Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[icamhif]

How would you go about deciding which one is most true (the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Assyrian Church of the East)?

I’ve often been told by members that the best way is to go to the Parishes and experience the life of the Church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’ve often been told by members that the best way is to go to the Parishes and experience the life of the Church.

Well according to a few Catholics on here…that is the wrong way of going about.

 

[icamhif]

Well according to a few Catholics on here…that is the wrong way of going about.

Really? Why would they say that?

There is so much more to knowing Christianity than apologetics. You must come see and experience what the Churches are really like. Experience the life of prayers, worship, fasting, etc., and you may find God giving you His blessings. You may then see the light and discern truth, in the process.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Really? Why would they say that?

There is so much more to knowing Christianity than apologetics. You must come see and experience what the Churches are really like. Experience the life of prayers, worship, fasting, etc., and you may find God giving you His blessings. You may then see the light and discern truth, in the process.

You would ne accused of following your feelings or personal desires and not following the truth.

 

[icamhif]

You would ne accused of following your feelings or personal desires and not following the truth.

It’s not either/or, but both/and. Discerning truth comes from both intellectual inquiry and experience. Isn’t it possible, after all, that God could give someone the desire to convert to the Catholic Church simply by a blessing from the Priest?

 

[aidanbradypop]

It’s not either/or, but both/and. Discerning truth comes from both intellectual inquiry and experience. Isn’t it possible, after all, that God could give someone the desire to convert to the Catholic Church simply by a blessing from the Priest?

Sure. I have no issue with a non Catholic becoming Catholic.

Can the same be said for the other side?

I feel we are way off topic. Sorry lol

 

[Jon_S_1]

How would you go about deciding which one is most true (the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Assyrian Church of the East)?

I think if those are the consideration you’ve done 90% of the discernment as they are all apostolic churches.

Once at that point for me it came down to papal authority and having that successor of Peter to be a living voice of the church. Something seemed lacking in the other apostolic churches regarding this and a sort of limbo state regarding final determinations and development of doctrine that’s needed.

But any of these churches are apostolic divided but hopefully United soon as they once were.

Remember too that some eastern churches are in union with Rome if you prefer that type of faith practice.

 

[Peter_J]

There are reasons I am going to convert from Evangelicalism to one of four Churches (see my signature),

Ohhhh, guess I misunderstood it. I thought it meant that you aren’t a Christian (yet).

There is so much more to knowing Christianity than apologetics. You must come see and experience what the Churches are really like.

Wait, so there’s more to Catholicism than an Internet website(s)?

I think you may have just changed my whole perspective on life.

 

[Tommy999]

I tend to believe intellectually and in my spirit that Jesus loved mankind so much that He established apostolic leadership and a logical succession and a structure (The Church) to carry on His work on earth for the good of His followers and not just leave things to happenstance or personal interpretation only.

I also believe that he Lord guided the Early Church Fathers and their successors to decide which books were to make up the Bible because the people of God were meant to have a guidebook inspired by the Lord to follow, and not left to their own devices. I also believe that it makes sense that God intended for His most important points to be written in Scripture and He inspired the writers of those books to do just that.

I also have come to believe that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has been the caretaker of those trusts over the centuries.

I have a hard time believing that God would all of sudden in the 1500’s allow that Church to divert from His teachings, although I think all Church teachings should be supportable from Scripture and not contradict the written Word of God in any way.

One question I struggle with, however, is that if the Roman Catholic Church is the caretaker of the faith, which I believe it very well could be, then why did it take until 1854 (more than 300 years after the Protestant Reformation), to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary and wait until 1950 to proclaim the Assumption of Mary?

If those were teachings of the early church fathers passed down through the centuries, why weren’t they established earlier on like the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why did they have to wait until the time just before he US Civil War and after World War II respectively to be proclaimed? I realize my thinking may be what is in error and not Church teaching, but I must say I wonder about that.

Still discerning… sorry if this was off topic.

 

[icamhif]

Ohhhh, guess I misunderstood it. I thought it meant that you aren’t a Christian (yet).

