How did you know your church is the one?

[Reuben_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.

Fair question. You clarified believe, not ‘know’, that their pastor/imam is teaching the infallible fullness of Truth. Probably it is more difficult to know but easier to believe, like one does not have to have evidence to believe but more of a matter of a decision (to believe). In any case, I think you are asking fair question in that it is a relevant question to ask with regard as to why ones are in ones’ churches, which is a common theme in many threads here.

However, this question may be difficult to answer for many people because in practice it is often not the reality. Let’s talk about non-Catholics since you are asking them (which can apply to Catholics too) – many of them are in where they are because of circumstances, family, growing up environment and background. They might be Protestants because mum and dad are, and grandpa and grandma were before that. They knew what their belief entails and probably that’s what they know best. Probably they were too entrenched in their belief and practice before they know about Catholicism.

I am saying that because I know many of my friends and relatives fit in that scenario. If they fall in this category it would be quite difficult to answer your question. They are there because they are there, unlike many posters here who have changed churches because they have discovered there was more truth in their new church compared to their former ones.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[rcwitness]

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

To test us!!!

 

[SAVINGRACE]

To test us!!!

Or as my husband who is fond of GK Chesterton keeps quoting:** "Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.’**

 

[Peter_J]

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

At the risk of being unhelpful, that may just be something we’ll never agree about – ie some will always see it as a problem and some won’t.

To me, a greater problem I’ve encountered – and probably will continue to encounter – is that a lot of Christians go from believing in church infallibility to believing in self-infallibility.

 

[benhur]

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

True, I like to remind myself of John’s scripture , “you little children know all things” until someone reminds me of Paul’s verse ,“now we see thru a glass darkly” :slapfight:

 

[benhur]

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.Well, if one church can have such creative thinking don’t see why another couldn’t also.

Sorry SG, couldn’t resist.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Or as my husband who is fond of GK Chesterton keeps quoting:** "Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.’**

Reminds me of this joke, “Why do men (husbands) tend to die earlier than their wives ? Cause they want to.”

 

[rcwitness]

True, I like to remind myself of John’s scripture , “you little children know all things” until someone reminds me of Paul’s verse ,“now we see thru a glass darkly” :slapfight:

Yes, John even explains too.

3 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

So it is with the deposit of faith! It is full, yet not fully defined, expounded, expressed, etc.

It sometimes takes certain circumstances for the Church to apply something at a proper time and proper understanding.

 

[spedteacherita]

Catholics know that their Church teachings are infallible.

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.

I’m not sure this statement is true because a number of my friends grew up Catholic and others are Catholic now…if I ask them if they think their Church’s teaching is infallible - they look at me with a blank face…I guess they weren’t catechized correctly - don’t know but they don’t have issues with me being a Lutheran and worshiping there on Sundays, just as they don’t have concerns with other of their friends being Baptist, non-denominational, etc.

I think the great Catholics who come on here to defend their faith are the ones who understands the infallibility statement.

The majority of Protestant churches do not believe their church teachings can be changed on a whim or to suit society. Yes, we have those mainline churches who do that but that doesn’t constitute the myriad of other churches who stay true to the teaching and worshiping in Christ.

Just a thought!

Blessings,

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

To test us!!!

I didn’t want that testing - that’s why I never married.

 

[Peter_J]

The majority of Protestant churches do not believe their church teachings can be changed on a whim or to suit society.

Indeed, we should hope that no significant number of Protestants *or *Catholics think their church teachings can be changed “on a whim or to suit society”.

 

[cheese_sdc]

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

My church doesn’t claim infallibility, nor does it claim to have the fullness of Truth. As far as history, the unitarians trace their lineage back to the early christian disagreements on the nature of the godhood of Jesus.

The universalists are more of a reaction to severe 5 point Calvinism.

They merged in the 1960’s…

 

[Peter_J]

My church doesn’t claim infallibility,

I’m not sure mine does either.

