Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett 72 Replies latest jw friends

no-zombie

I don't know why anyone argues with aqwsed12345, when its clear they are using an AI text generator.
aqwsed12345

Oh mama, not again ... 🙄
vienne

To suggest that human fallibility among individual Catholics undermines the Church’s position is to misunderstand Catholic ecclesiology. The Catholic Church fully recognizes that individual believers, even saints, scholars, and popes, can err in their private theological opinions or personal judgments. This is precisely why the Church differentiates between the private views of individuals and the official exercise of magisterial authority.
Aside from the self-evident logic flaws in this statement, it is an anti-scriptural viewpoint. The faults of Popes and others representing the Catholic sect present an eras long history of ill considered doctrine and moral and ethical failure. By their fruits they are recognized as other than the faithful Christians they should be. They are the organization. These aren't just "hidden reefs at your love feasts." They are the Catholic organization. The moral ills of the past are striking, but more importantly they continue. The Catholic sect is characterized by moral failure, more wide-spread and more pronounced that anything present among Witnesses or most Protestant sects.
Appealing to the age of Romanism is a false argument. The Bible says Satan is extremely ancient. That does not make him holy, God ordained, or any such thing. The argument from age is misdirected.
You cannot separate the sins of the popes and clergy from the identity of the church. There is no mythical, or mystic, separate identity. The Church is the sum of its authority structure now and in past ages. The Roman sects history is dark. It continues to be so.
aqwsed12345
@vienne
First of all, why don't you finally throw Alexander Hislop's book (the "bible" of anti-Catholic hatred) where it belongs: in the trash?
You claim that my explanation of Catholic ecclesiology is "self-evidently" flawed and "anti-scriptural," but you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches about herself — and frankly, of basic biblical principles about God's dealings with sinful humanity. Your argument boils down to an old, tired polemic that confuses the personal sins of individual members, even of leaders, with the indefectibility of the Church as the Body of Christ. You repeat the same fallacy that countless anti-Catholics have thrown around for centuries: because some bishops, popes, or priests sinned or even committed grievous acts, therefore the Church itself must be false. Yet if you applied that same logic consistently to Scripture, you would have to condemn Israel, the Twelve Apostles, and the very plan of God Himself.
Your premise is absurd because it forgets how God has always worked in history. Was Israel’s covenant invalidated because of the repeated moral failures of its kings, prophets, and priests? Should we conclude that Moses was a fraud because he disobeyed God and struck the rock? Was David's kingship illegitimate because he committed adultery and murder? By your logic, the failures of Israel's leaders would mean that God's covenant promises to Abraham and David were null and void. But Scripture teaches otherwise: "The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). God’s faithfulness is not dependent on the moral perfection of those He calls.
You also accuse the Catholic Church of being a "sect" riddled with "moral failure" more pronounced than among Witnesses or Protestants. Again, your assertion is baseless and historically laughable. The Catholic Church, unlike your former Watchtower leaders, has never claimed that its human ministers are impeccable. She proclaims that Christ alone is holy, and that the Church’s holiness is rooted in Him, not in the personal virtue of every cleric. The Church has always recognized that sinners exist within her visible structure — precisely as Christ Himself taught in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30). You have an unbiblical expectation: you demand a spotless, sinless human institution, when Christ Himself said His kingdom on earth would be a mixed body until the final judgment. It is your ecclesiology that is anti-scriptural, not the Catholic Church’s.
You appeal to the "dark" history of the Church, yet you conveniently ignore two crucial facts. First, despite the personal sins of her members, the Church has preserved intact the full deposit of Christian faith for two thousand years: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture itself. All these you inherited, whether you recognize it or not, from the Church you now malign. Your own Bible exists because of the Catholic Church’s guardianship. Second, you ignore that any institution composed of sinful humans will have sinners among its ranks. The important question is not whether there have been scandals — of course there have been — but whether the Church’s official teaching has ever failed in matters of faith and morals. And the answer, provably, is no.
Your comparison of the Catholic Church's age to Satan’s existence is as theologically shallow as it is offensive. Christ promised that His Church would endure: "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). If you think that promise failed, then you indict Christ Himself, not just His followers. Longevity alone is not proof of divine favor, true — but Christ’s specific promises to His Church, coupled with her miraculous survival through persecution, schisms, corruption, and wars, are a far better sign of divine providence than the collapse, disintegration, and doctrinal chaos that characterize every man-made sect that has broken from her.
Finally, your assertion that "there is no mystical or separate identity" for the Church, that it is "merely the sum of its authority structure," is again at odds with Scripture. Saint Paul teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), animated by the Holy Spirit. She is both visible and mystical: she has sinners in her ranks, yet she remains holy because Christ, her Head, is holy. The identity of the Church does not collapse simply because Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve. Nor does it collapse because some popes, bishops, or priests have sinned. The holiness of the Church is the holiness of Christ communicated to His Body, not a mere human achievement.
You cannot destroy the Catholic Church’s credibility by pointing to sinful Catholics, any more than you can discredit Christ because one of His apostles betrayed Him. Your argument only proves that you have not grasped the mystery of the Church as Christ founded it. In short, your polemic is an old, shallow, and failed attack — and it collapses under the weight of both Scripture and history.

