Hi OM,
The Catholic Church does not recognize JW baptism as valid, so a person only baptized by JWs would need to be baptized into the Catholic church. If there is some question about it (like it was a long time ago, when JW baptism was more orthodox, the church would most likely give you a conditional baptism, which is just like a regular baptism, except that the priest says "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
That being the case, they do not view JWs as "separated brethren" but rather merely as unbaptized persons. That does not mean that are forever lost, though. Even unbaptized persons can go to heaven, at God's good pleasure. Bottom line, all descendants of Adam and Eve are God's children, and he does not desire any to be lost, but for all to be saved. God judges based on what people do with what they have. Also, although there are norms (meaning the normal way things are done), the norms are for us, not for God. He can do whatever he wants, including bringing pagans to heaven, at his good pleasure (like the thief on the cross next to Jesus). And his good pleasure is much more merciful than you or I will ever be. That is the good news.
Tom
Tom Cabeen
JoinedPosts by Tom Cabeen
-
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
-
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Cas,
That is exactly what it means. Hope that is good news!
Tom -
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Blades,
Just so you know, you are still a member of the Catholic Church. Valid Christian baptism creates an indelible mark on the soul which cannot ever be removed by anything we or anyone else does. That is why the Church has accepted deathbed reconciliations from once-avowed athiests, murderers, Mafiosi, etc.
The idea that writing a letter could terminate one's affiliation with a religious organization arises from the Watchtower's own view of their identity: they baptize people as a sign of their dedication to God and membership in his organization.
The Catholic church has always viewed it very differently. This is the key to understanding the Catholic view of non-Catholic Christians. Long ago, when heretics had divided Christians into schismatic groups, the question arose as to whether or not persons who were baptized by heretics, (like Montanists, for example) were actually truly baptized. Yes, said the Bishops. Anyone who is baptized in the manner prescribed by Jesus ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) was indeed a true member of the church, "born of water and the Spirit", to use Jesus' words. That is why non-catholics are viewed as "separated brethren" rather than members of a different religion or of some other Christian church.
Since Catholics believe and proclaim in their creed that there is only "one" holy, catholic and apostolic church, all persons who are validly baptized are members of the same Catholic church, even if they are not in full communion with the main body of that church's members, for there is only one body of Christ. There can be no other. So as regards your membership in the Catholic church, your letter was just as valid as would be a letter you had written saying that you had decided not to be born.
Tom Didn't see your post first, StAnn. We agree. -
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
Reniaa,
Thank you for your honest expression. Perhaps I can share with you some unsolicited advice:
Many years ago, I ran across a quote which made a deep impression on me. I printed it out and it hung on my wall for several years. It is from Solomon ben Gabirol, a Jewish rabbi who lived about a thousand years ago and had a good deal of influence on the Christians of his day. He said (I am quoting from memory here):
"A fool rejoices when he discovers error; a wise man rejoices when he discovers truth."
This quote impressed me so much because it conjured up in my mind a mental picture of the method so many use to analyze things. They spend a lot of time trying to discover if things are false, and every time they do that, they congratulate themselves on seeing through another lie. There is little to be gained in proportion to the effort expended from that type of endeavor.
If that same amount of effort is invested in becoming informed about things that can be verified to a reasonable degree, then each thing one learns contributes toward building a correct model of reality, which is what truth is. You gain something you can live by each and every time you do it.
I resolved to take Solomon ben Gabirol's approach. The result has made me so much happier than I was when I was looking for error. I highly recommend it.
Your brother,
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
reniaa
You asked a question of ex-jws turned Catholic: "Do you now think we will all be eternally tortured in a fiery Hell?"
I answered that question honestly, in line with the official Catholic definition of hell from its official catechism (paragraph 1035).
Your response is to post some non-official interpretations of Catholic doctrine you found on ReligiousTolerance.org, a web site managed by an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Christian, a Wiccan and a Zen Buddhist. You compare quotes you found there with quotes from Pope John Paul II and charge the church with softening its Hell stance to make it more main stream.