I got a lot of crickets when I mentioned that before.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Reminds me of this joke, “Why do men (husbands) tend to die earlier than their wives ? Cause they want to.”

 

[Thorolfr]

The majority of Protestant churches do not believe their church teachings can be changed on a whim or to suit society. Yes, we have those mainline churches who do that but that doesn’t constitute the myriad of other churches who stay true to the teaching and worshiping in Christ.

Even those churches that do change their teachings on certain issues (such as the ordination of women) do not do so on a whim but usually only after years of study and deliberation.

 

[benhur]

Yes, John even explains too.

3 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

So it is with the deposit of faith! It is full, yet not fully defined, expounded, expressed, etc.

It sometimes takes certain circumstances for the Church to apply something at a proper time and proper understanding.

Thank you but not sure how that reconciles knowing all things, including what we will be like. I mean Paul says the same thing :

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Not sure how faith is full while yet not fully apprehending. Faith is apprehending without seeing.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not sure how faith is full while yet not fully apprehending.

I don’t see what the full truth is about the primary purpose of marriage. At one point it was procreative, but then it seemed to change to unitive.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics know that their Church teachings are infallible.

Well, first of all it appears from your last sentence that you are using “infallible” to mean the same thing as “true.” That is not how the term is used in official Catholic teaching or by theologians. It means something more than just “true”–it means “protected by God from the possibility of error.” Lots of teachings are true without being infallible. If I say, “George Washington was the first President of the United States under the Constitution,” what I am saying is true, but I am not infallible.

So that’s part of the confusion.

Also, I repeat: what do you mean by “know”? The knowledge you have is itself fallible, right? Even by Keating’s “spiral argument” (which I have other problems with, but that’s a separate topic), the whole thing rests on a judgment about historical accuracy that by its nature can only be probable.

Of course Protestants believe that the key teachings of their local church or denomination are true. They do not, however, believe that they are infallible. Furthermore, while some Protestants do view full subscription to a confessional statement as a necessary condition for church membership, most do not. Most Protestants I know are OK with the idea that they might attend a church while disagreeing with some of its teachings. This follows from the conviction that the Church is in the process of being led into all truth–we aren’t there yet. (As indeed the Catholic doctrine of development implies as well, although of course within stricter limits.) We may learn something from a church with some of whose official stances we disagree, and they may learn something from us. All of this presupposes that it is a true Christian church–that it preaches faith in Christ as articulated in the Apostles’ Creed [and/or Nicene Creed], accepts the authority of the Scriptures, and administers the two evangelical sacraments, namely baptism and Eucharist. It’s not that doctrinal truth doesn’t matter, but that most matters on which Christians differ do not seem, to many of us, to be points on which Christians ought to divide from each other.

This is, for me, my fundamental difficulty with Catholicism (together with its sacramental counterpart). I don’t think the Reformers were right to leave the Church. But I also don’t think that the errors of Trinitarian Protestants are sufficient grounds for their being excluded from the Church.

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.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Churches don’t typically change their teachings on a whim. And you simply mistake how ecumenical Protestants look at their particular tradition’s teachings. The key thing, the central thing, is the constant, historic teaching of the Church as a whole, based on Scripture. Particular traditions bring out particular emphases within that larger tradition. Now I don’t think all traditions are equal and I think there are good reasons to believe that Rome is indefectible and therefore, within carefully defined limits, infallible (i.e., that God will so guide the See of Rome as to prevent it from formally embracing error that would violate the essentials of the Faith). Clearly other Christian communities need to look humbly to Rome for guidance and to seek unity with Rome. But it does not necessarily follow that all the conditions Rome currently sets for full communion are correct. Clearly reunion with Rome now would take place on a very different foundation than it would have a hundred years ago, much less four hundred. In another hundred years, or another four hundred, who knows?

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Clearly other Christian communities need to look humbly to Rome for guidance and to seek unity with Rome.

Could you define clearly?