Debaters: Let's have It Out !

by Amazing 124 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    This thread was going to be about the True Church. But I simply changed the title. Okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate Catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the Watchtower ... a comparison which I believe is false. I purposely tried to avoid such a debate because I simply wanted to answer the big question of why I reconciled with the Church ... a questin that has loomed for almost a year.

    So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize. (Please don't be nasty to me, as that would be the false argument of ad hominem ... and I am big on catching false arguments.) I am setting this thread up for the kind of discussion that otherwise knows no boundaries. However, I will still be posting my separate thread on prayer to the Holy Spirit.

    Opening Salvo: There are three main schools of thought that I will say are very generalized. I do not want to get too technical here:

    Protestant Reformation (and individualistic): The Church is the whole body of believers that are found scattered in all Christian denominations as long as they hold to basic Christian beliefs. (I will leave out the belief definition as it tends to generate a whole separate debate). More recently, this definition has come to include any person who might pray on a hill without any church body. Thus Sola Scriptura is the authority, and each congregation or denomination is free to do what they think is best with respect to Church government, if any at all. Please feel free to improve upon this definition.

    Catholic: There is one continuous Church that was given authority starting with the Apostle Peter, and has maintained that authority down through the centuries through her Bishops and Popes (Bishop of Rome). Whatever St. Peter or his rightful successors bound on earth would also be bound in heaven ... etc. Thus today, we have what we call the Roman Catholic Church with a Pope sitting in the Chair of St. Peter. All other denominations are schisms or protestants that have veered from the true Church.

    Orthodox: There is one continuous Church that was given authority starting with the Apostles, and has maintained that authority down through the centuries through her Bishops of Holy Sees founded by variouis Apostles. Each Bishop is equal, but the Popes (Bishop of Rome) is first among equals. Whatever these collective Bishops decide, e.g. Ecumenical Councils, is bound on earth and would also be bound in heaven ... etc. Thus today, we have what we call the Orthodox Church with patriarchs (Bishops) of each Holy See. The RCC is a Holy See, but has strayed from the historic way the Church operated. Protestants are the result of what happens when a Holy See like Rome strays from the true way. If your congregation begins to practice error, you not only have the right, you have the duty to leave and go where truth is found.

    My position: I agree with the Orthodox. Catholic and Orthodox are somewhat similar ... but I am sure Protestants can find more sympathy with the Orthodox as I do. I view Protestants as my brothers and sisters in the faith. I personally wish and hope that the ecumenical efforts to unite the whole Church into one will someday be accomplished. However, I hope for compromises as I believe they all have erred, and they all have some correct points. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter ... this is all very subjective anyway.

    So, now, that the premise is initiated ... let's have a go at it. Bring up anything and everything, and I will not bitch about it. I will either agree or hammer back. But let's keep it fun and not make any enemies.

    Amen!

    Jim Whitney

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Why are Mafia RC's blessed by the Pope? I never could understand that logic

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    To claim an unbroken line of authority from Jesus and Peter would require one to allow authority to be passed by virtue of having it rather than being worthy of it. In other words many popes have been christlike, some have not - if a convincing argument can be made that those who were less praiseworthy could still carry the authority and thus pass it on then the RC Catholics may claim some legitemacy. Without that then it is a sham of authority they pass on and thus cannot qualify to perform the sacraments (assuming they are required.) It also means that authority from God is like promethian fire - no longer controlled by the gods since it could be given to anyone else rather like a cold and they can pass it to whom they will.

  • Nosferatu
    Nosferatu

    I personally don't care enough about the Catholic religion to bring up their past. I have attended Catholic weddings and funerals in the past. I just though that the whole incense burning and singing in gibberish was kinda goofy. But then again, every religion does something goofy. The Lutherans take a piece of tree, dip it in a bowl of tap water, and flick the water at the audience. It's kinda like going to see a rock concert where they throw buckets of water at the audience (except Shannon Hoon who pissed on his audience)

    My biggest question is why do you have to do goofy things to worship God?

    That's probably the reason why I never joined another religion after the JWs. They all do something goofy. Today, I have my disbelief in the bible which stops me from going along with anything religious.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    The "Protestant" definition is fairly correct, but you've missed a category for the sects that think they are the only right way, such as the JWs, LDS, and Exclusive Brethren, etc. These tend to be fundamentalist and have more in common with Islam.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Q:
    LOL - That's rich, coming from a Mormon!

    Aren't you supposed to have an unbroken chain of Prophets and Presidents from Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago? How is that any better a stance than that of a Church that claims that it has the same. but with authority passed on by Jesus when in the body 2000 years ago?

    I don't beleive in apostolic succession, period, but have to smile at the pot calling the kettle black...

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Tophat: You have stated an impression some have. Please provide credible supporting references.

    QCMBR: Please then answer the following:

    To claim an unbroken line of authority from Jesus and Peter would require one to allow authority to be passed by virtue of having it rather than being worthy of it.
    Who is ever worthy?
    In other words many popes have been christlike, some have not - if a convincing argument can be made that those who were less praiseworthy could still carry the authority and thus pass it on then the RC Catholics may claim some legitemacy.
    Some Popes were found to be illigitmate and were finally removed. But again, who is worthy.
    Without that then it is a sham of authority they pass on and thus cannot qualify to perform the sacraments (assuming they are required.) It also means that authority from God is like promethian fire - no longer controlled by the gods since it could be given to anyone else rather like a cold and they can pass it to whom they will.
    What is the supported premise, perhaps Biblical, of your argument? Israel had some really bad Kings, like David, Solomon, Saul and others ... yet, did that eliminate their authority and right? No, not until they died. Nosferatu:
    My biggest question is why do you have to do goofy things to worship God?

    My son-inlaw and daughter combined a candle light at the Kingdom hall as a symbol of their unity. This is done at many Protestant and Catholic weddings. It is a simple tradition that many find meaningful. Incense, ritual etc. are useful to many in making something a little more sacred. Jesus Christ even used the symbol of the cup of wine and the bread to mark an important ritual with deep meaning. Incense was used by Israel with many meanings. The Church carried forward some of these Jewish symbols. You say why, I ask, Why not?

    Jim Whitney

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    LT - not understanding - of course the LDS claim an unbroken line..I don't see your point? But this is not a debate on the LDS , its a look at the Catholics and if you see what I wrote I proposed two options (though I make no secret of the problem I have with one of them.)

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    I think we have an example of those who could claim authority from Abraham being denied by their unworthiness (whited sepulchres).

    Religious authority was not passed by the kingly line as far as I'm aware - kings were chosen by prophets in certain circumstances and prophets were chosen by God.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Q:
    You've exposed yourself

    Are you really claiming that every one of your LDS Prophets has been pure as the driven snow and hence worthy (according to works??) to pass on his authority? If not, then on what basis is your claim of authority any superior to the RC?

    Was Peter?

    Even though he denied his Lord, he was still given the "keys of the kingdom". Methinks you may be looking at the wrong criteria. If you're going to believe in apostolic succession then the RC Church has far more claim on it that the LDS movement.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit