Similarities between Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses!

by inquirer 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • luna2
    luna2

    I grew up protestant. We protestants knew the Catholic Church was corrupt. They worshipped statues, they said prayers to Jesus' mother and other saints, they confessessed their sins to men in black with little white collars who handed out forgiveness as if they had that right. Still, for all that I couldn't bring myself to believe the way they believed, I envied my Catholic neighbers because they knew what their religion required. They knew what God expected from them.

    It's interesting that when I decided to become religious as an adult, I found myself a mirror image of Catholicism to join up with.

  • inquirer
    inquirer

    POLE --
    Ok, what about the differences? My favourite one is this:

    I have no major problems living in a 95% catholic country as an ex-Catholic.

    Imagine living in a country where 95% are active dubs and you are an ex-one.

    I think that says it all. Catholicism as a whole is a mainstream religion with minor cult-like varieties, JWs are a cult as a whole with some individuals beign more mainstream than the majority.

    I don't give a rat's ass about the other doctrinal differences. Of course one can get excited about them if one's bent on proving the supreme nature of being a protestant. Have fun.

    Pole


    Inq--
    Hi Pole,

    I didn't mean get anybody annoyed, I just posted that because JW's always make out they are different and clearly they are not!

    Aren't you surprised by the similarities? This guy also says on his site MOST JW'S WERE CATHOLICS!

  • inquirer
    inquirer

    sALLYsUE

    A big DIFFERENCE

    JW's HATE Catholics BUT Catholics do NOT hate JW's...


    Inq -- I'd have to disagree with that. Historically, Catholics have gone out and killed people ALL who didn't share their beliefs... Wycliffe, Luther... and burn people at the stake.... They hate everyone too who's not Catholic in my opinion.

  • inquirer
    inquirer

    Midget-Sasquatch

    Alright give me all the examples from Roman Catholicism that you can come up with. Bear in mind they've been around for nearly two millenia. Even if you could come up with a handful, wouldn't that be like comparing a dripping faucet to a gushing fountain?


    Inq -- Well, don't you agree with the similarities I posted? Remember it was a site that I found. I didn't say it. I thought about before I saw this site and then I was surprised that someone agreed with me.

    OF COURSE THERE ARE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES! But get this. They agree that the proper name of God is Jehovah!

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
    Jehovah (Yahweh)

    The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).

    Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai—usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.
    __

    I know this was the 1914 edition and later in the French-based New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible use the term Yahweh, it still says it! They would have known a lot about JW's at that time and had no problem using it then!

    Even that's a similarity! Catholics have been more accepting of putting the divine name in their Bible since the late 1900's!

    So there is another similarity for you!

    I think even the way they vote on the GB is similiar to Catholics... That 2/3 majority rule? I don't know about that one.

    Their preaching methods are frietenly different! But they are both very active in the world community. Everyone knows this!

  • inquirer
    inquirer

    I MUST STRESS THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES so people won't take the wrong meaning of me!!!

    These are things JW's would NEVER DO!


    CRUCIFIXES
    TRINITY
    IMAGES
    CATHOLIC WORKMEN'S CLUBS
    FIGHTING IN WAR TIME
    MARY WORSHIP
    NUNS WEARING "VEIL SUITS"/PRIESTS WEARING "PRIEST SUITS."
    APOCRYPHA
    ACCEPT BLOOD MEDICALLY
    HELL FIRE
    PERGATORY



  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem

    Well, at least the JW's are allowed to wear condoms.

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee

    The Catholic Church vs. The Organization

    A History Of Christianity, Paul Johnson, pages 59,60 (ISBN 0684815036) Cyprian reasoned as follows. The Church was a divine institution; the Bride of Christ; Mother , the mediatrix of all salvation. It was one, undivided and catholic [universal]. Only in association with her could Catholics have life. Outside her holy fellowship there was nothing but error and darkness. The sacraments, Episcopal ordination, the confession of faith, even the Bible itself, lost their meaning if used outside the true Church . The Church was also a human, visible community, found only in organized form. The individual could not be saved by direct contact with God. The carefully graded hierarchy, without which the organized Church could not exist, was established by Christ and the apostles. . . .the only unambiguous instruction [the Scriptures] contained being to remain faithful to the Church and obey it’s rules. With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church ; it was retained only by the bishops [overseers], through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of church members.

    Replacing “Church” with “Organization”, you get an idea of the similarities:

    Cyprian reasoned as follows. The Organization was a divine institution; the Bride of Christ; Mother Organization , the mediatrix of all salvation. It was one, undivided and catholic [universal]. Only in association with her could Catholics have life. Outside her holy fellowship there was nothing but error and darkness. The sacraments, Episcopal ordination, the confession of faith, even the Bible itself, lost their meaning if used outside the true Organization . The Organization was also a human, visible community, found only in organized form. The individual could not be saved by direct contact with God. The carefully graded hierarchy, without which the organized Organization could not exist, was established by Christ and the apostles. . . .the only unambiguous instruction [the Scriptures] contained being to remain faithful to the Organization and obey it’s rules. With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Organization ; it was retained only by the bishops [overseers], through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Organization members.

    The book is available here on Amazon.com.
    *** Watchtower 1981 February 15 p.19 Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible? *** Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible? OUR VIEW OF THE "SLAVE" "No question about it. We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the "faithful and discreet slave" organization." -ithinkisee

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    inquirer

    I agree that there are quite a bit of similarities in hierarchy and the way the leadership makes themselves an integral medium for the individual's salvation. My only quibble was with comparing the two on the idea of "progressive revelation". Only because I think it shows the degree of intellectually honesty or dishonesty. Catholicism has been quite constant with their doctrines. We all know the WTS' track record.

    I can't believe I'm agreeing that there's one thing on which the WTS is more liberal than the RC!

    Well, at least the JW's are allowed to wear condoms.

    I'm sure alot of people wouldn't quibble if the pope got "new light" about that.

    ithinkisee

    That quote from Paul Johnson's book was perfect and eerie.

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee
    That quote from Paul Johnson's book was perfect and eerie

    That quote is from one of Ray Franz's books. I forget which one. I thought it was perfect ... and ...yes ... eerie.

    -ithinkisee

  • Pole
    Pole

    inquirer,

    No I'm not pissed of as I have no investment in Catholicism whatsoever. All I'm saying is that a lot of those similarities are only theoretical. Like the pope's authority compared with the authority of the governing body. If the catholic Poles followed the papal ban on condoms as strictly as the JWs follow the governing body's ban on blood, Poland would be one the most populous country in Europe by now. But it's not. Why? Because the apparently similar Catholic hierarchy doesn't really work like the one of JWs.

    Pole

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit