Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[hosemonkey]

We are clear that your church conveniently teaches that only it can confect the Eucharist, and also declares that only it can make this determination in the first place. We are clear about what you believe.

Thank you. I have a problem with some Catholics, who are caught up in false “ecumenism”, who will attempt to water down essentials of Catholic belief so as not offend protestants.

In your wildest ideas, you cannot possibly think that anyone else who is not RC cares about the conclusions of your church, as it applies to other denominations. Given that, we consider our priests valid, and our Eucharist valid.

Nothing nasty about it, unless you consider a simple statement of fact to be “nasty.”
Since VII, there have been Catholics who, in the spirit of a false “ecumenism” have sought to de-emphasize certain teachings of the Church that make protestants uncomfortable. These are true teachings and should not be de-emphasized or soft-pedaled. This has proved to be a mistake. If one is truly desirous of finding the True Faith, you will agree with Her teachings. If you cannot handle the Truth, then you are probably better off as an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I think what some find difficult here, and frankly I agree that the word is troubling, is that Jesus after saying that “this is my body, …” also says do this in “REMEMBRANCE” of me.

We think of the Eucharist as real spiritual food that nourishes us in a real way. Yet, the word remembrance can be thought of as the actions being a way to recall the events and the meaning we attach to them.

I think some denominations focus on the remembrance word and thus see it as symbolic recall of the crucifixion an sacrifice made for all humanity.

Perhaps in the end, we are all talking about the same thing, God comes especially close to us at such a time as we participate as did those at Golgotha that day.

The word which is translated remembrance is anamnesis, as it was often used in ancient times, means to bring the past into the present and the present into the past. In the Eucharist, we truly experience Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and Christ is made present to us, and we are made present to Him. This is far more dynamic than merely remembering something.

The word for “memorial” in Exodus means the same thing, bringing the past present and the present into the past: And this day shall become a memorial for you, and you shall observe it as a festival for the L-RD, for your generations, as an eternal decree shall you observe it. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your homes … you shall guard the unleavened bread, because on this very day I will take you out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree. - Exodus 12:14-17

When they celebrate the Passover, Jews use the present tense. “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the L-rd, our G-d, took us out from there with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not taken our fathers out of Egypt, then we, our children and our children’s children would have remained enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt. Even if all of us were wise, all of us understanding, all of us knowing the Torah, we would still be obligated to discuss the exodus from Egypt; and everyone who discusses the exodus from Egypt at length is praiseworthy.”

 

[Erich]

We are clear that your church conveniently teaches that only it can confect the Eucharist, and also declares that only it can make this determination in the first place. We are clear about what you believe.

It’s not a matter of convenience… Jesus Himself promised to the apostles – and their successors the bishops – the teaching authority of His Church: “He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me; and he that rejects me rejects him that sent me.”

So, yes, the Catholic Church can make this determination in the first place.

What a good many folks on this thread seem to be forgetting is, the word “Communion” is derived from the Latin communio, “a sharing” (itself derived from the Latin communis, "“in common, public, general, shared by all”). Why would anyone even want to receive communion in a faith tradition with which they are not in 100% agreement, thereby placing himself in the position of someone whose actions belie his beliefs?

The Catholic Church continues to follow ancient Christian practice on this matter. Ancient Christians believed that we cannot partake of the Eucharist unless we believe the Christian faith… i.e. all of it, per Matthew 28:20: "observe everything that I have commanded you… One can see this idea in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1:66), which is quoted in the current Catechism in section 1355: “Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist, we call this food Eucharist, and no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught.”

In your wildest ideas, you cannot possibly think that anyone else who is not RC cares about the conclusions of your church, as it applies to other denominations.

From this article by Mark Shea:

Walk into a Japanese restaurant with one of these folks [who says these sorts of things] and boorishly refuse to take your shoes off in deference to custom? You will be regarded as a mouth-breathing Neanderthal.

Attend a Jewish friend’s bris for his son at the local Orthodox synagogue and complain that they didn’t serve ham sandwiches to accommodate your* goyim *tastebuds? They will wince—rightly—at your loutishness.

Traipse into a silent auction and start barking out bids at the volume Ted Turner tells Polish jokes? They will, with complete justice, write you off as a self-centered loser with no capacity for dealing with social situations that do not orbit around your immense ego.

But walk into Mass as a guest and say, “Hey! How come I can’t have some of those crackers and wine? Real Presence? What’s that? The body and blood of Christ? I don’t believe in fairy tales, but I resent being excluded, and I demand my rights!”? They will applaud you as a pioneer in Catholic theological reform.

