Category Archives: Errors

Deficiencies of the Protestant Bible

(1) The point that we have arrived at now, if you remember, is this: The Catholic Church, through her Popes and Councils, gathered together the separate books that Christians venerated which existed in different parts of the world; sifted the chaff from the wheat, the false from the genuine; decisively and finally formed a collection – i.e., drew up a list or catalogue of inspired and apostolic writings into which no other book should ever be admitted, and declared that these and these only were the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. The authorities that were mainly responsible for thus settling and closing the “Canon” of Holy Scripture were the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St. Augustine (at the latter of which two Legatees were present from the Pope), and the Popes Innocent I in 405, and Gelasius, 494, both of whom issued lists of Sacred Scripture identical with that fixed by the Councils. From that date all through the centuries this was the Christian’s Bible. The Church never admitted any other; and at the Council of Florence in the 15th century and the Council of Trent in the 16th and the [First] Council of the Vatican in the 19th she renewed her anathemas against all who should deny or dispute this collection of books as the inspired Word of God.

(2) What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books, alone has the right to claim them as her own and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the 15th, and of the Vatican in the 19th – one and the same body – growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2. The Catholic Church of today, then, may be compared to a man who has grown from infancy to youth, and from youth to middle age. Suppose a man wrote a letter setting forth certain statements; whom would you naturally ask to tell what the meaning of these statements was? Surely the man that wrote it. The Church wrote the New Testament; she, and she alone, can tell us what the meaning of it is.

Again, the Catholic Church is like a person who was present at the side of Our Blessed Lord when He walked and talked in Galilee and Judea. Suppose, for a moment, that that man was gifted with perpetual youth (this, by the way, is an illustration from W.H. Mallock’s, Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption, chap. xi) and also with perfect memory, and had heard all the teaching and explanations of Our Redeemer and of His Apostles, and retained them; he would be an invaluable witness and authority to consult, surely, so as to discover exactly what was the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of the Twelve. But such undoubtedly is the Catholic Church: not an individual person, but a corporate personality who lived with, indeed was called into being by, Our Divine Saviour; in whose hearing He uttered all His teaching; who listened to the Apostles in their day and generation, repeating and expounding the Saviour’s doctrine; who, ever young and ever strong, has persisted and lived all through the centuries, and continues even till our own day fresh and keen in memory as ever, and able to assure us, without fear of forgetting, or mixing things up, or adding things out of his own head, what exactly Our Blessed Lord said, and taught, and meant, and did.

Suppose, again, that the man we are imagining had written down much of what he heard Christ and the Apostles say, but had not fully reported all, and was able to supplement what was lacking by personal explanations which he gave from his perfect memory: that, again, is a figure of the Catholic Church. She wrote down much, indeed, and the most important parts of Our Lord’s teaching, and of the Apostolic explanation of it, in Scripture; but nevertheless she did not intend it to be a complete and exhaustive account, apart from her own explanation of it; and, as a matter of fact, she is able from her own perpetual memory to give fuller and clearer accounts, and to add some things that are either omitted from the written report, or are only hinted at, or partially recorded, or mentioned merely in passing.

Such is the Catholic Church in relation to her own book, the New Testament. It is hers because she wrote it by her first Apostles, and preserved it and guarded it all down the ages by her Popes and Bishops; nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, any more than a stranger has the right to come into your house and break open your desk and pilfer your private documents. Therefore, I say that for people to step in, 1500 years after the Catholic Church had had possession of the Bible, and to pretend that it is theirs, and that they alone know what the meaning of it is, and that the Scriptures alone, without the voice of the Catholic Church explaining them, are intended by God to be the guide and rule of faith – this is an absurd and groundless claim. Only those who are ignorant of the true history of the Sacred Scriptures – their origin and authorship and preservation – could pretend that there is any logic or common sense in such a mode of acting. And the absurdity is magnified when it is remembered that the Protestants did not appropriate the whole of the Catholic books, but actually cast out some from the collection, and took what remained, and elevated these into a new “Canon,” or volume of Sacred Scripture, such as had never been seen or heard of before, from the first to the sixteenth century, in any Church, either in Heaven above or on earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth! Let us make good this charge.

(3) Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books wanting – that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Macabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther, and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called “The Song of the Three Children” (Daniel 3:24-90, Douay version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament, it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther (an ex-Catholic priest) from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – “an Epistle of straw,” he called it, “with no character of the Gospel in it.” In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his biography or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in the Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgement – of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste – as, for example, that “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” (2 Mach. 12:46) – well, so much the worse for the book; “Throw it overboard,” was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, “We are justified by faith,” and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word “only” after St. Paul’s words, making the sentence run: “We are justified by faith only,” and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day [1911]. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgement: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may – indeed, you are bound to – cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.

(4) Yet, in spite of all reviling of the Roman Church, the Reformers were forced to accept from her those Sacred Scriptures which they retained in their collection. Whatever Bible they have today, disfigured as it is, was taken from us. Blind indeed must he the Evangelical Christian who cannot recognize in the old Catholic Bible the quarry from which he has hewn the Testament he loves and studies – but with what loss! At what a sacrifice! In what a mutilated and disfigured condition! That the Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God’s Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position – this we could have understood; what staggers us is their deliberate excision from that Sacred Volume of some of the inspired Books which had God for their Author, and their no less deliberate alteration of some of the texts of those books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons our side the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves the question – Which Christian body reslly loves and reveres the Scriptures most? Which has proved, by its actions, it’s love and veneration? And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall rake away from the words of the Book of Life? (Apoc. 22:19)

God Bless BJS!!

Taken from Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by RT REV HENRY G. GRAHAM I am not the Author merely the distributor.


Catholic Church Compiles The New Testament

Now we know that the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament were read aloud to the congregations of Christians that met on the first day of the week for Holy Mass (just as they are still among ourselves): one Gospel here, another there; one Epistle of St. Paul in one place, another in another; all scattered about in various places of the world where there were bodies of Christians. And the next question that naturally occurs to us is: When were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make up what we now call the Bible?

Well they were not collected for the best part of 300 years. So that here again, I am afraid, is a hard nut for Protestants to crack, namely, that though we admit that the separate works composing the New Testament were now in existence, yet they were for centuries not to be found altogether in one volume, were not obtainable by multitudes of Christians, and even were altogether unknown to many in different parts of the world. How, then, could they possibly form a guide to Heaven and the chart of salvation for those who had never seen or read or known about them? It is a fact of history that the Council of Carthage, which was held in 397 A.D., mainly through the influence of St. Augustine, settled the Canon or Collection of New Tesament Scriptures as we Catholics have them now and decreed that its decision should be sent on to Rome for confirmation. No Council (that is, no gathering of the Bishops of the Catholic Church for the settlement of some point of doctrine) was ever considered to be authoritative or binding unless it was approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, while the decisions of every General Council that has recieved the approval of Rome are binding on the consciences of all Catholics. The Council of Carthage, then, is the first known to us in which we find a clear and undisputed catalogue of all the New Testament books as we have them in Bibles now.

It is true that many Fathers and Doctors and writers of the Church in the first three centuries from time to time mention by name many of the various Gospels and Epistles; and some, as we come nearer 397, even refer to a collection already existing in places. For example, we find Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, after the Council of Nicea, applying to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and a great scholar, to provide fifty copies of the Christian Scriptures for public use in the churches of Constantinople, his new capital. This was in 332 A.D. The contents of these copies are known to us: perhaps (according to some, even probably) one of these very copies of Eusebius’ handiwork has come down to us; but they are not precisely the same as our New Testament, though very nearly so. Again, we find lists of the books of the New Testament drawn up by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many other great authorities, as witnessing to what was generally acknowledged as inspired Scripture in their day and generation and country; but I repeat that none of these corresponds perfectly to the collection in the Bible that we possess now; we must wait till 397 for the Council of Carthage before we find the complete collection of New Testament books settled as we have it today, and as all Christendom had it till the sixteenth century, when the Reformers changed it.

You may ask me, however, what was the difference between the lists of New Testament books found in various countries and different authors before 397, and the catalogue drawn up at the Council of that date? Well, that introduces us to a very important point which tells us eloquently if the office that the Catholic Church performed, under God the Holy Ghost, in selecting and sifting and stamping with her Divine authority the Scriptures of the New Law; and I make bold to say that a calm consideration of the part that Rome took in the making and drawing up and preserving of the Christian Scriptures will convince any impartial mind that to the Catholic Church alone, so much maligned, we owe it that we know what the New Testament should consist of, and why precisely it consists of these books and of no others; and that without her we should, humanly speaking, have had no New Testament at all, or, if a New Testament, then one in which works spurious and works genuine would have been mixed up in ruinous and inextricable confusion.

I have used the words “spurious” and “genuine” in regard to the Gospels and Epistles in the Christian Church. You are horrified, and hold up your hands and exclaim: “Lord, save us! Here we have a Higher Critic and a Modernist.” Not at all, Dear Reader; quite the reverse, I assure you. Observe, I have said “in the Christian Church” – I did not say “in the Bible”, for there is nothing spurious in the Bible. But why? Simply because the Roman See in the fourth century of our era prevented anything spurious being admitted into it. There were spurious books floating about “in the Christian Church,” without a doubt, in the early centuries; this is certain, because we know their very names; and it is precisely in her rejection of these, and in her guarding the collection of inspired writings from being mixed up with them, that we shall now see the great work that the Catholic Church did, under God’s Holy Spirit, for all succeeding generations of Christians, whether within the fold or outside of it. It is through the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants have got their Bible; there is not (to paraphase some words of Newman) a Protestant that vilifies and condemns the Catholic Church for her treatment of Holy Scripture but owes it to that Church that he has the Scripture at all. What Almighty God might have done if Rome had not handed down the Bible to us is a fruitless speculation with which we have nothing whatever to do. It is a contingent possibility belonging to an order of things which has never existed, except in imagination. What we are concerned with is the order of things and the sequence of history in which we are now living, and which we know, and which consequently God has divinely disposed; and in this providential arrangement of history it is a fact, as clear as any other historical fact, that Almighty God chose the Catholic Church, and her only, to give us His Holy Scriptures, and to give us them as we have them now, neither greater nor less. This I shall now proceed to prove.

(i) Before the collection of New Testament books was finally settled at the Council of Carthage, 397, we find that there were three distinct classes into which the Christian writings were divided. This we know (and every scholar admits it) from the works of early Christian writers like Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius and a whole host of others that we could name. These classes were (1) the books “acknowledged” as Canonical, (2) books “disputed” or “controverted,” (3) books declared “spurious” or false.

Now in class (1), i.e., those acknowledged by Christians everywhere to be genuine and authentic and to have been written by Apostolic men, we find such books as the Four Gospels, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, Acts of the Apostles. These were recognized east and west as “Canonical,” genuinely the works of the Apostles and Evangelists whose names they bore, worthy of being in the “Canon” or sacred collection of inspired writings of the Church and read aloud at Holy Mass.