Perhaps many have noticed that whenever there is a debate, anti-Catholics bring up certain historical issues, such as the Inquisition, the Crusades, and church scandals ("but the pedophile priests!"), as a sort of final argument. It is no coincidence that those resort to this Donatist line of argument who otherwise cannot defend their denomination's doctrines with theological reasoning. Essentially, this is the "Nazi card" (reductio ad Hitlerum) of religious debates, which can always be used as a last "argument" against the Catholic debate partner, like "you of all people are saying this, whose denomination is guilty of this an that?" However, this entire question can be broken down into three aspects:
1. Historical Analysis:
Based on the available historical sources, is the perception of those with an anti-Catholic identity regarding the past actions of ecclesiastical institutions and individuals well-founded?
Short answer: No, it is not. There was an Inquisition, there were Crusades, and there were indeed unfortunate excesses during these events, but the extent and nature of these are vastly exaggerated and embellished in such perceptions. Deciding this question is the task of historians. See: Black Legend, Atrocity Propaganda, e.g., the Inquisition.
2. Theological Analysis:
Regardless of the actual extent and nature of these phenomena and actions, do they hold any theological or, more specifically, ecclesiological relevance? More concretely: does the identification of the true church and true theology have anything to do with the personal or public sins committed by the leaders of a given denomination in the past?
Short answer: No, these have no relevance whatsoever. Donatism is heresy, and the moral conduct of a denomination's leaders or members in a particular context is completely irrelevant to the identification of the true church. The statement of Christ, "By their fruits, you will recognize them," does not refer to recognizing the true church versus false religion but solely to recognizing false prophets (one only needs to read the context). In essence, it means false prophets can be recognized by their "fruits," i.e., the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of their prophecies, as described in Deuteronomy 18:20–22. Christ explicitly stated that there would be both righteous and sinful people within His church (Luke 17:1, Mattthew 13:47-50), and that the church's mission would not be revoked even in the face of corrupt leaders (2 Timothy 2:13). Thus, the search for the true church must not follow Donatist logic.
3. Logical-Debate Analysis:
In religious debates, is it logically valid, debate-technically sound, or ethical to point out the morally questionable actions of the debate partner's denomination and thereby avoid substantive theological argumentation?
Short answer: Not at all. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: "It is not who speaks that matters, but with what arguments they support their claims." The arguments and counterarguments of the debate partner should be interpreted on their own merits, and a substantive response should be given according to the rules of logic and debate ethics. Pointing out the so-called "past deeds" of the debate partner’s denomination holds no argumentative value when the subject of the debate is a particular doctrine. See also: Whataboutism, Poisoning the Well, Ad Hominem, Red herring.
The anti-Catholic cults following the Donatist perspective base their attacks against the Catholic Church on a peculiar logical foundation. They believe that ecclesiastical sexual scandals—especially the cases involving pedophile priests—automatically prove that the Catholic Church itself is a satanic organization. Starting from this premise, they argue that there is no need for substantial debate against Catholic theology, as the scandals of the Church are sufficient grounds for its condemnation. This approach bypasses intellectual engagement, as referring to scandals seems adequate for them to establish the Church’s lack of credibility.
In this context, anti-Catholic sectarians espouse a simplified and schematic, communist-style view of history, which portrays the entire past of the Catholic Church as a symbol of evil and exploitation. This perception builds upon the cliché of the "dark Middle Ages," where "evil priests" allegedly thrived on the wealth of the "poor people," depicting the Inquisition as a pre-modern Auschwitz. This oversimplified historical perspective ignores the complexity of Catholic history, highlighting only the negatives while distorting the Church's centuries-long social and cultural contributions.
The anti-Catholic myths surrounding the Inquisition often rest on the assumption that it was a fanatical killing machine akin to Auschwitz, aimed at securing the rule of power-hungry, corpulent priests through the systematic extermination of allegedly pious, Bible-reading peasants. However, this narrative severely distorts historical reality, offering a simplistic propaganda image of the Inquisition that is far removed from historical facts.
