How did you know your church is the one?

[rcwitness]

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.

I hear ya. My comparison is not perfect, rather a likeness which is common.

I am coming from understanding Jesus’ words in Luke 12:42

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?

The faith is whole in one sense, but not necessarily completely applied in a moment.

 

[estesbob]

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.

A Protestant has to believe that God withheld the fullness of truth for 1500 years. That makes no sense to me.

 

[OuiSeigneur]

Just my observation here, but it seems to me that it is central to Catholicism to believe that your particular ecclesial community cannot teach error, while Episcopalians recognize that our leaders are fallible sinners who have made mistakes and will probably make more in the future. I like the humility of the latter position.

Actually Catholics believe both. The Church is capable of making infallible statements and yet Her leaders are sinners who make mistakes. You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

 

[Peter_J]

A Protestant has to believe that God withheld the fullness of truth for 1500 years. That makes no sense to me.

Exactly.

And, if I might piggy-back on your post, I’m always uncertain what to say to an Eastern Orthodox who says “A Roman Catholic has to believe that God withheld the fullness of truth for 1,054 years.”

 

[Contarini]

Could you define clearly?

No, I couldn’t, because when a state of full communion doesn’t exist there are no clear “rules” on the matter, and I’m talking about a general attitude rather than specifics. I can, however, lay out a few principles that I think ought to govern how Christians not in full communion with Rome approach their differences, in light of the general attitude I recommended in my earlier post:

1. We should be confident that Rome will not apostasize, so that any formal teaching coming out of Rome will not violate the basics of the historic faith.
2. We should be tentative in our embrace of any teaching that Rome says is wrong. That means, among other things, that we should be very tolerant of those within our own boundaries who agree with Rome on the controverted point. (Women’s ordination is an obvious example here. I cannot agree with my brothers and sisters in evangelical and mainline churches who make full acceptance of women’s ordination a litmus test for membership in their denominations.)
3. We should also be tentative in condemning anything that Rome has not condemned. It seems pretty clear to me that Rome’s charism within the Body of Christ is to resist what Newman would call “corruptions” and what I would call “new developments that violate the parameters of the original apostolic deposit of faith.” It also seems clear to me that Rome has frequently resisted things that turned out to be legitimate. (Hence no. 2 does not read “we should never embrace any teaching that Rome says is wrong.”)
4. While seeking union with all Christians, we should focus our ecumenical efforts on Rome and on those other Christian churches that have relatively more in common with Rome. (I.e., more “high church” traditions for evangelicals and more “conservative” traditions for mainliners.) We should be more willing to concede distinctives that separate us from Rome and the more Catholic traditions generally than those that separate us from more radical traditions.

Hopefully you get the idea.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A Protestant has to believe that God withheld the fullness of truth for 1500 years. That makes no sense to me.

Only in the sense that Catholics have to believe that God has withheld it up to now, or at least up to the latest moment in doctrinal development (and surely no Catholic thinks that doctrinal development has ceased).

If by “fullness of the faith” you mean what Catholics defensibly claim–that no Catholic doctrine violates divine revelation, even though a full understanding and application of revelation has not yet happened and presumably won’t until the Eschaton–then Protestants can quite easily say that this fullness of the faith is found in all Trinitarian churches.

The real difficulty, then, would be whether we all don’t think that God withheld the fullness of the faith for 300 years. Which is, intrinsically, just as problematic as the idea that he withheld it for 1500.

I don’t think we do have to say that, because I don’t think that pre-Nicene traditions violated the apostolic deposit. But it is a rather sticky question.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

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.

You will have to illumine me on this one.

 

[benhur]

A Protestant has to believe that God withheld the fullness of truth for 1500 years. That makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense for me either that a Catholic would think we believe that, for we surely don’t. It does make sense unfortunately, that some see the reformers as reinventing the wheel, just as surely as some Jews thought Christ to be “radical”, with a “new” twist, though it had been all prophesied, all the way back to the Garden.

Protestants have nothing new. That is not to say they were not “new” to their contemporary status quo. Reformers also came up with a few new ways of stressing the old, to counter the Church’s current evolved “ways” of their time .

If one wanted to review specific doctrine and practices that have been “countered” or reformed one by one, we would see the separation would be much less than 1500 years, and would be specific to each doctrine/practice.

The doctrines and practices of the first century church are not identical to the CC’s 16th century.

One also has to acknowledge that the CC and P’s have both not been static since 16th century in doctrine and practice.

 

[Peter_J]

No, I couldn’t, because when a state of full communion doesn’t exist there are no clear “rules” on the matter, and I’m talking about a general attitude rather than specifics. I can, however, lay out a few principles that I think ought to govern how Christians not in full communion with Rome approach their differences, in light of the general attitude I recommended in my earlier post:

1. We should be confident that Rome will not apostasize, so that any formal teaching coming out of Rome will not violate the basics of the historic faith.
2. We should be tentative in our embrace of any teaching that Rome says is wrong. That means, among other things, that we should be very tolerant of those within our own boundaries who agree with Rome on the controverted point. (Women’s ordination is an obvious example here. I cannot agree with my brothers and sisters in evangelical and mainline churches who make full acceptance of women’s ordination a litmus test for membership in their denominations.)
3. We should also be tentative in condemning anything that Rome has not condemned. It seems pretty clear to me that Rome’s charism within the Body of Christ is to resist what Newman would call “corruptions” and what I would call “new developments that violate the parameters of the original apostolic deposit of faith.” It also seems clear to me that Rome has frequently resisted things that turned out to be legitimate. (Hence no. 2 does not read “we should never embrace any teaching that Rome says is wrong.”)
4. While seeking union with all Christians, we should focus our ecumenical efforts on Rome and on those other Christian churches that have relatively more in common with Rome. (I.e., more “high church” traditions for evangelicals and more “conservative” traditions for mainliners.) We should be more willing to concede distinctives that separate us from Rome and the more Catholic traditions generally than those that separate us from more radical traditions.

Hopefully you get the idea.

Edwin

Interesting.

(Btw, you have to keep in mind that I and most others here have known very few Anglo-Papalists. So don’t be offended if we seem to have an inordinate level of interest in you. )

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

I didn’t go looking for a church. I went looking for where the authentic teachings of Jesus are retained. The rest followed. For example, if I believe Jesus loves the Church as a man loves his bride, then it follows that Jesus is lovingly attentive to the church He established. If I believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His bride to all truth, then I believe that the Church He established is just that.

Without this centering on Jesus, then I don’t really know how one would discern what you are asking. I was never interested in a church that has been fired up by some man or woman, and I reject any claim that such a “new church” is necessary.