Jehovah's Witnesses

[Pepband_Mom]

More important, a living reflection on how American adult Catholics do not learn their own Catholic faith,hence, it rubs off on most Catholic children.

You cannot give what you do not have! And why do people not want to “have”?

Funny, after studying apologetics etc for 30 years & subjects come up in conversation, I try to make a point or 2 & even my own family shuts me down, my own mother included. Example, the silly book The Da Vinci Code came up in July & 4 of them jumped on me! It was breathtaking! I realized they actually believe that drivel. Americans have had a distorted “knowledge” of WHO JESUS is for a long time - especially groups like the JW’s. But notice how these scandalous distortions are cropping up in our “culture” more and more

Point: When Satan confuses humans as to WHO Jesus Christ is & sidetracks them, he’s done his dirty work. The Angels must shake their heads in disbelief over what goes on down here. :bighanky:

We have a family saying: “Don’t confuse me with the TRUTH” that most same family have apparently fallen for. They DON’T want to know. That goes back to ya can’t give what ya don’t have.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m getting ready to get in trouble here probably but here goes: I am related to someone who was raised JW and is now Catholic–but, of course, he brought a bunch of JW’s into the outer reaches of my family by his marriage into my family. I also had a “devout” 7th Day Adventist" who worked for me for a time. In my humble but honest opinion, the only thing crazier than a JW is an Adventist–though sometimes it’s really hard to decide who needs the psych drugs more and first!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I don’t think so. Those are called Protestants.

What is the difference between a “Defined Dogma” and a doctrine? And when does the Church teach anything in conflict with doctrine or dogma? We are free to accept or reject private revelations, not Church teaching or doctrine or dogma.

I was always under the thought that a Dogma is a doctrine or teaching that has been infalibly defined and there for can not and will not ever be changed and that all of the faithful are required to submit to or cease being a Catholic. Where as a doctrine has not been infalibly defined and is still open to development or debate among the theologians and Doctors of the Church and although once held can change for e.g Limbo.
Also I thought a doctrine although held by the Church a member of the faithful could still hold a different different opinion without ceasing to be a faithful Catholic. However under no circumstances are they at liberty to teach their privatly held different opinion publicly.
However I may be wrong and we are getting off topic.

 

[SteveVH]

I was always under the thought that a Dogma is a doctrine or teaching that has been infalibly defined and there for can not and will not ever be changed and that all of the faithful are required to submit to or cease being a Catholic. Where as a doctrine has not been infalibly defined and is still open to development or debate among the theologians and Doctors of the Church and although once held can change for e.g Limbo.
Also I thought a doctrine although held by the Church a member of the faithful could still hold a different different opinion without ceasing to be a faithful Catholic. However under no circumstances are they at liberty to teach their privatly held different opinion publicly.
However I may be wrong and we are getting off topic.

All Catholic doctrine is an infallible teaching based upon the deposit of faith given by Christ to the Apostles. Catholics are obligated to believe all that Holy Mother Church teaches and proclaims to be true.

 

[adrift]

I was always under the thought that a Dogma is a doctrine or teaching that has been infalibly defined and there for can not and will not ever be changed and that all of the faithful are required to submit to or cease being a Catholic. Where as a doctrine has not been infalibly defined and is still open to development or debate among the theologians and Doctors of the Church and although once held can change for e.g Limbo.
Also I thought a doctrine although held by the Church a member of the faithful could still hold a different different opinion without ceasing to be a faithful Catholic. However under no circumstances are they at liberty to teach their privatly held different opinion publicly.
However I may be wrong and we are getting off topic.

DOCTRINE

Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

DOGMA

Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. they may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

 

[R_C]

Religions who believe in “the God of Abraham” take 2 different paths:

1- Christian:
i.e. Catholics, protestant, and those who believe Christ was the son of God.

2 - Jah based:

i.e. Muslims, Jewish, Rastafarian, and Jehovah’s Witness.

These religions do not follow the teachings of Christ, but instead believe in the Jehovah god, or some call Jah, others call Allah, etc… It’s the same God that the Christians believe in, minus Jesus Christ.

Having said that, some religions - i.e. Muslims do acknowledge Jesus, however they only see him as a profit (same as Mohammad, Moses, etc).

Aside from the above 2, other religions just have different Gods they believe in such as the Hindu God Sheba the destroyer, etc.

It gets complicated from here… You then have everything from Science geek Atheists who don’t belive in anything outside of the Big Bang to Spiritual people who do not believe in Gods, nor do they accept the idea of a Big Bang theory… and those groups make up such a huge diverse culture it would be impossible to summarize in a short post

Peace
LTW

And instead, the answer to it all is? Let’s hear it. No religion? Religion is the moment in which man stops to ask himself why did he come into being. The moment when man says: “who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here?” While philosophy provides a path to ask deeper questions, religion is the encounter with the unavoidable realization that there is a Creator, and how we experience that encounter. It is God’s communication with his creation.

If God had no religion, then He would be mute.

However, God speaks.

His words reach some, but unfortunately men have mixed their own words with his. The results? Violence, hatred, division, vices.

God chose to come in the flesh, and still some reject Him to this very day despite what He has accomplished, changing the history of the world and the existence of mankind.

