I read about Bennett in one of the LDS mags’ my boss had on his desk. I about melted into the floor. The unthinkable had happened: a Catholic priest turned LDS. Thought to myself what on earth did his seminary NOT teach him?
Hi,
BRAVO!!! I’m going to PRINT this out - it’s a GEM!
I’ve always wondered about that! People are always using the Bible to show the Catholic church is “false”. Yet, the Catholic church compiled it. Ironic.
A minor quibble, but labels can be confusing, and some reading “Catholic Church” may take that to mean Roman Catholic, which didn’t exist as a separate church til much later. For the OT, the Orthodox have always used the Septuagint, which I believe includes a bit more than is in the list compiled at the third council of Carthage, held in A.D. 397.
It’s not that the Bible wasn’t available until 397, it’s only that we don’t have record of an authoritative listing of the books of the NT til a fairly late date (whether you take St. Athanasius’s letter of 367, or a council at Hippo Regius in 393, or the one at Carthage in 397). The Septuagint, of course, predated the time of Christ by well over a hundred years, so was not in question. The New Testament writings were in wide circulation and read in the churches from the time they were written.
By the 1400’s, there was a separate Roman Catholic church, but all churches still had their bibles.
By the 1800’s, it was not only Catholic clergy that had access to bibles. There was still the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and an ever-growing number of Protestant churches, too.
The bible is not a Catholic book, it is the Christian scriptures, and all Christian churches had and have access to it.
The Catholic priest you mentioned may have used this argument to convert thousands of people, but the Catholic church was far from the only source of information about Christ for the first 1800 years of Christianity. Still, for any group believing in some form of apostasy which necessitated either a restoration or reform to once again have the true Christian faith, the question of why or how God used an apostate “church” to preserve his written word is a question well worth asking.
All the Churches were Catholic until Martin Luther came on the scene.
Martin Luther nailed his theses in 1517. Somewhere between 850 and 1200, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches had split. The traditional date is 1054, and by 1190 we have this statement from Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch:
One of the reasons the word “Catholic” with a capital C is confusing is because at least three distinct groups refer to themselves as “catholic”: the Orthodox Christians, the Roman Catholics, and the Anglicans. As mentioned before, the Orthodox have always used the Septuagint, which was in place long before Christ was born, so the Catholic Church did not determine the Old Testament. The earliest record existing that lists the 27 books of the New Testament is an annual Easter letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367. The church at Rome was a bit behind the East in formally recognizing the 27 NT books:
Your arguments are like so many I have looked into over the years. It is just a bunch of intellectual fairy tales. Just enough truth mixed in to make it believable. Kind of like the argument that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were having an affair. Just enough truth to be believable. She was with Jesus almost all the time, followed him most every where he went. But it is just more fairy tale used by Satan to lead us to destruction.
There’s usually always two of them, a master and an apprentice. If only one called you they can’t be recruiting very many new apprentices in your area. Praise the Lord. :harp:
It is not my intent to make anyone doubt their faith, but the arguments you listed from the 1800’s priest and some of the statements by Phyllo did not seem consistent with the history that I’ve read. I’m happy to be corrected where I’ve made factual errors. The second quote I used above is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Is that generally regarded as an unreliable source?
I can certainly relate to the wandering, looking for truth part of your story. Growing up in first a Baptist, then Presbyterian, then a different Baptist conference, I adopted atheism in my mid-teens. By 18, I had been converted to Mormonism, eventually dropping away due to doubts about Joseph Smith and many doctrinal points, particularly their rejection of the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). Attended a Reformed Baptist church for many years, but never got to the point of being able to say that I knew I was one of God’s elect and therefore eligible for baptism. Did some church-hopping before finding a home at an AFLC Lutheran church. That church split over various issues including property decisions, and I left along with about half the congregation and the pastor (who became a professor at a local seminary). There being no other AFLC congregations in the area, more church-hopping followed, including time spent at Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches. Finally settled on a church in the continuing Anglican tradition (one of those adhering to the Affirmation of St. Louis).
I appreciate your kind reply. My concern is that, as you have experienced, truth and history basically depend on what you want to believe at the time. I had reasons to want to believe the JWs some 25 years ago. I was lonely, they were more than willing to be friends, I wanted to marry, they had six single young ladies in the Kingdom hall, I didn’t want to wander looking for truth, they said they had the truth and all of them agreed on those truths (even though those truths change ever year or so).
Ha! That is superb. Beware the Sith!
I agree with Meltzerboy. I work in a call centre and make outbound calls selling insurance. So long as the other party is talking, I’ll generally keep them on the line. I believe in the product I sell and so long as they’re willing to discuss it I have a good chance at a sale.
He also sent them out in sandals and tunics. Is that what the JWs consider the “ideal” for evangelization also?
I humbly disagree with your position. If that’s what you’re comfortable with, then so be it. I think the OP handled this exactly correct…that comes from my 11 years experience being married to a JW who eventually converted to Catholicism…and two of her three children who also left the Witnesses. I agree that we should study our scripture and doctrine more as Catholics…but to not politely challenge a JW leaves the in ignorance.
Actually, the Witnesses have been doing telephone witnessing for years. I first heard about around 1995 when I was married to a JW. It’s usually done by the elderly or those who for whatever reason can’t get out and do the door to door stuff…but it’s been around even longer than the 1995 date I have given.
My take on it as an ex JW, is that it is a mixture of both. Sadly, most Catholics take their faith for granted, as I did, thus they are easy pickings for those who want to convert them. Personally, I think that ‘taking their faith for granted’ is due to the way many in the Church felt it was important to ‘fit in to the culture’ after Vatican II and thus make it easier to bring more people to Christ. In reality, it just caused weaker Catholics to become part of our modern selfish sex crazed culture. Prior to becoming a JW, I knew that Jesus was NOT part of the culture he lived in. He told people that if they followed him, they would become enemies of even family members. When I saw the way JWs seemed to all be so devoted and NOT part of the culture, I saw it as a sign of their Christianity. But of course, there are many religions that are not part of the culture and strictly follow their own form of ‘christianity’. Despite the constant drone of JW propoganda at the meetings, convetions, and the door to door ‘ministry’, Holy Spirit guided me to see the truth of the Bible and how the Catholic church that compiled the Bible, was the only true church started by Jesus Christ.