First of all, the Inquisition—especially the Spanish Inquisition—was not the bloodthirsty and uncontrollable machine it is often depicted to be. While abuses undoubtedly occurred, the Inquisition was a complex legal institution designed to maintain religious unity and public order in an era when religious and political stability were deeply intertwined. In many cases, the Inquisition was far more moderate than secular authorities, with numerous proceedings ending in mild penalties or complete acquittals. The Inquisition often preempted lynch mobs and ensured legal protections for the innocent, safeguards that other legal systems of the time frequently failed to provide.
The purpose of the Inquisition was not to destroy innocent individuals but to investigate and judge those who genuinely posed threats of religious heresy and social upheaval. The notion of mass killings of "honest peasants," as suggested by the myth, is a historical fabrication. For people of the medieval era, matters of faith were vital to communal life, and religious heresies often intertwined with political or social rebellions that could destabilize societal order.
Furthermore, the historical parallel with Auschwitz is absurd and deeply offensive to the real victims of the Holocaust. Auschwitz was one of the most horrific genocides in modern history, systematically exterminating Jews and other minorities on an industrial scale. By contrast, while the Inquisition did have tragic victims, it was not aimed at eradicating ethnic or religious groups but rather at upholding religious teachings and protecting social order. Comparing the two institutions is not only historically inaccurate but also morally reprehensible.
The misconceptions about the Inquisition are often part of an ideological narrative that seeks to portray the Catholic Church as a malevolent tyrant while disregarding historical context and the complexities of the era. Genuine historical research, however, presents a more nuanced picture of the Inquisition, which was far from perfect but not the dark, demonic institution that some anti-Catholic sects attempt to depict.
Additionally, the rhetoric employed by these sects often parallels that used under Stalinism against the "clerical reaction." This extreme rhetoric tolerates no finer distinctions and turns all criticism against the Catholic hierarchy. When debating with Catholics, they frequently use the scandals involving pedophile priests as their trump card. In their view, this argument overrides all others, believing that the mainstream media provides comprehensive and objective coverage of Church scandals—at least, this is what they assume. The media's coverage of these scandals thus reinforces the sectarian worldview, suggesting that the Catholic Church is not only misguided but actively serves satanic forces.
The rhetoric and propaganda techniques employed by these sects strongly resemble the hate campaigns against "clerical reaction" in Soviet-style systems. Soviet ideology sought to demonize religion and its representatives, particularly the Catholic Church, portraying them as "enemies of the people." Similarly, some sects use methods that not only attack Catholic teachings but also demonize priests, portraying them all as evil, power-hungry figures.
For example, the illustrations of Catholic priests in Watchtower publications strikingly resemble those in the Soviet atheist magazine Bezbozhnik (Безбожник). Both sources use the same stereotypical, manipulative depictions: fat, domineering priests who oppress the "poor" and profit materially from religion. These depictions aim to provoke emotional reactions but are not grounded in an objective understanding of reality or factual analysis of Church history.
Such primitive hate-filled rhetoric and imagery leave no room for fair debate or discussion of historical facts. Instead of substantiating their critiques with arguments and evidence, they rely on emotional manipulation and the creation of enemy stereotypes, much like Soviet-era propaganda. This approach complicates meaningful discussions of criticism against the Catholic Church and its teachings, as these smear campaigns often ignore nuanced arguments and oversimplify reality to create an easily attackable caricature.
This type of rhetoric does not aim to foster dialogue but to sow division and incite hatred. Just as Soviet ideology sought to strip religion of all legitimacy, these sects use similar methods to persuade their followers that the Catholic Church is not just flawed but outright satanic.
Such a mindset, however, is shallow and reductive. The sins and mistakes of the Church are real, and genuine accountability must be taken for them, but these do not negate the holiness and mission of the Church as a whole. The sectarian anti-Catholic mindset focuses excessively on certain scandals while forgetting that the Church is not an institution of sinners but a gathering of those who partake in Christ's holy body, all striving for redemption.
Some resources:
vienne

