M
Marilena
Guest
I’d like a good answer to this, and the reasons for it.
- Status
B
b_justb
Guest
JW’s think that Christianity was corrupted by Constantine the Great; that all of the tenants of the Creed were formed by him and as thus paganism was inserted and ruined Christianity. Since it was Constantine the Great (according to the JW) that made up the Catholic Church and put it up as the State religion, the pope is ipso facto corrupt as well.
My father is a JW and has been one for a very long time. My attempts at using only quotes from the Early Church Fathers from the Ante-Nicean period on all aspects of Christian doctrine were to no avail. As well as historical proofs that his time line on when and who made Christianity the Roman State Religion were also of no avail.
My father is a JW and has been one for a very long time. My attempts at using only quotes from the Early Church Fathers from the Ante-Nicean period on all aspects of Christian doctrine were to no avail. As well as historical proofs that his time line on when and who made Christianity the Roman State Religion were also of no avail.
J
jschwehm
Guest
Right. The JWs come out of the adventist tradition and so have a long history of hating the Catholic Church. So their view of the early church can be very skewed. However, depending on how open the person is, I have found that with some searching JWs the writings of the early church fathers are very powerful.
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
www.cafepress.com/catholicxjw
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
www.cafepress.com/catholicxjw
A
At_His_Feet
Guest
Additionally, their beliefs are so at odds with those of the early Christians, that they have to place the “apostasy” well before Constantine. (All non-Catholic religions, BTW, have to place the “apostasy” somewhere, some have to place the apostasy farther back than others. ) In the case of JWs, they believe that the apostasy occured almost immediately after the death of the apostles, and was beginning before their death.
This doesn’t stop them from occasionally quoting early Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., when it can be made to seem like they support JW doctrine. But what that approach lacks is a comprehensive, thoroughgoing study of what the early Christians believed; it is similar to proof-texting out of context. Also, JW literature occasionally shows pictures of the early Christians undergoing persecution; it is incongruous that at the same time they accuse the 2nd and 3rd Century Christians of going “apostate”. A good question for them would be - what did those Christians depicted as being persecuted believe?
This doesn’t stop them from occasionally quoting early Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., when it can be made to seem like they support JW doctrine. But what that approach lacks is a comprehensive, thoroughgoing study of what the early Christians believed; it is similar to proof-texting out of context. Also, JW literature occasionally shows pictures of the early Christians undergoing persecution; it is incongruous that at the same time they accuse the 2nd and 3rd Century Christians of going “apostate”. A good question for them would be - what did those Christians depicted as being persecuted believe?
M
Marilena
Guest
I know their thinking on this is absolutely flawed. But I just don’t get it. when you prove it to them, how can they
continue to deny it? I suppose its because of their
allegiance to the falsetower, and what the falsetower
has taught them. The fact they are denying it, does that
make the denial of Apostolic Succession a mortal sin?
continue to deny it? I suppose its because of their
allegiance to the falsetower, and what the falsetower
has taught them. The fact they are denying it, does that
make the denial of Apostolic Succession a mortal sin?
B
b_justb
Guest
They continue to deny it because they truly believe that what the Watchtower Bible and Tracrt Society says are the very words of Jehovah God. For them the WBTS is the prophet of God on earth and no matter what anyone else says it is nly the WTBS that is correct all others are “false.”
M
Marilena
Guest
I think so too, but does their denial of Apostolic
Succession make it a mortal sin?
Succession make it a mortal sin?
M
Marilena
Guest
Also if there any jw’s out there who want to give us their
viewpoint, I’d like to ask them to post it here so we can
have a very open discussion. I never read about this
denial of Apostolic Succession until it was told to me,
and then it was not explained to me, only the fact that
they deny it. I got to thinking, well maybe denial of the
succession is a mortal sin? You’d almost think so
right? Along with denial of the Trinity, and the divinity of
Jesus and so on. Are not all these serious mortal sins?
As well as the fact that they altered the scriptures.
So in saying all this, does it not make one think that
the organization has alot of answering to do on the judgement?
viewpoint, I’d like to ask them to post it here so we can
have a very open discussion. I never read about this
denial of Apostolic Succession until it was told to me,
and then it was not explained to me, only the fact that
they deny it. I got to thinking, well maybe denial of the
succession is a mortal sin? You’d almost think so
right? Along with denial of the Trinity, and the divinity of
Jesus and so on. Are not all these serious mortal sins?