But all words are irrelevant if they are not matched with acts. Let the Catholic do what he is taught to do, with no ifs or buts or excepts, and let the non-believer do what he arbitrarily considers to be that which is to be done next. Let us see which of the two brings peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is the difference between a “Defined Dogma” and a doctrine? And when does the Church teach anything in conflict with doctrine or dogma? We are free to accept or reject private revelations, not Church teaching or doctrine or dogma.

Here are my working definitions…waddya think?

Dogma
A dogma is 1) a divinely revealed truth which 2) has been proclaimed infallibly as such by the teaching authority of the Church.

1. A dogma must be found explicitly or implicitly in the deposit of faith given to the Church by Jesus in Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition.
2. A dogma must be infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed.
   All dogmas are infallibly taught as divinely revealed truths, but not all infallibly defined truths are taught as divinely revealed. In the latter case, the infallibly taught truth would not be considered a dogma.

Doctrine
A doctrine is a way of understanding divine revelation and which is taught authoritatively by the Magisterium of the Church. Doctrine may be defined either infallibly or non-infallibly. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.

Discipline
A discipline is a rule of the Church which requires obedience due to the authority given to the Church by Jesus. Disciplines may be changed during the course of history based upon the needs of the Church. Examples of Church disciplines include fasting during Lent and the celibacy of priests in the Latin rite.

Devotion
A devotion is a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation. Devotions directed toward God are rightly called worship while devotions directed toward saints are classified as veneration.

---

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t think so. Those are called Protestants.

What is the difference between a “Defined Dogma” and a doctrine? And when does the Church teach anything in conflict with doctrine or dogma? We are free to accept or reject private revelations, not Church teaching or doctrine or dogma.

Not too sure about that. How about Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix? That is not a defined doctrine and we are free to accept the doctrine or not.

 

[SteveVH]

Not too sure about that. How about Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix? That is not a defined doctrine and we are free to accept the doctrine or not.

Mary, as Co-Redemptirx is not a defined doctrine or dogma. One is certainly free to accept or reject it. That wasn’t the issue. I was commenting on the following:

…we as Catholics are allowed to differ from the church’s Teachings or Doctrine’s on various points of scripture and form our own opinions and still remain faithful Catholics.

When it is an official church teaching, or doctrine, or dogma we are obligated to accept it. If the Church ever does make a definitive proclamation concerning Mary as Co-Redemptrix then we will be obligated to believe that as well.

 

[pacloc]

I think what was trying to be said is that we are free to read scripture and know that there is more than one opinion as to what is being said. Church Fathers don’t always agree with their interpretations, so we don’t have to either, as long as we don’t violate defined doctrine and dogma. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not free to do this, they must only understand a scripture the way that the “current truth” in the watchtower defines it.

But to answer the original question, there is one big similarity between the Catholic Church and JW, that is that both have a strong will to please God, by doing as good as we can and always thinking of God in our decisions. The big problem with the JW’s is that to develop that faith in God is hard because their doctrine doesn’t lend itself to creating a good bond with God. They do not believe that God became man, or that we will all be with God, so their relationship that they hope for is not strong enough to really re-create someone. I believe that is why almost all JW children leave the religion instead of continuing on the legacy.

 

[SteveVH]

I think what was trying to be said is that we are free to read scripture and know that there is more than one opinion as to what is being said. Church Fathers don’t always agree with their interpretations, so we don’t have to either, as long as we don’t violate defined doctrine and dogma. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not free to do this, they must only understand a scripture the way that the “current truth” in the watchtower defines it.

I agree. But it is important that we make the distinction as to what is allowed as opinion, and what we are obligated to believe, as Catholics, as a definitive truth. The Church certainly encourages private thinkers; theologians, philosophers, and the like, to shed light on the one deposit of faith as it grows and matures in time. The Magisterium, obviously, has the last say as to the validity of any new proposition or view and none of them can change existing dogma, teaching and doctrine.

People like Scott Hahn and many others in our day have contributed so much to the understanding of the holy mystery that is our faith. There is an incredible treasury of knowledge and wisdom within the people of God and it surfaces to enrich all of us in our understanding. But we are free to agree or disagree with their private views and question the credibility of their statements. Not so with dogmas and the resulting teaching that comprises a doctrine.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I agree. But it is important that we make the distinction as to what is allowed as opinion, and what we are obligated to believe, as Catholics, as a definitive truth. The Church certainly encourages private thinkers; theologians, philosophers, and the like, to shed light on the one deposit of faith as it grows and matures in time. The Magisterium, obviously, has the last say as to the validity of any new proposition or view and none of them can change existing dogma, teaching and doctrine.

People like Scott Hahn and many others in our day have contributed so much to the understanding of the holy mystery that is our faith. There is an incredible treasury of knowledge and wisdom within the people of God and it surfaces to enrich all of us in our understanding. But we are free to agree or disagree with their private views and question the credibility of their statements. Not so with dogmas and the resulting teaching that comprises a doctrine.

I see. And humbly stand corrected. I think I may have confused my terms and definitions. I think the point I was trying to make is that because the Church has only Dogmatically defined very few verses in scripture there are lots of verses in scripture where Catholics can have opposing views and yet remain Faithful Catholics which is not the case with J.W’s.

 

[SteveVH]

I see. And humbly stand corrected. I think I may have confused my terms and definitions. I think the point I was trying to make is that because the Church has only Dogmatically defined very few verses in scripture there are lots of verses in scripture where Catholics can have opposing views and yet remain Faithful Catholics which is not the case with J.W’s.

I agree completely.