But there was (2) a class – and Protestants should particularly take notice of the fact, as it utterly undermines their Rule of Faith, “the Bible and the Bible only” – of books that were disputed, controverted: in some places acknowledged, in others rejected; and among these we actually find the Epistle of St. James, Epistle of St. Jude, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter; 2nd and 3rd of St. John, Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of St. John. There were doubts about these works; perhaps, it was said, they were not really written by Apostles, or Apostolic men, or by the men whose names they carried. In some parts of the Christian world they were suspected, though in others unhesitantly received as genuine. There is no getting out of this fact, then: Some of the Books of our Bible which we, Catholic and Protestant alike, now recognize as inspired and as the written Word of God, were at one time, and indeed for long, viewed with suspicion, doubted, disputed, as not possessing the same authority as the others. (I am speaking only of the New Testament books; the same could be proved, if there were space, of the Old Testament; but the New Testament suffices abundantly for the argument.) But further still – What is even more striking and is equally fatal to the Protestant theory – in this (2) class of “controverted” and doubtful books, some were to be found which are not now in our New Testament at all, but which were by many then considered to be inspired and Apostolic, or were actually read at the public worship of the Christians, or were used for instructions to the newly-controverted – in short, ranked in some places as equal to the works of St. James or St. Peter or St. Jude. Among these we mention specially the “Shepard” of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles [Didache], Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel according to the Hebrews, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of St. Clement, and others. Why are these not in our Bible today? We shall see in a minute.

Lastly, (3) there was a class of books floating about before 397 A.D. which were never acknowledged as of any value in the Church, not treated as having Aposoltic authority, seeing that they were obviously spurious and false, full of absurd fables, superstitions, puerilities, and stories and miracles of Our Lord and His Apostles which made them a laughingstock to the world. Of these some have survived and we have them today, to let us see what stamp of writing they were; most have perished. But we know the names of about 50 Gospels (such as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the like), about 22 Acts (like the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and others), and a smaller number of Epistles and Apocalypsed. These were condemned and rejected wholesale as “Apocrypha” – that is, false, spurious, uncanonical.

(ii) This then being that state of matters, you can see at once what perplexity arose for the poor Christians in the days of persecution when they were required to surrender their sacred books. The Emperor Diocletian, for example, who inaugurated a terrible war against the Christians, issued an edict in 303 A.D. that all the churches should be razed to the ground and the Sacred Scriptures should be delivered up to the pagan authorities to be burned. Well, the question was : What was Sacred Scripture? If a Christian gave up an inspired writing to the pagans to save his life, he thereby became an apostate: he denied his Faith, he betrayed his Lord and God; he saved his life, indeed, but he lost his soul. Some did this and were called “traditores,” traitors, betrayers, “deliverers up” (of the Scriptures). Most, however, preferred martyrdom, and refusing to surrender the inspired writings, suffered the death. But it was a most perplexing and harrowing question they had to decide – what really was Sacred Scripture? I am not bound to go to the stake for refusing to give up some “spurious” Gospel or Epistle. Could I, then, safely give up some of the “controverted” or disputed books, like the Epistle of St. James, or the Hebrews, or the Shepard of Hermas, or the Epistle of St. Barnabus, or of St. Clement? There is no need to be a martyr by mistake. And so the stress of persecution had the effect of making still more urgent the necessity of deciding once and for all what was to form the New Testament. What, definitely and precisely, were to be the books for which a Christian would be bound to lay down his life on pain of losing his soul?

(iii) Here, as I said, before, comes in the Council of Carthage, 397 A.D., confirming and approving the decrees of a previous Council (Hippo, 393 A.D.), declaring, for all time to come, what was the exact collection of sacred writings thenceforth to be reckoned, to the exclusion of all others, as the inspired Scripture of the New Testament. That collection is precisely that which Catholics possess at this day in their Douay Bible. That decree of Carthage was never changed. It was sent to Rome for confirmation. As I have already remarked, a Council, even though not a general Council of the whole Catholic Church, may yet have its decrees made binding on the whole Church by the approval and will of the Pope. A second Council of Carthage, over which St. Augustine presided in 419 A.D., renewed the decrees of the former one and declared that its act was to be notified to Boniface, Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of confirming it. From that date all doubt ceased as to what was and what was not “spurious,” or “genuine,” or “doubtful” among the Christian writings then known. Rome had spoken. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it. You might hear a voice here or there, in East or West, in subsequent times, raking up some old doubt, or raising a question as to whether this or that book of the New Testament is really what it claims to be or should be where it is. But it is a voice in the wilderness.

Rome had fixed the “Canon” of the New Testament. There are henceforward but two classes of books – inspired and not inspired. Within the covers of the New Testament all is inspired; all without, known or unknown, is uninspired. Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost the Council declared “This is genuine, that is false”; “this is Apostolic, that is not Apostolic.” She sifted, weighed, discussed, selected, rejected, and finally decided what was what. Here she rejected a writing that was once very popular and reckoned by many as inspired and was actually read as Scripture at public service; there, again, she accepted another that was very much disputed and viewed with suspicion, and said: “This is to go into the New Testament.” She had the evidence before her; she had Tradition to help her; and above all she had the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to enable her to come to a right conclusion on so momentous a matter. And in fact, her conclusion was received by all Christendom until the sixteenth century, when, as we shall see, men arose rebelling against her desicion and altering the Sacred Volume. But, at all events in regard to the New Testament, the Reformers left the books as they found them, and today their Testament contains exactly the same books as ours; and what I wish to drive home is that they got these books from Rome, that without the Roman Catholic Church they would not have gotten them, and that the decrees of Carthage, 397 and 419 A.D., when all Christianity was Roman Catholic – reaffirmed by the Council of Florence, 1442, under Pope Eugenius IV, and the Council of Trent, 1546 – these decrees of the Roman Church, and these only, are the means and the channel and the authority which Almighty God has used to hand down to is His written Word. Who can deny it? The Church existed before the Bible; she made the Bible; she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down. Through her we know what is the Word of God, and what the word of man; and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the Church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the Church, and to revile her for destroying it and corrupting it – What is this but to strike the mother that reared them; to curse the hand that fed them; to turn against their best friend and benefactor; and to repay with ingratitude and slander the very guide and protector who has led them to drink of the water out of the Saviour’s fountains?

God Bless BJS!!

Taken from Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by RT REV HENRY G. GRAHAM I am not the Author merely the distributor.

The Making of the Old Testament

Now, looking at the Bible as it stands today, we find it is composed of 73 separate books – 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. How has it come to be composed precisely of these 73* and no others, and no more and no less? Well, taking first the Old Testament, we know that it has always been divided into three main portions – the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.

(1) The Law, as I remarked before, was the nucleus, the earliest substantial part, which at one time formed the sole book of Scripture that the Jews possessed. Moses wrote it and placed a copy of it in the Ark; that was about 3300 years ago.

(2) To this were added, long afterward, the Prophets and the Writings, forming the complete Old Testament. At what date precisely the volume or “canon” of the Old Testament was finally closed and recognized as completed forever is not absolutely certain.

When was the Old Testament compiled? Some would decide for about the year 430 B.C., under Esdras and Nehemias, resting upon the authority of the famous Jew, Josephus, who lived immediately after Our Lord and who declares that since the death of Ataxerxes, B.C. 424, “no one had dared to add anything to the Jewish Scriptures, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them.” Other authorities, again, contend that it was not till near 100 B.C. that the Old Testament volume was finally closed by the inclusion of the “Writings.” But whichever contention is correct, one thing at least is certain, that by this last date – that is, for 100 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord – the Old Testament existed precisely as we have it now.

Of course, I have been speaking so far of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, because it was written by Jewish authority, in the Jewish language – namely, Hebrew – for Jews, God’s chosen people. But after what is called the “Dispersion” of the Jews, when that people were scattered abroad and settled in many other lands outside Palestine, and began to lose their Hebrew tongue and gradually became familiar with “Greek, which was then a universal language, it was necessary to furnish them with a copy of their Sacred Scriptures in the Greek language. Hence arose that translation of the Old Testament into Greek known as the Septuagint. This word means in Latin 70, and is so named because it is supposed to have been the work of 70 translators, who performed their task at Alexandria, where there was a large Greek-speaking colony of Jews. Begun about 280 or 250 years before Christ, we may safely say that it was finished in the next century; it was the acknowledged Bible of all the “Jews of the Dispersion” in Asia, as well as in Egypt, and was the version used by Our Lord, His Apostles and Evangelists, and by Jews and Gentiles and Christians in the early days of Christianity. It is from this version that Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers and speakers quote when referring to the Old Testament.

But what about the Chrisitians in either lands who could not understand Greek? When the Gospel had been spread abroad, and many people embraced Christianity through the labors of Apostles and missionaries in the first two centuries of our era, naturally they had to be supplied with copies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament (which was the inspired Word of God) in their own tongue; and this gave rise to translations of the Bible into Armenian and Syriac and Coptic and Arabic and Ethiopic for the benefit of the Christians in these lands. For the Christians in Africa, where Latin was best understood, there was a translation of the Bible made into Latin about 150 A.D., and, later, another and better for the Christians in Italy; but all these were finally superseded by the grand and most important version made by St. Jerome in Latin called the “Vulgate”- that is, the common, or current or accepted version. This was in the fourth century of our era [A.D.]. By the time St. Jerome was born, there was great need of securing a correct and uniform text of Holy Scripture in Latin, for there was danger, through the variety and corrupt conditions of many translations then existing, lest the pure Scripture should be lost. So Jerome, who was a monk, and perhaps the most learned scholar of his day, at the command of Pope St. Damascus in 382 A.D. made a fresh Latin version of the New Testament (which was by this time practically settled), correcting the existing versions by the earliest Greek manuscripts (MSS.) he could find. Then in his cell at Bethlehem, between (approximately) the years 392-404, he also translated the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew (and not from the Greek Septuagint)-except the Psalter [book of Psalms], which he had previously revised from existing Latin versions. This Bible was the celebrated Vulgate, the official text in the Catholic Church, the value of which all scholars admit to be simply inestimable, and which continued to influence all other versions and to hold the chief place among Christians down to the Reformation. I say the “official” text, because the Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree stamping it as the only recognized and authoritative version allowed to Catholics. “If anyone does not receive the entire books with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, as sacred and canonical….let him be anathema.” The Vulgate was revised under Pope Sixtus V in 1590, and again under Pope Clement VIII in 1593, who is responsible for the present standard text. It is from the Vulgate that Our English Douay Version comes; and it is of this same Vulgate that the Commission under Cardinal Gasquet, by command of the Pope, is trying to find or restore the original text as it came from the hands of St. Jerome, uncorrupted by and stripped of subsequent admixtures with other Latin copies.*

*The number of books in the Catholic Bible is counted as 72 or 73 depending on whether “The Lamentations of Jeremias” is considered to be part of Jeremias or a separate book of the Old Testament. – Publisher, 2004.

