THE TRUE CHURCH

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

[beelzepug]

Let me first apologize in advance if I'm being nit-picky also, but if we are striving for accuracy here, let's dump the word "Revelations" and use either "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" or simply "The Revelation". Our bishop recently jumped us for sloppiness in announcing, "A reading from the Book of Revelations" so now I can't forget it. It's not good to be on the wrong side of the bishop.

[dangus]

At first glance, it sure seems as if the mere existence of any "purgatory" would deem the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ insufficient for salvation.

Not any more than the need of Christians in this world to "pick up [your] cross[es] and follow me." The work is not finished; nor will it be until the second coming. For our own sakes, so we can conform our will to that of Jesus', we are given the blessing of sharing in the work of Christ.

>> What are the non-dogmatic issues of the RC church? Papal infallibility? The perpetual virginity of Mary or the celibacy of Joseph? Our obligation to pray to Mary? Transubstantiation? Purgatory? A celibate priesthood?

No, these are all dogmatic, with the exception of the celibate priesthood (and sort of an exception for praying with Mary). And they are all biblical. In most cases, Protestants simply deny what was stated for various reasons ("He didn't *literally* mean 'My flesh is real food'," "Even though he addressed himself to Peter, he was speaking to everyone else when he said...," "Mary already had kids when Jesus called John, 'The son of you.'"). In some cases, Luther tried removing books from the Bible, but a case can still be made from what he left in it ("The work of the disobedient shall be destroyed, even though he may persist, as one passing through fire.").

Now, I can see Protestants quabbling with Catholics over *how* to interpret scripture, but it's riotously slanderous when they insist that Catholics disregard the bible on these matters.

[fishtank]

bflr

[dangus]

Actually, (and I'm sure SD knew this) there are married priests in this country, also. But they are the result of a wierd canon-law twist regarding married Episcopalian priests who convert to Catholicism... they are allowed to be Catholic priests.

[polemikos]

The Bible is forthright in declaring the Real Presence in the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and especially John 6:32–71).

And to go back to the earlier comment about historical realities, the early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Just one of dozens of writings on this subject by early church fathers:
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" -- Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 7:3 [A.D. 110]

Here we have Ignatius, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, who learned at the feet of John, reaffirming the Real Presence.

The Real Presence is something that has been held as true from the very beginning of the church. Do you appreciate what that means?

[dangus]

>>What about those that could not"read and write"?

They heard the homilies explain to them the meaning of the scripture. Homilies are not sermons (although in modern America there's far less distinction.). They are intended to teach the meaning of the scripture which has been read.

>> Dave I do not believe the majority of the populous in 1600 could read and write Latin

No, most could not. Far fewer could read or write in the vernacular. Vernacular bibles were published by Protestants to appeal to the merchant class.

>> So only those that spoke Latin could understand the gospel.

Your cascading logic is false. Yor are clinging to your presumption that there was a conspiracy to not speak the gospel in English. If you are explaining the meaning of something to someone, would you not translate it in pieces yourself? Even though the gospels and the homilies are now in the same language, I ferquently hear priests repeat the gospel in the course of his homily. Other than your presumption that they were tryin to hide it from people, what makes you think they did not do this? Have you not read the homilies of any ancient Christians? (of course not, silly question.)

[anniegetyourgun]

Most assuredly there is unity in the Body of Christ. She knows no denominations or walls. Therefore, there are believers who attend a CMA church, those who attend a Moravian church, those who attend a Catholic church, those who worship underground in homes, etc. On essentials (i.e., that Jesus is Messiah, that His finished work on the cross saves, original sin, etc. ) delivered by The Christ there is agreement. On non-essentials (eschatological positions, new earth/old earth, whether sign gifts are extant today) there is liberty.

Does that mean there are people who are in the Body but still babies in their understanding of His word? Of course - that's the process of sanctification. (A good example would be Norma McCorvey who trusted Christ, but took more time and feeding on the Word of God to understand His authorship of all life.)

This isn't about Catholicism vs Protestantism. (For, after all, both have erred and not always taught the Word of God.) It's about what God sees - as He looks upon the heart, while man goes about looking to the exterior (the membership, the style, the leader, etc.)

