Posts by aqwsed12345

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

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?

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

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.

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

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:

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

Oh mama, not again ... 🙄

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

It is important to distinguish very carefully between individual Catholic figures expressing personal opinions about the end times and the official, authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, as a divinely instituted guardian of the deposit of faith, has never officially endorsed or dogmatically proclaimed any specific date for the end of the world or Christ's return. Individual Catholics, even prominent ones such as Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus, or later figures like Pope Sylvester II and Pope Innocent III, have at times speculated about eschatological matters based on their interpretations of Scripture, current events, or popular apocalyptic expectations of their era. However, these personal speculations were not, and have never been, presented as binding teachings of the Church. They did not proceed from the Church’s magisterial authority, and certainly were not issued ex cathedra, that is, infallibly and universally binding on all the faithful.

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. The consistent teaching of the Church, grounded in the words of Christ Himself (Matthew 24:36), is that "no one knows the day or the hour" of the end, and any attempt to pinpoint it has always been discouraged at the doctrinal level. In contrast to movements like the Watchtower Society, which has repeatedly and institutionally fixed dates for the end (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975) and tied these to their theological identity, the Catholic Church has never formally or doctrinally staked its credibility on end-times predictions. When the Watchtower’s dates failed, it triggered massive disillusionment among its members because these predictions were presented as part of God's revealed plan. No such institutional scandal or doctrinal error attaches to the Catholic Church in this regard. Thus, the distinction remains clear: Catholicism, at the level of official teaching, has been faithful to Christ’s warning not to seek after "times or seasons" which the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:7), even if individual Catholics, like all human beings, have sometimes fallen into speculative excesses.

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

Yes, for example, she's two thousand years old and has never endorsed false end-time dates, and by the way - among other things - you can thank her for not living in a cave right now :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5siHd1P5zk&list=PL57857981F3CC5D78&index=1

119

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

aqwsed12345

By the way, it is entirely possible — and perhaps even likely — that she did not intentionally fabricate her story, but rather experienced a form of confabulation, which is common in later life. This isn’t lying, but rather a phenomenon where the mind fills in gaps in memory with reconstructed impressions that feel emotionally real, even if they are not factually accurate.

Considering her background in Bavaria, it’s plausible that she had distant cultural awareness of the Ratzinger name or even the family, and after decades of living abroad — and possibly facing age-related cognitive decline such as early dementia or Alzheimer’s disease — those fragments could have reassembled into a narrative she truly believed. The election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope in 2005 may have triggered those associations and given them shape, especially in the absence of direct familial ties.

Moreover, what she claimed the Pope supposedly told her — "You are doing the work we should be doing. Your halls are full, our churches are empty" — follows an almost identical rhetorical formula frequently found in Watchtower publications, where priests, ministers or even bishops allegedly express admiration or envy for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ door-to-door efforts. These anecdotes are never independently verified, but serve a powerful internal narrative purpose: to reinforce the idea that even outsiders, even high-ranking clergy, know "deep down" that the Witnesses are right. This narrative pattern makes her testimony even more suspect, not because of malice, but because of the very familiarity and emotional appeal such stories hold within JW circles.

In this light, Mrs. Brzakovic’s account — while emotionally sincere — appears to be a blend of confused memory, subconscious borrowing of narrative tropes, and perhaps a deep human desire for significance and recognition. From a Catholic standpoint, this interpretation allows us to respect her dignity as a person while clearly affirming that theological truth cannot rest on sentimental or unverified personal anecdotes.

After all, Pope Benedict XVI was a deeply orthodox theologian and staunch defender of the Catholic faith. It is inconsistent — even inconceivable — that he would privately affirm the mission of a sect that denies the Trinity, the Real Presence, and apostolic succession.

72

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

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

aqwsed12345

The slow unraveling of a religious empire often begins not with a bang, but with the death of a voice that once held together its illusions. One such figure, revered by his followers yet increasingly exposed by history, presided over a movement that claimed divine authority but could not withstand the scrutiny of time or intellect. His eccentric literary style—marked by breathless exclamation points, bizarre prophetic reinterpretations, and tortured grammar—once enchanted his faithful, masking the inherent contradictions and failed prophecies embedded in their theology.