* This work was begun in the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914) but was not completed and published until 1978. It is known as the “New Vulgate” or “Nova Vulgata” and was promulgated by Pope John Paul II as the “editio typica.” This edition of the Vulgate, however, does not give the hallmark Vulgate rendering of Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmities between Thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Emphasis added.) – Publisher, 2004. (This may have something to do with the reluctance to make public the 3rd secret of Fatima) TradCat4Christ

Taken from Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by RT REV HENRY G. GRAHAM I am not the Author merely the distributor. God Bless BJS!!

Some Errors Removed

Now, in order to understand properly the work of the Catholic Church in creating and defending and perpetuating the Holy Scriptures, we must say a few preliminary words as to the human means used in their production, and as to the collecting of the Books of the Bible as we have it at present. There are some common erroneous ideas which we would do well to clear away from our minds at the very outset.

1. To begin with, the Bible did not drop down from Heaven ready-made, as some seem to imagine; it did not suddenly appear upon the earth, carried down from Almighty God by the hand of angel or seraph; but it was written by men like ourselves, who held in their hand pen (or reed) and ink and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East. They were divinely inspired certainly, as no others ever have been before or since; nevertheless, they were human beings, men chosen by God for the work, making use of the human instruments that lay to their hand at the time.

2. In the second place we shall do well to remember that the Bible was not written all at once, or by one man, like most other books with which we are acquainted, but that 1500 years elapsed between the writing of Genesis (the first book of the Old Testament) and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John (the last Book of the New Testament). It is made up of a collection of different books by different authors, forming, in short, a library instead of a single work, and hence called in Greek, “Biblia,” or “The Books”. If you had lived in the days immediately succeeding the death of Moses, all you would have had given to you to represent the Bible would have been the first five books of the Old Testament, written by that patriarch himself; that was the Bible in embryo, so to speak – the little seed that was to grow subsequently into a great tree, the first stone laid on which was gradually to be erected the beautiful temple of the written Word throughout the centuries that followed. From this we can see that the preacher extolling the Bible as the only comfort and guide of faithful souls was slightly out of his reckoning when he used these words: “Ah, my brethren! What was it that comforted and strengthened Joseph in his dark prison in Egypt? What was it that formed his daily support and meditation? What but that blessed book, the Bible!” As Joseph existed before a line of the Old Testament was penned, and about 1800 years before the first of the New Testament books saw the light, the worthy evangelist was guilty of what we call a slight anachronism.

3. Nor will it be out of place to remark here that the Bible was not written originally in English or Gaelic. Some folks speak as if they believed that the Sacred Books were first composed, and the incomparable Psalms of David set forth, in the sweet English tongue, and that they were afterwards rendered into barbarous language such as Latin or Greek or Hebrew for the sake of inquisitive scholars and critics. This is not correct; the original language, broadly speaking of the Old Testament was Hebrew; that of the New Testament was Greek. Thus our Bibles as we have them today for reading are “translations” – that is, are a rendering or equivalent in English of the original Hebrew and Greek as it came from the pen of Prophet and Apostle and Evangelist. We see this plainly enough in the title page of the Protestant New Testament – which reads “New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated out of the original Greek.”

4. A last point must always be kept clearly in mind, for it concerns one of the greatest delusions entertained by Protestants and makes their fierce attacks on Rome appear so silly and irrational – the point, namely, that the Bible, as we have it now, was not printed in any language at all till about 1500 years after the birth of Christ, for the simple reason that there was no such thing as printing known before that date. We have become so accustomed to the use of the printing press that we can scarcely conceive of the ages when the only books known to men were in handwriting; but it is the fact that, has we lived and flourished before Mr. John Gooseflesh discovered the art of printing in the 15th century, we should have had to read our Testaments and our Gospels from the manuscript of monk or friar, from the pages of parchment or vellum or paper covered with the handwriting, sometimes very beautiful and ornamental, of the scribe that had undertaken the slow and laborious task of copying the Sacred Word. Protestants in these days send shiploads of printed Bibles abroad, and scatter thousands of Testaments hither and thither in every direction for the purpose of evangelizing the heathen and converting sinners, and declare that the Bible, and the Bible only, can save men’s souls. What, then, came of those poor souls who lived before the Bible was printed, before it was even written in its present form? How were nations made familiar with the Christian religion and converted to Christianity before the 15th century? Our Divine Lord, I suppose, wished that the unnumbered millions of human creatures born before the year 1500 should believe what He had taught and save their souls and go to Heaven at least as much as those of the 16th and 20th centuries; but how could they do this when they had no Bibles, or were too poor to buy one, or could not understand it even if they could read it? On the Catholic plan (so to call it) of salvation through the teaching of the Church, souls may be saved and people become saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do – and, as a matter of fact, this has happened – in all countries and in all ages without either the written or the printed Bible, and both before and after it’s production. The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth. We shall see, as we proceed, the utter impossibility of the survival of Christianity, and of its benefits to humanity, on the principle of “the Bible and the Bible only.” Meanwhile we can account for the fact that intelligent non-Catholics have not awakened to its hollowness and absurdity only by supposing that they do not sufficiently realise, “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” (as the English Prayer Book says) this single item of history: The Bible was not printed till at least 1400 years after Christ.

God Bless BJS!!

Taken from Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by RT REV HENRY G. GRAHAM I am not the Author merely the distributor.

Incredible Creed of the Jehovah’s Witnesses


By Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C.

The Witnesses of Jehovah constitute one of the most vigorous and spectacular religious propagandist bodies of the present day.  Throughout the world an army of persistent enthusiasts tramp from door to door, urging people to adopt their teachings as a matter of life and death.  They claim to have made over a million converts in recent years, chiefly in America; and they have been written up in the “Saturday Evening Post”, “Collier’s Weekly” and the “Reader’s Digest” as a phenomenon of both national and international importance.

This new sect originated in the U.S.A., to which the world owes Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventists, Father Divine, and so many other strange religious outbreaks.  Charles Taze Russell, a draper of Pittsburgh, afterwards known as “Pastor” Russell, was the founder of the movement in 1872.  Nathan Homer Knorr, its present head, prefers to say, “We broke in on the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses” in 1872.  And that leads us to the question of names.


No modern movement, in its efforts to establish itself, save perhaps that of the Communists, can rival the Witnesses of Jehovah in the technique of masquerading under ever-changing titles.

Russell began by preaching what he termed the “Millennial Dawn,” and his followers soon became known as “Millennial Dawnists.”  Before long, however, Russell had adopted the title, “Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society.”  In 1896 this was changed to “The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”  In 1909 he thought the “People’s Pulpit Association” sounded better, the headquarters of which he established at Brooklyn, New York.  In 1909 he resumed the title “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”  In 1914 the work was being carried on as the “International Bible Students’ Association.”

The same tactics were adopted in the publishing of literature.  In 1919 a magazine, “The Golden Age,” appeared.  In 1937 this same magazine was appearing as “Consolation.”  In 1946 its name was changed to “Awake.”  These constant changes compelled those who had refuted the movement under one name to begin all over again; and whilst they were catching up with current fashions, the Russellites were enabled to gain enough recruits to get firmly established.

At last came their present and apparently permanent name.  In 1931 Judge Rutherford decided that henceforth the “Millennial Dawnists” would be known as the “Witnesses of Jehovah.”

Nathan Knorr now tells us that “Jehovah God is the Founder and Organizer of the Witnesses on this earth,” and that He Himself indicated this as “the appropriate designation of His earthly ministers.”  Surely it is strange that Russell himself, the founder of the movement, had no notion of that!” For Russell died in 1916, fifteen years before this discovery was made.  And whence came the discovery?  In 1931, Judge Rutherford came across the text in Isaiah 43:10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.”

That Isaiah the prophet had the Russellites in mind over 700 years before Christ is an absurd supposition for which not an atom of proof exists.  Anticipating that difficulty, Nathan Knorr protests, “We have not arbitrarily assumed this God-given name.”  Why not?  “Well, we are witnessing, aren’t we!”  is his reply.  “What we are doing proves that the name is applicable to us.”  But to what are these people witnessing?  Certainly not to the truth revealed by God, as we shall see.  If merely witnessing, no matter to what one witnesses, makes one a messenger of God, then Communists, who are witnesses par excellence with their world-wide propaganda on behalf of Marxian Socialism, have more right than the Russellites to pretend to a divine commission.  But Nathan Knorr just by-passes these difficulties.  “God,” he writes, “has always had His witnesses.  Abel first; then a long line through from Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah to John the Baptist.  Taking pre-eminence over all is Christ ‘the faithful and true Witness,’ Who designated others.  “Ye shall be witnesses to Me unto the uttermost parts of the earth.”  (Acts 1:8)  Jehovah’s Witnesses are merely the last of this long line of God’s earthly servants.”

There is, of course, no proof whatever that the Witnesses of Jehovah have any connection with the previous witnesses mentioned.  Moreover, their doctrines are a flagrant contradiction of the teachings of those previous witnesses.


Charles Taze Russell was born in Pittsburgh, PA in 1852, the son of a draper who later established his business in Allegheny.  Charles became an earnest worker in the local Congregational Church, but was soon obsessed with an overwhelming horror of hell and the gloomy prospects of the Calvinist theology of that time held out the mass of humanity.  Charles went about chalking up in all kinds of places warnings of hell for unbelievers; and in 1869, at the age of 17, tried to convert an atheist whom he happened to meet.  But the atheist destroyed Russell’s own faith, and he became an infidel also.  Never again would he believe in hell!

Russell, however, although he had given up attending church, could not leave his Bible alone, and soon he discovered that the could believe in the Bible without believing in hell –  for the simple reason, he says, that the Bible does not teach the existence of hell at all.

At the age of 20 he began preaching this “good news,” and with “no hell” as a most attractive plank in his platform, soon gained followers.  He sold the draper’s business he had inherited from his father, and in 1878 assumed the title of “Pastor Russell,” founding a new religion of his own.

He became a prolific writer, at first borrowing his ideas from the works of J. H. Paton, of Michigan, USA, published under the title of “Day Dawn”.  Russell proclaimed these ideas as his own divinely-inspired doctrines, merely substituting the title “Millennial Dawn” for “Day Dawn” to distinguish his system from Paton’s.  Later he changed to the less recognizable Studies in the Scriptures.

Russell claimed to have written more explanatory books on the Bible than the combined writings of Paul, John, Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, and Martin Luther, whom he said to have been the six great messengers of the Church preceding himself.  He began, as did the founders of so many other Adventist sects, with the idea that the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment were near at hand; and then ranged over the whole of Sacred Scripture, claiming an infallibility far beyond that claimed by any Pope, as an interpreter of God’s revelation.  His followers accepted him as the “Seventh Messenger” or “Angel” referred to in Ezekiel 9, and held that he would rank next after St. Paul in the “gallery of fame” as an exponent of the Gospel of Christ, the Great Master.