[polemikos]

Yet another problem with Fundamentalist and Evangelical interpretatrions is their use of modern English idioms to interpret ancient writings.

While the Greek "phagomai" (to eat) can sometimes be taken metaphorically, the Greek "trogo" is NEVER anything but literal in the Greek Bible and all other ancient Greek literature. Do you appreciate what this means?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

That's because your Bible has expurgated the word "Eucharist" out of its translation.

[SoothingDave]

Still looks the same

I can't remember who was quoted saying, roughly: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Which is to say that if one is satisfied with appearances, then one is satisfied. One might leave the heavy discussions to the rest of us.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Those who would put the Scriptures indiscriminately into the hands of the people are the believers always in private interpretation—a fallacy both absurd in itself and pregnant with disastrous consequences. These counterfeit champions of the inspired book hold the Bible to be the sole source of Divine Revelation and cover with abuse and trite sarcasm the Catholic and Roman Church. Foreword, Index of Prohibited Books, revised and published by order of Pope Pius XI, Vatican Polyglot Press, 1930, x-xi, quoted in Facts of Faith, 10-11.

Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.

SD

[AlguyA]

'We agree with the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed ."

I have yet to find a Protestant who actually agrees with either of these creeds.

[Pahuanui]

Preach the Gospel at all times; use words if necessary

[biblewonk]

That's because your Bible has expurgated the word "Eucharist" out of its translation.

JW's tell me the same kind of thing about my bible. I don't believe them either.

[Ff--150]

It seems that what Christ has in mind for the "true Church" is one which (before the Last Judgement anyway) contains the saved AND those to be damned.

And Matt. 7:21-23. He never knew them so the workers of inequity had to go.

Maybe the "true Church" is in your mirror...

[dangus]

This guy is on a plane; the captian is unconsious. He is on the radio to the FAA. He is certain that he is not able to land the plane.

Ground control tells him: "I can talk you down. You simply need to listen to me."

"OK"

"Now, you are descending too rapidly. You have to pull up... pull up... come on, are you listening to me, I told you to pull up! O NO, for Heaven sake!... Pull up or you'll crash the plane and kill everyone... NO!!! PULL UP!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!"

But the passanger does nothing. The plane crashes into the control tower. Everyone dies. The FAA holds a hearing to find out who is to blame. How stupid would you have to be to say, "it's in the transcripts: Ground control clearly told the guy he only had to listen to him."

Likewise, Jesus saud that we must believe in him. He also said that if we believe in him, we will obey him. He also gave us commandments as to how to live, and plainly told us that we had to follow those commandments or we will not be saved. We cannot say, therefore, that we do not need to follow those instructions because he only said we must believe in him.

And I'm sorry, but I have to believe that if somehow there was someone listening in on all this, who understood us well, but simply had never heard of the any of these debates that he would fall down laughing at what a silly assertion you make. Luther knew he couldn't defend it, given what the bible says. That's why he removed so much of the bible. (Later Protestants restored the 7 New Testament books he removed.) And even he kept doing 99% of what you are saying is unnecessary.

[SoothingDave]

Your cascading logic is false. Yor are clinging to your presumption that there was a conspiracy to not speak the gospel in English. If you are explaining the meaning of something to someone, would you not translate it in pieces yourself?

You need to totally buy into the conspiracy theory. Mom and the rest of the slandering nabobs would have you believe that no priest, brother, sister, monk, friar or anything ever spoke the vernacular, never taught anything about Jesus and God and most definitely never read any passage from Scriptures to anyone. Except in Latin.

Poor peasant #314 would ask the priest, "tell me what I need to do do make God happy?" and he would respond "sempere ubi sub ubi sub rosa ipso facto ad infinitum."

SD

[dangus]

>> In all of my bible reading I've never read about "The Eucharistic Lord" no not once. >>

O come on, that's silly. The bible never says, "trinity," or "sola fidelis" either.

[SoothingDave]

JW's tell me the same kind of thing about my bible. I don't believe them either.

Whom do you "believe" that sanctions the authenticity of your own bible?

SD

[biblewonk]

There is a huge difference between concepts and names of the Lord. There are over a hundred names for the Lord in the bible and they all have significance. Inventing new ones for Him is blasphemy.