One Watchtower/Catholic comparison...

by Confession 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Hondo

jschwehm,
Jeff, I totally agree with everything you written so far. I'm not sure where the others, primarily lovelylil and jwfacts, are getting their "facts", but they are totally out in left field. The Majority of JW's are ex-catholics??? huh... where did this come from? The Catholic flip-flopping, or believe in the "new light" concept...huh? The Catholic service, specifically the Eucharist, has not changed in 2000 years, nor has the primary belief structure. Catholics are told to avoid independent thinking...??? huh? Not hardly. Any Catholic that I know can criticise or question statements or comments made by priest, bishops, cardinals, or event he Pope without fear of retribution or punishment.
There are 1.2 billion+ Catholics in the world today. 250 million alone Joined during the tenure of Pope John Paul II, and not because he went door-to-door, but because the message of the Catholic Church was understood and accepted. All Christian's today, as you have round-a-bout stated, have their roots in the Catholic church. Unfortunately, the Catholics, being the "big kid on the block" are alway ripe for criticism. In spite of this, the church continues to grow, and grow at a very consistant pace.
Hondo
lovelylil

Jeff,
The fact that some are baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit has nothing to do with the Catholic Church -this is in the bible itself and is the baptismal arrangement set up by Jesus himself. Before the Catholic Church came into existance, this was the way people were baptized.
If the Catholic church follows this procedure and is not baptizing into the Catholic organization (which I am not sure of this), like the WT baptizes into the org., but is baptizing into a relationship with Jesus, God and Holy Spirit then I commend them for doing that right according to the scriptures.
You do realize though than many other religions also baptize in the name of the father, son and holy spirit and the Catholics do not have a patent on this don't you?
As far as your comment about the Protestants, who according to the Catholic church are still eligible for salvation, all I can say to this comment is how nice of the Catholic church to say someone is eligible for something that is a free gift from God and they have no power to give or take away anyway. Yes, I am kind of being sarcastic.
This view that they can say who is eligible or not for salvation is based on the fact that the Catholic Church believes they alone are the true religion. This is not unlike the WT saying you must be part of their organization to be saved. In actuality, it is the same thing! All the major, man-made religious establishments have this in common. I should say the larger ones do as some smaller groups are more balanced in thier views.
Jesus Christ did not give the Catholics a Monopoly on God's people. All Christians who are baptized into Christ are part of his church regardless of religious affiliation. The Church is simply all the believers baptized by holy spirit. I know from past experience that the Pope believes he is the "vicar of Christ" and is in charge of all Jesus' affairs on earth. But I strongly disagree that he has this authority.
The Church which are all true believers in Christ are together the ambassadors for him until he arrives. I stand by my statement that Christ was anti established religion and the Catholic Church just like all the other religious institutions are man made and self appointed.
Anyone who is baptized into Christ can take the eucharist - (communion) the Catholic Church although they have their own traditions of this, have no right to tell anyone whether they can partake or not or with whom. This is an effort of them to have control over a ceremony that Christ started for all his diciples to participate in, regardless of religious affiliation. Again, their purpose in this is to say they are the only religion on earth that has the right to shephard God's flock, teach from the bible, forgive sins, etc. - just like the WT organization who also say who can/cannot partake - Both of these groups are simply decieving themselves.
Those of us who are truly in Christ do not nor ever will recognize the Catholic Churches authority any more than we would recognize the authority of the WT over us. That is what freedom in Christ means. With all due respect, you left one legalistic religion and went right into another. I can only hope and pray that one day you to will experience true freedom in Christ and recognize that it is what is in your heart that matters to him not what church you belong to or what creed you follow or which tradtions you hold to. We cannot be saved by our works but only by God's grace. Salvation is a totally free gift and it is opened to all.
Now, that brings me to you question about specific things the church did against Christ's followers. There are way too many cases to mention where the Catholics put people into torture chambers and burned them alive for what they considered heresies. Which basically meant to them anyone who disagreed with their interpretation of the bible. You can go to the library and take out a good history book on the subject or look up information on Martin Luther who wrote extensively on the topic. Now, to give the Church credit where they are do - they have for the most part apologized for their past sins. However, if they do not repent of their belief that they were given the only appointment over God's people and that they are the true religion, I am afraid that they will in the future repeat these same sins.
Anyway, this thread was to compare the WT with the Catholic church and I can say that it has done a very good job. Even by your own comments and you are a practicing Catholic, we can see the same line of reasoning the WT uses which is that they alone have a right to God's people and are the only true religion. That is why I said this in my first comment but thank you for showing that my statement was true as there is nothing like first hand testimony.
I am glad you seem happy in your faith as I am in mine. Wishing you peace, Lilly
lovelylil