Yet, what kind of a man was this Charles Taze Russell?  He was certainly an expert at making money, whether in the drapery business until he sold it, or by investments in mines and real estate, or by the selling of his books, and of “miracle wheat.”  Unfortunately, he was legally compelled to restore to the purchases the money he had obtained for his miracle wheat, on the score that it had been dishonestly extracted from them.  But honesty was not Pastor Russell’s predominant virtue.  Under oath in court at Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, in 1913, he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek.  Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet; and that he knew nothing of Hebrew or of Latin, despite his pretensions to a knowledge of those languages also.  Not to know such languages is no crime, of course.  But to make lying pretensions to a knowledge of them is scarcely in keeping with claims to be a prophet of God; whilst to do so under oath is the still worse sin of perjury.

Not less unbecoming in this self-styled prophet was the fact that his wife divorced him in 1897 on charges of adultery with two different women, a stenographer and a housemaid; and that the judge flayed him, after granting the divorce, for his general ill-treatment of his wife.  To avoid payment of the alimony ordered by the court, Russell promptly transferred his property, worth over $240,000, to the “Watch Tower Bible” and “Tract Society.”

Russell died on October 31, 1916, in a Santa Fe train near Pampa, TX on his way to Kansas City; and he is now seldom mentioned by the Witnesses of Jehovah.  This man, once held by his followers to rank next after St. Paul in the “gallery of fame,” has been practically forgotten by the later generation dominated by his successor.


At the time of Russell’s death there was a man named Joseph Franklin Rutherford serving a prison sentence in Atlanta on a charge of sedition during the first world war then raging.” This man, on his release from prison, took over control of the Russellite organization.

Rutherford was born in 1869, and became a lawyer in 1892.  Chosen as attorney for the organization, he was shrewd enough to see its possibilities, and threw in his lot with it.  As president, he wished to be known by the impressive title of “Judge Rutherford,” though he was never officially appointed as a judge.  His forceful personality set the movement definitely on its feet.  He poured out unending books and pamphlets to keep the publishing business going, teaching new doctrines of which Russell had never heard and often quite opposed to what Russell himself had taught.  It was he, as we have seen, who devised in 1931 the new title “Witnesses of Jehovah.”  The prominence he gave to the slogan, “Millions now living will never die,” brought crowds flocking to hear him wherever he was billed to speak.  But, alas, he was not one of the millions fated not to die.

On January 8, 1942, Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford bade goodbye to this world in the palatial villa he had built at San Diego, CA, as an official residence pending the return of the Lord to judge the living and the dead.


On Rutherford’s death, Nathan Homer Knorr was elected as president of the Watch Tower Organization.  Born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in 1905, he was converted to the Russellites at the age of 16 through reading some Watch Tower publications.  In 1923, aged 18, he became a full-time preacher on Sundays, working as a packer and shipper at the Brooklyn headquarters on week-days and devoting his evenings to the study of the Bible as interpreted by Russell and Rutherford.  In 1932 he became general manager of the Brooklyn publishing offices; in 1934 was elected to the Board of Directors; and in 1942 was chosen as successor of Judge Rutherford, in whose place he still reigns supreme.


The Witnesses of Jehovah conceive it to be their first duty to denounce all other religious bodies.  Rutherford declared that “religion was introduced into the world by the Devil.”  “For more than three years,” he declaimed, “Jesus continued to proclaim the truth and to warn the people against the practice of religion.”  “For religion,” declared Rutherford, “dishonors and reproaches the name of Jehovah God, whilst Christianity honors and vindicates the name of Almighty God.  This is why true Christians are always persecuted by religionists.”

It is clear from this that Rutherford uses the word religion in a sense all his own.  Asked to define it on one occasion, he said, “Religion is any form of worship practiced by creatures in recognition of some real or supposed ‘higher power,’ and which practice finds support or authority only in the teaching handed down by tradition.”  That the doctrines of Russell and Rutherford are but the teachings of men, to be handed down amongst the Witnesses of Jehovah by tradition does not seem to have occurred to him!

Asked to define Christianity he replies, “Christianity means the worship of Almighty God in spirit and in truth, in accord with the commands of God and teachings of Jesus Christ.  None other are Christians.  There is no such thing as “Christian religion,” because religion and Christianity are exactly opposite and diametrically opposed one to the other.”  Which, of course, is absurd.

Christianity is religion, and is the true religion as opposed to all false religions –  including that of the Witnesses of Jehovah, as will be seen in the course of this document.


One of the main duties of the Witnesses of Jehovah seems to be to pour out a torrent of abuse against all Christian Churches, particularly against the Catholic Church.  This, of course, is not a new trick.  Every would-be founder of a new religion has had to commence by denouncing all previous religions, else how justify his new departure at all?  In 1860, just 12 years before Russell thought of it, the Seventh Day Adventists had declared that all Churches except that of the Seventh Day Adventists have been deceived by Satan through the agency of the Papacy into the observance of Sunday.  All of them constitute “Babylon,” and are rejected by God. But this is particularly true of the Catholic Church, presided over by “Antichrist” or the “Beast” in the person of the Pope.

Following this same line, Russell had said that, in 1878, God had rejected all existing Churches, constituting the Russellites as His only spokesmen thenceforward.  But Rutherford did not like the implied admission that the Churches were all right till Russell appeared on the scene.  He declared that, after the resurrection of Christ, the Devil at once set to work and built a great empire, the Papacy.  Later, the Devil inspired the creation of various Protestant Churches –  all of them, including even the Seventh Day Adventists.  All priests and all Protestant clergymen are of the Devil, said Rutherford.  They are enemies of God, and are simply “Antichrist.”  Nathan Knorr tells us that “by 1881 growing differences in basic beliefs had created an immense chasm between the Witnesses and the orthodox Churches.”  The “growing” differences were due to the Russellites inventing new and unheard-of doctrines manufactured by themselves during the period from 1878 to 1881.

If, however, all Churches are to branded as evil, what of the Witnesses themselves?  They meet this difficulty by denying that they are a “Church” or a “Denomination.”  They say they can find no justification for a “Church” or a “Hierarchy” of any kind in the Bible.  That will impress nobody who has any real knowledge and understanding of the contents of the Bible.  For much is there which the Witnesses of Jehovah say they cannot find, whilst much that they claim to find there is not there at all.  But let us see what they have to say of themselves.

They claim to be but the precursors sent by God to warn men of a “Theocratic Kingdom” at present in the making.  And they alone, of all men in this world, belong to that Theocratic Kingdom.


Insisting that they owe their sole loyalty to this Theocratic Kingdom, Witnesses of Jehovah refuse the duties of earthly citizenship.  The world, they say, is divided into tow opposed groups, that of the “Theocratic Kingdom,” and that of “Satan’s Organization.”  “Satan’s Organization” includes all Churches and Governments.  And just as amongst the Churches the Papacy is the “Beast” par excellence, so amongst the nations are America and Great Britain.

“In the formation of the Hague World Court of the League of Nations,” wrote Judge Rutherford, “Great Britain and America took the lead, and this is proof that the Anglo-American Empire is the two-horned beast.”  (Light, Vol. II, p. 98)  The “British Israelites” won’t like that, for they claim to have proved from the Bible that Britain and America form between them the chosen people of God!  But we can leave the British Israelites and the Witnesses of Jehovah to settle that matter between themselves.

In the meantime, consistently with their false principles, the Witnesses refuse to salute the flag of any earthly nation, are conscientious objectors to all forms of military service, and say they will fight only for Jehovah and His people –  which means for their own opinions against all who oppose them.

As a consequence of their refusal to fulfill the New Testament admonition, “Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God’s sake; whether to the king as excelling, or to governors sent by him.  Fear God.  Honor the king” (1st Peter 2:13-17), many Witnesses of Jehovah have been fined or jailed, whilst in Australia and New Zealand during 1940 their organization was declared illegal.  The New Zealand Attorney-General said at the time that they were devoting themselves to “vilification of religion, of their fellow-citizens, of the State and of the Government.”


The Witnesses complain that they are persecuted for their religious beliefs, quite inconsistently with their denial that their system constitutes a religion.  But in any case their complaint is unjustified.  Small sects get into trouble only when their practices transgress common decency.  If the Witnesses are constantly running afoul of their communities, it is because they themselves make vile and insulting onslaughts on the religion of others, and delight in utterances of the most outrageous civic disloyalty.

“For conscientious cussedness on the grand scale,” wrote America’s Saturday Evening Post, when dealing with this subject, “no other aggregation of Americans is a match for Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Defiance of what others cherish is their daily meat.  They hate all religions –  and say so from the house-tops.  They hate all Governments with an enthusiasm that is equally unconcealed . . . . For being generally offensive they have been getting their heads cracked, their meetings broken up, their meeting-houses pillaged and themselves thrown in jail.

Nathan Knorr argues that the persistence of the Witnesses in spite of severest persecution, mobbings, beatings, tar and feather outrages, imprisonment and even death, is nothing less than miraculous and a sure proof of their divine mission.  That the fanaticism and obstinacy by which he himself would explain the reckless zeal of Mahomet’s followers could apply to the Witnesses themselves does not seem to have occurred to him.  Certainly the same inducements have been held out to them, a deadly fear of a greater evil happening to them should they quail before lesser fears, and magnificent promises of temporal rewards should they die in the cause of the prophets Russell and Rutherford!


Strangely at variance with their denunciation of all “organized religion,” “Churches,” “hierarchies” and “clergy,” is their own formation of a highly organized and hierarchal religious society by the Witnesses of Jehovah!

Nathan Knorr, in his official contribution to “Religion in the Twentieth Century”, begins the exposition of his system by asserting that no man is leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses, since “Jehovah God has appointed Christ Jesus as their Leader and commander.”  But he declares that Christ directs affairs through a “visible organization” with headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, USA.

The visible head on earth of this visible organization is Nathan Knorr himself.  He is surrounded by a Board of Directors, as the Pope is surrounded by a College of Cardinals.  Throughout the world there are local congregations called “Companies,” which meet in “Kingdom Halls.”  But each “Company” has “organizational servants” to oversee all activities.  Full time field-workers, aided financially by the Society, are called “Pioneers,” and there are over 6500 of these.  Every active Witness of Jehovah, however, is regarded as “a minister ordained and commissioned by God, not by man,” and must go from house to house selling books in the territory assigned to him by his superior officers.

But if all are ordained, consecrated and commissioned by God, what is this but a hierarchy or an organized sacred body of men with a divinely-given and graded authority?  And how can Witnesses of Jehovah pour scorn on religion and on the clergy of other Churches, yet claim exemption from military service on the plea that they are all “ministers of religion,” as they do?  As for “organized religion,” no Church has a more concentrated government than they.  The Year Book for 1940, page 47, lays down the law:

“Every thirty days each and every branch office in operation on the earth . . . makes a report in writing to the president of the Society, setting forth in detail the work accomplished during the month.  At the end of the fiscal year all branch office . . . will submit to the president in writing a report covering the activities of the Society during the year.


