficult for human nature have been abol-
ished. No religion on earth demands the consistent
virtue, the humility, mortification and rigid duty to

God imposed by Catholicism. But we have merely to
turn to the Gospels to discover the secret. Christ’s

promise of the perseverance of the Church to the end

of the world is enough. Her vitality is not linked with

any natural factors, nor even with the zeal, wisdom

and virtue of her members, whether clerical or lay. It

is based upon the divine protection promised by Christ.

Foolish in the extreme are the thoughts of those

who imagine that the general disruptive forces of these
times can threaten the existence of the Catholic

Church. To doubt is to doubt the promises of Christ.

And, anyway, the Catholic Church has been through

worse times than those of to-day, and where empires

and civil governments have crashed, she has ever sur-

vived with renewed vigour and vitality. The Catholic

Church is still here, and with a glad heart I accept

from that Church just the same instructions as she has

been giving to humanity for the last 2,000 years—in-
structions the worth of which is guaranteed, if by

nothing else, by the Saints of the centuries, who,

though wayfarers like myself, have attained with cer-

tainty the heaven we all wish to see. And as there is no
reason why the Christian of the 20th century should be
dispensed from all that was necessary for the Christian

of the 10th, but every reason why he should have to
submit to exactly the same conditions of salvation, so

in the 30th century, or the 300th century, should the

world last so long, the Catholic Church will still be

there, dispensing the same information and prescrib-

ing the same essential conditions to all who apply to
her for that instruction and guidance they cannot

safely do without. The Catholic Church is indestruct-

ible. She cannot fail.

28



Thus “The Three Guarantees,” Independence, In-

fallibility and Indestructibility, are stamped upon the

charter of the Catholic Church, given her by the

Christ, the Son of the Living God. And under her con-
trol, I am able to render to God the things that are
God's; I am preserved from all freedom to make vital
mistakes; and I inherit a firm hope of that immortality

in heaven which she alone reflects upon earth.

29



V.

OBEYING THE CHURCH

After all that I have said about the establishing of
the Catholic Church by Christ, the commission He gave
to her, and the guarantees with which He endowed
her, it should not be surprising to learn that wayfarers

to eternity have an obligation to submit to her direc-

tions. If they are obliged to save their souls, they are

also obliged to take the means with which God has
provided them for this purpose.

It is necessary, then, that men should join the Catho-
lic Church. Before I became a Catholic, I knew that the
Church did make exclusive claims, though I did not
see their force, and thought it most intolerant, with the

consequent doctrine that outside the Catholic Church

there is no salvation. Why should all Protestants be
lost? I had no idea at that time of the true position.

It is certain, of course, that Christ must insist upon

our joining the true Church. His very command
that we must “hear the Church’ , indicates a grave
obligation. .And if He says, “He who. despises you, de-
spises Me, and he who despises Me despises Him that
sent Me,” we are forced to the conclusion that con-
tempt of His Church is contempt of Almighty God.

And His Church happens to be the Catholic Church.
How could anyone knowingly and .wilfully refusing to
join the Catholic Church hope for salvation whilst

continuing in such dispositions? Once a man has suf-
ficiently perceived that the Catholic Church is indeed

the true Church of Christ, he has no means of salva-

tion apart from that Catholic Church. I know that in

my own case now I would simply forfeit my hope of
salvation did I leave her. My eternal welfare is bound
up with my strict fidelity to her.
But what I failed to notice in my non-Catholic days

was the sense of the words “knowingly and wilfully.”

God will not blame a man for anything for which he
30



is not responsible. If a man is faithful to his conscience
and dies repenting of his sins, he at least dies with the

will to do God's Will, and if he does not demand recep-

tion into the Catholic Church, it can only be because

he does not advert to the fact that such is God’s Will.

In this case, God will take his will for the deed as far

as adherence to the Catholic Church is concerned, and

he will be judged on other factors. On the supposition

that all is well in other directions, he will certainly be

saved in spite of his not professing the Catholic faith.

Yet the fact remains that the Catholic Church is a

society necessary for the salvation of all those who

have ever received the grace to discern the truth of

her claims to be the divinely authorised guide of man-

kind in matters pertaining to religion.

Whether any given individual has attained to the

required interior conviction necessary to render his

separation from the visible Church gravely sinful no

man has the right to say. God alone can read the hearts
of men. I know that I certainly have such a degree

of conviction. But I cannot say that any single

Protestant still outside the Church has actually at-

tained to a similar conviction, and is guilty of grave

sin by his refusal to submit to the Church.