Hondo,
I got my facts through personal experience. I was a praticing Catholic for 12 years and a practicing JW for 12 years too. About the JWs being mostly Catholic - this was based on the ones I knew personally. Which I can say is several hundreds.
As far as the new light doctrine - this is a Catholic teaching also. The Catholic church believes that the Pope is infallible and the WT believes the governing body is infallible. they both base this on the "new light" theory that a mistake or false teaching is not a mistake or false teaching but rather a readjustment due to new light.
They are also similar in that they both feel they are the only true church, are descended from the apostles, match the closest to the early church, only their members will recieve salvation, only they can interpret the bible, among other things.
This thread was not started to show that the Catholics are evil in some way just to show that this church is similiar to the WT. It is a comparison only.
As far as thier traditions changing through out time -go to the library and take out a book on Martin Luther, he lists in his Thesis (I think there were 95?) hat he nailed to the church many of the changes that were made and also are not biblical. He, who was a Catholic Monk clearly says there were many changes adopted by the church through out time.
just because the church has baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit since it's origin does not mean it has any more authority over God's people than any other church that does the same thing. To say everyone was Catholic is not true. None of the Apostles called themselves a Catholic - that title is not even in the bible. And if someone says I am a seperated Catholic - I take personal offense to that.
I agree there was one "universal" church but church in the early times meant the people, not an organizational structure. So to say the church was universal just meant they were through out the earth or universe the people were united in their faith in Christ. Through out time the term began to be used to mean one organization that is the Catholic one and the church rose as a heirarchy over everyone. This was not the origional purpose of being called "universal" in the beginning. This heirarchy was built to control the masses and it is self apointed. Just like the WT governing body is self appointed.
Hope this helps you see why I said what I did.
jschwehm

The catholic church was a totalitarian tryranny back in the dark ages . They murdered people for owning their own bible by burning them at the stake , they murdered jews for not converting . I'd say the catholic church has a way greater blood guilt than the WTBTS .