Mention of the “fiscal year” leads to a consideration of the organization’s business activities.

The attack on “organized religion” comes badly from one of the most highly organized religious societies in the world.  In the same way, never was there such a religious racket as that of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which declares all other Churches to be “rackets,” engaged in “big business.”

Pastor Russell founded that Society as a worldwide publishing and distributing agency for his own writings; and Judge Rutherford kept it going for the same purpose.  It has become a great money-making concern.  The publishing house at Brooklyn pours out an amazing stream of books, pamphlets and periodicals.  Since World War I, they have distributed more than 485 millions of these in over 80 different languages.

Judge Rutherford said that these books and pamphlets are sold at “a little more than cost price,” and that the “negligible profits” go to the International Bible Students’ Association.  At an average of a penny profit per sale, over two million pounds would have been raked in.  As the average profit would be fourpence or even perhaps sixpence, 10 million pounds profit over the period mentioned would be nearer the mark.  Wisely, the Year Book says that no financial statements are published, as enemies would use them “to hinder the work of the Society.”

One thing is certain.  Despite its vast income, the Society devotes none of its resources to any public works of charity.  Challenged at the American Radio Commission’s inquiry, Secretary Goux, of the Russellites, admitted that their New York property alone was worth over a million dollars, and that he could not say how much the general holdings of the Corporation were worth.  When Mr. Sirovich, assisting the Commission, asked, “Outside of preaching, have you done anything for the poor devils who find themselves economically deprived of a living, and in starvation and hunger, or penury and want?  Have you taken any of that money to help them?”  Goux replied, “That is not the purpose of this activity.  That is not the purpose of this Association.  The commission entrusted to Jehovah’s Witnesses is to bear testimony among the people.

Bearing this testimony, which means distributing Rutherford’s booklets, are 22,304 travelling salesmen called “Publishers,” going from house to house in their assigned districts.  These people, for the most part, work for nothing, being engaged during the week in ordinary secular employment and devoting all their free time to “field service.”  Nathan Knorr explains, “Sincere persons, converted by literature, engage in the work of distribution. 

New converts, on becoming active workers, are given a card of identification to show they are recognized as “ministers of God.”  It’s a psychological phenomenon that so many credulous people can be so duped and conditioned into becoming voluntary agents in such an enterprise.  But nothing succeeds like success.  In 1919, at Cedar Point, Ohio, USA, 8000 Witnesses met in Convention and “girded themselves for publishing work.”  At the same place, 1921, 20,000 Witnesses acclaimed the slogan, “Advertise, Advertise, Advertise the King and the Kingdom.”  In more prosaic words that meant, “Propagate Rutherford’s teachings and sell his books.”  In 1946, at Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 80,000 Witnesses were filled with similar enthusiasm.

In all this, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society never stands to lose.  Voluntary distributors pay for the books they receive; and if they give them away, do so at their own expense.  Many such distributors return, not only the full price of the books, but additional donations from their own earnings in their secular jobs.

A further technical factor contributing to wide sales is that, as the books are offered for a “donation,” and not “sold,” no hawker’s license is necessary, sales are not taxable, and business may be done on Sundays.  It has all been very shrewdly devised.

Of course people have first to be converted to the new religion before they will work for it with such devotedness; and the religion to which they have been converted we must now examine more closely.


The Witnesses of Jehovah claim to be “Bible-Christians.”  Nathan Knorr tells us that “the Bible is God’s inspired Word, handed down for those now living in the last days.”  How he knows it to be God’s Word, who handed it down, and why it is for those now living in the “last days” any more than for those who lived in previous ages, are subjects he prefers not to discuss.  All he says is that Charles Taze Russell found “no Christian denomination teaching what the Bible contains,” and therefore “began a thorough study of the Bible, particularly concerning Christ’s Second Coming and Millennial Reign.”

Unfortunately, Pastor Russell, inspired by God if we can believe his first followers, does not seem to have been very successful.  After his death in 1916, Judge Rutherford took over and promptly began to teach doctrines very different from those of Russell.  Internal dissension in the movement followed.  But, writes Nathan Knorr, “Rutherford and the Directors were overwhelmingly supported. The beaten and disgruntled opposition force withdrew and set up an independent organization,” splitting up “into many little groups of no consequence.”

Judge Rutherford, then, remains the supreme prophet of the movement, and his interpretations of the Bible have become the Witness dogmas.  Whilst the Witnesses say that they rely on what the Bible says, they rely on what Judge Rutherford tells them it says.  To the Broadcasting Commission of 1934 Secretary Goux said, on behalf of the organization, that Rutherford’s explanations of the Bible are not human opinions, but inspired by God.  Papal claims to infallibility are indeed mild in comparison with that!

In his explanations of the Bible, Rutherford followed no accepted principles of interpretation, whilst of critical scholarship he knew absolutely nothing.  To support his theories he took any text he pleased, almost at random, and made it mean whatever he wished!

Still, his disciples insist that they are “Bible-Christians.”  They say that, whilst they do not believe in the “Christian Religion,” they do believe in “Christianity.”  They have a way of speaking all their own, which is very difficult to follow; but it will be enough to show that their system contradicts almost every basic Christian teaching.


One of the first peculiarities met with in this new religion is the strange use of the expression “Jehovah God.”  Nathan Knorr complains that “the masses of Christendom do not even appreciate the fact that “Jehovah” is God’s name.”

But God certainly has not got a name to distinguish Him from other “gods,” as Nathan Knorr himself is distinguished by his first name from others with the same surname!  Nor is even the word “Jehovah” truly Biblical.  The original authors of the Sacred Book knew nothing of it.  They wrote in Hebrew the word Yahweh, which meant literally He who is.  Yahweh, therefore, was an alternative name for God, not a kind of “Christian name” to identify God from among other divinities. “Jehovah God” is an expression found nowhere in the Bible, and is a combination of words grotesque in the extreme.

Again, Judge Rutherford tells us in his book, “Reconciliation,” that the “constellation of the seven stars forming the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God –  the dwelling place of Jehovah.”  What kind of a God is Rutherford’s who dwells on a star?  And how can the Pleiades, themselves not eternal, constitute the eternal throne?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity Rutherford categorically denies.  “Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced” he writes, “than that of the Trinity.  It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil.” “Reconciliation,” (p. 101).  That Christ Himself commissioned His followers to “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” carries no weight with Rutherford and his disciples.  They have abandoned Christianity for Unitarianism.  Christ for them is not the Eternal Son of God, nor is the Holy Spirit a Divine Person.  Rutherford says that the Holy Spirit is any power or influence exercised by God.  But Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit as Personal. “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, He said, “whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things.” (John 14:26)

But let us look al little more closely at Rutherford’s doctrine about Christ.


One of the most vital questions in the Gospels is, “What think you of Christ?  Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42)  Christians have ever replied to that with the unhesitating proclamation of faith, “Son of the Living God.” But not so the Witnesses of Jehovah.

These Witnesses agree that Christ existed before He was born into this world, but say that He was himself only a creature –  the first creature made by God and used as an instrument for the creation of all else.  Russell tells us that he was “Michael the Archangel”!  When, millennia after his creation, this creature became man, his nature was completely changed from angelic and spiritual to material and human.  “In obedience to God, he gave up his spirit-being and was born of Mary as a wholly-human being.”  Apparently that was the end of Michael the Archangel, a fact St. John unfortunately forgot when writing his Apocalypse, for there he has Michael still existing side by side with the Christ into whom Russell declared him to have been transformed!

But let us go on.  When Christ died on the Cross, according to the Witnesses, he was merely a man, and his death was the end of him; completely and absolutely the end.  But a “spirit-being” emerged from the tomb to become “a” god, not “the” God; which apparently was better than being merely Michael the Archangel who had existed in the first place.

This doctrine that Christ was three successive and independent beings: Michael the Archangel, the man Jesus, and the semi-divine king of the new world, is certainly not the Christian doctrine, whatever else it may be.  Most intelligent people will rightly estimate it as fantastic nonsense.

And what becomes of the basic fact in the Christian religion –  the resurrection of Christ?  “If Christ be not risen,” says St. Paul, “then is your faith in vain.” (1st Corinthians 15:17)  The Witnesses of Jehovah deny that he is risen.  “The man Christ,” they say, “is dead forever.”  “The Person who died,” Russell tells us, “remained dead, and he will never be seen again in his human nature.”  What became of his body?  Russell says that no one knows.  He suggests that possibly it was dissolved into gases, or super-naturally removed by God to be preserved until He chooses to produce it as a grand memorial or trophy of Christ’s work.  But it will be only a material corpse.

But we are told not to worry.  If Christ is not risen in the long-accepted Christian sense of the word, he was raised a “spirit-being,” receiving immortality and divinity as a gift from God.  It is all very baffling.  If the “person who died remained dead,” who was the person receiving immortality and divinity?  If God created a new being to enjoy those privileges, then that new being wasn’t Christ but somebody else!  Yet Russell goes on to say that Christ, despite his remaining dead, returned to his disciples after the resurrection in separate “body-appearances” specially created for each occasion!

At the ascension, Russell tells us that Jesus, no longer human, was exalted as a “spirit-being” to the divine nature; and that he remains an invisible spirit, having no longer any connection with our human nature.  But if “the person who died remained dead,” Jesus is not merely no longer human –  he is no longer in existence!  Russell may be able to think in such queer ways, but he has no right to pretend that he is giving to his followers anything like the genuine New Testament doctrine.


Let us turn now to what is really the starting-point of the Russellite system.  It is not without significance that it begins at the end and works backways from that, instead of attempting to follow divine revelation in the order in which God gave it.  For Russell, as we have seen, began by concentrating on Christ’s Second Coming and His “Millennial Reign.”  A theory having been decided upon in that regard, all else had to be distorted to fit in with it.

Russell took over from the Adventists the idea that the end of the world was very near at hand.  By a mysterious process of mathematical calculation from the prophecies, he “discovered” that the Second Coming of Christ actually took place in 1874.  If people had not the slightest idea of this, it was because they had been led astray by Acts 1:11: “This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven shall so come, as you have seen Him going.” Russell says that the Apostles did not see Him going, for He went invisibly as a spirit.  And, in 1874, He returned invisibly as a spirit.  But not yet to this earth.  He returned only to the “upper air.”  In 1878, Russell further discovered, the apostles and other members of the “little flock,” a favored few, were raised to meet the Lord, and they are hovering about with Him also in the “upper air.”

In 1914, because that was 2520 years after the defeat of Zedekiah in 606 B.C., there came the “end of the times of the Gentiles.”  In that year, we are told, Satan began to wage a ferocious war against Christ and the saints in the “upper air,” and simultaneously “nation rose against nation” on earth in the first world-war.

Russell firmly believed that 1914 would mean the great final battle of Armageddon, the end of the world as we know it, the descent of Christ from the “upper air,” and His enthronement as King on earth for a Millennium –  after which thousand years the Final Judgment would take place.

