by aqwsed12345 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
'By this all will know (even the angels will know) that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves ' , quick Google shows that JWs are not known for that reason at all, I don't know anyone non JW who has ever noted that about JWs, it's always about knocking on doors and blood. I do know of individuals who are motivated by love, but as a group, that's not the case.
Love is not the identifying trate that sets them apart as wheat from weeds.
Jesus talked about wheat. Russell thought he meant Miracle Wheat.
@Rattigan350
From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there’s roughly an 1800-year historical gap, as they exclusively focus on the "first-century" Christianity, making entirely arbitrary claims about it. This implies that they believe Christianity had essentially "collapsed" by the early 2nd century. It's no surprise they say this because even the earliest extra-biblical external and proto-orthodox sources consistently depict a type of Christianity that is uncomfortably far removed from what the Watchtower claims about the faith and religious life of early Christianity, yet very close to what Catholicism represents. Thus, they consider second-century Christianity to be completely degenerate and "apostate." Cf. No true Scotsman.
The question then arises: where exactly does the Bible mention this gap? Why doesn’t it contain instructions on what to do if you happen to live during this 1900-year period, and similar concerns?
Additionally, another thought just came to mind. According to the Watchtower, the Book of Revelation was written in 96 AD. In chapters 2 and 3, John receives instructions from Christ to write seven letters to seven churches in Asia Minor. Why didn’t Jesus inform them in these letters not to bother much, since they only had four years left before the church would collapse for 1800 years? Why does He encourage them in various ways when, in a few years, they would have to shut everything down anyway? Moreover, according to the Watchtower, as long as John was alive, the wicked "apostates" couldn’t take control (afterwards, they supposedly did almost immediately, and no one noticed that the Bible and the doctrinal system had been altered). How did John manage to prevent this from happening across the entire Roman Empire from the island of Patmos, and how did he attend the supposed (and continuously meeting) "Governing Body" in Jerusalem, and who did they appoint when all the other apostles had been dead for decades?
The parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) is indeed a powerful metaphor used by Jesus to describe the growth of His kingdom and the opposition it would face. However, it's crucial to understand that this parable doesn't suggest a complete "extinction" of the true Church at any point. Jesus is not suggesting that the true Church would "disappear" or be overrun entirely by false Christians. Instead, the parable teaches that within the world (and even within the visible Church), there would be both genuine believers (wheat) and false believers (weeds) until the end of the age. It shows that true believers ("wheat") and false believers or adversaries ("weeds") would coexist within the visible Church until the end of time when God will separate them.
Jesus’ explanation of the parable (Matthew 13:36-43) emphasizes that the separation of the wheat and the weeds will occur at the final judgment, not that the true Church would "vanish" and later "reappear". The true Church, represented by the wheat, remains present even if it is mixed with weeds. This implies continuity, not a cessation of the true faith.
Nowhere in the parable does Jesus imply that the wheat ("true" Christians) would "disappear" or be completely "overrun" by weeds ("false" Christians). The wheat and the weeds grow together until the final judgment (the harvest), which indicates that the true Church has always existed alongside false teachings and impostors but has never ceased to exist.
Christianity, by its very nature, is based on the continuity of the apostolic teaching. Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). This promise implies a continuous presence and preservation of the Church throughout history, without interruption.
One of the key teachings of Christianity is apostolic succession, the belief that the authority given to the apostles by Christ has been handed down through successive generations of bishops and Church leaders. This chain of succession is seen as vital for preserving the integrity and teachings of the Church. Historic churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and some Protestant denominations maintain this concept. This succession is evidence of continuity, which means that true Christianity did not disappear, even amid the rise of heresies or corruptions.
The idea that the true Church practically ceased to exist for centuries and was only “revived” by Charles Taze Russell is not consistent with historical Christianity or Jesus' promises. From the time of the apostles, there has been an unbroken line of Christian teaching, even through periods of difficulty and corruption within the Church. The early Church fathers, councils, and creeds all testify to the ongoing life and doctrinal consistency of the Church.
For Christianity to be genuine, it must be continuous, handed down from generation to generation. The idea of a “great apostasy” that entirely wiped out true Christianity until the 19th century when Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) revived it is problematic. It would mean that for almost two millennia, Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18—that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"—was broken. Yet, Jesus promised that He would be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20), and the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth (John 16:13).
Historical records show that despite challenges and internal conflicts, the Christian Church maintained the apostolic faith across the centuries. The early Church faced numerous heresies, but it consistently defined and defended the true faith through councils, writings, and the witness of the saints. This continuous presence refutes the idea that “true” Christianity was “lost” and only “rediscovered” in the end of the 19th century.
Throughout history, the Church has indeed faced challenges, false teachings, and divisions (heresies, schisms, etc.), but at no point did the Church cease to exist. From the early councils, such as Nicaea in 325 AD, to later movements, Christians have continually gathered in unity under the teachings of the apostles, defending orthodoxy against heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism. This shows the Church's resilience and continuity.
Early Christian writings from the Church Fathers, such as Augustine, Athanasius, and Irenaeus, provide an unbroken line of theological teaching that reflects the beliefs of the apostles. These writings contradict the claim that "true" Christianity "disappeared" and was only "revived" in the 19th century. These theologians and their works represent the continuous presence of true Christianity, long before any claim of a “great apostasy.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that directly after the apostles' death, Christianity fell into “apostasy” and did not recover until Charles Taze Russell "rediscovered" “true” Christianity in the 19th century. This view contradicts Jesus’ promise that He would be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
There is no historical evidence that Christianity completely fell into "apostasy" or that Russell’s interpretation represents the recovery of "original" Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses rely on their interpretation of history and Scripture, but this interpretation is not supported by the continuous witness of the Church throughout history.
The idea that Christianity needed to be "restored" centuries later implies that God allowed His Church to be completely corrupted for almost 2,000 years, which contradicts the scriptural promise of divine protection and guidance. Restorationist movements like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and others each claim they are the true restoration, but they diverge significantly in theology, further weakening their claims.
Charles Taze Russell and his followers did not “restore” original Christianity; rather, they introduced new interpretations that diverged from historic Christian teachings. Russell’s theology, including his rejection of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the interpretation of the end times, represented a significant departure from the teachings of the early Church and the broader Christian tradition.
The claim that Russell’s movement made the “wheat” discernible from the “weeds” is based on a subjective interpretation that lacks historical support. The Christian Church had always recognized true believers within its fold, despite the presence of false teachings or unfaithful members. The Church’s ability to preserve core doctrines through ecumenical councils and creeds shows that it remained faithful to the apostolic teaching.
Claiming that Jesus' parable of the wheat and weeds justifies a belief in the “great apostasy” and “restoration” is a selective interpretation. The Church has historically interpreted this parable to mean that good and evil will coexist within the visible Church until the final judgment, not that true Christianity would disappear.
The idea of a total "apostasy" followed by a restoration through Charles Taze Russell lacks both scriptural and historical support. The continuous existence of the Church, despite challenges, heresies, and divisions, affirms Jesus’ promise that His Church would endure. The parable of the wheat and weeds demonstrates that true believers and false teachers would coexist within the Church (cf. "corpus permixtum"), not that the true Church would vanish. True Christianity has been preserved and handed down from the apostolic age to the present through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the faithful transmission of doctrine.
The notion that the true Church disappeared and was later restored by Charles Taze Russell contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the historical continuity of the Christian faith. The parable in Matthew 13 does not suggest a disappearance of the true Church but rather illustrates that the true believers would always be present, even amid false teachings. The Christian Church has existed continuously since the time of the apostles, preserving the core truths of the faith without interruption.
Not that anyone is really going to change their mind but consider that in the wheat/weed parable the field was 'Israel'. The 'time of the harvest' was thought of as imminent. The writer understood himself to be standing at the end of a long wait (not the beginning) for God to sort the 'true' Israel from the larger Jewish/Christian population. That's standard sectarian language. It has perfect parallels with Qumran writings for example.
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises, “I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (NWT) This promise is important because it shows that Christ’s presence and guidance would never leave His followers. This assurance directly contradicts the idea that true Christianity disappeared or was in apostasy from the second century until 1919. If Christ promised to remain with His Church "all the days," then there could not have been an 1800-year gap in true Christian practice.
Furthermore, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 charges the apostles and their successors to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded. This commission would be ongoing throughout history, and Christ's promise guarantees that He would always be present with His Church as it fulfilled this mission.
