This three-volume set is considered a classic text of Catholic apologetics. The writing is clear, concise, and relentlessly logical. The arguments put forth are a remarkable combination of common sense, logic, and Scriptural reference. Not only does the book give Protestants, agnostics, humanists, and atheists a lot to think about, it is a fantastic resource for Catholics who desire a full understanding of our religious beliefs and practices, top to bottom. The big difference between Volumes 1 and 2 is that the latter responds to far more challenging questions, delving deeper into the same general topics covered in Volume 1.

I am often asked what book I would recommend to people considering conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism or to people trying to evangelize Protestants who have questions, even tough ones, about Catholicism. If it can be just one book, more often than not, this is the trilogy I recommend. Granted, it's 3 books, but all three of them together form one whole that answers over 4,000 questions posed by Protestants, Atheists, Agonstics, skeptics, etc.

Because of the wide range of questions, this book is very recommendable -- it doesn't only specialize on one single topic. And because the questions are REAL questions that other people have asked, many folks will find asked and answered precisely the same questions they've wondered about, in this work.

It is thoroughly indexed and covers almost any question that might come up in a debate with a Protestant or other unbeliever. It is extremely useful, as my experience in apologetics testifies. This is the work to turn to first when stumped on a particular issue. The wealth of information in this trilogy is unimaginable. Written by two priests. Imprimatur.

If you can only buy one source of Catholic answers--make it this one!

The Radio Replies volumes are a written compilation of the replies that two priests gave to a call in show more than a few decades ago.

The questions they answered are as relevant today as they were then. What is purgatory? Is there a hell? Why do we need a church? Why do you think the Catholic Church is the true Church? What is papal infallibility? Why the objection to artificial birth control?

The questions go on and on, but I doubt there are many that these two gentlemen haven't answered. Furthermore, I enjoy the brevity of the answers. If you want a quick answer on something the Catholic Church holds true, you need not spend hours finding an answer. Radio Replies will give you the answer.

The rest is up to you. I recommend this three volume set to anyone who wants to learn his or her Catholic faith in a "nutshell." These volumes would be of enormous assistance in answering the questions of the curious as well. If you are going down either of these paths, this set (even one of the three volumes) should be the first thing you get aside from the Catechism.

Most every question is asked and answered. You won't regret picking up this set.

"Radio Replies" is considered a foundation text for Catholic apologetics. The three volumes are transcripts of a 1930's radio program in which two priests, one from Australia and one from the United States, answer write-in questions inquiring about (or in many cases outright attacking) Catholic beliefs on just about every subject you can think of.

Volume One is fascinating both as a work of apologetics and as an historical document. In terms of apologetics, Catholic positions are stated coherently, concisely, and consistently, with arguments appealing to reason as well as drawing heavily from Scripture. The overriding message is that the Catholic Church is alone the true church established by Christ, and this assertion is backed up with arguments that can not be easily dismissed.

The stridency of tone in this book will sound peculiar to many readers today. Historically, it is interesting to see how things have changed over the last seventy-odd years. Frs. Rumble and Carty speak often of man's duty to himself, to fellow man, and the necessity to submit totally to the will of God. Such talk is certainly not in vogue today. In the strongest language, the priests assert the Catholic's profound responsibility to attend Mass every Sunday, to abstain from meat on Friday, to refuse participation in other religious services, etc. Since Vatican II, many such strict guidelines have been loosened, and one wonders, when reading this, how beneficial that has been. The priests abhor a world of moral relativism, and attribute its development in part to Protestantism, with its ever-increasing theological fragmentation, its substitution of man-made law for God's law, and the crisis in faith and morals that result. (It is important to note the priests do not attack Protestants personally, their good will, or their good works; they object only to the underlying precepts of the movement itself.) When one looks at the moral chaos in our society today, the words of caution and dire predictions of "Radio Replies" seem at times prophetic.

One weakness in this volume-the vast majority of questions (over 1500 in Volume One) are posed by lay people who obviously have little understanding of Catholicism and a highly prejudiced attitude toward Catholic people and practices. The one- or two-line questions are basically softballs, which the priests easily hit clear out of the park. So although "Radio Replies" contains an enormous amount of indispensable information, it does not take on many intellectually rigorous challenges. That being said, "Radio Replies" provides incredibly clear insight on what the Catholic Church stands for, and why.