When that did not happen, the Witnesses of Jehovah, undismayed by failure, moved the event up several times to 1916, 1918, 1924, 1928, etc., until Judge Rutherford hit on the ingenious explanation that the Second Coming (to the “upper air”) took place as Russell had said in 1874. Christ was enthroned as King (in the “upper air”) in 1914; and in that year, juridically at least, the world as we know it came to an end.  In fact, and literally, the final destruction of all earthly kingdoms and Churches in the great final battle of Armageddon has been postponed –  until the Witnesses of Jehovah have completed their work of proclaiming the good news of Christ’s enthronement and of warning all nations of the impending catastrophe!

Here we see again almost the same tactics as those adopted by the Seventh Day Adventists.  William Miller, the Adventist, had calculated that the Second Coming of Christ would occur on 21 March 1843.  When that failed, he said that 21 March 1844 was the correct date.  He had merely made a slight mistake in his calculations.  When that also failed, he moved the date forward to 22 October 1844.  But, alas, nothing happened.  Then there arose an Adventist named Hiram Edson, who had it “divinely revealed” to him that Christ did come on the last date after all, but not by returning to this world.  On that date, He entered a “heavenly sanctuary” to begin investigating the records of all mankind, to find out who were good and who were evil.  Mrs. Ellen G. White, the accepted prophetess of the movement, then discovered that as soon as Christ has finished auditing the books in the “heavenly sanctuary,” He will descend to earth to execute judgment –  and that will take place any moment now!

Rutherford working on the same lines, refuses to say just when God will decide that the Witnesses of Jehovah have completed their witness-work –  but it will be any moment now!  He even went so far as to insist that it would be within the lifetime of his own generation.  Hence his slogan, “Millions now Living will never Die.”

It is of little use to draw the attention of Witnesses of Jehovah to the series of failures in the predictions of their inspired prophets.  When the end of the world did not come on schedule, and Russell died in 1916 instead of living to see it, as he expected, Rutherford offered his followers the consoling thought that, as Ezekiel was dumb for a year, five month and twenty-six days, so a similar period after the dumbness of Russell in death might elapse before the end.  Twenty-six years elapsed, and then Rutherford himself died in 1942, instead of remaining among the millions who would live to see the end.

But petty details like that cannot avail with the Witnesses of Jehovah against the whole magnificent scheme in which all others are to receive a fearful drubbing whilst they themselves are to be preserved from harm and elevated to eternal bliss as co-rulers of the world with Christ!


The battle of Armageddon, which Witnesses of Jehovah interpret literally with no allowance for apocalyptic symbolism, will begin any moment now, despite its having been unaccountably delayed for nearly forty years.  The trouble is, apparently, that Satan has not yet had sufficient time to increase all the woes to the intense degree predicted by Scripture for the transition period.

However, the signs of the times obviously indicate that the full measure has been practically attained.  Christ, with His hosts, will soon descend from the “upper air,” and in a great cataclysms the whole world will be cleansed of all wickedness and evil-doers, safety from which will be found only in God’s organization –  that of the Witnesses of Jehovah.  And what then?


In the Book of the Revelation (Apocalypse) 20:6, St. John speaks of Christ reigning for “a thousand years.”  The true interpretation of that expression, in keeping with the whole character of the Book, must be symbolically and not literal or numerical.  It means simply “for a long period,” and refers to the whole interval between the birth of Christ into this world and His Second Coming to judge the living and the dead.

Russell and Rutherford, however, won’t have that.  They take the Millennium literally, and declare that the Second Coming of Christ will precede it.  When Christ comes again, it will be reign for exactly a thousand years on this earth; and then will come the Final Judgment.  There is a slight confusion as to dates.  Some Witnesses say that since Christ came again in 1874, the Final Judgment will be in the year 2874; but other say no, and that the period will be from 1914 till 2914.

Russell apparently held that there are to be seven millennia.  The year 1874, according to him, was the exact 6000th year from Adam’s creation.  That geologists have discovered human remains belonging to the Neolithic and Paleolithic Ages, dating back to at least 20,000 years ago, was unknown to him, and would not have worried him had he known of it.  For he allowed no evidence of any kind to interfere with his theories.  There had to be six millennia to correspond with the six “working-days” of creation; and there had to be a seventh as the “Sabbath” of millennia, and the last of them.

Since the Lord has already returned –  invisibly –  He is even now ruling the world in the “Millennial Reign,” and using the Witnesses to publish the fact.  The “Theocratic Kingdom” has arrived.  But the fullness of Christ’s reign cannot come until after Armageddon, the battle between Christ and His enemies, which has been so unaccountably delayed.

After Armageddon, according to Russell, all the dead who have ever lived will be raised to life and be given a second probationary period under much more favorable conditions, with Satan bound and a continual evangelistic campaign to help them to make the right choice.

Even on the basis of 6000 years of history wrongly held by Russell, this would mean over 250 million millions of people on this earth simultaneously, covering it so thickly that not all would be able to sit down together!  Russell’s successors, having had their attention drawn to the absurdity of this, now say that not all who have ever lived will return, but only those “faithful ones” who were not so incorrigibly wicked as to forfeit any claim to a second chance.  The latter will just remain in their state of annihilation.


The doctrine of annihilation at death leads to the problem of the nature of the human soul.  According to Russell and his followers, man has not “got” a soul; he “is” a soul.  And his soul is his body.  When a man’s body dies, his soul just ceases to be.  There is no spiritual soul, immortal of its very nature.  “Death,” says Russell, “means total annihilation.  There are no souls anywhere awaiting a resurrection.  No human being who has ever lived and died exists any longer.

Russell was not impressed by any of the references in Scripture to the living reality of the Patriarchs and Prophets after death, such as Abraham, Moses, Elias, Samuel and others.  When confronted with the words of Christ to the dying thief, “Amen, I say to thee –  this day thou shalt be with me in paradise,” he said that the proper Greek reading of the text is, “Amen, I say to thee this day –  thou shalt be with me in paradise.” With all the Greek scholars of the world against him, this man who did not know even the Greek alphabet, tells us that the Greek meant that!

But on Russell’s own principles, how can he hold that there will ever be a resurrection of anybody?  There’s nobody to resurrect!  Resurrection does not mean extinction and re-creation.  Completely non-existent beings cannot receive bodies as before.  If the dead are completely out of existence, any newly existent beings will be completely different beings, and not those who previously lived at all!

Yet Nathan Knorr, instead of saying, “Since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in resurrection, they believe man possess an immortal soul,” inconsequently says just the opposite.  He argues that precisely because they believe in resurrection, they do not believe man possess an immortal soul!  However, though we won’t exist to come back, according to the doctrines of the Witnesses of Jehovah, we are all going to come back to have our second chance during the Millennium –  unless, of course, we are among the “millions now living who will never die.”


During the “Millennium,” then, in the “Theocratic Kingdom,” men will again be offered eternal life, on the terms of the New Covenant.  This life is not our only probation.  Despite the fact that nowhere in the Bible is hope held out for any further probation after death; despite the express teaching of Scripture that “it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27); despite the evident finality of Our Lord’s warning, “This night thy soul will be required of thee” (Luke 12:20), the Witnesses tell us that we are to have our lives all over again, and that nothing that took place in this life is going to count.  All will depend on the way we behave under the much better millennial conditions.

As the “Millennium” has already commenced, one would think we should be living under those conditions now!  But things haven’t been running to timetable.  However, as soon as the Witnesses of Jehovah have sufficiently witnessed, Armageddon will be upon us, the resurrection of the dead will take place, and all men will be able to try again.


At the end of the Millennium, in 2874 or 2914, will come the Final Judgment.  God will then establish His new world of righteousness, and completely vindicate His name.  Satan, who has been imprisoned for the thousand years, will be let out to spread evil by crafty means.  All will then be tempted and tested.

Those who survive successfully this final testing will be divided into two classes.

The first class, called the “Consecrated Class,” or the “Overcoming Class,” will be a “little flock,” limited to 144,000, as declared in the Book of Revelation.  These will go as spirit-beings to the upper air, to live and reign with Christ the divine in a kingdom not of this world.  They will have “inherent” life, eternal, and emancipated from the necessity of all food and nourishment.  Needless to say, these will all be Witnesses of Jehovah, though which Witnesses of Jehovah will share this “heavenly glory” with Christ is an anxiety to the more than a million present members of the organization!

The second class will consist of all the rest of the saved.  These will be left in that flesh and blood which cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  This earth will be their eternal home.  “The righteous rule of the heavenly Kingdom,” writes Nathan Knorr, “will descend earthward and effect the answer to the prayer:  Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.”  The saved on earth will constitute the “other sheep” as opposed to the “little flock” in the heavenly places.  They will fulfill God’s plan to extend Edenic conditions earth-wide, and have it inhabited by a righteous race of men and women; and in them will be fulfilled God’s promise of the earth to the meek, to be their inheritance.  These will not have “inherent” life, but will live on earth’s food supply in everlasting peace, free from war, oppression, sickness and death.  And they will increase and multiply and populate the earth.  What will result from a constant multiplication of human beings in this world, with no one ever dying, can only be left to the reader’s imagination!

And what of those who do not survive successfully their final testing?  They will be annihilated, together with the Devil and all his angels.  The Witnesses of Jehovah deny all suffering in another life.  The dead, they say, are non-existent; therefore there is no purgatory.  At the Final Judgment, the willfully wicked will be exterminated; therefore there’s no hell.  When the Bible speaks of hell, according to them, it merely means the grave.  Any hell of eternal punishment is just a myth.


This brief glance at the inconsistent and almost incoherent system of religion invented by Pastor Russell and amplified and altered in many ways by Judge Rutherford, leaves on wondering how it manages to thrive.  Witnesses of Jehovah will say that the fact of its growth surely argues to its truth.  But other sects with totally different doctrines, yet of similar expansion, would have to be admitted as true on that score.  So we must look elsewhere for an explanation.

Firstly, it must not be overlooked that the Witnesses of Jehovah make their appeal chiefly to professing Christians who have drifted from their Churches, and who know little or nothing of Christian doctrine.  When these people hear the Churches they have forsaken denounced, they find quite a consolation in the thought that, not they themselves, but the “Churches” are to blame for their neglect of religion.  Their lingering attachment to a vague Christian sentiment then makes then listen sympathetically to claims by agents of the “International Bible Students’ Association” that what is needed is a return to Bible Christianity.  And they know so little of their religion that they fail to realize how opposed to the teachings of Christ is the mockery of the Bible put before them by the Witnesses in the name of “truth.”

Secondly, among such lapsed Christians, besides ignorance, credulity and superstition are very prevalent.  Figures from the Department of Justice in USA indicate that less than one per cent of the Witnesses of Jehovah have had a secondary education, whilst fifteen per cent have had less than a normal primary education.  Credulity and superstition have moved them to accept on the authority of Charles Taze Russell and Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford what has been put before them.