Given that, we consider our priests valid, and our Eucharist valid.

By what authority do you make this claim?

Would I be right in my understanding of your beliefs if I were to say that you believe the church is invisible – that the church is only the members of the mystical body of Christ and that God did not specify what structure or form the church should have?

 

[hosemonkey]

Thank you, Erich, for stating my thoughts far more clearly than I could. One would think that those who proclaim themselves knowlegeable about the Catholic faith and what the Church believes and teaches would have such difficulty with a little plain truth. This is why there are protestants, I guess. Everybody has their own opinion and everybody is their own Pope. “Ecumenism” as presently practiced is a joke. Everybody dances around, being exquisitely PC so as not to offend, instead of proclaiming the truth of the Catholic faith. True ecumenism is leading souls to Truth through the Catholic Church. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

 

[Roy5]

WHY BAD STORIES?

Hm! Bad stories from their Protestant days? There are thousands, maybe millions, of both Protestants and Catholics who have bad stories emanating from churches. I guess I don't see why this thread has been introduced. It sounds like trying to make fun of and put down fellow Christians. Can't we disagree without becoming mean-spirited?

 A couple thoughts.

 I had a secretary who had been a Catholic. She had become anti-Catholic Church (not anti-Catholic people, of course, as her parents were devout). When I discussed the matter with her, her main point was that she had been abused while in parochial school, and she refused to elaborate. 

  See, when you start asking for 'bad stories' there are plenty from all angles.

  Many of the postings talk about fundamentalist Protestantism. What strikes me as curious is that so many Catholics, at least around here, have drifted into large fundie churches. I don't get it. Liberal Protestantism is something very different, of course, and various ex-Catholics seem to have gone in that direction, also.

   Right now the divorce of Mel Gibson isn't helping the church any. He was perceived as a Catholic par excellent and the apparent angry divorce accompanied by talk of his infidelity is destructive.

    Keep smiling regardless...  "Let not your hearts be troubled....My peace I give unto you."

 

[Peter_J]

Hi hosemonkey. You seem to have misread my question, so here it is again …

Point out any statements that are not factual.

Alright … and then will you point out statements in my post (post #114 I mean) that are not factual?

 

[Peter_J]

No amount of telling them, “Your ordinations aren’t valid like ours, so your Eucharist isn’t either” is going to make them believe the Catholic stance

It’s not a matter of the amount of times you tell them, it’s about how you tell them. I would suggest saying it like this:

YOUR ORDINATIONS AREN’T VALID LIKE OURS, SO YOUR EUCHARIST ISN’T EITHER!

That’ll convince 'em for sure.

Oh wait …

 

[Peter_J]

Since VII, there have been Catholics who, in the spirit of a false “ecumenism” have sought to de-emphasize certain teachings of the Church that make protestants uncomfortable.

That is quite correct. Similarly, there have been Catholics who have sought to de-emphasize certain teachings of the Church that make groups like the SSPX uncomfortable.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It’s not a matter of the amount of times you tell them, it’s about how you tell them. I would suggest saying it like this:

YOUR ORDINATIONS AREN’T VALID LIKE OURS, SO YOUR EUCHARIST ISN’T EITHER!

That’ll convince 'em for sure.

Oh wait …

I’ve been thinking this whole time about the actual OP. The only bad Protestant stories I would be able to tell would be on myself. I didn’t study for myself, just accepted what I was taught blindly, believing and proclaiming that the Catholic Church was the 'Ho of Babylon, the Pope was the anti-Christ, Catholics worship Mary and statues, liturgy is empty ritual, the Rosary is vain repetition… you name the misconception, I had it in spades.

On the plus side, I learned a love of Scripture from those teachers, and it was through prayerfully reading the Gospels and comparing it to what my Catholic friends were telling me the Church actually taught that I realized how wrong I was and how misled I’d been. God’s Word MADE me Catholic!

I pray fervently for those who taught me those lies, believing them to be true. Especially those who left the Catholic Church without really knowing her, and believe those lies to be true.

 

[hosemonkey]

That is quite correct. Similarly, there have been Catholics who have sought to de-emphasize certain teachings of the Church that make groups like the SSPX uncomfortable.

So, what’s your point? I have no problem with the orthodoxy of SSPX, they just need to get some obedience issues out of the way. They have good and holy priests, as a group, I have seen few better.

 

[kalt]

Giving the benefit of the doubt here:

Possibly a typo? W and E are right next to each other on my keyboard, and I think it’s standard.

I can’t believe that people think it was anything but a typo. My posts are full of 'em.