If you have ever wondered about some of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith, then this is the book for you. Nearly every question you could have about the Church is addressed here in the three volumes of this series. And no, they're not simple questions, either. I found this series to be fascinating reading.

Fathers Rumble and Carty take the questions about the Catholic Church and Church doctrine head on; and answer them from 2000 years of Catholic Doctrine, The Bible and Tradition. What was written by these two men in the 1930's, is still true today.

Every Catholic and non-Catholic, who really wants to learn the truths about what the Catholic Church teaches, needs all three Volumes in their library.

Radio Replies is a good series to purchase as a reference for apologetics, the art of defending the Catholic faith with rational arguments. My only gripe is that it is pre-Vatican II in its style. It is, after all, a 3-volume compilation of the questions and answers of radio shows before 1942 (date of publication). And it amounts to a staggering 1007 pages (not including prefaces and indices).

While the language could turn some people off, you have to give it this - it's very comprehensive. Any topic about the Faith, and all the nasty questions and opinions that could be thrown at it, the good fathers take them head on.

Personally, I like their style. It's argumentative, covering every angle in a terse way. i.e. how about this? and this? and this? Any question you want, there's an answer. Look up the index, you can probably find it there. Although it is unlikely that anybody has the patience to plough through it exhaustively, I recommend that every family get a copy as a reference and/or study manual.

I covered Volumes One and Two under those listings, so this is about Volume Three. As the series progresses, the questions get harder. Volume Three covers Church dogma and morals in great detail. In particular, the sixty year-old commentary on morals is eerily, sadly prophetic. The consequences of a drift toward complete moral relativism are described as a nightmare scenario, yet how much of it has come to pass--steadily rising divorce, abortion, alienation, violence, division into smaller and smaller groups dedicated only to the advancement of some self-proclaimed social imperative. Undoubtedly, to a non-believer, the prophetic quality of the arguments is the strongest point in their favor. It is not hard to see the moral quagmire we live in (if one only bothers to look), but to see it so clearly when it was just forming--that requires a true vision, a true perspective. For the believer, the truth of the Fathers' arguments is self-evident, for it is simply the Word of God.

Hula hoops. Sack dresses. Tail fins. Juke boxes. Penny loafers. Bee bop a lula. All these words evoke a certain time because each era produces its own fashions and styles that seem so central then, but later disappear in favor of others. That's the way it is in Anthropology too. Over its history, which isn't all that long if we compare it to other fields, various styles of inquiry and various areas of concern have come and gone. Early in the 20th century the main argument was between diffusionists (who thought that culture spread out from a few major centers) and those who believed in separate development. Then, functionalism came in. Anthropologists looked for the function of everything, including myth, symbol, religion, and ritual. They made lists of cultural "traits" and constructed models. Later came structuralism, influenced strongly by Claude Levi Strauss, and post-structuralism, which is still in vogue today.

Lewis did his Ph.D thesis field in Mitla, a small Zapotec Indian town not far from Oaxaca, Mexico. When he returned to Chicago, where the University was the center of American anthropology at the time, his advisor told him that he hadn't really found anything new; many people had already done research in Mesoamerican towns. So, to break into print, Lewis tried to focus on two things instead of writing a standard 1950s ethnography. First, he concentrated on describing the Mitleños' world view (general way they viewed life, large belief system encompassing more than religion) and secondly, he attempted to link the writing anthropology to philosophy and literature. It is my opinion, given from a perspective of nearly 50 years later, when styles in writing anthropology have changed drastically, that he did not succeed on either count. It may be because he tried to do all this in 91 pages!

To describe the world view of a people you need exceedingly "thick" description. Lewis', on the other hand, is very thin. As he himself admits, he did not try to make readers hear "the wind in the palm trees", nor do we find chickens being killed for divination, their blood spattering the squatting diviner. There are no gongs, no rubies, no spears and no violent tropical storms. It's rather pallid reading. The attempt to connect his work to the famous works of anthropology, to the ideas of Bergson, Baudelaire, and Kenneth Burke, as well as Benedict, Firth, Hoebel, Leach, Malinowski, and Mead is also very brief. However, the last few pages of comments that bring together many ideas are the most interesting in this lightweight book that reflects the fashions of a different era. [This review is based on the 1960 edition.]