Thirdly, for this they were disposed by world conditions, their own uneasy conscience, and their innate pride.  One of the greatest assets of the Witnesses of Jehovah has been the failure of scientific progress to produce Utopia.  The world’s poverty and insecurity have made many of the poorer classes clutch at the idea of the early return of Christ, with an ensuing peace and security.  Their own uneasy conscience over the neglect of their duties to God has been consoled by the new doctrine that there is no hell.  Ingersoll, it is true, had denounced the idea of hell.  But he was an infidel, and could scarcely be trusted.  Yet here were teachers from God assuring them in the name of religion that hell does not exist.  Such an assurance could not fail to appeal to such people.

Meantime, the constant repetition of extravagant threats about the fearful fate soon to overtake Christendom, to escape which one had only to become a Witness of Jehovah and devote oneself to selling booklets, had an additional effect.  It is a fact that the atom-bomb scare in America has given a new boost to the Witnesses of Jehovah, many people imagining the end of the world and Armageddon to be really at hand.

Nor must we overlook the subtle appeal to pride and covetousness; the pride of knowing, like the Gnostics of old, esoteric and occult doctrines which the greatest of Christian theologians have failed to grasp; the pride of becoming masters of the world, triumphing like a kind of religious proletariat over the religious capitalists who remained faithful to the spiritual treasures they themselves have forsaken.

These and many other reasons account for conversion to the Witnesses of Jehovah.  Truth certainly does not.


What must be our estimate, then, of this new religion?  Can we regard it as other than an absurd, false, blasphemous and extremely dangerous travesty of Christianity?

The absurdity of the whole sorry scheme, so utterly unworthy of an infinitely wise Creator, is surely self-evident.  The predications of Russell and Rutherford, the self-appointed prophets of the movement, have been proved false over and over again, compelling them to have recourse to subterfuge after subterfuge.  For the Creeds of Christendom, embodying the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), we are given a new creed, one of deadly novelties and fallacies.  The doctrines of the Holy Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, of the Personality of the Holy Spirit, of the bodily resurrection of Christ, and of the Church as established by Him are all blatantly denied.  The New Testament teaching about the Eucharist and the Sacraments is ignored as if it did not so much as exist.  The immortality of the human soul is rejected.

The positive doctrines of this freak religion –  for thus only can it be rightly described –  are ridiculous in the extreme.  What reasonable person could believe that Christ, though He did not rise from the dead, was supplanted by some newly created “spirit-being” who as “a” god, but not “the” God, and who returned to the “upper air” of this world, there to be enthroned as King, in 1874!  Who could believe that there He –  or this substitute being –  is waiting until the Witnesses have witnessed sufficiently to His plans, when he will descend for the great final battle of Armageddon and for a millennial reign of a thousand years on this earth, after which He will turn this earth into an eternal, material paradise!

Spiritually, the whole system is utterly bankrupt.  One will read through the whole flood of literature published by this Russell-Rutherford organization without finding any inculcation of the basic Christian virtues of humility, of repentance of sin, or of charity.  No genuine love of God or of one’s neighbor finds expression there.  There is no emphasis on character-building, on self-conquest, on the necessity of taking up one’s cross and following Christ Our Lord.  The supreme message of this caricature of Christianity is “Read, believe, and sell Russell’s and Rutherford’s books, speak of God as ‘Jehovah’ and of all Churches and Governments as ‘Antichrist’ –  this do, and thou shalt be saved!”

The very doctrine of this system, that people can sin with impunity in this life, cannot but encourage wickedness, immorality and depravity.  “God never punishes, either in this life nor in the next,” declared Russell; despite the fact that the law of retribution is insisted upon all through Sacred Scripture.  However badly people behave in this life, according to the Witnesses of Jehovah, it does not really matter, since our moral choices now have no effect whatever upon our eternal future.  All are annihilated at death, and there’s no purgatory, no hell.  If, as Russell says, all are to be raised again and given a second chance, everything will depend on how we behave then, not on how we behave now.  Witnesses of Jehovah even say that the more wicked a man has been in this life, the more likely he is to make good in the next!  And even if he doesn’t, he will merely be put painlessly out of existence, to experience no future evil consequences whatever of his contemptuous defiance of God.

No one who retains any real respect for Holy Scripture, for God, for Christ, for his fellow-men, for his own human dignity and intelligence, can do anything but reject utterly this counterfeit religion invented by Russell and Rutherford, and so pathetically propagated by their deluded Witnesses of Jehovah.

NIHIL OBSTAT: W. M. Collins, Censor Dioc.

IMPRIMATUR: D. Mannix, Archiepiscopus Melbournensis

Copyright 1974 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.

Originally published by Fathers Rumble and Carty Radio Replies Press, Inc.
St. Paul, Minn., U.S.A.

Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum on the “Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970” (July 7, 2007)



The Supreme Pontiffs have to this day shown constant concern that the Church of Christ should offer worthy worship to the Divine Majesty, “for the praise and glory of his name” and “the good of all his holy Church.”

As from time immemorial, so too in the future, it is necessary to maintain the principle that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally received from apostolic and unbroken tradition.  These are to be observed not only so that errors may be avoided, but also that the faith may be handed on in its integrity, since the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of faith (lex credendi).” [1]

Eminent among the Popes who showed such proper concern was Saint Gregory the Great, who sought to hand on to the new peoples of Europe both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture amassed by the Romans in preceding centuries.  He ordered that the form of the sacred liturgy, both of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Divine Office, as celebrated in Rome, should be defined and preserved.  He greatly encouraged those monks and nuns who, following the Rule of Saint Benedict, everywhere proclaimed the Gospel and illustrated by their lives the salutary provision of the Rule that “nothing is to be preferred to the work of God.”  In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman usage, enriched the faith and piety, as well as the culture, of numerous peoples.  It is well known that in every century of the Christian era the Church’s Latin liturgy in its various forms has inspired countless saints in their spiritual life, confirmed many peoples in the virtue of religion and enriched their devotion.

In the course of the centuries, many other Roman Pontiffs took particular care that the sacred liturgy should accomplish this task more effectively.  Outstanding among them was Saint Pius V, who in response to the desire expressed by the Council of Trent, renewed with great pastoral zeal the Church’s entire worship, saw to the publication of liturgical books corrected and “restored in accordance with the norm of the Fathers,” and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

Among the liturgical books of the Roman rite, a particular place belongs to the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and over the centuries gradually took on forms very similar to the form which it had in more recent generations.

“It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and, when necessary, clarified.  From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.” [2]  Such was the case with our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Saint Pius X[3], Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII.

In more recent times, the Second Vatican Councilexpressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful.  Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak … reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.” [4]

In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annosissued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.  Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.

Given the continued requests of these members of the faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and having listened to the views expressed by the Cardinals present at the Consistory of 23 March 2006, upon mature consideration, having invoked the Holy Spirit and with trust in God’s help, by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following:

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the samelex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.  The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:

Art. 2.  In Masses celebrated without a congregation, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use either the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed Pope John XXIII or the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, and may do so on any day, with the exception of the Easter Triduum.  For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary.

Art. 3.  If communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the conventual or community Mass in their own oratories according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, they are permitted to do so.  If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to have such celebrations frequently, habitually or permanently, the matter is to be decided by the Major Superiors according to the norm of law and their particular laws and statutes.

Art. 4.  The celebrations of Holy Mass mentioned above in Art. 2 may be attended also by members of the lay faithful who spontaneously request to do so, with respect for the requirements of law.

Art. 5, §1  In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal.  He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§2  Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays; on Sundays and feast days, however, such a celebration may also take place.

§3  For those faithful or priests who request it, the pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§4  Priests using the Missal of Blessed John XXIIImust be qualified (idonei) and not prevented by law.

§5  In churches other than parish or conventual churches, it is for the rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6.  In Masses with a congregation celebrated according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be proclaimed also in the vernacular, using editions approved by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7.  If a group of the lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not been granted its requests by the parish priest, it should inform the diocesan bishop.  The bishop is earnestly requested to satisfy their desire.  If he does not wish to provide for such celebration, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Art. 8.  A bishop who wishes to provide for such requests of the lay faithful, but is prevented by various reasons from doing so, can refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which will offer him counsel and assistance.

Art. 9, §1  The parish priest, after careful consideration, can also grant permission to use the older ritual in the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, if advantageous for the good of souls.

§2  Ordinaries are granted the faculty of celebrating the sacrament of Confirmation using the old Roman Pontifical, if advantageous for the good of souls.

§3  Ordained clerics may also use the Roman Breviary promulgated in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.

Art. 10.  The local Ordinary, should he judge it opportune, may erect a personal parish in accordance with the norm of Canon 518 for celebrations according to the older form of the Roman rite, or appoint a rector or chaplain, with respect for the requirements of law.

Art. 11.  The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established in 1988 by Pope John Paul II [5], continues to exercise its function.  The Commission is to have the form, duties and regulations that the Roman Pontiff will choose to assign to it.

Art. 12.  The same Commission, in addition to the faculties which it presently enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See in ensuring the observance and application of these norms.

We order that all that we have decreed in this Apostolic Letter given Motu Proprio take effect and be observed from the fourteenth day of September, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in the present year, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the seventh day of July in the year of the Lord 2007, the third of our Pontificate.


[1] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, 397. 

[2] JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus (4 December 1988), 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

[3] Ibid. 

[4] SAINT PIUS X, Apostolic Letter given Motu Propio Abhinc Duos Annos (23 October 1913): AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus (4 December 1988), 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

[5] Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter given Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

© Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Food For Thought – Communion in the Hand…WHY?


Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.’

–St. Thomas Aquinas

Have you noticed a change in the way the Catholic Church receives and administers Holy Communion from the way it once was?

Do you remember when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion?

Do you remember when Catholics received Holy Communion on the tongue only?

Do you remember when only the priest administered Holy Communion?

Do you remember our priests and sisters teaching us it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host?

Do you remember when tabernacles were always on the center of the altar as the primary focal point?

Why has kneeling for Holy Communion disappeared?

Why are tabernacles disappearing from the center of the Churches and placed on the side?

Why are people receiving Communion in the hand?

Why are there lay-ministers of the Eucharist?

Why were these things changed?

If things were changed for the sake of “modern times” and “modern men”, has it resulted in record crowds of “modern men” flocking into the Churches to pray and receive the Sacraments?

Do we have record turnouts in our seminaries, monasteries, and convents?

Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of vocations in the Church?

Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of converts coming into the Church?

Was there a “vocation crisis” before these essential and fundamental things were changed?

In the rubrics of the Old Rite of Mass, why was there such precaution taken against the desecration of the Sacred Species?

Why did the priest wash his fingers after administering Holy Communion?

Why did the priest scrape the corporal with the paten so as not to allow even the slightest minute particle to fall to the ground and be desecrated?

Why when Holy Communion was dropped, the Host was covered and left on the floor until after Mass, where the priestwould then remove it, and then carefully clean the area where the Sacred Host lay?