I think it was R. H. Benson, himself a convert to the
Church, who ventured to express an opinion concern-
ing G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton had written much
with a very Catholic tone prior to his conversion. Ben-

son remarked once, “I do hot think Chesterton will

ever become a Catholic.” Chesterton became a Catho-

lic later, when he was conscious of his obligation. No
one can safely judge as to the mental state of another.

And Catholics are forbidden to judge concerning the
responsibility of Protestants before God. Robert Hugh
Benson, of course, had no desire to judge rashly con- .

cerning the possible moral guilt of Chesterton. He
was interested in the problem of conversions, and was

expressing his opinion that not always those who seem
nearest to Catholicism are amongst those who are
actually converted.

I suppose it seems paradoxical to say that some

people are too close to Catholicism to be really near it.

31



Yet in a way that is true. In my own experience with
converts I have always found it much easier to instruct
the man who bluntly declares himself to be a Protest-
ant rather than the High-Church Anglican who has
thought himself to be a Catholic, and boasts that he

has little to change and still less to gain by becoming

a Catholic in actual fact, submitting to the jurisdiction

of the Pope. He is so wrapped up in external simi-
larities to Catholicism that he is far less likely to ad-

vert to the obligation of submission to the true Church

than the plain blunt Protestant. And from this point

of view, though apparently closer, he is much farther

removed from Catholic obedience.

Obedience is most essential. We went from God by
disobedience. The only way back is to retrace our
steps by obedience. And if religion is to get us back,
the essential thing in the true religion must be obedi-

ence. And it is certainly the essential thing in the
Catholic religion.

Since the Church is a society with an organised hier-
archical constitution, she must possess authority to
rule her subjects. And the power to rule must include
the power to make laws, to judge concerning the ob-
servance of those laws, and to enforce those laws by

suitable penalties. The civil State could not get on

without a legislative body, a court of justice, and a

penitentiary. And the Church is not less a self-
contained society than any national civil State.

I scarcely know of any other aspect of the Catholic
Church which is so alien to the Protestant mind. Most

Protestants are horrified by the authoritative manner

of the Catholic Church. The idea that Catholics “have

to do this” or are “forbidden to do that” is sufficient

condemnation of the whole Catholic system for them.

And the idea of an obligation of obedience to their
own ministers scarcely ever enters their heads. It

certainly did not enter my own.
At one time, many years ago now, I was attending

an early Mass at a Catholic Church and going to a later

service in an Anglican Church. The rector was a very

good man, and told me that I “couldn’t do it.” He gave
as his reason that, whilst he did not mind much, those

32



Catholics who might see me at Mass and later entering
the Anglican Church would be most disedified. It

would be a scandal which he could not permit. But

his forbidding me to do it carried no weight at all.
When, however, I saw things at last through Catholic

eyes, the fact that the Catholic Church forbade my
attendance at the Anglican service was a very dif-

ferent matter. For it is a fact that Christ gave His true

Church the authority to make laws binding us in con-
science, to judge concerning their observance, and to

enforce their observance.

“Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven”

gave her the right to legislate according to the neces-

sities of the times in which she exists. The basic con-

stitution of civil society does not obviate the necessity

of particular laws in particular circumstances. So, too,

in the Church. If Protestantism arises in the 16th

century, the Church can make laws to preserve her

children from the contagion of Protestantism. If Com-

munism asserts itself in the 20th century, she can

forbid her subjects to have anything to do with Com-

munism. And she has judicial power.
“Tell the Church, and if a man will not hear the

Church, let him be as the heathen.” The Church has

the right to judge. For legislative power is absurd

without the power to decide practical cases. Imagine

a State with legislative power only, yet with no courts

for the administration of its laws!

Nor is it enough to be able to say, “You are inno-

cent” or “You are guilty.” There must be coercive
power, a power to prevent continuance in what has

been judged to be wrong conduct.

I am not a Bishop in the Catholic Church. I have
no “axe to grind” in maintaining these powers in the

Church, for they are powers to which I have to sub-

mit, not powers which I am commissioned to exercise.
I am not a “ruler” in the Church. But I state the
simple truth because it is the truth.

