Difference Between Catholics and Witnesses

by WTWizard 33 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Carl_Hernz

  And with all respect to 5go’s post, while it may seem that JWs are more logical about their religion than Catholics, that may be just a point of view, based on how one looks at things.

  Remember that JWs base their belief on the Bible. Catholicism is not based on the Bible. It is based on the founders of that faith’s encounter with Jesus of Nazareth, and what they believed the events surrounding his life meant; and they see the Bible as based on their religion.

  Whereas the Witnesses point to the Bible as the authority for their beliefs, you have to remember that Catholicism did not have such a luxury as the New Testament was yet to be composed, gathered, distributed, etc. Catholicism developed out of an oral tradition that was passed on and eventually written down, some writings which Catholics claim make up the current New Testament.

  The Witnesses view the Bible as a book telling people what they should believe, defining all doctrine. Catholics view the Bible as a witness to the truth of its doctrines, but not an exhaustive reference of them all or a treatise on Christian doctrine—they were already an operating religion with many facets by the time it was composed and canonized.

  With respect to those who hold to the sola scriptura view, the Witnesses may indeed seem more logical. From the point of view of those who see some value in the way Catholicism developed, the Witnesses don’t make much sense at all.

  Regardless of which school of thought you favor, however (and each person’s view should be respected, I believe), I think a religion that makes constant prophetic promises and changes its doctrines so drastically when they don’t come true—smashing many people’s lives in the process—is not the touchstone of what should be considered logical.
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  Oh, one other thing...the Witnesses do indeed place much in a scholastic approach to religion that is admirable. Most people should study up on their faith. Catholicism places more emphasis on the mystical--experiencing God through prayer, life, and worship--and this experience may seem illogical, at least from a scientific standpoint, when compared with are more studious approach.
• 

  5go

  Simple for about the same reason Islam is making converts of Christians.

  Both JW's and Islam Believe in a single god no trinty. Trinity is killing the Catholic faith and all christian groups that are holding on to it. It makes no sence except to those who can trick themselves into overlooking the bible accounts to the contrary and the paradoxes of logic to believe it.

  Neither think Jesus is god though the witnesses hold to him being a divine being. Islam claims him a prophet and a adopted son of god.

  Neither think the earth will be totally destroyed it will be renewed after armageddon. What was the point of creating the earth if it was to be destroyed.

  BTW I am an Atheist. I am just pointing out the logic I don't believe it.
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  AH, then that makes sense. Yeah, from an atheist point of view I can see you point.
• 

  5go

  I can understand why people stay Catholic and Witnesses. I was a JW at one time. They have been told not to believe people like me, and they will stay that way until something forces them to stop obeying their leaders.
• 

  justhuman

  Both of them have left the original teachings of the Early Church...

  Catholics(Papal Church): Left the Church with the schisma confirmed around 1080A.D. As a result of this they lost the Apostolic succesion of the Church. Due to fact that Greek and Latin language have differences the Papal Church fell into serious misentepretations of the Bible.

  1.They insert the teaching of a burning hell and purgatory.

  2. The filioque - Holy Spirit is also coming from the Son and the Father

  3.The wrong intepretation of Mother Mother- worshiping her like God

  4. Pope is infallible

  This are the basic, but there are many others.

  Jehovahs Witnesse: Another sect of the thousand of Protestand sects that they came out from Papal Church...As a result of their Bible ignorance and intepretation they became a dooms day cult, with serious Bible errors...

  My question to the Protestants is very simple:

  1.WHO gave to you the Bible that you are claiming to follow?

  2.CAN you indicate a Bible verse that is telling us that ONLY the Bible is the Basis of the Christian faith?

  3.Did the Church has ever apostatized from the original teaching of Christ and the Apostles?

  Indeed tough questions... ignorance indeed is leading to a confusion. That is why we find so many Protestand sects.

  The Christian Church(Holy Catholic Apostolic Church - Orthodox) is there for 2000 years. It faced persecutions and sects and schisma.It managed to survive of 400 years of Othomanic occupation and persecution. The Bible it came out from the Church and trough the Church is given to the Christians. There are many other Apostolic Letters that they are not included in the Biblical Cannon, but it does not make them wrong. There are letters from the early succesors of the Apostles that indeed clearly showing us the Church NEVER left the true teachings. These teaching are preserved through writting documents and tradition.

  The Early Church fathers gathered this information that was scattered through the Roman Empire and set the Biblical Canon and the Christian faith, and this faith is kept for the last 2000 years...so if you want to accept the Bible you have to accept those who SET the Bible...