Hi Heathen:
Actually the above is false and not in line with actual history.
1. When it comes to people owning a Bible, it is only been possible for people to own a copy of the Bible in the last 500 years or so. Prior to the invention of the printing press, owning a Bible was cost prohibitive for the average person. And even if the person could afford a copy of the Bible, it was unlikely that most could read it. The way most people learned what the scriptures contained was by having the Bible read to them during Mass at the local Catholic Church. The local Church oftentimes chained the Bible to the lectern because the Bible belonged to the Church community and was so expensive and there was always a possibility that someone would try to steal it. (We used to do the same thing today such as chaining phone books to pay phones so that the community could use it.)
The Church is very protective of the scriptures and so when certain individuals began to translate the Bible incorrectly, the Church many times deemed those Bibles as heretical in that certain translations did not represent the teachings of the Bible correctly. Many of these Bibles were destroyed by the Church which has as part of its job the protecting of the deposit of faith given to her by Jesus and the Apostles.
Also, in medieval times heresy was viewed as a capital offense by secular rulers. The secular rulers would execute some individuals for heresy because it stirred up civic unrest in many areas. These individuals were many times given numerous chances to repent but if they did not the secular gov't would execute them. The Church did not execute these individuals. In addition, most people do not know this but it was the Catholic Church that first provided people with the Bible in their own vernacular. By the time Luther translated his version of the Bible and released it, the Catholic Church had already released copies of the Bible for the public in their own vernacular years earlier. So, no, the Church did not punish people for owning or reading the Bible. That is a myth that was propagated during the Protestant Reformation.
As far as Jews are concerned, there are many instances where Catholics and Protestants have treated Jews terribly. However, the Church has never endorsed the killing of Jews that did not convert to Christianity that I am aware of.
Even in Catholic Spain, (which had the Inquisition), Jews who practiced their religion were not punished. In fact, the Inquisition was instituted in Spain to protect political minorities from being persecuted. In other words, there is good evidence that the Inquisition actually SAVED lives as it kept those in power from using accusations of heresy and other things to kill their political rivals. There is evidence that regular criminals would purposely blaspheme in the secular courts so that they could have their cases tried in the Inquisition because they knew they would get a better shake there. Also, it is my understanding that many Jews settled in the Papal States (where the Pope was the secular ruler) because the Popes gave them such broad rights to practice their religion freely. And, as recently as WWII, many Jews in Europe were saved by the work of the Church and Pope Pius XII in particular. In fact, the chief Rabbi in Jerusalem became Catholic after the war because of the work of Pope Pius XII in saving the Jews. You might find the book "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David Dalin interesting.
Glad I found these things out as technically I am catholic tho not practicing the religion . The worst thing the church does is claim that by baptizing at infantsy they have somehow vanquished the original sin.
I think infant baptism which is practiced by most Christian denominations is a beautiful expression of God's unconditional love for us. (I should point out that the Catholic Church recognizes the infant baptisms of other Christian denominations as valid. So, even though I was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church the Catholic Church viewed that as a valid baptism.)
In any case, unlike the Watchtower's view of baptism where baptism is something that WE do for God to show that WE have dedicated our life to God, a Christian baptism is something that God does for us by marking us as His child. Another difference is that the Watchtower Society's view of baptism is along the lines of signing a contract of some sort saying that we are forever connected with their religious organization or some such nonsense as that. A Christian baptism means that we belong to God because God said so and that we are part of a community of believers, a family, that is beyond space and time. So, I would say that the WTBTS' view of baptism is much worse than the way Catholics view it. Catholics view baptism as a gift from God-something that God does for us. The WTBTS views baptism as a contract as signing ones life away.
heathen of the just tired of being told I will go to hell for not joing your miserable religion class.
Heathen, I am sorry if I gave you that impression but that is not what I believe and it is not what the Catholic Church teaches. And, if some other Catholic told you this they are mistaken. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the salvation of people who are not in union with the Catholic Church:
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
I hope this clears up some things.
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
jschwehm

Before the Catholic Church came into existance, this was the way people were baptized.

Funny, I do not remember the Jews baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
lovelylil

Jeff,
We know the Jews did not baptize like this but the Christians did. I would think that it would be obvious to you that since we were talking about Christians I meant Christians baptized in this manner prior to the churches existance.
There was no church institution established while the Apostles were on earth. The Apostle Paul when he became a Christian, did not even associate in any way with other Christians until 13 years after his conversion. If the Catholic Church already existed, why didn't Jesus tell him to go to it? He did not need a religious affiliation as he knew he was baptized with holy spirit and that was all he needed to be called a Christian.
The problem is that the Catholic church has you convinced that they and their authority is directly descended from the Apostles and therefore they are they only true church. So no matter how much someone argues against this, you will go to your Catholics books and find information to prove your point.
If you can show me from the NT that the Catholic Church was already in existance during Jesus time or when the Apostles were alive and that they were given the sole authority over all Christians, then I will listen to you. But, I warn that several Catholic Priests have already tried this and could not prove any of these points without going to look up their history as given by their Church.
Smacks of WT if you ask me.
Have a good evening Jeff.
Hondo

