DISQUS

jonnybullet · 11 months ago

True Christians today should stand out for their distinctive way of life, just as they did in the first century. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to adhere strictly to the precepts established by the first Christians. Their efforts to pattern their lives after the teachings of the Bible are noticed by others.


True Christians are zealous evangelizers, as they were centuries ago
For instance, the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as “one of the best-behaved groups in the world.” The Deseret News of Salt Lake City, Utah, observed that Jehovah’s Witnesses “promote strong family ties and develop productive and honest citizens.” The newspaper added: “Members believe in a strong moral code. They believe smoking, overdrinking, drug misuse, gambling, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are spiritually damaging practices. They teach honesty and good work habits.”

The Witnesses also take to heart their responsibility to be zealous evangelizers. Commenting on this the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The fundamental obligation of each member . . . is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. . . . To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”

Clearly, true Christianity is much more than membership in one of the many religions of Christendom. Jesus himself foretold the rise of counterfeit Christians. (Matthew 7:22, 23) Jehovah’s Witnesses invite you to learn what Jesus taught and put it into practice. That is what it means to be a Christian. Jesus said: “If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.”—John 13:17.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* One dictionary defines a Christian as someone who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or who follows the religion based on his life and teachings.

John from Atlanta · 11 months ago

Three things are concerning about Pope Benedict XVI's decision to re-instate these men. First, as a group they have been openly atagonistic to the changes brought about by Vactican II. Since these men have not been required to repudiate their prior statements regarding Vactican II should the laity infer that the current Pope is equally antagonistic to these changes?

Second, the dramatic reversal of this decision in such a short time frame (20 years) is disturbing. Either Pope John Paul II was wrong to excommunicate these men or Pope Benedict is wrong to reinstate them. There is no middle ground here. The lack of any theological explanation leaves the laity with the strong impression that this decision was made for political reasons.

Third, Richard Williamson views are indeed relevant. The Church should be collectively embarrassed that a nutter like this was allowed to reach a position of leadership in the first place. We finally get rid of the guy (though I agree his excommunication was not principally due to his anti-Simitic views), we should at least have the common sense and decency not to allow him back into the Church.

astorg · 11 months ago

@John from Atlanta: You have a point about the dichotomy between the two decisions (1988 and 2009). But neither decision was made for political reasons. Indeed, the Holy See's position in 1988 was that the decision was not its own to take, since the bishops would have become excommunicate ipso facto, entirely by their own doing.

In reality, the double standard applied to the Chinese Patriotic Church after 1951 and to the SSPX many years later shows that the John Paul II's Holy See was being slightly disingenuous. Ultimately, the grounds invoked were disciplinary (lack of submission to the Pope) rather than theological, and in the matter of discipline there is rather more room for flexibility. Put otherwise, times have changed and by 2009 it was obvious that the disciplinary perspective has shifted dramatically.

Regarding Mgr Williamson's views, I was not suggesting they should be brushed under the carpet. Being a negationist is neither grounds for being excommunicated, nor even—we don't like it, but it's the legal position—a justifiable reason for subsequently remaining excommunicate if one has already been for other, theological or disciplinary, reasons. It's a completely separate, unrelated issue. On the other hand, it is certainly unacceptable for anyone in a position of authority, especially moral authority. So it is to be hoped that the SSPX, which has already expressed its displeasure, and possibly the German courts, since Mgr Williamson's latest comments appear to have been recorded in Germany where such comments are against the law, will take the appropriate action.

astorg · 11 months ago

Update: Mgr Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, in an interview with Genevan newspaper Le Temps, has distanced himself from Mgr Williamson:

- Do you condemn the negationist declarations of Bishop Williamson?

- [Fellay:] It does not belong to me to condemn them. I do not have the competence for this. But I deplore that a Bishop may have given the impression of involving the Fraternity with a view that is not ours.