One of the most fundamental contradictions in this claim is Christ’s explicit promise in Matthew 28:20: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This is a direct assurance from Jesus that He would be with His followers continuously—not just until the second century and then absent until 1919. It’s illogical to suggest that true Christianity ceased for centuries, because Christ guaranteed His presence with the Church at all times.
If we accept the idea of a total apostasy for over 1,700 years, it implies that Christ’s promise to be with His Church was either ineffective or untrue. That, however, contradicts the teachings of the Bible itself. Matthew 16:18 reinforces this, where Jesus says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” His Church. This signifies a Church that withstands every form of opposition throughout history—not one that vanishes until restored in the 20th century.
The parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 speaks of both the wheat (true believers) and the weeds (false Christians) growing together until the time of harvest. Importantly, the parable never suggests that the wheat (the true Church) would disappear or be hidden. Jesus commands His workers to let both the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest. This means that there would always be a presence of true believers even amidst the false ones.
The notion that there were no identifiable true Christians for centuries contradicts this parable, which emphasizes that both groups—faithful and unfaithful—would coexist throughout history. Nowhere does Jesus suggest a 1,700-year absence of true Christians, only to be restored in 1919.
The parable actually points to the coexistence of true believers (the wheat) and false believers (the weeds) throughout history. It does not suggest that the true believers (the wheat) disappear entirely or become undetectable for a period of nearly two millennia.
Instead, Jesus explicitly says that both the wheat and the weeds will grow together until the harvest, which symbolizes the end of the age. Nowhere in the parable does it suggest that the wheat is completely overrun by the weeds, rendering true Christianity extinct. The idea that true Christianity was absent until 1919 is a distortion of the parable’s meaning.
The Jehovah's Witness interpretation claims that from the second century onwards, there was a total spiritual captivity until the “cleansing” began in 1914. However, historical evidence, including the writings of the early Church Fathers and the outcomes of Church councils (e.g., the Nicene Creed), show that the core doctrines of Christianity—such as the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and salvation through grace—were consistently upheld, defended, and developed. True Christianity was preserved through many faithful believers, including martyrs, saints, and theologians who contributed to the continuity of Christian doctrine.
Additionally, Ephesians 3:21 says, "To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen." This verse reinforces that God’s glory would remain in His Church through all generations, without interruption, indicating a continuity of true Christianity that is incompatible with the claim of a centuries-long apostasy.
The idea that Jesus inspected the spiritual temple between 1914 and 1919, and that true Christianity was restored after this period, is based on speculative interpretations and lacks any clear biblical foundation. There is no biblical prophecy that refers to 1914 or 1919 as significant dates for spiritual restoration or a re-establishment of true Christianity.
The early Christians believed in the imminent return of Christ, but they did not set specific dates for the restoration of the Kingdom. The attempt to fix 1914 or 1919 as prophetic markers is arbitrary and rests on a selective reading of certain Scriptures, such as Malachi 3:1-4 and Matthew 24:45-47, which are taken out of context to fit a particular narrative.
The notion that 1914 marked the establishment of God’s Kingdom and that 1919 was the year true Christianity was restored is not supported by any biblical texts. These dates are based on speculative interpretations rather than explicit prophecies. While Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to link Malachi 3:1-4 and Matthew 24:45-47 to these events, there is no clear or consistent biblical basis for assigning such significance to these years.
The Bible gives no indication that a 1,900-year gap in true worship was prophesied, nor does it suggest that Jesus began an "inspection" of the Church starting in 1914. The early Christian community never saw the need to identify specific years for Christ’s rule in heaven, because they believed in the imminent return of Christ and in the continual presence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that “Babylon the Great,” representing "false religion", held all Christians captive from the second century until 1919. However, this view lacks scriptural support and disregards the constant presence of faithful Christians throughout history who resisted doctrinal error. Even during periods of corruption or political interference, there were always reformers, saints, and theologians who defended the faith and upheld true Christian teachings.
Furthermore, the Bible warns against false teachings and apostasy (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1), but it never suggests that all Christians would fall away, leaving no true believers until the 20th century. Jude 3 urges believers to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints,” indicating that the true faith was already fully established in the first century and would continue to be preserved.
