Litigious:Furthermore, when you imply that infallibility is disproven by the existence of scandal or bad clerics, you are repeating the same error as the Donatists of the fourth century. They argued that the Church’s validity depended on the moral purity of her ministers. But this was condemned by the Catholic Church, with the support of St. Augustine, who affirmed that the sacraments and the Church’s teaching authority are valid because of Christ’s institution, not the personal holiness of the minister. Otherwise, no Christian could have certainty of truth, since all men are sinners.
I cited the holy Scriptures as my authority those the scriptures plainly declare that those causing division must be isolated.
1timothy ch.1:19,20NLT"Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked. 20Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God."
Litigious:To suggest that the Catholic Church does not obey Scripture because it does not throw out all its sinful members is to ignore the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30).
Me:It is not a suggestion you manifestly are denying the plainly stated commands of the holy Scriptures, the "field" where the wheat and weeds grow alongside each other in Matthew ch.13:24-30 is the WORLD not the Church.while the brothers can't rid the Church of secret sin. Those who openly defy JEHOVAH'S Law must not be tolerated, certainly they ought not to be permitted to teach from any recognized podium. See Matthew ch.13:38
Litigious:Christ warned that the Church would contain both until the final judgment, and that premature judgment could uproot the good with the bad. This does not mean tolerating error indefinitely but calls for prudence, mercy, and fidelity to God’s timing.
Me:The brothers can't rid the Church of secret sins but open defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law must not be tolerated did you miss the pictures of the pride flags in your sanctuary ,there absolutely no excuse for that tolerating such fragrant blasphemy in what ought to be a holy space is certainly not prudent,or genuinely merciful,the church must convey JEHOVAH'S Rebuke to those who insists on obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law that is true mercy
Revelation ch.3:19NIV"Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent."
Litigious:The Catholic Church has a long and consistent history of confronting heresy and disciplining those who lead others astray. She does this through the very authority structure that many Protestants and groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reject—a visible, apostolic, and teaching Church with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:17–18). You cannot reasonably cite verses that support ecclesial discipline while rejecting the very Church through which that discipline has been historically and authoritatively carried out.
Me:The Catholic Church has moved from one extreme to the other and never with the Holy Scripture as a guide preferring to heed charismatic humans, rather than any charisma from JEHOVAH. Hence your history bloodstained hypocrisy, now she speaks out of both corners of her mouth she has a conservative faction that wishes to impose it's values at gunpoint through the state and a left wing Caucus who is also bent on hijacking the state for the purpose of imposing its mores on unbelievers and other believers. And yet she permits open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law in her ranks,so basically it is the opposite our brother Paul's position.
5ch.12,13NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” d"
We discipline those on the inside we leave those on the outside to JEHOVAH.
Litihious:Finally, there is a profound irony in appealing to these verses against false teachers while defending an organization like the Watchtower Society, which has changed numerous doctrinal positions over time—from predictions about the end of the world, to teachings about the “generation” that will not pass away, to medical doctrines like organ transplants and vaccinations. Unlike the Catholic Church, which has preserved the core of apostolic teaching for two thousand years, the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer no consistent witness to unchanging truth, and they explicitly deny Christ’s promise to preserve His Church through the Holy Spirit. This self-defeating position leaves your own tradition vulnerable to the very accusations you try to level against Catholicism.
As I have repeatedly shown you from Scripture JEHOVAH'S Servants have always had an incomplete understanding of prophecy 1Corinthians ch.13:9,Luke ch.24:21
The first century church also had to make adjustments in understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy and other matters, but then as now none of those clarifications were theologically significant, the identity of the most high God as a singular supreme person did not change ,the identity of the only priest as loyal creature whose skinless,faultless loyalty earned him the right to intercede for those putting faith in him and the God who raised him from the dead did not change,the condition of the dead and how it is related to the mechanism of the ransom, nothing of any major theological significance changed
Litigious: In conclusion, the presence of sinful individuals in the Church is not a refutation of her divine institution. Scripture, history, and Christ’s own teaching all bear witness to the reality of a Church that, though composed of fallible men, is led by an infallible God. The Catholic Church exercises correction and discipline according to Scripture, and she does so not through private interpretation, but through
the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors. Your argument collapses when one recognizes that it is precisely the Magisterium—the Church’s God-given teaching office—that ensures the authentic and continuous application of the very scriptural principles you invoke.
Me while it is impossible to rid the Church of secret sins,the idea that thus is any excuse to tolerate those living in OPEN and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law in the churches ranks to say nothing of allowing them teaching authority is frankly blasphemous.