  Born in a Protestand sect(J.W'S) end stayed there until 33 indeed those questions above I seeked to find an answer. I couldn't believe that in the end I would become Orthodox because I was raized with the Protestand mentallity that there has been an apostasy of the Church. The real apostasy was the one I grew up...
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  Our most precious asset, especially for those of us who have left the Watchtower organization, is one another. While I believe it to be a good thing that we become settled in the philosophy or ideology of our choosing once we leave the Witnesses behind, and having a strong conviction in what we feel is good too, I am saddened and hurt by the occasional dogmatic condemnation of another faith by some.

  Whether the person is atheist, religious, or does not choose any type of label for themselves, if we have learned anything from our experience with the Witnesses, shouldn’t it be that all people are precious, have something to contribute to us and society, and if anything deserve the highest respect?

  As I’m fond of saying, the world is what we make of it. And while I think it good to always compare religious beliefs or ideologies in discussion (for you know we weren’t free to do so as Witnesses), we should always with humility admit that we often measure others by our limited exposure to data. I have been spending years of my life dedicated to professionally writing about religion and its effects on human history, and even I have to realize that my conclusions are always limited because there is always more data out there and never enough time to gather it all.

  While I admire Justhuman’s remarks and views, I have come to see a pattern not just on this board but in society in general that confuses me. Not to stand to make defense for the Catholic Church as the only religion by which to get saved (again, since the Witnesses I have passed that point regarding religions), but for the sake of accuracy and people’s desire for it.

  For example, Justhuman, Catholics do not believe in a literal fiery hell; they view hell as eternal existence without God (some Catholic theologians view it as equal to saying the person is non-existent). The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was not “inserted” by the Roman Church, but rather adopted from Judaism. They also don’t believe that the pope is infallible; instead they teach that a pope, by virtue of his office, can define doctrine in such a way that the teaching proves to be infallible (something that Catholics believe may have occurred in their history only four or five times looking back over some 2000 years).

  This is not to attack the beliefs of Justhuman (I have great respect for anyone who has the status of Master Member on this board), just to use them as example of what I’ve noticed just in this discussion. Many of the declarations of the Catholic Church are inaccurate and sound like JWs on anti-Catholic rhetoric instead of reliable information.

  Instead of offering lots of citations, I want to just say that if people want to know what an apple tastes like, they don’t go to an orange tree to sample it’s fruit. Neither do people go to a fig tree as if it can give people an accurate understanding of what apples taste like. You have to gather from the source to get the real story on an apple’s taste. The same thing applies to any religion or ideology, Christian, non-Christian, hated or otherwise. If you wanted to know the truth about how an atheist thinks, would you ask a Jehovah’s Witness? Can you learn the truth about Buddhism from Baptists? We would consider that foolish. I don’t expect anyone here to take my word on what I’ve pointed out regarding Catholic teachings (I do have to admit to being surprised however that people still got things so wrong as I consider others to be more in the know that I am), what I hope is that people will make the effort to go to the source themselves.

  I understand that we live in a nation still used to its Puritan roots of distrusting Catholicism, a place where anti-Catholic rhetoric is fine to repeat and make the butt of jokes and even insults. But would anybody stand for it if we were spreading anti-Semitic statements in the same way? Why even saying things disparaging regarding homosexuals is more than frowned upon! But it seems okay to show an anti-Catholic spirit, and this without most of us having our facts straight. Before we use the same techniques and rules of judging that the Watchtower often employs in viewing another religious system, perhaps we should make sure it is even ethically correct to do so.
• 

  5go

  Both of them have left the original teachings of the Early Church...

  agreed

  Though there is a problem how do you know that?

  The Early Church fathers gathered this information that was scattered through the Roman Empire and set the Biblical Canon and the Christian faith, and this faith is kept for the last 2000 years...so if you want to accept the Bible you have to accept those who SET the Bible...

  Woefully wrong.

  Development of the New Testament canon

  Main article: Development of the New Testament canon

  Although the Early Church used the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time. The development of the New Testament canon was, like that of the Old Testament, a gradual process.

  The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. [2] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly. [3] By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation [4] , see also Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. [5] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century. [6]

  In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, [7] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. [8] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. [9] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, [10] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. [11] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. [12] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." [13]

  Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), [14] and by the fifth century the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. [15] Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, [16] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox
• 

  Sad emo

  justhuman - Greek Orthodox rocks

  If there had been one of their churches around here when I left the RC's I may have joined. I do like their theology.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  I can think of a two particular differences between Catholics and JWs.

  1. The Catholics have been prepared to apologise when their priests abuse children. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6900129.stm
  2. The Catholics largely do not seek to gag the victims with a gagging order upon settlement and compensation. http://www.silentlambs.org/newsletter/NewsLetterItem.cfm?SendoutID=136

  Gary