Paranoia.

 

[kalt]

you have utterly rewritten the definition of Eucharist in order to try to prevail in this discussion.

I haven’t rewritten anything. I think you just never knew the difference between what you believe and what the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is.

This has nothing to do with apostolic succession, consecration of the host, or anything of that nature.

Of course it does. Without apostolic succession you (universal you) don’t have the real presence in your Communion.

Of course Episcopalians believe that RC priests can consecrate the host, and we agree they are validly ordained and have apostolic succession. These have nothing to do with Eucharist as being the real presence of Christ.

And again, this is not what Catholics believe. I’m not sure who the “we” refers to in your post, but it isn’t Catholics. The Catholic Church does not agree that Episcopalian priests have apostolic succession. And what real presence means to you is different from what it is in the Catholic Church.

That fact that you are taught not to find valid any other consecration is beside the point and frankly of no import to me, or many here.

It’s not beside the point, actually. We were discussing the real presence. Apostolic succession is central to that discussion.

You are trying to now claim that no one can receive the Eucharist in a RCC unless they profess to believe its entire compendium of faith dogmas. While that may be your position, we don’t agree that it has anything to do with the Eucharist.

And again, thank you for showing that our Eucharists are indeed different. You may not like the rules of the Catholic Church, but they are what they are. Check out the material for the RCIA classes. These are classes for adults who are converting to Catholicism.

I also understand you used the term Wucharist as some form of derision. That is sad but apparently to be expected.

Now this is really sad. Are you so paranoid that you see a typo as an attack of some sort?

In the end, we simply believe that the Lord invites to the table, not a Church, and it has no right morally to deny anyone access. I guess that’s a real good reason to be an Episcopalian.

I’m sure you’re happy in the Episcopalian Church. You don’t believe that the Eucharist is what it is in the Catholic Church, so you have no reason to leave your Church. I’m not trying to convert you, and it makes no difference to me which church you prefer.

I know what the Eucharist is, and so would never go anywhere else.

If you are happy where you are and believe that your church is right, why are you so angry when talking about the Catholic Eucharist? If you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist why are you so upset when you think someone is saying that yours isn’t quite the same. Wouldn’t you be happy about that?! If it were the same, your Eucharist (Wucharist, if you insist I repeat the typo. ) would be something you don’t believe in, transubstantation.

Please excuse the 2n response if I’ve already answered this one.

BTW, you are sounding angry towards just about everyone you’re responding to in this thread. What gives?

 

[kalt]

Most certainly!

I do believe what the RCC believes about the Eucharist–that it is the real body and blood of Jesus.

Do you believe in transubstantation and that only validly ordained people can consecrate the bread and wine? That to be validly ordained and able to do the consecration, the man has to have been ordained by a bishop in line with the apostles? (Apostolic succession) The CC (not just the Roman Rite) believes, about the Eucharist, that only men ordained this way can consecrate the Eucharist, and therefor any church that has priests or ministers that aren’t doesn’t have the real presence, regardless of what they believe about it?

If you believe all of this, then you believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist.

We believe that all sacraments have a real effect, including Communion. We wouldn’t choose ot recieve Communion in a non-Catholic Church, because it isn’t the same thing, it is not the real presence in the Catholic sense.

These facts seem to bother you, and I have no idea why. If you’re insulted that we have different beliefs about he Eucharist, and you want to have the real presence (the host consecrated by priests ordained by bishops in apostolic succession resulting in transubstantaion) you know where to find it. If you don’t believe in these things, they why get upset?

 

[sambos671]

I may be off on this but I think the CC attempt to define the Eucharist as Trasubstantiation was to attempt to clarify what it could not be. IE… anything outside of its definition. The Orthodox and the Anglican don’t try to quantify the Eucharist and leave it as a mystery. The quantification that the term Transubstantiation seems to imply causes a certain level of uncomfortableness with these other groups. But what the CC wanted to get away from is the symbolic nature that many protestants rely on.

 

[Erich]

I may be off on this but I think the CC attempt to define the Eucharist as Trasubstantiation was to attempt to clarify what it could not be. IE… anything outside of its definition. The Orthodox and the Anglican don’t try to quantify the Eucharist and leave it as a mystery.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (emphasis mine):

[T]he dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of the dogma’s history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies, the first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven. … The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church. The third and the sharpest controversy was that opened by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in regard to which it must be remarked that Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to the old Catholic doctrine, and, though subjecting it to manifold misrepresentations, defended it most tenaciously.

