How is magisterium different from Governing Body?????

by Terry 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    Let me introduce you to a term used in the Roman Catholic Church you may not be familiar with: Governing Body

    In the Roman Catholic Church the word "Magisterium" refers to the teaching authority of the church. This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who has authority over the bishops, individually and as a body, as well as over each and every Catholic directly. According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly (see chart below).

    "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
    Now, a term you are already familiar with:
    The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the supreme ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses [ 1 ] based in Brooklyn, New York that assumes responsibility for formulating policy and doctrines, producing material for publications and conventions, administering its worldwide branch office staff and directing the activities of all members of the religion. [ 2 ] The Governing Body is described as the representative and "spokesman" for God's "faithful and discreet slave class" (the approximately 10,800 remaining "anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses), although in practice it seeks neither advice nor approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at Brooklyn Bethel when formulating policy and doctrines or when producing material for publications and conventions.
    For all practical purposes, these separate entities function the same.
    The more authority vested in the leadership, the less necessity to prove through reference material (scripture).
    The Roman Catholic Church took early christianity in its squabbles, differences of opinion, varied doctrines, disputes and welded them into a unity by doing away with the source of dispute: SCRIPTURE.
    When Authority replaced scriptural disputes there vanished a platform of controversy.
    Catholic Authority (magisterium) represented it this way : What is bound on earth (by the Church) is bound in heaven (God approves.)
    In Watchtowerland, the critics can only assail policies and doctrines by resorting to scriptural interpretations. However, by replacing the authority of Governing Body magisterium (Jehovah's only channel of communication) for bible teaching, the platform for dispute is set aside.
    Members can be excommunicated (disfellowshipped) for disputing this authority. Loyalty to Jehovah or bible "truth" is set aside in favor of mere obedience to pronouncement from Governing Body writings.
    The Catholic Church survives through every scandal because it is the "true church" with magisterium.
    The strategy of Watchtowerland is identical. Loyalty to mother supercedes all else.
    "Whom shall we go away to?" becomes the reply when the authority is challenged.
    If there is only one authoritative channel to God it doesn't matter what policies are wrong, are changed, are dropped altogether.
    What is bound on earth will be bound in heaven.
    Nice touch.
  • minimus
    minimus

    Good points to show a JW .....they're no different than the Catholics!

  • Paralipomenon
    Paralipomenon

    It's funny, the larger they grow, the more they are becoming carbon copies of other religions out of legal/political necessity.

  • sir82
    sir82

    I've stated a number of times...if the JWs manage to survive for 300 or so years, they'd be virtually identical to the Catholics, at least in structure.

  • sd-7
    sd-7

    Not bloody surprising at all. Only difference is, at least Catholics would be able to figure that out without fear of ex-communication. Not so in Watchtowerland. Ex-communication is pagan for us in 1947 (see Jan. 8, 1947 Awake!), and scriptural in 1952. I love it. Authority over scripture. The perfect weapon.

    The way of the Sith is easily understood in Watchtowerland. "Two there should be, no more, no less--one to embody the power (the 'anointed'), the other to crave it (the 'other sheep')."

    SD-7

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    The Roman Catholic Church took early christianity in its squabbles, differences of opinion, varied doctrines, disputes and welded them into a unity by doing away with the source of dispute: SCRIPTURE.

    How so?

    BTS

  • villabolo
    villabolo
    The Roman Catholic Church took early christianity in its squabbles, differences of opinion, varied doctrines, disputes and welded them into a unity by doing away with the source of dispute: SCRIPTURE.

    Burn The Ships: "How so?"

    First by stating which scripture would be considered Scripture. Second, and more importantly, by imposing it's interpretation of said Scripture/Doctrines under pain of excommunication or worse, much worse.

    villabolo

    Edited to change first sentence.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    That isn't "doing away with Scripture." That is defining what is and isn't Scripture, and defining what Scripture means.

    BTS

  • agonus
    agonus

    Yep. The only real difference between Benedict and Ted is that Ben won't shun you if you question him.

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    Burn The Ships: "That isn't "doing away with Scripture." That is defining what is and isn't Scripture, and defining what Scripture means."

    This first half of my statement talked about the doing away of some of the very extensive and wide variety of documents that were considered Scripture (with a Capital S) to many Christian sects. Imagine how Catholics like you would feel if Protestants were to decide to banish the Apocrypha from Catholic Bibles?

    And you did not respond to my second question which I described as being of more importance. There is another way to nullify ("do away with") a document whether it be Scripture or something else and that is to monopolize it's interpretation under pain of psychological and physical harm (excomunication, burning at the stake, etc.) to those who have a different interpretation. By negating any interpretation but it's own, which doesn't necessarily have to be the true one (read: is unlikely to be accurate) it essentially does away with the intent of the authors of the scriptures in what they were trying to communicate.

    You essentilly get THEIR IMPOSED (pseudo) scripture disguised as somebody elses writing. Sound familiar?

    villabolo

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit