Hi Mary,
So, if there is no church around today that is *essentially* the same as apostolic Christianity, what happened to the early Christian congregation? In the Acts we see a "church" composed of local congregations, at unity with one another (holding "one faith, one hope, one baptism"). Did that church fragment into many "flavors" right from the start, or was there "one church" that had right teaching and practice, from which smaller heretical groups (like the Gnostics) broke off?
When the gospel began to be widely preached to the Gentiles (as Jesus had commanded), would that justify any changes in the way the Jesus' teachings were presented? For example, why would the Greeks or Romans be convinced by extensive quotations from the Jewish sacred writings, which they did not regard to be either inspired or authoritative?
Another question: If the first century church founded by Jewish disciples of Christ became fragmented almost immediately, why so many witnesses from all over the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa in the second, third, fourth centuries (and on and on) who testify that there was one main body of believers, in communion with one another, who believed and practiced the same things, whose overseers (bishops) preserved and handed down the teachings of the apostles? To what were they referring?
If no church today is like the first century Christian congregation, what are the implications of that? Could it be that Jesus either decided that the first century church was of use then, but that from then on there would be other ways in which Christianity would be passed on and practiced? Or could it be that the first century Church changed in some aspects of its outward appearance as it grew and the message was preached to all nations, but not in its core teachings and practices?
Finally, what teachings do you believe to have been introduced by the time of the Church of Constantines' day that were substantially, fundamentally different from those teachings held by the apostles and other first century Christians, many of whom were Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
Tom
Tom Cabeen
JoinedPosts by Tom Cabeen
-
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
-
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Min,
Sorry, I thought I did. What needs clarification?
Tom -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Mary,
Thanks listing some of the things that you believe to be inconsistent with early Christianity. But you may have misunderstood my question. I wondered about the basis upon which you make the comparison. Is it based on the New Testament, as you understand it? On examination of historical records? On general consensus? Or on some other basis?
I ask this because sometimes people sincerely believe something to be the case based on, for example, their understanding of the Scriptures. A sincere JW might make the following statement: "Taking blood transfusions is unscriptural." Yet other people who study and hold the very same Scriptures in high regard, might say "I see nothing unscriptural about a blood transfusion." In that case, deciding who is right usually has to be on some other basis than "the plain meaning" of some Scriptural passages.
One of these issues is of great importance: the idea that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become Jesus' body and blood. The Scriptures bearing on the subject have been understood in different ways by Christians: Prior to the Reformation, virtually all Christians took them to mean one thing. After the Reformation, virtually all Protestants took them to mean exactly the opposite. Can it be resolved? If so, on what basis?
Rather than use this forum for explaining Catholic doctrines and their basis, I would be more than happy to address any issues you may be wondering about off forum. If you are interested, feel free to IM me. If not, that is fine, too.
Best wishes,
Tom -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Mary,
Just curious. You say " The Catholic Church bears absolutely no resemblance to first century Christianity."? On what basis do you make that comparison?
When I read the writings of the early Christians, I discovered, to my great surprise, that the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches believe and worship much more like the early Christians than does any non-Catholic church does today. That discovery made me investigate the Catholic Church, which resulted in my family and I becoming Catholic Christians. I based my comparison on historical data, comparing them with the teachings and practices described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In regard to use of the Bible, if you just attend a Catholic mass, you might not realize that perhaps 40 percent of every Mass is composed of Scripture, either read or sung. In my former Baptist church, much Scripture reading was done. At every Catholic mass, scripture passages taken from the Old Testament, Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels are either read or sung aloud. While the Gospel is read the whole congregation stands up to show their respect for “the Word of the Lord.” In a three-year period, a person who attends Mass regularly would hear the majority of the entire Bible (including the Deuterocanonical books) read aloud. What Catholics do not do is cite chapter and verse, which were a relatively recent addition.
Tom -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
YID,
Catholics do not put things into black and white nearly as often as JWs, and not even as often as Evangelicals. Rather than things being "either this or that", much more often, their view is "both...and..." In this particular case, there is no rule that Catholic priests may not be married. In fact, any number of married Anglican/Episcopal or Orthodox priests who have become Catholics have subsequently been ordained as Catholic priests.
For the Catholic Church as a whole, the norm is to get married and have offspring. Catholics are not forbidden to marry in general; in fact, marriage is a sacrament just as holy orders is. Catholics are encouraged to marry. But some Catholics want to be priests, or "religious" (monks or nuns). The desire to enter these "holy orders" is viewed as out of the norm, a special gift from God, which includes the desire to serve God in the single state, as taught by Jesus and Paul. It is never a decision into which anyone is rushed. The process of becoming a priest or monk or nun takes years, and genuine deep commitment. Only after a long period of trial and examination is one finally accepted for holy orders.
Sometimes, however, in spite of the fact that someone has taken a vow of chastity and been ordained as a priest, a priest or monk later decides that he wants to marry. In that case, he must break his vow. He can no longer serve as a Catholic priest or monk. But it may be that the same person still wants to be a priest. He may decide to try to be ordained as an Episcopal or Anglican priest. In that case, if he meets the requirements for priests set up by the Episcopal bishops, he can become an Episcopal priests. Presumably, they might be accepted for the Orthodox priesthood as well, I do not know about that.