As well as the fact that they altered the scriptures.
So in saying all this, does it not make one think that
the organization has alot of answering to do on the judgement?
M
Marilena
Guest
Also are there any priests here who could help out in this discussion? I’d like to see what a priest has to say.
F
flameburns623
Guest
By coincidence I own a copy of Reasoning From the Scriptures, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989 edition, which states on page 37 and following:
Apostolic Succession
Definition: The doctrine that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the Roman Catholic Church the bishops as a group are said to be successors of the apostles and the pope is claimed to be the successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the postion and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority of the whole Church. Not a Bible teaching.
Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?
Matt 16:18, JB(Jerusalem Bible, citied presumably because it is a Catholic edition of Scripture; I think JW’s trust it more because it uses the name of God, ‘Yahweh’. Note inserted for clarification by flameburns623. All notes in {} following are found in the original). “I say now to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of th underworld can never hold out against it.” {Note that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus}.
Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the ‘rock’ the ‘cornerstone’? Acts 4:8-11, JB "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, address them: 'Rulers of the people and elders . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised fro the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders which has proved to be the keystone {‘cornerstone’, NAB).’"
I Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “Set yourself close to him, {the Lord Jesus Christ} so that you too . . .may be living stones makeing a spiritual house, As the scriptures says, See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers it is precious; but for unbelievers the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”
Eph. 2:20, JB “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for it’s foundations and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”
M
mikew262
Guest
Mortal sin is a catholic concept; irrelevent to a JW.
However for the sake of argument, remember part of the criteria for a mortal sin; the sinner has to actually realize what he/she is doing is actually a sin. If the JW doesn’t believe this belief to be a sin, then it certainly wouldn’t be a mortal sin.
F
flameburns623
Guest
post continued from previous:
What was the belief of Augustine, (who was view as a saint by the Catholic Church)?
"In the same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . .In a passage of this book, I said about the Apostle Peter; ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’ . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained, that the Lord said ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’, that it be understood as build upon Him whom Peter confessed saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the ‘keys of thekingdom of heaven.’ For ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the Rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock ws Christ’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter"–The Fathers of the Church–Saint Augustine, the Retractions {Washington D.C.; 1968*}, translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90*.}
Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy amng them? Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also betwen them {the apostles} about which sould be reckoned the greates, but he said to them, 'Among pagans it is the kings who lard it over them and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.” {If Peter were the “rock” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?}
Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7: 23-35, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests {in Israel}, because death put an end to each one of them; but this one {Jesus Christ}, because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”
Rom.6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead, will never die again”.
Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church”.
What were “the keys” entrusted to Peter?
Matt. 16:19, JB:* “I will give you the keys of the kindom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be conserved loosed in heaven”.*
In Revelation, Jesus referrred to a symbolic key used by himself to open up privilieges and opportunities to humans.
Rev. #: 7, 8, JB: “Here is the message of the holy and faithful one who has the key of David so that when he opens nobody can close and when he closes nobody can open: …I have opened in front of you a door that nobody will be able to close”.
There are several pages more but copying from a book is exhausting (this book is not available online). Hope this is enough to begin a fair discussion. The next several pages go on to suggest that:
What was the belief of Augustine, (who was view as a saint by the Catholic Church)?
"In the same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . .In a passage of this book, I said about the Apostle Peter; ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’ . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained, that the Lord said ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’, that it be understood as build upon Him whom Peter confessed saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the ‘keys of thekingdom of heaven.’ For ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the Rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock ws Christ’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter"–The Fathers of the Church–Saint Augustine, the Retractions {Washington D.C.; 1968*}, translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90*.}
Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy amng them? Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also betwen them {the apostles} about which sould be reckoned the greates, but he said to them, 'Among pagans it is the kings who lard it over them and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.” {If Peter were the “rock” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?}
Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7: 23-35, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests {in Israel}, because death put an end to each one of them; but this one {Jesus Christ}, because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”
Rom.6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead, will never die again”.
Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church”.
What were “the keys” entrusted to Peter?
