How did you know your church is the one?

[spedteacherita]

Nope. You and most Protestants choose to be blind.

I guess it’s all been said now, eh?

Awww, come on, Peter!!

 

[Vanez]

Okay this is not going how I intended. I thought only non-Catholics would respond. Mea culpa. should’ve been more specific in title and op.

Thank you for the responses everyone.

Mea culpa
Mea culpa
Mea maxima culpa

Hihihihi

 

[Peter_J]

Awww, come on, Peter!!

Oops! Forgot to say “Non-Catholic Religions”.

 

[Contarini]

How do you know your church teachings are infallible, possesses the fullness of Truth and is historically/theologically supported?

why assume that people “know” any such thing?

 

[Contarini]

Hi Rita, sure I don’t see why not. Since I’ve even seen it said here on CAF that even Catholics believe others have some truth. They just don’t believe others have the fullness of truth. So the HS must be able to work within others too.

Right. And the conviction (or even perhaps the suspicion) that the Holy Spirit is at work in a community is sufficient reason to belong to it.

Hence the folly and presumption of the OP.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

why assume that people “know” any such thing?

Though I can’t speak for SavingGrace, it’s my general experience that people tend to say that they know.

 

[Contarini]

Though I can’t speak for SavingGrace, it’s my general experience that people tend to say that they know.

It is your experience that Protestants say that they think, let alone know, that their church is infallible?

It makes no sense. I found it hard, initially, to believe that SavingGrace was serious. But apparently he/she is.

Edwin

 

[simspt]

How do you know your church teachings are infallible, possesses the fullness of Truth and is historically/theologically supported?

Can you define “know”, “church” and the “one”? These preliminary questions need to first be articulated. How do you define “fullness of truth” and what do you mean by historically/theologically supported?

 

[Peter_J]

It is your experience that Protestants say that they think, let alone know, that their church is infallible?

I guess my experiences are deficient in that regard. But don’t forget what I said earlier:

I don’t have a firm stance on whether or not my church (the Melkite Catholic Church (note Church, not “rite” as some call us )) teaches infallibly.

 

[Contarini]

I guess my experiences are deficient in that regard. But don’t forget what I said earlier:

I was responding to the OP’s claims about what Protestants “know” more than to the use of “know.” But of course I think the word “know” is problematic to as the OP was using it.

Edwin

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Can you define “know”, “church” and the “one”? These preliminary questions need to first be articulated. How do you define “fullness of truth” and what do you mean by historically/theologically supported?

I guess what I am asking and it’s probably naive but I assumed ALL non-catholics worship where they do because they truly believe that their pastor/imam etc is teaching them the infallible fullness of Truth.

Otherwise why bother at all? That is not genuine imho.

I would like them to explain why/how in historical and theological terms how their ‘church/faith’ is the one described in scripture. It’s pretty self explanatory.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

why assume that people “know” any such thing?

Well, Catholics ‘know’ for sure.

One Lutheran on this thread “knows” for sure her church is the one teaching the infallible fullness of Truth. She explained how/why she knows historically her church is the one.

Otherwise why bother worshipping at a church if you don’t believe that it is teaching the fullness of Truth infallibly? What would be the point?

 

[Thorolfr]

I guess what I am asking and it’s probably naive but I assumed ALL non-catholics worship where they do because they truly believe that their pastor/imam etc is teaching them the infallible fullness of Truth.

Otherwise why bother at all? That is not genuine imho.

I would like them to explain why/how in historical and theological terms how their ‘church/faith’ is the one described in scripture. It’s pretty self explanatory.

I don’t think that most Protestants are quite as sure as Catholics are that everything they profess is “infallible”. There is always the possibility that human error has crept in. For example, most Lutherans would readily admit that Martin Luther was a fallible human being and some of the things that he believed were not true and mistaken. And I don’t think that most Lutherans would claim that our Lutheran confessions in the Book of Concord are all absolutely infallible. The people who put the Book of Concord together did their best to discern what we should believe, but there could be some errors.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess what I am asking and it’s probably naive but I assumed ALL non-catholics worship where they do because they truly believe that their pastor/imam etc is teaching them the infallible fullness of Truth.

Otherwise why bother at all? That is not genuine imho.

I would like them to explain why/how in historical and theological terms how their ‘church/faith’ is the one described in scripture. It’s pretty self explanatory.

Well, perhaps it should be self explanatory … but the thing is, typically when someone says “So-and-so’s teachings are infallible” it is understood to mean that so-and-so is teaching infallibly.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Perhaps the biggest question here (from a Catholic pov) is this: When Vatican I said that a statement by the Pope is infallible in certain circumstances, *if *they meant simply that a statement by the Pope is *right *in certain circumstances, why didn’t they just say so? Why did they use the word “infallible” at all?

In more concrete terms, many if not most Roman Catholics regard the Dogma of the Assumption (1950) as an instance of infallibility … but is that just a fancy way of saying “What the Pope said was correct.”?

 

[Contarini]

Well, Catholics ‘know’ for sure.

Define “know for sure”?

Do you mean “have reasonable confidence of the sort one has in other experiential matters,” or do you mean that your “knowledge” that the Church is infallible is itself infallible? How does that work, exactly?

Otherwise why bother worshipping at a church if you don’t believe that it is teaching the fullness of Truth infallibly? What would be the point?

Er. . . . the point would be to worship God with other Christians?

Why does one have to believe, much less know, that a church is infallible?

You haven’t established any necessity, or even any link, between the two things. (I can see that there is a link, that is, that infallibility would be nice. But you haven’t even bothered establishing that much. You just take for granted something that you have no business taking for granted.)