After his death in the early 1990s, the movement's literature visibly changed. Those who remained inside described a clear shift: from the feverish, verbose style of their fallen leader to a simplified, almost childlike tone designed for the most basic comprehension. The complicated "types and antitypes," the Cold-War-fueled doomsday scenarios, and the smug pseudo-intellectualism gave way to watered-down, repetitive platitudes. It was as if the intellectual engine had been removed, and all that remained was a clumsy machine sputtering along on inertia. The faithful noticed: no longer were there grand, if bizarre, theological constructions. Instead, came a steady diet of reprints, half-hearted experiences, and shallow illustrations fit for teenagers, hardly the "spiritual feast" once promised.

The once-central notion of a select, heavenly class—the "anointed remnant"—faded into obscurity as theological embarrassment forced a quiet retreat. With the number of professed "anointed" rising unexpectedly, the leadership resorted to dismissing many of them as mentally unstable. This astonishing admission, dressed in diplomatic language, only highlighted the movement's inability to sustain its own doctrine without contradiction. The supposed "faithful and discreet slave" morphed from a collective body into a handful of men who had crowned themselves as the sole interpreters of God's will, conveniently brushing aside the theology they once preached.

Compounding the decay, the aftermath of failed prophetic expectations—especially the dramatic redefinition of the "generation" doctrine in the mid-1990s—struck a devastating blow. Many realized then that the promise of imminent deliverance was nothing more than a cynical mechanism to ensure loyalty and obedience. Those awake enough to see the betrayal either fled or hardened into a hollow compliance, while the institution itself sank deeper into irrelevance, slowly transforming into yet another aging, shrinking sect clinging to past glories.

What becomes clear through the recollections and reflections of those once inside is that this was never the work of divine inspiration. Rather, it was the handiwork of fallible men driven by personal ambition, cloaked in theological jargon, sustained by a never-ending deferral of accountability. The proud claims of superior biblical knowledge, once wielded against the historic Church and her sacred Tradition, now lay in ruins, exposed as little more than recycled human speculation polished with the occasional proof-text.

This sect arrogated to itself an authority it neither possessed nor could sustain. It turned sacred Scripture into a malleable tool, bent to fit the changing needs of a self-appointed "faithful" class. The result has been theological chaos, moral disillusionment, and the slow crumbling of confidence among its own members.

Ultimately, the tragedy of this movement lies not merely in its failed prophecies or its clumsy literature. It lies in the countless souls misled by men who spoke loudly in the name of God but carried none of the marks of His Church—unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. As the once-enthusiastic proclamations now fade into an increasingly irrelevant background noise, one is reminded that Christ promised to build His Church upon the rock, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. No such promise was ever made to the founders of human sects, no matter how fervently they declared themselves His exclusive channel.

Their writings crumble, their followers dwindle, but the true Church endures—her voice steady, her teaching unbroken, her mission secure until the end of time.

The 1992 funeral talk delivered by Albert Schroeder for Frederick W. Franz is a fascinating window into the theology, ideology, and internal mythology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is, at the same time, a tragic display of spiritual delusion and doctrinal error. While the tone is reverent and filled with nostalgic admiration, the content of this lengthy eulogy testifies not to the glory of God, but to the self-validating structure of a theological system built on sand. The praise heaped upon Franz is not the celebration of a saint but the veneration of a false prophet.

Schroeder's address elevates Franz to near-apostolic status—calling him a "big tree of righteousness," likening him to the Apostle Paul in stature and ministry, and crediting him with spiritual oversight over millions. But what is never addressed is the fundamental question: was he right? Did he teach truth? A true prophet must speak consistently with the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Franz, by contrast, presided over a religious organization infamous for its doctrinal reversals, failed prophecies, and unbiblical innovations.

The eulogy praises Franz’s involvement in the 1914 doctrine—that Christ began to reign invisibly that year—and boasts of his connection to the so-called “anointed class.” Yet this teaching is not just absent from Christian history prior to the late 19th century; it contradicts both Scripture and the historic witness of the Church. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ’s Kingdom would be established invisibly in 1914, or that such a date should be calculated from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.—a date which itself is demonstrably false, as every serious historian and archaeologist agrees the destruction occurred in 587/586 B.C. The Watchtower’s 607 date was invented to prop up a failed prophetic system stemming from Charles Taze Russell’s original 1914 prediction of the end of the world.