I see. Any suggestions on how I can rename my “Religion,” so that it is more clear what I mean? Hmmm…How about “Inquiring Christian”?

Wait, so there’s more to Catholicism than an Internet website(s)?

I think you may have just changed my whole perspective on life.

Lol!

 

[Jon_S_1]

I tend to believe intellectually and in my spirit that Jesus loved mankind so much that He established apostolic leadership and a logical succession and a structure (The Church) to carry on His work on earth for the good of His followers and not just leave things to happenstance or personal interpretation only.

I also believe that he Lord guided the Early Church Fathers and their successors to decide which books were to make up the Bible because the people of God were meant to have a guidebook inspired by the Lord to follow, and not left to their own devices. I also believe that it makes sense that God intended for His most important points to be written in Scripture and He inspired the writers of those books to do just that.

I also have come to believe that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has been the caretaker of those trusts over the centuries.

I have a hard time believing that God would all of sudden in the 1500’s allow that Church to divert from His teachings, although I think all Church teachings should be supportable from Scripture and not contradict the written Word of God in any way.

One question I struggle with, however, is that if the Roman Catholic Church is the caretaker of the faith, which I believe it very well could be, then why did it take until 1854 (more than 300 years after the Protestant Reformation), to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary and wait until 1950 to proclaim the Assumption of Mary?

If those were teachings of the early church fathers passed down through the centuries, why weren’t they established earlier on like the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why did they have to wait until the time just before he US Civil War and after World War II respectively to be proclaimed? I realize my thinking may be what is in error and not Church teaching, but I must say I wonder about that.

Still discerning… sorry if this was off topic.

Not really off topic but think of it this way.

The church doesn’t go around declaring this and that. The body of Christ has discussions and brings things to the church. So for example the divinity of Christ took centuries to Hammer out in church council until finally it was said “this is the faith handed to us and it should be described this way”

So with those Marian doctrines. There was really no dispute but there was murmurs and discussions about Mary being more than the church describes and so the pope declared those dogmas. Dogmas that were always held, but that point in history is the point at which a clarification needed to be made by the church.

You can look all the way back to the early fathers to see them talk about those dogmas.

 

[Peter_J]

I see. Any suggestions on how I can rename my “Religion,” so that it is more clear what I mean? Hmmm…How about “Inquiring Christian”?

I was just thinking that … then I hit “Reply” to find that you already wrote it.

 

[icamhif]

I was just thinking that … then I hit “Reply” to find that you already wrote it.

Very well

 

[Tommy999]

Not really off topic but think of it this way.

The church doesn’t go around declaring this and that. The body of Christ has discussions and brings things to the church. So for example the divinity of Christ took centuries to Hammer out in church council until finally it was said “this is the faith handed to us and it should be described this way”

So with those Marian doctrines. There was really no dispute but there was murmurs and discussions about Mary being more than the church describes and so the pope declared those dogmas. Dogmas that were always held, but that point in history is the point at which a clarification needed to be made by the church.

You can look all the way back to the early fathers to see them talk about those dogmas.

Thanks, Jon. Do you or anyone else who is more familiar with the early church fathers know when the Marian dogmas were first mentioned by the early Church?

 

[Thorolfr]

Not really off topic but think of it this way.

The church doesn’t go around declaring this and that. The body of Christ has discussions and brings things to the church. So for example the divinity of Christ took centuries to Hammer out in church council until finally it was said “this is the faith handed to us and it should be described this way”

So with those Marian doctrines. There was really no dispute but there was murmurs and discussions about Mary being more than the church describes and so the pope declared those dogmas. Dogmas that were always held, but that point in history is the point at which a clarification needed to be made by the church.

You can look all the way back to the early fathers to see them talk about those dogmas.

If something has been reliably handed down, then why is there any need to hammer things out later as if there was uncertainty about what was correct? And why would the doctrines about Mary be more important after 1854 and not before? If they weren’t really important to Catholics for more than 1800 years, why would they be important later?

 

[Peter_J]

Very well

I guess Inquiring Christians want to know.