The idea that God’s true people were restored in 1919 after a long period of spiritual captivity has no biblical foundation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses base this belief on a selective and allegorical interpretation of Ezekiel 37 and other prophetic passages, but there is no biblical prophecy that specifically points to 1919 as the year of restoration.
The vision in Ezekiel 37 about dry bones coming to life speaks of the restoration of Israel, not a future period of "captivity" and "restoration" for Christianity. Applying this to the period between the second century and 1919 is a misapplication of the text. Historically, many Christian denominations, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches, trace their roots back to the apostles and maintained a continuous presence long before 1919.
Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones pertains directly to the restoration of Israel, not a metaphorical resurrection of Christians after an alleged "apostasy". The context makes it clear that this prophecy addresses the physical and spiritual renewal of the nation of Israel after their captivity in Babylon (Ezekiel 37:11). The vision symbolizes Israel’s return from exile and the promise of their renewal as a people in their own land. It is not connected to a supposed spiritual revival of Christianity in the 20th century.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the events of 1919 marked the end of the "spiritual captivity" and the restoration of God’s people. However, there is no scriptural foundation to link the vision in Ezekiel with events in 1919. The interpretation that the bones’ revival represents a spiritual awakening led by Jehovah's Witnesses is entirely speculative and lacks any direct biblical support. This prophecy was fulfilled with the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon in 537 B.C., and its primary application remains within the historical context of ancient Israel.
Jehovah's Witnesses often draw parallels between the captivity of Israel and the so-called spiritual captivity of the Church from the 2nd century until 1919. Yet, these events are unrelated. The exile of Israel is a specific historical event, while the idea that the Church was in "captivity" to Babylon the Great is not clearly supported in scripture. Furthermore, claiming that this "captivity" ended in 1919 is based on Watchtower doctrine rather than on any biblical prophecy.
The New Testament consistently portrays the Church as a visible, ongoing reality. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul refers to the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." This implies that the Church is not some hidden, invisible entity, but rather a visible community of believers who preserve and proclaim the truth. The idea that there were no true Christians for almost 1800 years contradicts the role of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” throughout history.
Moreover, Jesus promised that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). This statement assures us that no force—whether external persecution or internal corruption—would ever fully overcome the Church. The idea that all Christianity fell into apostasy for such an extended period contradicts this promise.
Church history provides ample evidence of continuity in Christian belief and practice. Despite periods of corruption, schism, and heresy, the core doctrines of Christianity were preserved, particularly through the work of Church councils, theologians, and saints. Key doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the authority of Scripture were maintained and clarified over time, showing that the Church has been faithful to the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
If true Christianity had disappeared for centuries, as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then we would expect no records of faithful believers, no preservation of Scripture, and no defense of core doctrines. However, history shows the opposite: a continuous witness to the faith through the writings of Church Fathers, councils, creeds, and the lives of countless saints.
The assertion that there were no true Christians from the second century to 1919 flies in the face of historical evidence. Throughout these centuries, we have extensive records of Christian councils, theological writings, and saints who upheld Christian teachings. The early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus—all from the second century—wrote extensively about Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the role of the Church. Their writings and the establishment of Christian communities across the Roman Empire indicate the presence of a living, active Christian Church.
Additionally, the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, which affirmed key Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, was a product of this continuing faith. If true Christianity had been lost for centuries, there would be no coherent transmission of these core beliefs, yet these doctrines were faithfully upheld and defended by the Church during that period.
The idea that true Christianity disappeared from the second century until 1919 and was only restored through the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not supported by Scripture or history. Jesus promised that His Church would endure, and history bears witness to the faithful preservation of Christian doctrine and practice. The parable of the wheat and weeds does not imply a complete apostasy, and the arbitrary date of 1919 lacks any biblical or historical basis. True Christianity has remained alive and well since Christ founded His Church, and the gates of hell have not, and will not, prevail against it.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of Ezekiel 37 to justify their belief in the Great Apostasy and their own role as the restored congregation is an interpretive stretch that disregards the original context of Ezekiel’s prophecy and Christ’s assurance of the Church’s endurance. The idea of a nearly 1800-year gap of true Christianity is not supported by scripture and conflicts with Jesus' promise of His Church’s preservation.
The Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of a total apostasy from the second century until 1919 cannot be reconciled with the promises of Christ, the historical evidence of continuous Christianity, or the parable of the wheat and weeds. True Christianity has never disappeared, and Christ’s presence with His Church has been constant throughout history. The dates of 1914 and 1919 are arbitrary and unsupported by Scripture, and the claim that all Christians were held in spiritual captivity until 1919 contradicts the biblical teaching of the Church as the perpetual and visible body of Christ.
It's time you find what the Bible actually teaches instead of looking to a religion that rapes children, steals from the poor, teaches falsehood and consorts with criminals.
Famous last words, vienne, considering your allegiance to the Watchtower Society's religion ...
You know, I agree with your well-thought-out apologetics in showing that the JWs are a false religious organization. It just seems to me though that in defending the Roman Catholic Church as "true" church it is following the same lines of reasoning that the JWs use to prove THEY are the "true" church. It's like substituting the Catholic Church for the "faithful and discreet slave"--I feel like you are just replacing one organization for another, when the bible is very clear that we are not saved by our church affiliation but by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ by His grace.
You seem to be very adamant that a historical apostolic succession is needed to establish the validity of Christ's church and that in proving this, you conclude that the Catholic Church is the "one true church." You said:
"The deep understanding of theological issues is often complex and requires a thorough knowledge of Scripture and tradition. The interpretation of the Catholic Church, for example, is based on the continuity of apostolic teachings and the traditions of the Church Fathers, providing a reliable and consistent framework for interpretation."
But please consider: the religious leaders of Jesus' day had succession of high priests and the teachings of Moses, and they had tons of tradition to help them "understand" their own scriptures. Yet Jesus told them that:
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." [Jhn 5:39–40]
"But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." [Mat 22:29]
"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!" [Mar 7:6–9]
So, how can you argue succession and tradition prove the Catholic Church is the only true church, when Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees who claimed succession from the teachings of Moses, the prophets, and their learned rabbis? And used their tradition to nullify the commandments of God?
@LauraLynn
First of all, let me offer you an article:
Your argument highlights an important concern regarding the role of tradition and apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, drawing parallels between the religious leaders of Jesus' time and the Church today. However, there are several key distinctions that address this issue, especially when comparing the Pharisees' misuse of tradition with the legitimate role of apostolic succession and tradition in the Catholic Church.
It’s important to clarify the nature of apostolic succession in the Catholic Church. Unlike the Pharisees, who distorted the Law of Moses with legalistic traditions that obscured God’s will, apostolic succession is not about adding human traditions that nullify God's commandments. Instead, apostolic succession is about preserving the faithful transmission of the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed down through the apostles, without distortion.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for creating extra laws and traditions that contradicted the spirit of the Law. However, the apostles received direct teachings from Christ, and the Catholic Church sees itself as the custodian of those teachings, faithfully transmitting them throughout history, without altering their essence.
The difference here is that while the Pharisees built a legalistic system that obscured God’s love and mercy, the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, is committed to guarding and teaching the core truths of the Gospel as given by Christ Himself.
The Catholic Church doesn’t view tradition as something that contradicts or adds to Scripture, but rather as something that works in harmony with it. The Church teaches that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two sources of divine revelation, both of which originate from Christ and are guided by the Holy Spirit. This understanding is derived from passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the believers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
The Pharisees, on the other hand, were criticized for traditions that directly contradicted the Word of God, like creating loopholes that allowed people to avoid caring for their parents (Mark 7:10-13). Catholic Tradition, however, never contradicts Scripture; rather, it complements it by providing the interpretive framework handed down from the apostles, which helps believers understand and apply Scripture properly.
When Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His time, He wasn’t condemning the idea of authority or succession itself. In fact, Jesus affirmed the legitimate authority of the scribes and Pharisees when He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice” (Matthew 23:2-3). His condemnation was directed at their hypocrisy and failure to live according to the spirit of the law they claimed to represent.
The Catholic Church recognizes the danger of hypocrisy and has always taught that its leaders are not infallible in their personal actions but only when teaching doctrine in union with the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession, in the Catholic view, is not about power or status; it is about faithfully guarding and passing on the Gospel.