What the Catholic Church teaches about itself is irrelevant. No one would accept that convoluted reasoning if applied to a political entity. And the Roman church is one. Other than Russians no one takes Russia's' self identity at face value. We define Russia by its leaders actions. The same is true of any other nation.
I read Hyslop's book. It's what historians do. I read endless Catholic nonsense as well. But I don't find either creditable. Your attempt at insult is noted. Your church is corrupt. It is marked as corrupt by its past and by its current history. Your clergy are exposed as immoral. You history as you present it cannot be sustained. Your doctrines are false. Open your eyes. Your self-identity depends on historically and scripturally untenable claims.
When you discuss doctrine here, you consistently twist logic and scripture. I think you know this. You must be aware of how much you have to dance to make scripture fit your hermeneutic. I think you're here for self verification. If you were here for a clear scriptural debate, you'd abandon everything but scripture. No reliance on church teachings, "church fathers" or tradition. Just the Bible. That you do not approach debate here in that way reveals a considerable amount of ambivalence over the validity of your church and your place in it.
And I reiterate, I'm not a Witness. I've never been one. I don't care how offended you are by Watchtower publications.
vienne

Both sources use the same stereotypical, manipulative depictions: fat, domineering priests who oppress the "poor" and profit materially from religion. These depictions aim to provoke emotional reactions but are not grounded in an objective understanding of reality or factual analysis of Church history.
This approach wouldn't work without a large element of truth behind it.
aqwsed12345
@vienne
Your entire response only confirms what I said: you are trapped in the same tired, anti-Catholic fallacies that have been refuted for centuries — and you’re apparently either unwilling or unable to think your way out of them.
First, "credibility" is completely irrelevant to the truth of a tenet. If a mathematician who happens to be a mass murderer, pedophile, terrorist whatever, claims that 2+2=4, then he is right in this regard, as opposed to the pious, benevolent mathematician who claims that 5. And therefore, if all the popes in the history of the world had done nothing but bathe in the blood of babies 24/7, if their theology is correct, then it is correct despite their personal morals, and likewise all non-Catholics - despite all their personal moral values - are in error. So the morals of the popes and the clergy are just a red herring, completely irrelevant.
Therefore, your analogy between the Catholic Church and political entities like Russia is fundamentally flawed and absurd. The Church is not a mere political institution; it is, according to Scripture itself, the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27). No political entity, ancient or modern, has ever claimed to be the mystical Body of the eternal Son of God. By trying to shoehorn the Church into a secular political framework, you reveal not only theological ignorance but a complete disregard for what the Bible says about Christ’s Church. In short, your analogy is a category error — the kind of basic logical mistake that invalidates your entire argument from the start.
Second, you say that you "read" Hislop’s book "like a historian." Nonsense. Any serious historian — Catholic, Protestant, or secular — recognizes that Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons is a work of fantasy, not credible historical scholarship. Protestant scholars themselves have exposed Hislop as a fraud. If you actually did your "historian" homework instead of parroting anti-Catholic propaganda, you would know that reputable historians like Ralph Woodrow, a Protestant who initially accepted Hislop, later publicly recanted after realizing that Hislop’s work was riddled with distortions, false associations, fabricated etymologies, and historical absurdities. Hislop's book is to serious historical research what flat-Earth theory is to astronomy. The fact that you still cling to it disqualifies you from any pretense of serious historical discourse.
Third, your tactic is the classic Donatist error: you think the sins of individual Catholics, even priests and popes, disprove the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ. This is both logically and biblically bankrupt. If your standard were true, you would have to reject the Old Testament covenant as well, since Israel’s priests, prophets, and kings — including Moses, Aaron, David, and Solomon — committed grave sins. Yet God’s covenant remained, not because of their perfection, but because of God’s faithfulness (Romans 11:29). You offer no serious theological rebuttal to this. You don’t even try. You just repeat the same simplistic slogan: "Your clergy are corrupt." So what? The personal sins of leaders have never, in any biblical dispensation, invalidated the legitimacy of God's covenant community.