Tom -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Min,
You write: "Apostasies occurred from the beginning of the Christian congregation. The Roman church continued to propagate beliefs that were not from the inspired scriptures." Before the NT canon was finalized in the fourth century, by what standard would one decide that some teaching or practice was "scriptural"? The Old Testament?
You write: "I believe the trinity belief is incorrect, hence an example of apostasy." To what would you attribute the phenomenon that only groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians have "seen through" this "apostate" teaching, whereas the vast majority of Christians historically have believed the teaching about the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is currently taught by the Catholic church and most Protestant Christians. Do you think it is because none of them have ever read the Bible?
You say: "Forbidding men to marry, scripturally, is a sign of a false teaching." I would agree. That is why groups like the Albigensians were condemned by the Catholic Church. Surely you do not consider that the Catholic church's decision to select priests from among men who had already chosen to follow Jesus' and Paul's teaching of the superiority of the single state from the perspective of pursuing a career in ministry to be the same as "forbidding men to marry", do you? I would hope not, especially in view of the fact that no religious community holds marriage and family in higher regard than do Catholics.
Regarding popes, I agree that some of them have done shameful things, at least as shameful as Peter denying Christ three times, even after he had been warned about it in advance. Yet I still consider his letters to be inspired and free from error.
Tom -
239
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus inout of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Min,
Your statements raise some questions. Can you provide some clarification?
First, if the church as a whole "apostasized from the very beginning", on what basis could schisms recognized as such? Is not some main body of disciples, who share orthodox ("right teaching") beliefs presupposed, from which body schismatics separate themselves? What do you think of the possibility, based on, for example, what we find in Paul's letters to the Corinthians or the letters to the Asian congregations which form the opening chapters of the Revelation, that a worldwide community of believers could preserve "orthodoxy" (true teachings and practices) even if a significant number of its members failed miserably to live by those teachings and practices?
Second, if the meeting described in Acts 15 is counted as a "council," the second council identified historically was held in Nicea in 325, nearly three centuries after Pentecost. Do you see that council as having any legitimate authority to "deal with heretical beliefs"? I am using the word "heresy" to describe a "contrary opinion", a teaching that differs significantly from that held by the main body of Christians; for example, the idea that Jesus Christ was a created being with a beginning in time rather than a divine being begotten outside of time (Arianism).
According to biblical Bruce Metzger (in The Canon of the New Testament, its Origin, Development and Significance), "the process by which certain Christian writings gradually came to occupy a unique status of sacredness and authority in the Church" (pg 251) was a long process that occurred during at least three to four centuries. The NT canon was finally confirmed late in the fourth century.
As explained by Hillaire Belloc, (in Survivals and New Arrivals, pp 29-38), although the Jews accepted its authority, it was only on the authority of the Church (during approximately the same time three to four hundred year period) that the Old Testament came to take on the status of Sacred Scripture among the Gentiles nations, who had no other reason to consider the sacred writings of some small, insignificant people like the Jews (at least in the Roman view) as anything special.
So here is my third question: Assuming these respected scholars to be correct about their respective areas of expertise, is it possible that it was a completely corrupt and apostate Church was the same one who identified and preserved the Scriptures which now enjoy virtually universal acceptance by all Christians?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.
Tom Cabeen -
24
A question about Crisis of Conscience
by seek2find inthe first time i read this book was an older copy in the mid 1990s.
that copy was burnt by a family member and i no longer have it.
in the newest version which i downloaded in pdf i'm having trouble finding a particular part.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi S2F,
The reference you refer to is found on pages 329-335 of the first edition of Crisis of Conscience. It is the story of two JW elders from Ireland, Martin Merriman and John May. They came to the US to express their concern to the GB about the trend toward harshness they had observed. Both were promptly disfellowshipped (but very gently, not harshly!!)
The incident was excised before the third edition of the book was printed in April, 1999 for various reasons, one of which was to make room for other material Ray added as a response to things that appeared in WT publications after the publication of the first edition of CoC.
Tom Cabeen,
Publications Director,
Commentary Press -
39
Tom Cabeen to be interviewed on TV
by Nathan Natas inposted by jimwhitney on sat - may 3 - 5:25pm: .
in reply to: tom cabean to be interviewed on cable tv posted by jimwhitney on sat - may 3 - 5:25pm:.
posted by flatlander on sat - may 3 - 6:08pm: .
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hola caballero,
You can contact David at http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/index.html. He and his wife live near Harrisburg, PA. They have an active ministry in Honduras, where they help people who need small business loans. You can read about it on their web site.
Su hermano,
Tom -
39
Tom Cabeen to be interviewed on TV
by Nathan Natas inposted by jimwhitney on sat - may 3 - 5:25pm: .
in reply to: tom cabean to be interviewed on cable tv posted by jimwhitney on sat - may 3 - 5:25pm:.
posted by flatlander on sat - may 3 - 6:08pm: .
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Grace,
Well, Matt and I certainly talked many things over. But I don't think it was a case of either of us leading the other into the Catholic faith. We all (Gloria, too) were reading things separately, and thinking and praying. But of course we had lots of pretty heavy conversations. Ultimately I think we each came to the same conclusion sort of separately, but at about the same time. Matt was confirmed about two months before we were, but I was headed toward the Catholic church before he was.
You are right that there are Christians in all denominations. One thing that surprised me about Catholics is how non-judgmental they are, and accepting of those of other denominations. Maybe they used to be more judgmental before Vatican II, but I sure haven't seen it.
So nice to hear from you, Grace!
Tom