I got my facts through personal experience. I was a praticing Catholic for 12 years and a practicing JW for 12 years too. About the JWs being mostly Catholic - this was based on the ones I knew personally. Which I can say is several hundreds.
*** I would suspect your facts are more personal opinion than anything. Knowing hundreds of JWs that use to be Catholic hardly qualifies the statement "most JWs are ex-Catholics
As far as the new light doctrine - this is a Catholic teaching also. The Catholic church ;believes that the Pope is infallible and the WT believes the governing body is infallible. they both base this on the "new light" theory that a mistake or false teaching is not a mistake or false teaching but rather a readjustment due to new light.
*** Your totally wrong here, and a lot of my Catholic friends misunderstand this point also also. Don't get infallibility mixed up with impecability. The GB thinks its infallible all the time. The Pope, and Catholics, believe in a very limited infallability for the Pope, which is rarely invoked (the last time being around 1962, and prior to that in the mid 1800s, and prior to that in the 1500s). Most Popes are impeccable. Mother Theresa was impeccable. Pope John Paul II never invoked his authority to disseminate what would be considered infallible doctrine (Ex chathedra). He did and spoke many things that would be considered impeccable, and I suspect, for the most part, was a very impeccable person. Unless he distributes a document in ex cathedra, what he speaks can be either agreed or disagreed with, plain and simple, without punishment.
They are also similar in that they both feel they are the only true church, are descended from the apostles, match the closest to the early church, only their members will recieve salvation, only they can interpret the bible, among other things.
*** All churches feel they are the only true church. Why would you, or me, attend our churches if we did not feel that what the pastor was preaching was not the truth, and would eventually lead us to everlasting life.
This thread was not started to show that the Catholics are evil in some way just to show that this church is similiar to the WT. It is a comparison only.
*** Agree. But it seems to have turned into a Catholic bashing thread now and I felt it necessary to "stick up" for my Catholic friends.
As far as thier traditions changing through out time -go to the library and take out a book on Martin Luther, he lists in his Thesis (I think there were 95?) hat he nailed to the church many of the changes that were made and also are not biblical. He, who was a Catholic Monk clearly says there were many changes adopted by the church through out time.
*** Very familiar with Martin Luther. His reformation movement is a interesting history subject to read. He disageed, rightly or wrongly, and decided to changed. His main disagreement, as I recall, was with the Pope, and with the peripheral changes the church was going through in the early 1500s. Keep in mind that the Church has changed is "facade" throughout time, as all churches do. The most recent change being eliminating Latin masses and going all english. Some like it, some don't. The eucharistic practice of changing bread and wine to the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ during a mass has not changed in 2000 years, and will never change.
just because the church has baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit since it's origin does not mean it has any more authority over God's people than any other church that does the same thing. To say everyone was Catholic is not true. None of the Apostles called themselves a Catholic - that title is not even in the bible. And if someone says I am a seperated Catholic - I take personal offense to that.
*** I tned to agree with you here. The actual word was not "officially" used until around 125AD, and not to recognize a group or religion. It was actually use to refer to all Christians of the time, and all Christian thereafter, around 225AD. I do believe that all Christians today have some roots in the Catholic church. The First written, bounded bible, the Vulgate (all in latin) was put together by Cahtolic monks around 400AD. Martin Luther branched off with his own bible (deleting 6 or 7 books I think) around 1520. And here we are today.
I agree there was one "universal" church but church in the early times meant the people, not an organizational structure. So to say the church was universal just meant they were through out the earth or universe the people were united in their faith in Christ. Through out time the term began to be used to mean one organization that is the Catholic one and the church rose as a heirarchy over everyone. This was not the origional purpose of being called "universal" in the beginning. This heirarchy was built to control the masses and it is self apointed. Just like the WT governing body is self appointed.
*** The heirarchy of the Catholic church is not designed to "control the masses" like the GB. Not the case. My Catholic friends do not hinge on every word coming out of the Vatican like JWs do with direction coming out of Brooklyn. Like any other church though, they listen to what is said with open minds, and, this is important, question what they may, or may not, disagree with, without fear of getting punished.
jschwehm

If you can show me from the NT that the Catholic Church was already in existance during Jesus time or when the Apostles were alive and that they were given the sole authority over all Christians, then I will listen to you. But, I warn that several Catholic Priests have already tried this and could not prove any of these points without; going to look up their history as given by their Church.