You condemn the Catholic Church for “tolerating” scandal while defending the Watchtower, an organization with a long list of failed predictions (1914, 1925, 1975), doctrinal reversals, and disfellowshippings over teachings that were later changed. You appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:9 to justify this (“we know in part”), but then claim that none of the changes were doctrinally significant. That’s simply not true:
ReplyDelete• You once forbade organ transplants as cannibalism. Now they’re allowed.
• You once condemned vaccinations. Now you require them.
• You once taught that millions alive in 1914 would never die. Now that generation has passed.
Your governing body has reversed itself on major life-altering teachings. These are not small “clarifications,” but authoritative doctrines you claim were taught by Jehovah’s spirit-directed organization. If your organization can be “spirit-led” while teaching error, then your accusation against the Catholic Church collapses. You can’t demand perfection from the Catholic Church while excusing continual revision and contradiction in your own group.
You quote Revelation 3:19—“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” That’s true. But WHO has the authority to rebuke and discipline in the name of Christ? The Watchtower? A committee of men claiming to speak for Jehovah? Christ gave that authority to Peter and the apostles (Matthew 16:18–19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15–17). He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth (John 16:13). The Catholic Church, through apostolic succession and the Magisterium, has preserved that authority for 2,000 years. You have no priesthood, no sacraments, and no succession. And your governing body, unlike the apostles, makes anonymous, reversible decisions, often with deadly consequences (such as the blood transfusion ban or medical doctrine errors). How is that consistent with Christ’s promise?
In conclusion, you’ve judged the Catholic Church based on the sins of her members while ignoring the doctrinal instability, historical scandals, and contradictions of your own organization. You’ve quoted Scripture selectively and interpreted it apart from the very Church through which Christ intended it to be understood. If anything, your arguments prove the need for an authoritative, Spirit-led Church—not a decentralized group of self-appointed interpreters. The Catholic Church acknowledges sin, calls for repentance, and has the historical, biblical, and theological grounding to correct error without contradicting the truth entrusted to her by Christ.
You do not protect truth by abandoning the Church Christ founded. You protect it by remaining faithful to her, even when her members fall.
Vaccinations were never banned they were a conscience issue ,as was transplants, the practice of disfellowshiping was introduced in the,1960s so there was no disfellowshipping prior to that,these were new issues that the Bible writers did not have to deal with so obviously there would be some clarifying would be needed over time especially as the technology changed,unlike you we don't claim inspiration or infallibility,as I pointed out Martin Luther, John Wesley,Christ's apostles also had wrong expectations,I quote what is pertinent to your false accusations, the extremely bad faith opening of lying propagandists cannot be allowed to determined the importance of a given doctrine the standard I employed is the theological significance of the dogma,it's impact on the identity of God and his high priest and our sanctification,
DeleteHaving an incomplete understanding of prophesy does not endangered our relationship with JEHOVAH and his high priest, the introduction of a new technology would require time to assess and make application.
Our actual stance on transplants. https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html
Also it is a lie to state that vaccinations are a religious requirement. We are required to obey the law in whatever jurisdiction we inhabit.
Here is our cessationist position.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/02/on-false-prophets-and-false-accusers.html
The bloodstained hypocrisy and tolerance for open rebellion against JEHOVAH Clearly expose her as a tool of Satan,
Revelation ch.18:4KJV"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues"
Revelation ch.18:24KJV"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
Here is part of the 1967article in question pointing to the fact that it was not only JEHOVAH'S people who had reservations about this new idea.
ReplyDeletequestion as to the wisdom and ethicalness of some transplants. One physician discussed this publicly in the Annals of Internal Medicine, citing the results of 244 kidney-transplant operations. In the majority of cases the recipient did not live more than a year after the operation. Then, commenting on the dangers for the volunteer who donates one of his kidneys, the doctor asked: “Is it right to subject a healthy person . . . to the possibility . . . of shortening his life by 25 or 30 years in order to extend another’s life by 25 or 30 months or less?” Reporting on this, Newsweek, of March 2, 1964, page 74, added that the doctor “offers no conclusive answer, but he suggests that the question needs to be asked more often.”
Here is part of the 1967article in question pointing to the fact that it was not only JEHOVAH'S people who had reservations about this new idea.
ReplyDeletequestion as to the wisdom and ethicalness of some transplants. One physician discussed this publicly in the Annals of Internal Medicine, citing the results of 244 kidney-transplant operations. In the majority of cases the recipient did not live more than a year after the operation. Then, commenting on the dangers for the volunteer who donates one of his kidneys, the doctor asked: “Is it right to subject a healthy person . . . to the possibility . . . of shortening his life by 25 or 30 years in order to extend another’s life by 25 or 30 months or less?” Reporting on this, Newsweek, of March 2, 1964, page 74, added that the doctor “offers no conclusive answer, but he suggests that the question needs to be asked more often.”