Matt. 16:19, JB:* “I will give you the keys of the kindom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be conserved loosed in heaven”.*
In Revelation, Jesus referrred to a symbolic key used by himself to open up privilieges and opportunities to humans.
Rev. #: 7, 8, JB: “Here is the message of the holy and faithful one who has the key of David so that when he opens nobody can close and when he closes nobody can open: …I have opened in front of you a door that nobody will be able to close”.
There are several pages more but copying from a book is exhausting (this book is not available online). Hope this is enough to begin a fair discussion. The next several pages go on to suggest that:
- Peter used his ‘keys’ in opening the Gospel to first to the Jews, then to gentiles and Samaritans. Acts 2:14-39, 8:14-17; 10: 24-48 are cited.
- That Heaven did not wait on Peter to make decisions. Acts 2: 4, 14 and 10:19-20 are cited.
- that Peter is not the one who decides who is worthy to enter the Kingdom. II Tim 4:1, 4:8 are cited.
- that Peter was never mentioned in Scripture as being is Rome (the citation suggests that Peter ministered to Jews of the Diaspora, actually living in the historical Babylon of the First Century). I Peter 5:13 is cited and The Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971}, Vol 15, col. 755, is quoted.
- that no unbroken line of succession actually exists between Peter and modern Popes. Fr. John McKenzie (The Roman Catholic Church, {New York, 1969} p. 4 and The New Catholic Encyclopedia, {1967}, Vol I, p. 696 are quoted.
- that such succession would be invalidated in any case if those who make such appointments are not obedient to God and Christ. ( A number of teachings of the RCC which the JW’s presume to be anti-Scriptural then follow and are rebutted by selective Bible citations; the conclusion is then drawn that those who claim to be successors to Peter have not really taught or practiced what Christ and his apostles did).
A
At_His_Feet
Guest
flame - in this case, the JW resonse to “apostolic succession” is not so unique to them. It can be said to be very similar to the attempts of other sects to refute it. The specifics of those arguments for and against have been talked about allot over on the “apologetics” threads.
But as some have pointed out here already, what JWs have at stake in refuting the authority of the Bishop of Rome is much different than what others do, because their belief is so at variance with Nicene and pre-Nicene Christianity. For them, it’s not merely a question of the continuity of authority, but about the legitimacy or authority of any of the early bishops.
And just one thing about one of the points from the “Reasoning” book: To deny that Peter was in Rome because it can’t be “proven” from Scripture alone, shows up the fallacy of depending on Scripture alone. The fact that 20th Century writers would call into question the testimony of the early Christians over this, speaks volumes in itself.
But as some have pointed out here already, what JWs have at stake in refuting the authority of the Bishop of Rome is much different than what others do, because their belief is so at variance with Nicene and pre-Nicene Christianity. For them, it’s not merely a question of the continuity of authority, but about the legitimacy or authority of any of the early bishops.
And just one thing about one of the points from the “Reasoning” book: To deny that Peter was in Rome because it can’t be “proven” from Scripture alone, shows up the fallacy of depending on Scripture alone. The fact that 20th Century writers would call into question the testimony of the early Christians over this, speaks volumes in itself.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
These are all sins against faith, and if a Catholic were to hold these views, they would certainly be mortal sins. The fact that JW’s sincerely believe them to be true might reduce their culpability, but the leaders of the organization, who knowingly submit to these falsehoods to keep recruiting members to propogate their cause most likely will be more accountable to God. I find most JW’s to be sincerely religious (albeit deceived) people. I bet they make good Catholics once converted!
M
Marilena
Guest
Yes, that may well be so for the individual jw, but what about their
governing body?
J
Jaded27
Guest
falsetower. . . clever. lol
F
flameburns623
Guest
Marilena:
The same principle applies. One can charitably assume that because those in leadership within the Watchtower are ‘locked-in’ to a particular paradigm or way of looking at Scripture and the world-at-large, they are invincibly incapable of understanding Christian truth. Further, if they are honorable people who would become Christians if they could in fact come to the knowledge of the truth of the Christian faith, Catholic theology suggest that they will indeed be saved. Or as the Eastern Orthodox like to say—we know where the Church IS but not necessarily where it ISN’T, meaning that there may be some genuinely-saved people trapped by false faiths.
- Status