Blue,
I am sorry you lost your faith, but it happens to many former JWs. My heart aches for them.
Faith is a conscious act of will, a response you make after using your intellect to examine evidence, a decision you make to believe something beyond the evidence, but toward which the evidence points. As time goes by, your perspective may change, you may come to see some new evidence (or the same old evidence in a new way) that there is a God who has not only communicated with us, but who loves us as his children and wants to share his divine life with us.
Sixty-three once seemed ancient to me, but now I see it more along the lines of middle age (I am 58). A lot of water may have gone under the bridge, but I believe there is still plenty of water up the river.
If you ever want to reopen your investigation, I would be more than happy to share with you the basis for my faith. But if not, you are still my brother, and I wish you peace.
Best regards,
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
-
21
Catholic ex-JW's? Interpretation Questions for You.
by bavman inin view of the much publicized conversion of tom cabeen on this website i thought i would ask a couple of questions.. do all catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?
such as the miracles of jesus or the trinity understanding itself.
i seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Bav,
You ask: "Do all Catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?"
The Catholic Church does not have a specified scheme for interpreting the Scriptures. Some parts are literal, others metaphorical, others symbolic or allegorical, etc. Catholics believe that the correct way of interpreting the Old Testament was given to the apostles (compare Luke 24:27, 45) and passed down along with Scripture itself, included as a part of Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was written within the context of a fully functioning church, so it would have been understood perfectly by those who received it, and those understandings were also passed down. Nobody really questioned that perspective until the Reformation.
Without some authoritative guide like to Scripture interpretation, you get exactly what you see among the Protestants: a multitude of attempts to get to "the real truth" without any way to authoritatively choose between them.
In addition, Catholics believe that although the faith was complete by the end of the apostolic era, some passages of Scripture have multiple layers of meaning, which become clearer with time. Never does the new meaning replace the old, but rather supplements it. As an example, the text "out of Egypt I called my son" originally applied to the Exodus, but Matthew applies it to Jesus going down into Egypt. The new meaning did not replace, but rather supplemented the old. So rather than a "black and white" perspective, most Catholics who take an interest in this sort of thing have the "both...and" perspective. It means both this and that. Much of life is that way, anyway.
"...Such as the miracles of Jesus or the Trinity understanding itself." I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first part. The miracles show that Christ had divine power, and helped substantiate his claims to be the true Son of God. They were really miracles, not just illusions.
As for the understanding of the interrelationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the formal statement of the doctrine is was arrived a bishops in council. Their method is explained by Henry R. Percival:
[begin quote] The question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from a priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect — to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others?[end quote]
"I seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself. Also, between what some priests say and what some of the deep thinkers have written."
Amen, brother. Evidence convinced me that the Catholic Church has preserved the faith handed down by the apostles. I also believe that these teachings have been miraculously preserved, protected against the tendency of sinful humans to screw with things, and change them, inadvertently or on purpose.
There are relatively few core teachings (dogmas) in the Catholic faith, only a handful, really. Bishops (or the apostles themselves) have defined them all.(The first example of that was when the bishops in Jerusalem affirmed in council that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be Christians.) Theologians have reasoned and enlarged on them, but no teaching of theologians is binding unless the bishops, in council, affirms it to be true, and those occasions are few and far between.
Unlike the situation in the WTS, Catholics are, from a practical perspective, free to accept or reject Catholic teaching, for there is little or no enforcement as to believing them (or doing anything else the Church teaches, either.) Sadly, many Catholics, including clergy, do not study the teachings of the church, or if they do, they may reserve the right to either believe and act on them or not.
To me the question boils down to this: If someone believes the teachings of the Church to be the teachings of Christ, then any truth-lover would, it would seem to me, want to learn and live by them. (Am I missing something here?) If a person (including any Catholic) is not convinced that they are true, then they will not live by them if doing so inconveniences them or costs them anything. Why would they? If they are true, they are a description of reality, what actually exists. If not, then what difference does it make anyway?
"Is there room for both views within the Catholic church?"
There is room for multiple views on multiple subjects, except for the dogmas. Those key doctrines are mainly in the Creeds (like the Apostles' Creed). But there are also numerous wonderful spiritual and theological writings which are primarily used to build up one's faith. But there are many approaches to spirituality, and the Catholic church has room for them all, as long as they are not contrary to the faith handed down from the apostles.
But even if a Catholic chooses to ignore Church teaching, there is little or no policing, just encouragement to return. Even excommunication is mainly self-enforced. If a Catholic is living in adultery, for example, he or she usually knows that they should not take the communion. But they can go to just about any Catholic church and take it anyway if they so choose. According to Catholic teaching, by doing that they drink judgment on themselves. But if they don't believe Catholic teaching about adultery, why should they believe the teaching about communion? Or maybe they believe that Christ wasn't serious when he told his disciples to teach new converts 'to obey all the things he had commanded them.' The only thing they risk is that, if the Catholic church was teaching the truth all along, they may have to explain to Jesus after they die why they didn't obey his teachings, when he said that those who love him would do that.
Also, is evolution compatible with Catholic belief?
Catholics believe that God is the Creator of all that exists. What means he used to create is not given to us. He could have created them in one 24-hour day or over millions of years, through guided or unguided evolution or any other means. We have no revelation about the precise means he used, only that he was the Great First Cause of its occurring.
Humans are unique creatures in that we have a spiritual soul and a physical body. God created a soul for Adam and Eve, and at conception, God creates a soul for each new person. That is a teaching of the Church, and is absolutely unverifiable by science. So there is no conflict. So whether the bodies of Adam and Eve evolved or not, that has no effect whatsoever on the doctrine of creation as understood by informed Catholics.
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
Hi Dove,
As a general rule, yes. According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter (it must be done with water), the form (using the Trinitarian formula from Matthew 28), the intention of the minister (the baptizer must mean to baptize you), and the right disposition of the recipient (you must want to be baptized, or someone in charge of you like a parent or relative wants to have you baptized.
Most baptisms performed in Christian churches of all denominations meet those four qualifications. More info here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm It's about Mormons, but you can easily see how the thinking goes if you read it.
Since Jesus Christ is actually the one who actually administers the sacrament of baptism (he accomplishes the change in your soul that occurs when you are baptized) the earthly baptist only needs to follow Jesus' instructions. Jesus does the rest. So whether or not your name is on some list somewhere is completely irrelevant. Jesus knows who he has cleansed from sin, and he never forgets.
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
Hi Cas,
Of course, anyone could walk into a Catholic Church, claim to be baptized, show some sort of forged documents, and go through the motions of being "reconciled" to the church. (In our case, the priest asked for documentation that my wife and I had been baptized. She had been baptized a Catholic, I was baptized a Methodist. We contacted the churches, who had records of both our baptisms.)
And you could most likely get away with it, at least until you die and meet up with the one who know everything. Then, Lucy, you might have some 'splainin' to do. But hey, God might just laugh and say "Come on in, you clever dog!" :-)
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
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 -
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