Btw, as someone who often thinks “I wonder what draws Protestants to a thread or post?” I’m pretty impressed to see this thread got 93 posts in less than 24 hours.

 

[Coco82]

I don’t like the idea of ANYONE Protestants or Catholics, believing the other is “not a true Christian.” As someone who’s been in both the CC and nondenominational churches I can say they were just as filled with true believers and the Spirit as any CC. I think it’s real petty in fact and not very Christ-like to be judging if another person is a believer, either way. I don’t like when Protestants bash Catholics either.

 

[SyCarl]

Not really off topic but think of it this way.

The church doesn’t go around declaring this and that. The body of Christ has discussions and brings things to the church. So for example the divinity of Christ took centuries to Hammer out in church council until finally it was said “this is the faith handed to us and it should be described this way”

So with those Marian doctrines. There was really no dispute but there was murmurs and discussions about Mary being more than the church describes and so the pope declared those dogmas. Dogmas that were always held, but that point in history is the point at which a clarification needed to be made by the church.

You can look all the way back to the early fathers to see them talk about those dogmas.

The Marian dogmas are not all that clear in the early fathers.

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.

John of Damascus (Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

If she was without sin, why the need to purify her?

Similarly

This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

Even Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux denied the Immaculate Conception in the way that Pius IX defined it.

As for being sinless.

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49)
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

And on both being sinless and being Mother of God

But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine….Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us.

Augustine (A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.iv.v.html

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.

Augustine (Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last.

Ambrose (On The Mysteries, 8:46)
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

These men all thought very highly of Mary, as do I, but necessarily in accordance with later defined dogma.

However there was virtual unanimity on Mary being ever virgin.

 

[icamhif]

I guess Inquiring Christians want to know.

Btw, as someone who often thinks “I wonder what draws Protestants to a thread or post?” I’m pretty impressed to see this thread got 93 posts in less than 24 hours.

Threads that ask us to defend our beliefs, I suppose.

 

[Telstar]

One question I struggle with, however, is that if the Roman Catholic Church is the caretaker of the faith, which I believe it very well could be, then why did it take until 1854 (more than 300 years after the Protestant Reformation), to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary and wait until 1950 to proclaim the Assumption of Mary?

If those were teachings of the early church fathers passed down through the centuries, why weren’t they established earlier on like the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why did they have to wait until the time just before he US Civil War and after World War II respectively to be proclaimed? I realize my thinking may be what is in error and not Church teaching, but I must say I wonder about that.

These links from New Advent can shed some light on both, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption.

Not really off topic but think of it this way.

The church doesn’t go around declaring this and that. The body of Christ has discussions and brings things to the church. So for example the divinity of Christ took centuries to Hammer out in church council until finally it was said “this is the faith handed to us and it should be described this way”

So with those Marian doctrines. There was really no dispute but there was murmurs and discussions about Mary being more than the church describes and so the pope declared those dogmas. Dogmas that were always held, but that point in history is the point at which a clarification needed to be made by the church.

You can look all the way back to the early fathers to see them talk about those dogmas.

Good points. The subjects concerning Mary were not as pressing as those about Jesus and the Church, itself, in the early history of the Church, even though there were many discussions from those very early days that support both beliefs being held by many ECFs. The subject became much more of an issue after the Reformation, when many reformers began to accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary, and causing some of them to have doubts about what the Church taught about her.

Thanks, Jon. Do you or anyone else who is more familiar with the early church fathers know when the Marian dogmas were first mentioned by the early Church?

The links I posted have some quotes about those topics from ECFs. The Assumption has less information available prior to the 5th or 6th century than the Immaculate Conception, which has scripture references that indicate it, without actually stating it, directly.

If something has been reliably handed down, then why is there any need to hammer things out later as if there was uncertainty about what was correct? And why would the doctrines about Mary be more important after 1854 and not before? If they weren’t really important to Catholics for more than 1800 years, why would they be important later?

It’s also quite possible that some apparitions of Mary, like in La Salette, France, in 1846 might have raised a lot more questions concerning Mary, from people around that time. So, the Church had to do Her homework and investigate more about Mary’s role in the Church.