THE TRUE CHURCH

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/RYLE2.HTM ^ | 11/4/03 | J.C. Ryle

[maryz]

Latin is a perfect example of how "dead" languages used only in worship/religion do not stand still. Conscious forceful efforts even had to be made to retain theological terminology against changes in speech as well.

Pre-Vatican II, one of the justifications for using a dead language in the liturgy was that it remained fixed.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I find it hard to believe that masturbation and pulling out are sins on the same level as say, rape. I do realize that "victimless sins" have consequences that can drive one further from God, but it just seems like comparing apples and Siberian pine trees on the part of the author.

On the one hand, it can be pointed out that any failure to obey God is a sin punishable by eternal death. So we must be cognizant of what is sinful and what is not. This list is made to help us examine our own consciences prior to asking God for forgiveness. So it's not necessarily equating the two, though Jesus Himself equated thinking about a woman sexually with the act of adultery.

On the other hand, perhaps when you "pulled out" during sex, God was intending to bless the world with a child, a child who would grow up strong and do great things for God's people. But you thwarted it by your actions.

Now tell me. Is that any better than a rape? Is it still acting in selfish violation of God's will?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Pre-Vatican II, one of the justifications for using a dead language in the liturgy was that it remained fixed.

Fixed in meaning, but not necessarily fixed in pronunciation. It's a slower evolution, but I'm sure that the common language of the day can start to effect pronunciation.

SD

[maryz]

It's a slower evolution, but I'm sure that the common language of the day can start to affect pronunciation.

Sounds change pretty slowly, especially in a literate environment, and consonants are a lot more stable than vowels. The classical Arabic of the Koran is considered by linguists to maintain early "purity," with respect to vowels, as opposed to the various Arabics spoken in the Arab countries, presumably because of a self-conscious effort to preserve the Koran.

[SoothingDave]

You deny the ability of a spirit filled christian to interpret scripture but blindly do nothing to prune the corrupt theologians you rely on to interpret God's word for you.

No offense, but if you think any of us here are "relying" on the American bishops for anything other than comic relief and redemptive suffering, you are sadly mistaken.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is that we do not rest upon whoever is presently alive. Tradition is "the democracy of the dead" Chesterton said. This means that the "theolgians" we "rely" upon are long gone. And there is no evidence of their being "corrupt."

Today's bishops are mere dust in the wind, fodder for the floors of hell. I realize to a Protestant who insists on personal revelation of all knowledge the idea that we rely upon anyone for help is difficult. But it is not just these present bishops who lead us, it is the bishops and thinkers of the past two millennia, in concert.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I am forever grateful That Christ bore ALL my sins and transgression and was the propitiation for my sin ! I praise Him for offering continual sacrifices for me and mediation for me before the Father

Huh? "Continual sacrifices?" I thought you thought that "it is finished"?

SD

[SoothingDave]

It was not a doctrine of the church until 1215 when the doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

Even then it was years before their was any way to defend it. Then in 1265 Thomas Aquinas developed an explanation for the Transubstantion doctrine.

What? In your fantasy world, the Church can "define" a doctrine without having an argument for it until 50 years later. You are quite simply in over your head.

It's like you believe that the Church said "you must believe in transubstantiation" and the people said "what does that mean?" and the Church said "we don't know, but Aquinis is working on it. We'll have a draft soon. but just shut up and believe it anyway."

You're quite literally hysterical.

So until the 1200's one could be a Catholic and not believe the doctrine.

Over and above your confusion about reality, you fail to understand that defining transubstantiation is not the same thing as believing in the Real Presence. One is a declaration, the other an explanation.

Using your logic, you would have us believe that nothing ever fell to the ground until Newton described how gravity worked.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Church Latin was mostly frozen grammatically, not in pronunciation.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Pre-Vatican II, one of the justifications for using a dead language in the liturgy was that it remained fixed.

Meaning fixed definition of words, not fixed pronunciation. Even there, as I noted, a conscious effort had to be made to forbid innovations in terminology. The dead language had to be "protected" from signs of life.

And even so, scribal errors and glosses crept in and were constantly in need of purging from the Liturgy.

[dangus]

>> I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I find it hard to believe that masturbation and pulling out are sins on the same level as say, rape.

They're not.

>>I do realize that "victimless sins" have consequences that can drive one further from God,

That's the only point of this list.

[dangus]

The point is that as a Catholic, it is not sinful for me to oppose the requirement for clergy to be celibate. On the other hand, if I represent myself as a Catholic and I knowingly contradict Catholic doctrine, I am guilty of apostasy.

Believe me, that's a big difference.

[maryz]

Doesn't look different enough to me to make such a fuss over.

http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf

[jjm2111]

"On the other hand, perhaps when you "pulled out" during sex, God was intending to bless the world with a child, a child who would grow up strong and do great things for God's people. But you thwarted it by your actions.

Now tell me. Is that any better than a rape? Is it still acting in selfish violation of God's will?

It very well might be a selfish violation of God's will. But pulling out is in no way on the same plane as rape. Rape is violation of another human being. If sperm and egg does not meet then there is no child. Besides, if it were God's Will, wouldn't He cause you to screw up the timing?

J

[SoothingDave]

It very well might be a selfish violation of God's will. But pulling out is in no way on the same plane as rape. Rape is violation of another human being.

So hurting another human being is worse than denying God's will?

If sperm and egg does not meet then there is no child. Besides, if it were God's Will, wouldn't He cause you to screw up the timing?

Maybe on the island of Calvinistic automatons. Here on earth, we are given free will. If you truly believe what you just said, then you are incapable of sin, since God will just cause you to do exactly what He wants.

SD

[jjm2111]

>>That's the only point of this list.

Well, in that respect, I do agree with the author.

[malakhi]

From my orthodox Jewish roommate, whose Tanakh had no vowels.

Yes, it has no vowels. But not for the reason you suggest. Your assertion that the purpose was to "make it impossible for anyone to read the Bible without a rabbi" is as false as the Protestant claim that the Catholic church only allowed Latin bibles to "make it impossible for anyone to read the Bible without a priest".

[jjm2111]

You're drawing the wrong guy into an agrument. I'll write you a FReepmail.

[polemikos]

Never claimed to be perfect. I'm a sinner like all the rest.

Yet still, you don't explain the logical inconsistencies of your belief system.
Yet still, you attack the RCC with false accusations.
Yet still, you put false words in my mouth.
Sounds like a "lack of charity and decorum" to me.

Were indulgences abused by members of the clergy? Absolutely.
Are indulgences sound doctrine and biblical? Absolutely.
The sins of Catholics do not negate the truth of Catholicism.

Seek the truth. Not all truth is in the Bible.
How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

[SoothingDave]

You're drawing the wrong guy into an agrument. I'll write you a FReepmail.

If you wish. My only point is that examining the conscience should involve all facets of sin, not just "major league" ones. Like I already said, Jesus equated mere lustful thoughts to adultery.

Pirating software is not the same as robbing a liquor store, but they are both violations of the commandment.

SD

[dangus]

That is what he taught me. And to him, this was virtuous, and I saw the sense in it.