While I keep in mind that this thread is about the writing style of Fred Franz rather than the legitimacy or otherwise of the Catholic Church, I would just note the similarity between the stance of the Watchtower that when something is right then it is due to study of the Bible and direction of the holy spirit and when it is wrong it is because they are not inspired and can make mistakes, and that of the Catholic Church which declares it is right because it can trace its authority back to Peter but when it gets it wrong then it is just human failure and nothing to do with the church. Both are a cop-out.
Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?
by SydBarrett 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
The Catholic Church has never claimed that every word or action of its leaders is infallible or guided by the Holy Spirit. What it does teach—clearly and precisely—is that when the Church, through the pope or an ecumenical council, intends to teach definitively on faith or morals, it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Christ’s promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail" against His Church (Matthew 16:18) and that the Spirit would guide the Church "into all truth" (John 16:13). Outside of those specific, narrowly defined cases, Church leaders, even popes, can and have erred personally, morally, and even theologically. But this is no contradiction—it’s the distinction between the human and divine elements of the Church. The Watchtower, by contrast, makes sweeping claims about being God’s sole channel and requires absolute doctrinal obedience to ever-changing interpretations, and when proven wrong, retreats behind the claim that they were never infallible in the first place. That’s not a parallel to Catholic teaching—it’s equivocation. Catholicism offers a consistent theological framework grounded in Scripture, history, and reason; it doesn't claim divine protection over everything done by its members, only over what Christ Himself promised to preserve: the deposit of faith.
-
vienne
your view of Catholicism "as it is" is similar to a Roman believing in the old Gods because everyone says they're real.
Thanks Slim. He got it wrong as it always does.
-
vienne
I should add that nothing I wrote derived from or remotely resembles anything Hyslop wrote.
-
aqwsed12345
Appealing to the age of Romanism is a false argument. The Bible says Satan is extremely ancient. That does not make him holy, God ordained, or any such thing. The argument from age is misdirected.
Catholics do not argue that the Catholic Church is true simply because it is old, as if mere antiquity guaranteed holiness or divine origin. Rather, the point is more precise and vital: the Catholic Church’s age is not just a measure of years but a testimony to its continuous and institutional existence since the very foundation of Christianity by Jesus Christ. It is not the sheer length of time that matters, but the fact that the Catholic Church alone traces its origin in an unbroken line back to the very beginning of the Church at Pentecost in AD 33, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and the Church was publicly inaugurated.
If the Catholic Church were simply an old institution among many others, or if it had been founded, say, 300 years after Christ, then it would have no more claim to divine truth than any other ancient religion or system. Similarly, if the Catholic Church had originated before Christ, as an institution completely disconnected from the events of the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection, its antiquity would be irrelevant. What is crucial is that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ, preserved through history by apostolic succession, protected by Christ’s promises that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), and sustained by the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding it "into all truth" (John 16:13). The Church’s continuity is not simply historical but theological, rooted in divine promises and sacramental reality.
This is why Catholics insist on examining the origin of any Christian community. Any church that can be shown to have arisen later in history, detached from apostolic succession, is necessarily disqualified from being the true Church established by Christ. It is not enough to claim to teach the Bible or to speak about Jesus. Even Satan quoted Scripture to Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6). The question is institutional and sacramental: which Church today is in organic continuity with the apostolic Church of the first century? Only the Catholic Church, together with the Eastern Orthodox (who share the same apostolic succession but are separated from full communion), can make a credible historical claim to such continuity. Every Protestant denomination, by contrast, arose from a rupture, a break from existing ecclesial authority, in the sixteenth century or later. This is not a matter of opinion but of plain historical record.
When we ask about any institution — whether a church, a movement, a school of thought — the founding date and the mode of its founding are essential to its legitimacy. If an organization claims to be founded by Christ Himself, it must show that it existed continuously from the time of Christ. A later invention, however noble its aspirations, simply cannot be the same institution that Jesus personally established. Therefore, it is not simply that the Catholic Church is "old"; it is that it is the Church Christ Himself founded, existing uninterruptedly across the centuries, through apostolic succession, sacramental life, and fidelity to the apostolic deposit of faith.
Protestantism, on the other hand, is historically traceable not to the first century but to the sixteenth-century Reformation. Before Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, there were no Protestant churches. If Protestantism had been the true Christianity, we would expect to see Protestant beliefs institutionalized and continuously taught from the beginning. But history shows that Protestant doctrines — sola scriptura, sola fide, the rejection of sacramental grace, denial of apostolic succession — were novel interpretations, innovations that departed from the consistent faith of the early Church Fathers and the councils.
Thus, the Catholic appeal to historical continuity is not a fallacious appeal to mere antiquity. It is an appeal to the promises of Christ that His Church would endure until the end of time without failing, and to the fact that this Church must have visible, historical, institutional continuity with the Church of the apostles. This is why Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you" (John 17:21), and why Saint Paul describes the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). A fragmented Christianity with churches popping up centuries later, each with conflicting doctrines, cannot be what Christ intended.
Therefore, to dismiss the Catholic Church’s continuity as irrelevant because "Satan is also ancient" is to miss the real issue entirely. Satan's age testifies only to his rebellion and ongoing opposition to God's plan. The Catholic Church's age, on the other hand, testifies to the fidelity of Christ to His own promise, the action of the Holy Spirit in history, and the Church's role as the authentic custodian of the gospel. It is not about being old; it is about being the same Church — visibly, organically, and sacramentally — that Christ Himself founded for the salvation of the world.
-
Duran
I’ll stand with Christ and His Church. You can keep shouting at the walls. It won't change reality. The Catholic Church remains — despite persecution, heresy, scandal, and every attack from enemies ancient and modern — because she is the Church founded by Christ Himself. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.
Don't you mean you will bow down...
-
dropoffyourkeylee
If I ever start believing Catholicism is any better than JWism, just shoot me. Both are total bullshit
-
aqwsed12345
Of course I kneel before the altar and the Eucharist, but I haven't had the opportunity to meet the Pope yet, but of course I would kiss the Ring of the Fisherman.
Why do people kiss the Pope’s ring? -
Sea Breeze
Protestantism, on the other hand, is historically traceable not to the first century but to the sixteenth-century Reformation. Before Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, there were no Protestant churches.
True, but there were new testament bible believers who never protested the RCC because they were never affiliated with it in the first place.
"The Reformers and Their Step-Children" is a must-read for every Christian. It traces much church history that has been wiped out, forgotten, or just never fully brought to light.
-
Balaamsass2
:) How did a question about Fred Franz, Watchtowers' pretend Greek Scholar and 1st year college drop out, become a discussion about the Catholic Church???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Franz
A great thread from 20 years ago. : https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87785/cult-four-just-imperfect-men