Finally, you compare that "discrepancy" with the Watchtower Society's own reinterpretation in its own official publications of "the generation" due to yet another in a long string of failed predictions and interpretations.
If you cannot see the difference between these things, I doubt there is anything I can say to clarify it for you. Sorry.
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
Here is what I believe about hell, reniaa:
Catholics and the Orthodox, following the teachings of the earliest Christians, believe that it is impossible for God not to love us, his earthly children. Love is his very essence and he made us expressly so that he could love us. God loves us so much that he sent his only-begotten son to save us and demonstrate the length he would go to to show us he loves us.
Out of love for us, he made us in such a way that our deepest longings, our most profound needs, are satisfied in Him. He made us to find our fulfillment in the best he had, Himself. He made us to be his lovers; thus we will never be satisfied until we are in perfect relationship with him. When that happens, we will also be in the correct relationship with all other creatures who are in relationship with him, a huge loving family of giving and shared experiences. That is why he made us, so that he could love us and share his life with us.
Love, by its very nature, must be spontaneous. It cannot be forced or coerced and still be love. In order to meet that condition, God had to give us free will, along with the qualities of character we would need to exercise that free will, including intelligence, curiosity, and the capacity for faith and love. As a consequence, we must make a free choice to obey God; we must come to him in pure loving response to what he has done for us. God would never try to force us into obeying him, even though He knows we will never be completely happy until we conform our thoughts and actions to His.
But free will also has a downside. Since we have the God-given capacity for choice, He must also give us the right to reject Him. If that were not true, we would not truly have free will. If we choose to go down that path away from our Creator, God will use every means at his disposal, short of violating our free will, to call us to repentance. He offers free forgiveness and He demonstrates his love for us over and over again, in hope that we might come to realize that only in full, complete relationship with him will we ever realize our potential as his children, made in his own image. But ultimately, we have the right to reject him, even to hate him, to substitute love we ought to have for Him and give it to other, lesser things.
In the words of C.S. Lewis on this subject, it boils down to this: "In the end, we either say to God: 'Thy will be done' or God will say to us 'Thy will be done.'" God knows (because he made us) that once we get to that point, despite all his efforts to demonstrate his love for us, that our hatred will grow until we hate Him with all our heart (just as Satan does). Those who ultimately will end up hating God will seek to be away from his presence, even if they would be welcome there.
God will abandon such creatures to their own devices, and thus, they will be in what Jesus called "outer darkness". Just "where" that will be is not the point at all. Even if God were to allow such people full access to his presence, they would hate to be there. Like a Rock & Roll fan at an opera, or an opera fan at a Heavy Metal concert, the same "place", God’s presence, would be heaven for one and hell for the other. Imagery like fire is used in Scripture to represent the pain of separation from God (which is the Catholic definition of hell, by the way).
One more point about eternity. Eternity does not mean an endless succession of days; millions, billions or trillions of them. Eternity means being outside of time, timeless (that is the literal meaning of the word). All of our linear, sequential time is included in timelessness. One way to envision that is to think about the relationship of our linear time to the "time" in storybooks on a shelf. We can open a book and enter a particular "time", the succession of events found in that story. Then we can close the book and be completely outside of that "time", then later reopen it and be right back in it. That is how some orthodox thinkers have compared the linear time we live in to the eternity in which God dwells.
Those who reject God will end up living in timelessness also, but without the one thing they need to be happy: God. But it will be their own choice about the matter. They will not just be sent somewhere because they inadvertently broke some little rule or other. It will be because they have made a fully informed choice, of their own free will, knowing full well the consequences of their choice, to live without God, and, when offered the chance to change their mind and repent, will refuse. Those who do that will be, completely as a result of their own choice, in hell.
I would recommend C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" for a more complete (and much better) exploration of this subject, which was also very difficult for Lewis. It was very helpful to me.
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,
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 -
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