Why did these rubrics disappear?

Was there more faith in the Real Presence before the “renewal?”

Was there a deeper and greater understanding and appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament as really and truly being the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity  of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine?

Were the old rubrics simply “over scrupulous?

“Did the old rubrics and strict laws safeguarding reverence, dignity, and holiness, not express the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament properly?

Do we now understand and believe in it in a different manner, and this is therefore manifested by the actions of first the clergy, then the laity?

Are we afraid to adore the Sacred Host?Are we ashamed to adore the Sacred Host?

Is it any coincidence that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament began to fade away more and more with the introduction of Communion in the hand and lay ministers of the Eucharist?

Has Catholic teaching changed regarding TRANSUBSTANTIATION, that is, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Sacrifice of the Mass?

If the teaching has not changed, why has attitude, spirit, rubrics and practice changed?

Where did Communion in the hand come from since it is nowhere proposed or even mentioned in the documents of Vatican II?

Why did it still come about on a worldwide scale even after Pope Paul VI in his 1969 letter to the Bishops, “Memoriale Domini” stated “This method, ‘on the tongue’ must be retained?”

If it is supposed to be “optional”, why are the little children in most parochial schools taught no other way than receiving in the hand as “this is the way it is done?”

Why is there a new attitude of “anyone can handle it?”

Have we created a “vicious circle” or a “cause and effect” situation where radical changes are introduced, vocations drop as a result, and then more changes such as “lay ministers of the Eucharist” are introduced appealing to their need because of the “vocation crisis?”

The results of Communion in the hand and the Novus Ordo have caused a major crisis in the Catholic Church. The New York Times reported that when Catholics were asked, in a Times-CBS news poll, what best describes their belief about what happens to the bread and wine at Mass, most chose the answer that the bread and wine are “symbolic reminders of Christ” over the answer that they are “changed into the Body and Blood of Christ”. The official Church teaching, which we must believe in order to be saved, is this: “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharist species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and the whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”

What is the solution to this terrible loss of faith? We must return to the traditional teachings of the Church and to the Traditional Latin Mass as codified by Pope St. Pius V, who declared, by virtue of his apostolic authority, was to last in perpetuity and never at a future date could it be revoked or amended legally. The way we worship is the way we believe (lex orandis, lex credendi)

Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock


The Catholic Church Ravaged in the Fourth Century

Saint Athanasius lived in the fourth century during the time of what used to be considered the greatest crisis of faith ever to befall the Catholic Church, the Arian Heresy. (The Arians denied the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ). The vast majority of Churchmen fell into this heresy, so much so that Saint Jerome wrote of the period, “The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian”. Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt for 46 years. He was banned from his diocese at least five times and spent a total of 17 years in exile. He even suffered an unjust excommunication from Pope Liberius (325-366) who was under Arian influence. It is a cold fact of history that Athanasius stood virtually alone against the onslaught of heretical teaching ravaging the Church of his day – begetting the familiar phrase, “Athanasius contra mundum”, that is, “Athanasius against the world”.

The famous convert to the Church, Ven. John Henry Newman, described him as a “principal instrument, after the Apostles, by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.” Often referred to as the Champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in the entire history of the Church. If anyone can be singled out as a Saint for our times, surely it is Saint Athanasius. The following letter of his could, almost word for word, have been written yesterday.

“May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …

“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Other Patristic Testimony To The Abysmal State of the Church at the Time Of The Arian Heresy

A.D. 360: Saint Gregory Nazianzen says about this date: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel (the Church. ed.) by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interests, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance.

Cappodocia: Saint Basil says about the year 372: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven.” Four years after he writes: “Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven.” Again: “Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts.”

In our time when impious novelties, liberalism and modernism are ravishing the Church under the pretext of “aggiornamento” (update!), and infidelity to Catholic Tradition is the order of the day, the above statements cannot help but strike the reader as a parallel of our time. As it was then so it is today.

Today we see the loss of faith among many Catholics occasioned by compromises in the Faith, both great and small, which have touched on the very essence of our Faith. Recent surveys and polls show that only 15% of Catholics believe that they have to accept all of the Church’s teachings.

The majority of Church leaders have succumbed to the “spirit of the age”, and faithful Catholics now suffer at the hands of those who should be their protectors.

The Catholic Church survived the Arian crisis, and so it will survive the present one. For our part, it is our duty to remain faithful to the unchangeable teaching and Sacred Tradition of our Holy Catholic Church, and to not compromise our Faith in any way with the present trend of liberalism and modernism sweeping the Catholic Church worldwide.

If the Arian crisis proves anything, if this historical lesson of the fourth century teaches us anything in the twentieth century it is this: Falsehood cannot become truth no matter how many accept it but rather the truth of doctrinal teaching is to be judged by its conformity to Tradition and not by the number or even the authority of those teaching it. It shows to us that a pope can err as a private teacher and so much more the bishops. Another point the Arian crisis brings out is that Catholics true to the traditional faith may have to worship outside the official Churches, their parish churches and even to avoid them as schools of impiety. It proves that Catholics may even have to suffer false denunciation and excommunication for their beliefs as St. Athanasius suffered: today as always we must pray for the Church, the clergy and especially the bishops and our Holy Father the Pope. Only the good Lord knows how long this crisis will last but Our Blessed Mother has given us hope in Her prophecy at Fatima. “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph and there will be peace in the world”.

God Bless BJS!!

My Declaration of Faith


To John Paul II

Ascension Thursday
May 21, 1998

Most Holy Father,

 On this tenth anniversary of the consecration of the four Catholic bishops by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the survival of the Catholic Faith, by the grace of God, I declare that I am Roman Catholic. My religion was founded by Jesus Christ when He said to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, I will build My Church” (Mt. 16: 18).

Holy Father, my Credo is the Apostles’ Creed. The deposit of Faith came from Jesus Christ and was completed at the death of the last Apostle. It was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church to serve as a guide for the salvation of souls to the end of time.

Saint Paul instructed Timothy: “O Timothy, keep the deposit” (1 Tm. 6:20), the deposit of Faith! Holy Father, it seems that Saint Paul is telling me: “Keep the deposit…the deposit that is entrusted to you, not discovered by you. You receive it: you did not draw it from your resources. It is not the fruit of any personal understanding but of teaching. It is not personal use, but it belongs to public tradition. It does not come from you, but it has come to you. With respect to it, you cannot act as an author, but only a simple keeper. You are not its initiator but its disciple. It is not for you to direct it, but your duty to follow it” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, No. 21).

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that “the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred dogmas which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).

“The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation but rather that, with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Dz. 1836).

Moreover, “the power of the Pope is not unlimited; not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, for instance), but he is to build and not to destroy (cf. II Cor.10,8); he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ” (Dict. de Theol. Cath., II, col.2039-2040).

Saint Paul too confirmed the Faith of his converts: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

As a Catholic Bishop, briefly, this is my stand on the Post Conciliar reforms of the Second Vatican Council. If the Conciliar reforms are according to the will of Jesus Christ, then, I will gladly cooperate in their implementation. But if the Conciliar reforms are planned for the destruction of the Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ, then, I refuse to give my cooperation.

Holy Father, in 1969, a communication from Rome was received in San Fernando Diocese of La Union. It said the Tridentine Latin Mass was to be suppressed and the Novus Ordo Missae was to be implemented. There was no reason given. Since the order came from Rome it was obeyed without any protest (Roma locuta est, causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the matter is closed]).

I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae.

The Novus Ordo Missae was a concoction of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini. Six Protestant ministers helped Monsignor Bugnini in fabricating it. The innovators saw to it that no Catholic dogmas offensive to Protestant ears were left in the prayers. They deleted all that expressed the Catholic dogmas fully and replaced them with very ambiguous Protestantizing and heretical things. They even changed the form of the consecration given by Jesus Christ. With these modifications, the new rite of the Mass became more Protestant than Catholic.

The Protestants maintain that the Mass is a mere meal, a mere communion, a mere banquet, a memorial. The Council of Trent emphasized the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is an unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Christ on Mount Calvary. “He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross…offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine…at the last Supper on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented…” (Dz. 938).The Mass is also a communion to the sacrifice previously celebrated: a banquet where one eats the immolated Victim of the sacrifice. But if there is no sacrifice there is no communion with it. Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice and secondly a communion or a meal.

It is also noted that in the Novus Ordo Missae, Christ’s real Eucharistic Presence is implicitly denied. The same observation is also true concerning the Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation.

Connected with this, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has been demoted from a priest who offers a sacrifice to one who merely presides over the assembly. Now he is the President of the assembly. For this role he faces the people. In the Traditional Mass, the priest, on the contrary, faces the tabernacle and the altar where is Christ.

After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the new rite of the Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven years in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries.

Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of Saint Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the “universal salvation”, it contradicts Sacred Scripture.

Holy Father, are all men going to be saved? Jesus Christ wanted all men to be redeemed. In fact, He died for us all. Still, not all men are going to be saved because not all men fulfill all the necessary conditions in order to be numbered among the elects of God in heaven.

Before Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, He entrusted to His Apostles the duty of preaching the Gospel to every creature. His instructions already hinted that all souls were not going to be saved. He said: “Go into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk.16:15-16).

Saint Paul supported this in his instruction to his converts: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the Kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterous, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, not drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Holy Father, should we respect false religions? Jesus Christ founded only one Church in which one can find eternal salvation. This is the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. When He gave all the doctrines and all the truths needed to be saved Christ did not say: “Respect all false religions.” In fact, the Son of God was crucified on the cross because He did not compromise His teaching.

In 1910, in his letter “Our Apostolic Mandate”, Pope Saint Pius X warned that the interdenominational spirit is part of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for a one world Church. Pope Leo XIII warned that to “treat all religions alike is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic Religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions” (Encyclical Humanum Genus). The process is this: From Catholicism To Protestantism; From Protestantism To Modernism; From Modernism To Atheism.

Ecumenism, as practiced today, flies in the face of traditional Catholic doctrine and practices. It places the one true Religion established by Our Lord on the same base level with false, man-made religions – something that Popes throughout the centuries absolutely forbade Catholics to do: “It is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these (ecumenical) assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope Saint Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in 1907. I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils.

But I support the Rome that leads the Catholic Church faithfully to do the will of Jesus Christ – the glorification of the most holy and Triune God – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I consider myself fortunate because in this present crisis of the Catholic Church I received the grace to have returned to the Church that adheres to Catholic Tradition. Thank God, I am again saying the Traditional Latin Mass – the Mass instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the Mass of my ordination.

May the Blessed Mother Mary, Saint Joseph, Saint Anthony my patron saint, Saint Michael and my guardian Angel assist me to remain faithful to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of men.

May I obtain the grace to remain and die in the bosom of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church that adheres to the ancient traditions and be always a faithful priest and bishop of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Most respectfully,

Bishop Salvador L. Lazo, DD 
Bishop Emeritus 
San Fernando Diocese of La Union