Franz’s legacy is inextricably tied to this theological fraud. Though Schroeder frames his “spiritual insight” as evidence of divine favor, we must view his long tenure as one of persistent error. Franz is lauded for defending the use of "Jehovah" as God's name, yet he helped propagate a translation (the New World Translation) that has been widely condemned by scholars of every background for its distortions of the biblical text. The removal of explicit references to the divinity of Christ, the mutilation of John 1:1, and the insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament where no Greek manuscript ever contains it—these are not the works of a faithful steward of the Word, but of an ideologue crafting Scripture to match dogma.

More troubling still is Schroeder's triumphalist theology of death. Franz is declared to have already been resurrected “to incorruptible life in heaven,” in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:52. Yet Scripture teaches that the general resurrection happens at the end of time, not at the moment of death (John 5:28–29; 1 Thess. 4:16–17). The Watchtower’s teaching that only 144,000 go to heaven, and that Franz is among this elite spiritual caste, is an arrogant twisting of Revelation’s symbolic numbers. Heaven is offered to all the faithful who die in a state of grace, not just to a select remnant of organizational elites.

Schroeder’s sentimentalism masks the deeper problem: the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not mourning a humble servant of Christ, but a builder of a theological empire based on deception. Franz, along with his predecessors, led millions away from the Eucharist, from the Trinity, from the communion of saints, and from the Church founded by Christ. He is said to have had a "hunger for God's Word," yet he refused the Bread of Life (John 6:51), the Body and Blood of Jesus offered in the Holy Mass, and denied the divinity of the very Savior he claimed to serve.

We must not be deceived by eloquent speeches or charming anecdotes. The measure of a Christian life is not institutional success or personal charisma, but fidelity to truth. Franz’s legacy is not one of holiness, but of heresy. His decades of influence entrenched millions in false doctrine, discouraged higher education, prohibited blood transfusions at the cost of innocent lives, and led many to shun their own families for the sake of organizational loyalty.

Catholics pray for the dead, trusting in God’s mercy and justice. We do not pretend to know the eternal fate of any soul. But we are bound to judge teachings and fruits. And the fruit of Franz’s labor is schism, error, and spiritual blindness. If he is remembered, let it be as a warning of how easily charismatic leadership and pseudo-biblical rigor can lead souls astray. Let it move us to pray not only for those who die in error, but for the countless still living under its sway. May they come to know the Church that Christ built—not in 1919, not in Brooklyn, but on the rock of Peter, in communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

119

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

You are correct that geographical proximity, by itself, does not prove or disprove kinship unless the genealogical links are established. However, when we look carefully at the geographical movements of Pope Benedict XVI’s maternal ancestors, it becomes evident that they do not align with Stefanie Brzakovic's account.

Pope Benedict’s maternal line — the Riegers, Reisses, Peintners, and Taubers — is well documented. His mother, Maria Peintner Rieger, was born in Oberaudorf, in southern Bavaria, near the Austrian border. Her father, Isidor Rieger, was born in Welden, near Augsburg in Bavaria, and later moved south toward the Chiemsee area (Rimsting), remaining firmly within Bavarian territory. Her mother, Maria Tauber-Peintner, was born in Raas (Naz-Sciaves) in South Tyrol, part of the Austrian Empire at the time (now Italy), a German-speaking region closely connected to Bavaria both culturally and linguistically.

The Peintner side (Anton Peter Peintner and Elisabeth Maria Tauber) lived in small German-speaking towns such as Aicha, Mühlbach, and Natz (all in Tyrol). They later moved into Bavaria (Rimsting) by the late 19th century.
The Rieger and Reiss sides remained rooted in Welden and Günzburg in Bavaria for several generations.

Thus, their pattern of movement shows:

A concentration in Welden–Günzburg (Bavaria) for the Rieger and Reiss lines.
South Tyrol origins (Aicha, Natz, Raas) for the Peintner and Tauber lines, who eventually moved into Rimsting in Bavaria.
Movement is mostly northward or westward from Tyrol into Bavaria, not toward the Weilheim area.

