by UnDisfellowshipped 11 Replies latest jw friends
Hi,
I'm hoping someone can help me.
I'm trying to find Quotes from the Watchtower Publications talking about how the Catholics are following men instead of Jesus, and how they almost worship the Pope, basically any Quotes like that where the Society condemns the Catholics for the same thing the Dubs do with the Governing Body.
Thanks :-)
One of my favorite places : http://www.quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/
Thanks!
Yes, I really love http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com , it's one of my favorite Websites.
I probably should E-Mail "Quotes" and ask him.
This is about changing doctrine. In this article the WT talks about the Catholics saying they should question their religion if what they are told today changes tomorrow! Can you believe they actually have the nerve to say that? It can be found at this site: http://home.online.no/~norhov/changes.htm
Was the title of an article in 22 of April 1970, Awake! Magazine. As the title indicates people became disturbed by certain changes. What changes? Let the Awake! Tell us:
"Changes That Disturb People
One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?"
Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8.
Oh yes, how awful. Millions of Catholics have of course been shocked by all the doctrine shifts of the church. How wonderful it must be a Jehovah's Witness because we all know that the Watchtower Society NEVER changes anything.
"Changes That Disturb People
A businessman in Medelln, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many. "Tell me," he asked, "how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe new things. How do I know the new things will be the truth in five years?" What are some of these changes that disturb people?"
Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8.
The businessman from Colombia certainly raised some interesting questions which indeed demands some answers. Maybe they should ring some bells with the JWs as well. Anyway, the changes that was so shocking to the poor Catholics was as follows:
"Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed. The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule? A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: "The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason." It adds: The "Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell."Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938)." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
Imagine that! Some Catholics even regarded this as "a law of Almighty God" and then (gasp) it was CHANGED!! No wonder they were upset. But Awake! continue to milk this subject for all its worth.
"Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell. But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolishedin France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. "All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat," explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. "Now I suddenly find out it isnt a sin. Thats hard to understand." If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a "mortal sin" can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: "I dont know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?"
Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?" Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
"Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.
What Becomes Evident
The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what Gods Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
This Awake! article indeed raises interesting and good questions. It would be very disturbing for a sincere Christian when the church to which he has belonged for many years claim that something is a deadly sin and then suddenly it isnt. This would be especially disturbing if that church claimed to be the only true Church. In defense of the Catholic Church it can be said that not eating meat on Fridays didnt put anybodys life in jeopardy. A stupid and inconvenient rule, yes, but hardly lethal.
The superior and indignant tone of the Awake! article indicates that something like this could of course not take place in the Watchtower Society. Jehovahs Organization are of course different from those "man made". To display such shifts in doctrine is of course unknown for Jehovahs "Channel of communication". Or is it?
Lets investigate and see what we will find. In the 60thies when transplants was in its beginning the Watchtower wrote:
"Questions from Readers
Is there anything in the Bible against giving ones eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person?L. C., United States.
The question of placing ones body or parts of ones body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at ones death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement." The Watchtower September 1, 1961, p. 480.
As correctly pointed out there wasnt anything in the Scriptures about this so it would be up to the individual, and there should be no criticism of the decision. Then in 1967 another Question from the readers gave this answer:
"Questions from Readers
Is there any Scriptural objection to donating ones body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?W. L., U.S.A.
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining ones life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.Gen. 9:5, 6. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic."
The Watchtower November 15, 1967, p. 702.
From being a question of individual conscience it was now regarded as cannibalism to accept transplants. If you remember one of the statements from the above Awake! article that said:
"For centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God."
So like these Catholics, Jehovahs Witnesses who had sincerely believed that transplants was up to them to decide, now very "sincerely" had to believe that it was cannibalism and "a law of the Almighty God". In obedience to the "Almighty" all Jehovah's Witnesses abstained from transplants. Compared to the "meat on Friday" business this was a much more serious matter, because it involved peoples health. But that didnt stop "Jehovahs Channel" in Brooklyn from continuing the tragedy. Then 13 years later it was time for Jehovahs Witnesses to once again "sincerely" believe that transplants "is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovahs Witnesses"
"Questions from Readers
Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovahs Witnesses. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
The Watchtower March 15. 1980, p. 31.
The Catholics "meat of Friday" change, completely pale in significance compared with this insane mess of wishy washy rules who puts peoples life and health in danger. Look at how the Awake! ridicule of the Catholics approach to the Bible:
"Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God."
Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
Oh, dear. You cant find anywhere in the Bible instructions about refraining "from eating meat on any Friday". Yet the same complete lack in the Bible of instructions about refraining from transplants, didnt stop the Governing Body from presenting them as "a law of Almighty God". That this so obviously wasnt "a requirement of God" didnt seem to bother them a bit. But of course Catholics has every reason for being disturbed and upset, Jehovah's Witnesses obviously have no reason for being disturbed and upset when the Watchtower Society makes far more serious doctrinal shifts.
"Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to Gods Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support. But there are other changes that are also disturbing people today." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
According to Awake! this shift in doctrine had the effect that "truth-seekers" now could se that: "the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to Gods Word." Apparently there is no reason for any "truth-seekers" to draw such conclusions about the Watchtower Society despite the fact that their changes are far more serious.
Imagine what would happen if a Witness "in Medelln, Colombia," had expressed these questions:
"how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Jehovahs Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the Governing Body and our elders are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe new things. How do I know the new things will be the truth in five years?"
Let us do another experiment, lets take another part of the Awake! article and substitute Catholic with Jehovah's Witnesses, etc and see how well these things fit the Watchtower:
"The Effect
The effect upon many devout Jehovahs Witnesses has been devastating. "All these years I thought it was a sin to take an organ transplant," explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. "Now I suddenly find out it isnt a sin. Thats hard to understand." If you are a Jehovahs Witness, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Society a "mortal sin" can suddenly be approved? If it was a sin 13 years ago, why is it not today? Many Jehovahs Witnesses cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her religion, she replied: "I dont know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people who was disfellowshipped for accepting an organ transplant?" Not just a few Jehovahs Witnesses have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Society. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?"
Why dont we see such relevant questions posed by Jehovahs Witnesses? Because the person asking them would immediately find himself outside the organization. It is only Catholics and others who can afford the luxury of being "disturbed" by doctrinal changes. And indeed ask such searching questions. Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't dare.
According to the Watchtower Society, Jehovahs Witnesses have no reason to ask questions. When the teachings of the Watchtower changes it is of course an entirely different matter. The inclination to question the teachings of your own religion only applies to everyone else. Under no circumstances does it apply to the individual Jehovah's Witness:
"Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovahs Witnesses?
The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) Thus, the prophets who were divinely inspired to write portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12) The apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12) The Bible shows that there would be a great increase in knowledge of the truth during "the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4) Increased knowledge often requires adjustments in ones thinking. Jehovahs Witnesses are willing humbly to make such adjustments."
Reasoning. 1985, 1989, p. 205
The Catholics not being Jehovahs servants cannot claim that they understand Gods purpose in a progressive manner. The excuse is that when the Prophets of old didnt understand what they were writing how can one expect that the GB should understand it? For some strange reason this excuse can't be used by the Catholic church. The Watchtower Society have time and time again demonstrated their inability to understand anything in the Bible. So when Catholics realized how utterly unbiblical the "meat on Friday" ban was and simply stopped the charade, that would lead to "truth-seekers" realizing that they was less than "strict" with the Bible. Jehovahs Witnesses are unlike these detestable Catholics "willing humbly to make adjustments."
The moral of this matter is that when other religions make doctrinal shifts, that is a a matter of great concern for their members who the has every reason to be upset, disturbed etc. Sincere "truth-seekers" should then realize that: "the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to Gods Word."
When Jehovahs Witnesses does much more serious full circle shifts from regarding transplant as a individual decision to regarding it as cannibalism back to being an individual choice. It is painted as understanding Gods purpose in a "progressive manner", and perfectly in order. You can say whatever you want about the Watchtower Society, but honesty isnt one of their most noticeable characters.
Brilliant post WTLies. Superb.
Mackin.
Fantastic WTLies ... I remember that article as well !
The Friday thing is still in place, formally. The spirit of sacrifice or fast is still asked for - but these days people don't consider meat abstinence to be a fitting thing to do universally - give me fish anyday - but not so in times past - people thought a lot of eating meat - so meat was it - I still try for the Friday meat trip - my mom sure does it.
It's not considered to be so sinful if you don't do it, but for an active / formal catholic, it does plainly express apathy to the catholic bond if you don't. But, aside from protest, to actively not do it as a way of saying, "I simply don't want to know you", well yeah, that's catholically antisocial ('sinful').
paduan
is fish not meat???
Libby
Dear UnDisfellowshipped:
Thank you for taking the time to do some research for the good of Apostacy. We here at the Quotes web site would love to hear from you and get your input, Brother Quotes is always looking forward to hearing from the Board members and can be reached at [email protected] and always responds!
Beans
Canadian Overbeer
I noticed too that the WBTS uses the word "adjustments" more often than the word "changes" when speaking of their own changes that they've made in doctine. Maybe that is for the sake of keeping it's followers from becoming too disturbed. If they should, then they should ADJUST their thinking! Because somehow, when the WBTS make changes, it is to be viewed as "an evidence of its faithfulness to Jehovah and his Word." How disturbing is that!?
Here are a few more on the topic of CHANGES. These are from a 1981 Watchtower.
WHY ADJUSTMENTS IN UNDERSTANDING?
Some may ask: If Jehovahs Witnesses are getting food at the proper time, why have their views on certain teachings changed from time to time? The Bible answers: The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established. (Prov. 4:18).
Because of human limitations, at times there may be an incomplete or incorrect understanding of some matter that may require correction later..
If an adjustment needs to be made, this class is humble and teachable enough to admit it and make such change as an evidence of its faithfulness to Jehovah and his Word.
peace,
sombody
Edited by - somebody on 25 August 2002 11:56:22