As for what the Orthodox believe, it should be noted that both the above-mentioned ninth century and eleventh century Eucharistic controversies occurred prior to 1472 (i.e. the year to which the current East-West Schism dates). While the Orthodox may not use the actual term “Transubstantiation” to describe what they believe, I suspect they have a near-identical understanding… otherwise the communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would not be so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” (CCC 838)

Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The East-West Schism was not the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology. It would be inconceivable then that hundreds of bishops should suddenly break away from union with their chief, if all had gone smoothly before. The great schism is rather the result of a very gradual process. Its remote causes must be sought centuries before there was any suspicion of their final effect. There was a series of temporary schisms that loosened the bond and prepared the way. The two great breaches, those of Photius and Michael Caerularius, which are remembered as the origin of the present state of things, were both healed up afterwards. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

 

[masuwerte]

I can’t believe that people think it was anything but a typo. My posts are full of 'em.

Paranoia.

I accwpted your wxplanation swvwral pagws ago.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You can consider all you like, but wishing does not make it so.

Nothing nasty about it, unless you consider a simple statement of fact to be “nasty.”
Since VII, there have been Catholics who, in the spirit of a false “ecumenism” have sought to de-emphasize certain teachings of the Church that make protestants uncomfortable. These are true teachings and should not be de-emphasized or soft-pedaled. This has proved to be a mistake. If one is truly desirous of finding the True Faith, you will agree with Her teachings. If you cannot handle the Truth, then you are probably better off as an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian.

We do not wish anything. You simply believe something, and we do not. You can’t prove the truth of your beliefs plain and simple. Since as I said you are intelligent, I know you know better, than to claim that just because you believe something to be true, it necessarily is so. There is no empirical proof you can put forth to prove that the RCC contains the truth to the exclusion of others, or that it has the right to define who can define truth.

That it declares itself to be the sole definer of truth, and then to claim that others don’t have it is purely self serving and of no consequence. If they could prove that assertion, there would be no other denominations, period.

You are correct that nasty is not the correct term. Arrogance and contempt for the beliefs of others would be more to the point. Your arrogant last sentence says it all. But it’s not my place to correct your misplaced need to claim truth as more than simply what it is, what you believe is truth. God is the final arbiter.

As I continue to find, those that require everyone else to be wrong because they are right are usually trying very hard to dispell their own unbelief rather than to convince another of their wrong thinking. And God I suspect knows the difference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The word which is translated remembrance is anamnesis, as it was often used in ancient times, means to bring the past into the present and the present into the past. In the Eucharist, we truly experience Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and Christ is made present to us, and we are made present to Him. This is far more dynamic than merely remembering something.

The word for “memorial” in Exodus means the same thing, bringing the past present and the present into the past: And this day shall become a memorial for you, and you shall observe it as a festival for the L-RD, for your generations, as an eternal decree shall you observe it. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your homes … you shall guard the unleavened bread, because on this very day I will take you out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree. - Exodus 12:14-17

When they celebrate the Passover, Jews use the present tense. “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the L-rd, our G-d, took us out from there with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not taken our fathers out of Egypt, then we, our children and our children’s children would have remained enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt. Even if all of us were wise, all of us understanding, all of us knowing the Torah, we would still be obligated to discuss the exodus from Egypt; and everyone who discusses the exodus from Egypt at length is praiseworthy.”

Thanks for this pixie. I was unaware of the deeper meaning that you express. One of the difficulties with any translation is that we tend to define the words used based on our common experience today. That is often wrong, as I am learning in a marvelous book I’m reading about viewing Jesus through his Jewishness. I’m finding that a lot of the simplistic sounding sentences Jesus used, had much deeper meaning to this Jewish audience. This may well be one of those occasions.

It would certainly clear up what I have seen as a bit of “pulling in two directions” in the above idea of Eucharist.

Thanks again for your insight.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s not a matter of convenience… Jesus Himself promised to the apostles – and their successors the bishops – the teaching authority of His Church: “He that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me; and he that rejects me rejects him that sent me.”

So, yes, the Catholic Church can make this determination in the first place.

I appreciate what you are saying but you are essentially saying the same thing. You are citing the Bible, and then saying how the RCC interprets this passage. That is all well and good that you believe it, but it is but belief. Non RC denominations interpret this much differently, and you don’t have any basis for concluding that only you have the right to interpret, other than claiming that that is how you interpret it.

It’s like starting a new game and saying, we were first to play the game, we made the rules, according to the rules we have set down, we must always win, …now let’s play. We don’t choose to play in your playing field, where you claim the sole right to make the rules. It’s convenient and obviously self-serving.