You shout that the Church's "self-identity depends on historically and scripturally untenable claims," but you offer no proof — just assertions. You think if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, it will become true. It won’t. The Catholic Church’s claims are rooted in the clear testimony of Scripture: Christ established one visible Church (Matthew 16:18–19; John 17:21), promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), and conferred divine teaching authority upon its leaders (Matthew 18:17–18; Luke 10:16). Your approach — "ignore everything but the Bible, cut yourself off from history, tradition, and reason" — is a recipe for doctrinal chaos, not truth. Indeed, your method has already spawned over 40,000 Protestant denominations, all reading the same Bible yet reaching contradictory conclusions. So much for your supposed "clear scriptural debate."
You declare, smugly, that if I were serious, I would "abandon everything but the Bible." Really? Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? Especially your kind of "nuda Scriptura"? Chapter and verse, please. I’ll wait. (Spoiler: it doesn’t. Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical Protestant invention from the 16th century — a human tradition, ironically violating the very principle it claims to uphold.)
Moreover, your demand that Christians should rely """only""" on Scripture ignores how Scripture itself commands us to hold fast to both written and oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You pretend that citing the Church Fathers or the consistent tradition of the Christian faith across two millennia is a weakness. In reality, it is your weakness — because you have no history, no continuity, no connection to the apostles except the Bible you privately reinterpret according to your own whims.
In short, you have no right to criticize "convoluted reasoning" when your own position is built on historical amnesia, theological illiteracy, and logical inconsistency. You refuse to answer basic challenges, such as:
- Where was your invisible, "purely Bible-based" church before the 16th century?
- How did Christians determine the canon of Scripture without the Catholic Church?
- How do you know your private interpretation is correct when countless other Bible-only readers reach opposite conclusions?
You have no answers because your system collapses once questioned. So instead, you retreat into personal attacks and recycled sectarian slogans. Your "arguments" — if they can even be called that — amount to nothing more than a bundle of emotional resentments masquerading as theological critique.
Finally, your sneering comment that you "don't care how offended" I am by Watchtower publications only further exposes your bias. I wasn’t offended — I was pointing out that your anti-Catholic rhetoric mirrors the propaganda tactics of groups like the Watchtower: a toxic brew of historical falsification, character assassination, and shallow theology.
You said you think I'm here for "self-verification." No — I’m here because the truth matters, and because Christ promised that His Church would stand forever (Matthew 28:19-20). Meanwhile, you're here to shout at the Bride of Christ from the outside, clinging desperately to your caricatures and conspiracy theories.
I’ll stand with Christ and His Church. You can keep shouting at the walls. It won't change reality. The Catholic Church remains — despite persecution, heresy, scandal, and every attack from enemies ancient and modern — because she is the Church founded by Christ Himself. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.
aqwsed12345

This approach wouldn't work without a large element of truth behind it.
Would you say the same about the cartoons of hook-nosed Jews in the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer?
slimboyfat

Second, you say that you "read" Hislop’s book "like a historian." Nonsense. Any serious historian — Catholic, Protestant, or secular — recognizes that Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons is a work of fantasy, not credible historical scholarship.
You are so disagreeable, you’re constantly looking for disagreement even where there is none. I think it’s clear vienne meant she reads Hyslop critically as a historian should. But you pretend she meant the opposite and reads it uncritically in order to justify yet another AI generated rant designed to demonstrate how wrong everybody is who’s not a Catholic.
aqwsed12345

"...designed to demonstrate how wrong everybody is who’s not a Catholic."
I have never claimed such a thing, and I especially like to debate with those who actually know Catholic teaching well and can criticize it on its merits, and I am angry with those who continue such primitive tirades and repeat standard topos.

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

Share this