JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[jbinueza]

These people actively debating you will not give an inch and do not relate to Revelation like we do.

You can throw all the documented facts to them and they will ignore it.

yep, i agree…i tell one guy here about history that it was 33AD but instead he insists that the Catholic church started with Constantine in 313AD… i asked him for reference and he couldn’t give one. i even told him i could even see it in wiki.

 

[KathleenGee]

In my papal seminar in October, I brought up the issue of new spins coming out that Constantine started the Catholic Church. The instructor was sipping coffee when I said that, and the remark caused his hand to jerk…‘See what it caused me?!!’

He said, "Anybody with any sense of history, knows that it is totally unsubstantiated that Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church’.

I also stated Constantine was a pagan up until his death. The instructor replied to recall the oaths Christians made at the end of liturgy – to not lie or steal, to not commit adultery, to not kill.

As Constantine was heavily involved in assisting in the choosing of bishops with great leadership skills, building basilicas with raised altars and pulpits to emphasize and proclaim our faith in Christ to the world, as well as sitting in on discussions regarding Arianism and signing the Edict of Milan to allow Christianity legal and open practice, he was likewise a temporal emperor.

Emperors kill people to maintain order and defeat enemies. So the very position Constantine held prevented him from being an active baptized communicant in the Church.

When people are so closed to you, it is a suffering, but there is nothing you can do about it except put them in God’s hands…

 

[dmar198]

I also stated Constantine was a pagan up until his death. The instructor replied to recall the oaths Christians made at the end of liturgy – to not lie or steal, to not commit adultery, to not kill. … Emperors kill people to maintain order and defeat enemies. So the very position Constantine held prevented him from being an active baptized communicant in the Church.

I don’t think that is accurate because Catholic social teaching allows for an emperor to oversee the killing of enemies in a just war. It was shortly after Constantine legalized Christianity that St. Lactantius wrote one of the earliest Catholic “civics books,” a book called “Epitome of the Divine Institutes.” I have read that this book was used to teach students in imperial schools how Catholics believe and should behave in society. This book is a treasure trove because it is an early, early window into what many Catholics believed about Catholic social teaching in the immediate aftermath of Christianity’s legal recognition by the State, and you can read it all here: newadvent.org/fathers/0702.htm

That author does not say that you must abstain from fighting in a just war, in fact he says the opposite: "[The passions] are not evil of themselves, since God has reasonably implanted them in us; but inasmuch as they are plainly good by nature—for they are given us for the protection of life—they become evil by their evil use. And as bravery, if you fight in defence of your country, is a good, if against your country, is an evil, so the passions, if you employ them to good purposes, will be virtues, if to evil uses, they will be called vices.” (Epitome of the Divine Institutes Chapter 61)

See here for other early Catholics who recognized that just wars may be waged with Christian participation:

The Just War Tradition in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=912879

So I don’t think it is correct to say that Emperor Constantine was forbidden by Christian oaths from beng baptized. Instead, I think he should have taken instruction in the Catechumenate upon his recognition that the Christian God was the true one and requested baptism on the Easter after his conversion, like other catechumens. If he had reigned by the principles of Catholic social teaching from that point on, and had led a personally holy life, I think he could have made it into the halls of the saints.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agreed.

But Constantine was so intensely active in rebuilding the Church and attending the debate of Arianism after the worst persecution of Christians, 302 AD.

After winning the battle using the cross why then didn’t he convert?

He was baptized only days before his death. Why then?

 

[benhur]

Emperors kill people to maintain order and defeat enemies. So the very position Constantine held prevented him from being an active baptized communicant in the Church.

Does that rule out police officers, folks in military, even “inquisitors” who had civil folks do the deed,(like the emperor had “others” do the deed)? But it seems you are getting enough reaction to statement .

 

[benhur]

Agreed.

But Constantine was so intensely active in rebuilding the Church and attending the debate of Arianism after the worst persecution of Christians, 302 AD.

After winning the battle using the cross why then didn’t he convert?

He was baptized only days before his death. Why then?

I have heard it was custom for “some” to delay baptism till death, to make sure you are washed clean, or to avoid penance. Immediate baptism was not the rule anymore by his time with the increase of catechumen.

 

[KathleenGee]

The instructor responded in the fact that Constantine was emperor. The Church was almost destroyed in the last persecution by the Romans, killing many bishops and destroying many of their churches, and the manner of persecution most terrifying for the faithful to witness. So Emperor Constantine assisted in the choosing of bishops with leadership skills as well as moral fortitude, built the beginning basilicas with raised altar and pulpit, and in time over a million pagans entered the Church, along with their customs of genuflecting and use of statues in church.

The emperor is the one in charge of all his subjects. If he does wrong, his subjects obedient to him, it falls on him. His empire was great and he was responsible for lots of killing. So with the prior liturgical practices of the ancient church, where one makes a vow at the end of Mass to not kill or steal or commit adultery, I would think it was still in the conscience of the people, especially the Emperor.

About just war, I spoke with an old Jesuit regarding soldiers in war…primarily back to WWII. He said yes, killing is a sin in war. Soldiers still need to confess. We have had so many Catholic priests out there in the battlefield with the soldiers.

I was also informed at the most informative retreat I have ever taken, that St. Francis of Assisi had to do 3 or 4 “Lents”. In the old days, the priest had a booklet and it had prescribed penance for every sin brought forth. If you killed a man, you were given penance of one Lent…fasting, praying…whatever they did in those days. Francis allegedly killed 3 or 4 people in the war against the Orthodox, Assisi vs Perugia.

Our Lady of Fatima, approved apparition which is not bounding to Catholic faith, I mean if you don’t believe in Fatima, you are still a good Catholic, Mary said war is the punishment for sin.

 

[Cristo]

May God bless you all.
Hi, I asked the original question but have been away.
I’ve read the whole thread and and wow, you have been so helpful.
I asked because I regularly have two JW’s (we are friends now) call to my house to discuss faith.
As a cradle Catholic I “know” what I (and the Church) believe but cannot readily quote chapter and verse and as for the church history details outlined, well I’m blown away. Thank You.
I feel now this thread should be closed as the conversation is veering off topic.
Thanks again and I will be back for more clarification on other points.
Delson Jacobs, please don’t stay away too long, you can help so many like me.

Cristo

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi All, may God Bless you. My JW friends say the Catholic Church admits there is no definitive line of succession from St. Peter to the present day pope. They quote Jesuit John McKensie professor of theology Notre Dame 1969 and New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967.
Is there a strong Catholic response to these points or is it just “it’s reasonable to assume” which to me is not a very strong argument. I understood the church was definite about the line of succession and I have strenuously argued this point. Cristo

The Watchtower Society (JW’s) have set themselves up as a miniature Catholic Church. They too have a line of succession, starting with Charles Taze Russell in the late 1800’s, with an unbroken line of presidents (kind of like popes) of the Society since then. Obviously because their line of succession can only be traced back to the 1800’s, and not to the apostles, it is very important to them that the Catholic Church not be able to trace it’s succession to the apostles either. They look for any way they can to drag everyone else down to their level.

A principal of the Reformation was that there was no such thing as an official interpreter of the Bible. But the Watchtower Society, like the Catholic Church, considers itself to be the official interpreter (‘meat in due season’ or the ‘faithful and discreet slave’). In that way they are a rival of the Church, unlike Protestant denominations. That is why it is so important to them to discredit the Church.

The JW’s are taught to believe that the Society’s biblical interpretations have to be accepted because God has chosen them to be His “channel of communication” to mankind. But of course they are very vulnerable to criticism on this. Make the Witnesses defend this idea.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Cristo…

It gets down to our understanding of Christ as True God and True Man, how the Church was founded and organized…and the other, history is very complex and it depends on whose angle you are reviewing.

I mean to say, you have to get into some deeper concepts than that which exists at the level of JW’s…so that you end up sharing correct information, correct overviews of history…but it will go over their heads.

Follow me?

I think the best way is may be to give them teachings on the Catholic understanding of Christ…and access the universal Catholic Church Catechism. It can explain alot…read how Catholics approach Scripture and how we see it as a whole, rather than taking out parts…that will contradict each other. Very overwhelming…history, too.

Best use the catechism…in context…use that as the basis…starting from the beginning…and show the parts of how it is organized…the footnotes…showing how it is based on so many passages of Scripture…shows early Church Fathers teachings, councils, synods, etc…and its use of dates and time.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Cristo…

It gets down to our understanding of Christ as True God and True Man, how the Church was founded and organized…and the other, history is very complex and it depends on whose angle you are reviewing.

I mean to say, you have to get into some deeper concepts than that which exists at the level of JW’s…so that you end up sharing correct information, correct overviews of history…but it will go over their heads.

Follow me?

I think the best way is may be to give them teachings on the Catholic understanding of Christ…and access the universal Catholic Church Catechism. It can explain alot…read how Catholics approach Scripture and how we see it as a whole, rather than taking out parts…that will contradict each other. Very overwhelming…history, too.