I find it deeply disturbing, in fact, that you demand infallibility of a Christian community before you will deign to worship with it. I know you think this is prudent and pious. I find it nothing of the sort.

Edwin

 

[Tomdstone]

Otherwise what’s the point in belonging to a church if you don’t truly believe they teach infallibly and possess the full Truth?

What is the full truth about the primary purpose of marriage?

 

[Contarini]

I guess what I am asking and it’s probably naive but I assumed ALL non-catholics worship where they do because they truly believe that their pastor/imam etc is teaching them the infallible fullness of Truth.

Otherwise why bother at all? That is not genuine imho.

I would like them to explain why/how in historical and theological terms how their ‘church/faith’ is the one described in scripture. It’s pretty self explanatory.

Protestants do not generally believe that their specific flavor of Christianity is “the one described in Scripture,” though certainly some conservative Protestants do believe that, and they’re out to lunch.

More reasonable, moderate Protestants understand that no current variety of Christianity is identical to NT Christianity. We are all trying to be faithful to the pattern laid down by Jesus and the apostles, and we are all more or less failing much of the time.

Furthermore, doctrinal development is a reality, so not all the differences between us and the first-century Church are bad, as Newman showed. Newman, of course, used this to argue for Catholicism, but the argument can be turned around by Protestants.

Edwin

 

[McCartney]

Well, I’m Catholic now, but used to be Presbyterian.

I didn’t become Catholic because of some rigorous searching of doctrine.

I became Catholic because of this persistent spiritual push, by God as far as I was concerned. Since becoming Catholic, I’ve done some reading on Church doctrines and the like, and it seems to me to have a stronger claim to the truth than it’s competitors.

However I used to have some long conversations with my old Presbyterian pastor way back before I left his church (and he died a few months later), and he thought I’d become Catholic.

There were a couple of watershed moments - one was when he said to me that he sometimes wondered if Protestants get to heaven. And he was also taken aback when it seemed to be revealed to him rather late in the day that the Protestant position on the Pope was a heresy. He said, with a look of alarm, “It’s a heresy! That’s what worries me!” Particularly as he was then Presbyterian, and as such he would have taken an oath on the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I think still includes the phrase -

I still remember his frustrated reaction - “Oh, why now!!” - as he was dying of cancer at the time, and he knew he only had a short time left. But then he shrugged, and said, “Well, the Lord knows I’ve tried to serve Him.” He had too, and very well.

He was never very anti-Catholic, and I heard him say both privately and in a sermon “I’ve found I usually get on pretty well with Catholics”.

In fact he did tell one story, probably going way back to the 1960’s when the Catholic-Protestant divide was a lot stronger in Australia. He’d been based in some country parish, and he had this old shed down the back of the church property. He wanted to get rid of it.

A local builder offered him fifty quid (pounds) if he could knock it down and keep the materials. The pastor was more than happy, but then he remembered the builder was a Catholic.

He asked, trying to be diplomatic, “Look, I appreciate your offer, but … ah, er… what if Father finds out that you’ve given fifty quid to a Protestant Church?” In an aside to me, he said “These Catholics call their priests ‘Father’, you know…”

The builder thought for a moment, and then he replied, “Look, you keep the fifty quid, and if Father says anything, I’ll tell him I was helping to demolish Protestantism!”

Moving on - some time after he died, and after I’d become Catholic, he appeared one night in a brief vision, and simply said, “The Catholic Church is closest to the truth”. That was it. Then he just disappeared.

That’s been part of my personal experience. So while I’ve done some reading, without going into an exhaustive investigation of the origin of all the Church’s doctrines, mistakes, traditions, bungles, anti-Popes etc. etc. I believe it’s** “closest”** to the truth.

Simple as that. I’ve had too many spiritual experiences just to ignore my old pastor turning up in a vision.

Great story including the one about the builder.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Define “know for sure”?

Do you mean “have reasonable confidence of the sort one has in other experiential matters,” or do you mean that your “knowledge” that the Church is infallible is itself infallible? How does that work, exactly?

Er. . . . the point would be to worship God with other Christians?

Why does one have to believe, much less know, that a church is infallible?

You haven’t established any necessity, or even any link, between the two things. (I can see that there is a link, that is, that infallibility would be nice. But you haven’t even bothered establishing that much. You just take for granted something that you have no business taking for granted.)

I find it deeply disturbing, in fact, **that you demand infallibility of a Christian community before you will deign to worship with it. **I know you think this is prudent and pious. I find it nothing of the sort.

Edwin

Catholics know that their Church teachings are infallible.

Of course I would demand it of myself. I would argue that every single christian demands it. We should have this standard, after all we are talking about our Salvation here, where you are going to spend eternity. I’m surprised you don’t demand it or consider it.

Some believe ‘once saved always saved’, others don’t mind SSM clergy, some don’t baptize with water, some have Bishops, others don’t some preach gay sex is acceptable, others don’t see the need for it, some support abortion, others don’t, some support divorce, others don’t, some break off and join/start another church if they don’t like what they are hearing.

They can’t all be true in their interpretations of sacred scripture? This is a problem if we believe The Holy Spirit guides all interpretation of Scripture.

The Holy Spirit can never be the author of confusion.

Infallibility in the teaching of Doctrine is a basic essential ingredient in my opinion. Otherwise why believe anything your church teaches if it can be changed on a whim or to suit society.

So to answer my question, you are okay with not believing that your church Teachings are True, i.e. infallible?