One central misunderstanding is the idea that faith in Christ alone, without any ecclesial or communal dimension, is sufficient. While faith in Christ is essential for salvation, Christ explicitly founded a visible Church on Peter and the apostles to guide His followers (Matthew 16:18). He didn’t leave the interpretation of Scripture and His teachings up to individuals alone. Instead, He gave His apostles authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 18:18) and to teach in His name, promising that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
This visible, structured Church is necessary to prevent division and ensure unity in the faith. Without it, Christianity becomes subject to countless interpretations, leading to confusion and division—as we see in the many different Protestant denominations today. Apostolic succession ensures that the Church remains united in faith and teaching, as Christ intended.
The Catholic Church’s claim to be the "one true church" is rooted not in any self-imposed authority but in its historical continuity with the apostles. This continuity is not something the Church invented to maintain power, but something that goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, recognized by early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus, who wrote extensively on the importance of maintaining apostolic teaching and succession to guard against heresies.
The argument that the Catholic Church’s claims resemble those of Jehovah’s Witnesses is flawed because the Catholic Church’s claims are based on historical and scriptural continuity that has been recognized and upheld throughout Christian history. The claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, are a relatively modern invention that deviates from both historical Christianity and biblical teaching.
Finally, while the Catholic Church teaches that it is the visible body of Christ on earth, it does not teach that salvation is tied to mere membership in the Church. The Church emphasizes that salvation comes through Christ alone, by His grace, through faith. However, the Church also teaches that Christ uses His Church as the ordinary means of salvation, through the sacraments, teaching, and community life. The Church exists to point people to Christ and to help them live out their faith in communion with Him and with one another.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church rests on the foundation of apostolic succession, continuity of teaching, and fidelity to Christ’s commands. This is fundamentally different from the claims of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have introduced novel interpretations and have no historical connection to the apostolic faith. The Catholic Church is not substituting Christ for an institution, but rather, it is the instrument Christ Himself established to preserve His teachings and guide His followers throughout history.
There are modern churches and movements that, while not explicitly subscribing to Donatism, reflect similar ideas in their attitudes toward the Catholic Church. Many fundamentalist, neo-Protestant, and Restorationist communities emphasize their identity by contrasting themselves with what they perceive as the moral failures of the Catholic Church. A key part of this identity is anti-Catholicism, often expressed through a narrative that says, "They are so bad, but look how good we are."
This is why such groups frequently focus on leyenda negra myths, painting a black-and-white picture of the "evil" Catholic Church, especially during the so-called "Dark Ages." They often emphasize historical episodes like the Inquisition, portraying the Church as morally corrupt without nuance or historical context. Similarly, they take satisfaction in modern clergy scandals—particularly those involving sexual misconduct—amplified by the mainstream media’s sensational coverage.
This moral judgment of the Church, where its legitimacy is assessed solely on the personal sins of its members or leaders, is very much a form of modern Donatism. In Donatist thinking, the moral purity of the Church's members or leadership determines the Church's legitimacy. This is the same underlying principle many of these movements apply when they claim that the Catholic Church's historical sins or scandals invalidate its authority or teachings.
However, in contrast to this mindset, the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of the corpus permixtum—that the Church is a "mixed body" of both sinners and saints. The moral failings of individual members or leaders do not affect the Church’s overall legitimacy or the truth of its doctrines. Christ established the Church with the understanding that sin would exist within it, yet He also promised that the Church’s mission and foundation would remain intact, regardless of human failure (cf. Matthew 16:18).
So, while these modern movements may not officially label themselves Donatists, their approach to assessing the Church’s validity based on moral grounds reflects the same error the Donatists made centuries ago.
The Historically Reality is that there was no single "Christianity" in the 1st Century C.E, there were a good number of competing "Christian " groups. The Epistles of John and other N.T verses make this very plain.
So there was nothing to be an Apostate from that we can view as pure or original. The Christian group that prevailed over others they considered were heretics, was the group who styled themselves as "Orthodox" , meaning "Right way".
They proceeded to corrupt Scripture, as Bart Ehrman has ably shown in his Book, and to dictate what was correct Doctrine in their view.
So this is the only late 1st Century and 2nd Century group it was possible to be an Apostate from !
And there was no continuity in the holding of doctrines and interpretations etc. in this group ! It all constantly changed.
The idea of the "Great Apostasy" is a Myth.