Best use the catechism…in context…use that as the basis…starting from the beginning…and show the parts of how it is organized…the footnotes…showing how it is based on so many passages of Scripture…shows early Church Fathers teachings, councils, synods, etc…and its use of dates and time.

Hey, Kathleen.

I would agree with you if you actually had a JW that was interested in learning what we believe. The fact is that they are fulfilling their quota of knocking on a certain number of doors each month and could care less what we believe. They’re just looking forward to scratching another one off of their list.

This is why, when one knocks on my door, I make them promise to come back to visit me at least five times before I let them in. Even then, I have never had one return.

 

[Waynec]

The Watchtower Society (JW’s) have set themselves up as a miniature Catholic Church. They too have a line of succession, starting with Charles Taze Russell in the late 1800’s, with an unbroken line of presidents (kind of like popes) of the Society since then. Obviously because their line of succession can only be traced back to the 1800’s, and not to the apostles, it is very important to them that the Catholic Church not be able to trace it’s succession to the apostles either. They look for any way they can to drag everyone else down to their level.

A principal of the Reformation was that there was no such thing as an official interpreter of the Bible. But the Watchtower Society, like the Catholic Church, considers itself to be the official interpreter (‘meat in due season’ or the ‘faithful and discreet slave’). In that way they are a rival of the Church, unlike Protestant denominations. That is why it is so important to them to discredit the Church.

The JW’s are taught to believe that the Society’s biblical interpretations have to be accepted because God has chosen them to be His “channel of communication” to mankind. But of course they are very vulnerable to criticism on this. Make the Witnesses defend this idea.

I found your post very interesting. I never thought of them is this way, but they do especially say untrue things about the Catholic Faith as if they know what they are talking about.
Thanks

 

[KathleenGee]

SteveVH…totally agree…I was driving out after I posted…and thought, they won’t even go near him when he pulls out the catechism.

I think the best is to put them in God…and move on.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH…totally agree…I was driving out after I posted…and thought, they won’t even go near him when he pulls out the catechism.

I think the best is to put them in God…and move on.

LOL! Couldn’t agree more.

 

[adrift]

About just war, I spoke with an old Jesuit regarding soldiers in war…primarily back to WWII. He said yes, killing is a sin in war. Soldiers still need to confess. We have had so many Catholic priests out there in the battlefield with the soldiers.

.

Catechism

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66

I don’t see the official teaching being that killing in war is a sin. I believe your old priest was wrong. You can’t have conflicting statements it being a grave duty and it being a sin.:nope:

 

[mackbrislawn]

I found your post very interesting. I never thought of them is this way, but they do especially say untrue things about the Catholic Faith as if they know what they are talking about.
Thanks

Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses go through intense training by the Watchtower Society on how to attack and discredit other people’s faith, both Catholics and Protestants, and are very good at it. They need to destroy one’s previous faith in order to replace it with the Watchtower’s faith. They get you to doubting what you already believe, so they can then insinuate into you the JW teachings, which are presented in such a logical manner that you think they have to be true.

JW’s seemingly are such nice, sincere people, so how could they be deceiving? Of course, they themselves have been deceived by the Watchtower. The quotes the WT gives from history books, or the Catholic encyclopedia are cherry-picked, and mostly taken out of context. They depend on the fact that most people will not know how to look up the original source material, nor have the energy to do so, and that people will just accept what the WT says at face value. After all, they are so honest and nice!

 

[dmar198]

Catechism

I don’t see the official teaching being that killing in war is a sin. I believe your old priest was wrong. You can’t have conflicting statements it being a grave duty and it being a sin.:nope:

Also, if it was a sin to kill in a just war, then no one would be permitted to do it. You are not allowed to sin just because you can confess later. All sin is always forbidden. Thus, no just war could ever be waged if killing in one was a sin.

 

[SteveVH]

Also, if it was a sin to kill in a just war, then no one would be permitted to do it. You are not allowed to sin just because you can confess later. All sin is always forbidden. Thus, no just war could ever be waged if killing in one was a sin.

Sin, maybe, but culpability maybe another thing altogether. The rank and file in the military do not get to decide whether or not they believe a war is just. When they receive their orders, they go.

 

[adrift]

Also, if it was a sin to kill in a just war, then no one would be permitted to do it. You are not allowed to sin just because you can confess later. All sin is always forbidden. Thus, no just war could ever be waged if killing in one was a sin.

Exactly!

 

[KathleenGee]

Adrift, thanks for the ccc passage…know it…we have reviewed it alot, coming out of the Vietnam War era of my generation…

Yes he was an old priest…one called him an old shoe…he also told me priests in the cafeteria would get into their own arguments over the ccc in how the passages connect with each other…