What a good many folks on this thread seem to be forgetting is, the word “Communion” is derived from the Latin communio, “a sharing” (itself derived from the Latin communis, "“in common, public, general, shared by all”). Why would anyone even want to receive communion in a faith tradition with which they are not in 100% agreement, thereby placing himself in the position of someone whose actions belie his beliefs?

We believe that Jesus invites us to the table, and not a church.

The Catholic Church continues to follow ancient Christian practice on this matter. Ancient Christians believed that we cannot partake of the Eucharist unless we believe the Christian faith… i.e. all of it, per Matthew 28:20: "observe everything that I have commanded you… One can see this idea in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1:66), which is quoted in the current Catechism in section 1355: “Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist, we call this food Eucharist, and no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught.”

I know a great many non_RC’s who could agree with that and feel that they fully accede to what you stated. It doesn’t include and should not include the full compendium of RCC teaching beyond the actual meaning of Eucharist. If it does, then it is not what Jesus instituted in the first place. You would agree that Christian faith was a good deal more simple when Matthew wrote in around 70CE?

From this article by Mark Shea:

These examples are not the same. We do believe that the bread and wine are the real presence of Christ and your:

But walk into Mass as a guest and say, “Hey! How come I can’t have some of those crackers and wine? Real Presence? What’s that? The body and blood of Christ? I don’t believe in fairy tales, but I resent being excluded, and I demand my rights!”? They will applaud you as a pioneer in Catholic theological reform.

is not at all fair or what we have said. No one would object to anyone being denied Eucharist who professed such nonsense.

By what authority do you make this claim?

By the authority of my church, same as you speak by the authority of your church.

Would I be right in my understanding of your beliefs if I were to say that you believe the church is invisible – that the church is only the members of the mystical body of Christ and that God did not specify what structure or form the church should have?

I believe that Christendom which includes the catholic universal church is both visible and invisible. As the entirety of Christendom, it is invisible, as in its parts, it is visible. But no, I don’t see where God specified any particular manner of church. Pauls letters attest most strongly that the churches even he set up were not all teaching the same things nor set up in the same manner it seems. Over time, more regularity did become the norm, especially as smaller sects were stomped out in favor of the majority opinion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m sure you’re happy in the Episcopalian Church. You don’t believe that the Eucharist is what it is in the Catholic Church, so you have no reason to leave your Church. I’m not trying to convert you, and it makes no difference to me which church you prefer.

I know what the Eucharist is, and so would never go anywhere else.

If you are happy where you are and believe that your church is right, why are you so angry when talking about the Catholic Eucharist? If you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist why are you so upset when you think someone is saying that yours isn’t quite the same. Wouldn’t you be happy about that?! If it were the same, your Eucharist (Wucharist, if you insist I repeat the typo. ) would be something you don’t believe in, transubstantation.

Please excuse the 2n response if I’ve already answered this one.

BTW, you are sounding angry towards just about everyone you’re responding to in this thread. What gives?

I guess you’ll just have to put me down as another of the “poorly” catechized Catholics, since I know what I was taught as a Catholic about the Eucharist, and it had nothing to do with apostolic succession.

You can scream it all day, every day, and it will not change things. You believe that no other consecrations but RC ones are valid. WE GET IT. Your church teaches that. WE GET THAT.

We don’t agree that they are invalid. Your opinion and belief are noted for the record.

I’m not angry, and you are just saying that because I accused you of that. I am saddened that the RCC determines that as a church it should invite to the table rather than Jesus.

I don’t think it is different regardless of what you say. It makes no difference who the wafer and wine becomes the body and blood, we are happy to let it remain a mystery and miracle. But we do believe it is the real presence of Jesus. I rather suspect that is enough. But the point is past, I don’t attend Catholic churches and so it’s a mute point.

As to transubstantiation, we don’t require belief in it, since it is but a manmade construct to help explain the inexplicable. We are more than free to leave it as mystery, and as miracle which it truly is. I have no need of some scientific explanation. But my church certainly doesn’t prevent anyone from adopting it if they feel the need to have an explanation. Some people do need this type of “proof” to believe. Others do not.

Again, save the straw man argument that I am angry. I have quite pleasant conversations with anyone who admits that what they believe is belief and not fact beyond the confines of their own minds. Honesty always wins out. This game of insisting that only the RCC can have truth because it says it can be the only truth giver is not helpful, not proveable, and insulting to others who are perfectly happy in their own faith traditions and frankly believe just as fervently as you that they have the “truth.”