Okay....
St. Paul tells Timothy the following:
"I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth." -1 Timothy 3:14, 15
Notice that St. Paul says that the church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of truth. In some translations the word foundation is used and it reads the pillar and foundation of truth.
What church is St. Paul referring to here? Your position as regards the Church is the following:
The new Testament teaches the truth about the church which is that it is the body of believers themselves tied together through out the world by holy spirit.
Okay so based on your position above, that the church is the body of believers tied together throughout the world by the Holy Spirit, and based on St. Pauls comments that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, in practice how do you come to know what is truth and what is not?
Jeff S.
lovelylil

Jeff,
Your last question was a good one. Just because Paul used the term foundation and pillar does not mean that he was talking about an organization structure as churches are today.
The church - body of believers were to be united in the truth about God, Jesus and the Bible. How do you determine truth? Jesus is the way, life and truth. Chrisitans should teach from the foundation that Jesus laid, not any man made religion. True christians are all baptized into christ and united and taught the scriptures say by holy spirit. There is no building you have to go to or creed you have to follow. And there certainly were not the hundreds of traditions the churches teach today being taught in Jesus' time.
I am sure you will agree that this is where mankind has been in error for many centuries now. As you stated in one of your posts, false teachings came into the church (body of believers) very early on and like you said the Catholic Church tried to fight against it. Because many starting leaving the Truth early on. Even when Paul was still alive because in his letter to the Galatians - he said some were deviating from truth that they already have been taught and accepted. But it is up to the individuals in the body of Christ to examine themselves and make sure they are in the truth and are being worthy to Christ. Because when Christ comes to inspect them, they will be judged on their own merits. Not on how good their organization is or what it teaches. Therefore the belief that there is one true organization or church that is to police all the Christians to make sure they submit to their teachings is itself a false teaching. This arrangement was set up by man to dominate man. There was no governing body not central councel mentioned in the NT.
If you read the NT you will see how loosly organized they really were. They had very simple arrangements of meeting in each others homes. Nothing in the NT describes any of the large religious structures we see today on earth with all their rules, restrictions and traditions.
Organizations in themselves are not bad and can do much good but when they elevate themselves to a superior position over the church saying only they have the authority to interpret scripture and call anyone interpreting it differently a heretic, that is where they are wrong. The Catholic church is just one religion that is Christian, no more and no less. It is up to individual Christians to make sure we are being taught and following truth. to try and make everyone submit to the Catholic's interpretation of scritpture is wrong as only Christ can judge them when he arrives as worthy and unworthy.
But if you feel you need an organization or church that helps interpret scripture for you then that is o.k. too, some don't need that though and may find it insulting to know that some think of us as lesser Christians or seperated brethren. If you have holy spirit and I have it and we are baptized into Christ, we are brethren and not seperated because Christ is the one who brought us together not any church (building).
As far as my last post about the "new light" doctrine - I have priests in my family and it absolutely is a Catholic teaching. I agree though with Jeff that it is not used as frequently as the JWs but it is still a wrong teaching.
And, absolutely no human being is infallible! That only applies to God and Christ. No one else.
Just so you don't think I am bashing Catholics I would like to mention these points that I do appreciate about my Catholic Brethren:
They are very generous even in my community helping to give to the needy and poor, setting up shelters and food panties which are things the WT would never do.
They are honest, sincere people and give much more respect to others who do not agree with them. Although they believe they have the only truth, they do not call people devil worshipers or heretics for disagreeing with simple doctrinal issues.
The do fellowship with other Christians of different faiths - this also the WT will not do
But structually they are very similar to the WT and other religions of today. And they are just as authoritarian as the WT, just because they do not outright call everyone who is not a Catholic a heathen, does not mean they do not believe it.
Thanks for letting me explain my thoughts. This was really a good debate wasn't it?
jschwehm

The church - body of believers were to be united in the truth about God, Jesus and the Bible. ;How do you determine truth? Jesus is the way, life and truth. Chrisitans should teach from the foundation that Jesus laid, not any man made religion. True christians are all baptized into christ and united and taught the scriptures say by holy spirit. There is no building you have to go to or creed you have to follow. And there certainly were not the hundreds of traditions the churches teach today being taught in Jesus' time.

Hi:
The above sounds good but how does it work in practice. Let's be specific.
I have friends of mine who attend a non-denominational Church some of them believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person and that these entities are just God using different modes to reveal Himself to us. Others in our Church believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons but made of the same essence. Still others hold that only the Father is Almighty God and that the Son is the first created being by the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a force and not even a person. All three use scripture to "prove" they are correct and all three claim to having been taught the truth by the Holy Spirit. How does one know which is teaching the truth about the nature of God?
Jeff S.

One Watchtower/Catholic comparison...

Share this