St. Paul was a Catholic Bishop. He knew what
authority he had received from Christ, and he did not

hesitate to use it. He legislated, judged, and punished.
He wrote to the Corinthians in his first Epistle, “What

33



will you? Shall I come to you with a rod? Or in the
spirit of meekness?” I. Cor. iv., 21. He gave them
their choice between obedience and disobedience. But

some of them took his threat of severity too lightly,

and in his second Epistle he wrote, “Men say that I
threaten in my epistles, but that my bodily presence is
weak and contemptible. But what I am in my epistle
when absent, that I will be when present. It is not
wrong of me to insist upon powers which the Lord
hath given us for your edification, and not for your

destruction.” II. Cor. x., 8-11. In the same epistle he

adds, “I tell those who sinned before, and all the rest,
that if I come again, I will not spare” (xiii., 2). He
excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian without a

scruple. He ordered the Thessalonians, “If any man
obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and

do not enter into his company, that he may be asham-
ed.” II. Thess. iii., 14. How unlike anything to be found
in Protestantism it all is! And yet how Catholic!

Through the ages the Church has been conscious of

this power. She is conscious of it to-day. I know that
if, as a Priest, I rebel against the laws of the Church,

I am quite liable to be brought before the ecclesiasti-
cal courts, and to be suspended or excommunicated. I

know that the Church has the right to impose pen-

ances, which are but penalties, such as fasting, alms-

giving, prayers, or pilgrimages. She has even the right

to appeal to the civil power in Catholic countries to

support and enforce her legislation, if her spiritual

authority fails to do so. And if any Church be not

conscious of such powers, I know that it forfeits all

claim to its being the Church Christ established.

But a most practical conclusion follows. We Catho-
lics owe obedience in thought, word and deed to the

laws of the Catholic Church. She has not only the duty

to teach and instruct us. She has the duty to rule and

control our conduct. She has not only to tell us what

to believe. She has the duty to tell us what to do. If

she had not that authority it would be impossible for

her to maintain unity and discipline. In his book, “The

Things That Are Not Caesar’s,” Maritain, a layman,

r>ghtly says that the virtue of obedience extends not

34



only to the express commands of the Church, but also

to her counsels and advice. Taking lightly her recom-

mendations in matters of education, prohibited books,

and such kindred matters, even where explicit cen-

sures are not ignored, always implies a diminishing of

faith and a fault of disobedience.” A filial spirit of
obedience is essential in a good Catholic, based upon

the conviction that whatever injures the Church in-

jures Christ.

However acute the human opposition, the pro-
gramme of Catholics in every department of life, even
from the social standpoint, should be characterised by

unqualified adhesion to every Catholic direction. This

is not a matter for Priests and Religious only. It is a

matter for every single member of the Catholic
Church. We shall participate in all that Christ prom-
ised through the Church according to the degree of

our submission to the Church. And we must submit to
the laws of the Church, because they happen to be the

laws of the Church, not basing our obedience to these

laws upon our own approval of them, thinking our-
selves free to disobey, when we think them perhaps
unwise. That implies an act of confidence in our own

judgment, but no faith in the Church. It is the

Protestant, not the Catholic outlook.

If I obey, it must be not because the wisdom or

prudence of ecclesiastical legislation appeals to me,

but because of the authority of Christ, vested in His

Church. Nor is the Church obliged to give me the
reasons why she has thus legislated. Once she makes a
law it binds me in virtue of obedience by the very
fact that she has made it. “He who hears you hears

Me” is the clear doctrine of Christ, and He has also

said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” The con-
clusion remains that he who is not with the Catholic

Church is equally against Christ, unknowingly in the

case of Protestants, but knowingly and guiltily in the

case of those who profess the Catholic Faith.

For two thousand years the Catholic Church has

been conducting souls to their eternal destiny. She

knows every inch of the ground; and the Saints, who
have most carefully followed her directions, are a liv-

35



ing guarantee of her reliability. We Catholics accept
her guidance in this twentieth century, but we must
remember that she is the guide. Our safety and ulti-
mate arrival at the destination we hope to reach de-
pend upon our obedience to instructions. He who
obeys the Church in all her precepts and recommen-
dations will never be lost.

Nihil Obstat:

R. C. PEOPLES

Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur:

* MICHAEL

Archiep. Sydneyen.



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

WHY A TEACHING SISTER 15c

WHY A HOSPITAL SISTER 15c

WHY A MISSION SISTER 15c

TO BE A PRIEST 10c

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 y2c

CONFESSION CARD NO. 2. V2c

COMMUNION CARDS, NOS. 1 AND 2 V2c EA.

ALTAR BOY CARDS, LOOSE 2 FOR 5c

ALTAR CARD, BOUND 50c

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

For copies address

FATHERS RUMBLE & CARTY
Radio Replies Press

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