Now, Stefanie Brzakovic claimed that her family lived in Weilheim in Oberbayern, about 50 kilometers west of Oberaudorf, and that they often “hung out” with the Ratzinger family.
However, this is geographically unlikely for several reasons:

The Ratzinger family lived in Tittmoning, Aschau am Inn, and later Traunstein, all in southeastern Bavaria, much closer to the Austrian border, not near Weilheim.
Weilheim is located west of Munich, while Tittmoning, Aschau, and Traunstein are east of Munich — on opposite sides of Upper Bavaria.
In the early 20th century, with limited transportation and strong local social structures, regular family interactions over such distances (about 100 km) were rare unless absolutely necessary.

Moreover, there is no documented evidence that any branch of the Rieger, Peintner, Reiss, or Tauber families ever lived in or near Weilheim. Their movements were mostly between Tyrol and southeastern Bavaria, not across Upper Bavaria.

Thus:

Geographically, the Pope’s maternal family stayed in a southeastern corridor (Raas → Rimsting → Oberaudorf → Tittmoning/Traunstein).
The Brzakovic/Blabst family claim about living in Weilheim is disconnected from the Ratzinger family’s real geographical history.
No migration patterns, no baptismal or civil records, and no family testimonies link the Ratzinger maternal relatives to Weilheim.

In short, when we map out the real historical movements, Stefanie Brzakovic’s claim does not fit the known facts of where the Pope’s maternal ancestors lived and moved. The discrepancy further undermines the credibility of her account.

Nevertheless, in this case, the issue is not simply the geography, but the complete absence of any documented genealogical connection between Stefanie Blabst (later Brzakovic) and the Ratzinger or Peintner family lines. Pope Benedict XVI’s maternal ancestry is well preserved and thoroughly documented, spanning multiple generations. His mother's side—the Riegers, Reisses, Peintners, and Taubers—were firmly Bavarian and Tyrolean German-speaking families, with no evidence of South Slavic or Moravian branches entering the line in the last several generations.

There are also some factual corrections that must be made to the family details you mentioned. For example, Maria Tauber-Peintner, was born in Raas, in South Tyrol, which was at that time part of the Austrian Empire. The Peintners and Taubers were established German-speaking families from Tyrol, not Moravia.

Moreover, the claim that Elisabeth (Betty) Tauber was born in Mährisch-Weißkirchen (today Hranice, Czech Republic) is not substantiated by the primary genealogical sources. In fact, Elisabeth Maria Tauber was born in Natz (Naz-Sciaves) in Tyrol in 1832, as shown by the baptismal and civil records. Therefore, there is no direct Moravian ancestry influencing Joseph Ratzinger’s immediate family.

The point about Josefina Knopfelmacher’s nickname being "Peppi" is interesting from a human perspective but does not support the claim about Joseph Ratzinger himself. Josefina Knopfelmacher (1819–1886), a great-great-grandmother figure, would have had little to no direct influence on the everyday speech habits or nicknames used by Bavarian children in the 1920s and 30s. Nicknames arise organically in the living culture of a place and time, not from ancestral memory two or three generations removed. In rural Bavaria, the affectionate form for Joseph was, and remains, "Sepp" or "Sepperl," as contemporaneous witnesses, including Pope Benedict’s own cousin Erika Kopper, consistently attest. "Pepi" is recognized primarily as an Austrian or Viennese diminutive, and would have been highly unusual among children in Traunstein or Tittmoning at that time.

In addition, the serious genealogical problem remains: Isidor Rieger, Pope Benedict’s grandfather, was an only child, and the maternal lineage of Maria Tauber-Peintner is equally well documented without any unexplained branches. Without a shared great-grandparent, the alleged "second cousin" relationship simply cannot be true. Stefanie Blabst’s maternal line (from Katharina Berger) remains unconnected to any branch of the Pope’s known family tree.

119

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

aqwsed12345

Yes, nowadays, after the significant immigration of the Yugos during and afther the Cold War period...

I meant the second possibility, assuming, but not accepting, that the story was true, then he was just polite. As you can see, the family tree has not been able to confirm it, and there are many circumstances that make it improbable.

You would be a terrible lawyer, I write several arguments, you get hung up on one, and you turn a deaf ear to the rest. It doesn't work that if you point out the weakness of just one of my arguments, you have the right to do a hateful dance of joy, but you should definitely refute all of them, but since you can't, instead you just carry on with foul-mouthed hatred and mockery.