THE TRUE CHURCH

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

[newgeezer]

Thanks for the ping, Mom. After reading the responses, I realize I have no grounding in "history." Woe is me. Boo-hoo! ;O)

[franky]

I am not into writing long essays and especially any essays on judging my fellow man. I do note that the main text of the article seems to have the Roman Catholic Church as its target. This is unfortunate because St. Paul instructed us to have faith hope and love but to make sure we have love.

The article is an example of what should not be written in todays' turmoil of gay bishops and priests who abuse children and "Where the hearts of men grow cold."

Rather an article on prayer for all sinners who have "Come short of the Glory of God", should be offered so that we all come as one and rest in God's bosom.

Remember sinners in your prayers, especially me!

God Bless You!

[newgeezer]

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.

[sheltonmac]

...Catholics have similar views on non-dogmatic issues: if it hasn't been dogmatically defined we are free to debate without hurling anathemas.

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? I don't know which of these are dogmatic and which are non-dogmatic as far as Catholics are concerned, but I do know that none are supported by Scripture.

[SoothingDave]

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.

Why not try a second glance?

SD

[RnMomof7]

Hello to my Protestant fellows. I'm Catholic and stick to the Catholic threads, but the overt attack on the ONE TRUE CHURCH did catch my eye. Your positions are erroneous because you possess no grounding in history, and as soon as you do establish those groundings, you will cease to be Protestant and join the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Just keep in mind that the Eucharistic Lord is the center of the ONE TRUE CHURCH: don't you hunger to receive Him? Read John 6: Christ will always be waiting for you to feed you. He calls all to be ONE with Him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This is an attack on no one.

Perhaps if you are interested in "attack" threads you will read the one posted by a Catholic a few weeks ago that found general agreement among your fellow that Protestants worship a different god than Catholics..and are doomed. While Islam worships the same god as Catholics..I will not comment on my thoughts on that ,

History is not a marker of truth, after all Hitler and Stalin were also historic. The measure of truth is Jesus

[SoothingDave]

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? I don't know which of these are dogmatic and which are non-dogmatic as far as Catholics are concerned, but I do know that none are supported by Scripture.

Priestly celibacy is not a dogma. It is merely a practice. It is not somethign we believe is revealed as a truth which all must ascribe to. Rather, it is merely our way of doing things.

You may be unaware, but there exist entire branches of the One Catholic Church which have priests who are married. Not in this country, but in the East. We couldn't very well do that if it was a dogmatic belief that priests must be celibate, right?

As for the rest, your wording about Mary aside (who considers having someone to pray with you an "obligation"? Do you feel "obliged" to pray with your fellow Christians? Is it a burden?), the rest are indeed dogmatic beliefs.

An example of an open area that is not dogmatic is the question of what happens to infants who die prior to being baptised.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Perhaps if you are interested in "attack" threads you will read the one posted by a Catholic a few weeks ago that found general agreement among your fellow that Protestants worship a different god than Catholics..and are doomed. While Islam worships the same god as Catholics..

You're mixing apples with oranges. The article you cite was of a hard line Catholic. It stated nothing about Muslims. Anyone who believes Protestants are in error would not embrace Muslims.

SD

[RnMomof7]

Read John 6: Christ will always be waiting for you to feed you. He calls all to be ONE with Him in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Just wanted to comment on this Jobim.

John 6 is the great predestination chapter..It might be very good if you really read it:>))

[RnMomof7]

Not only no grounding in hostory, no grounding in scripture! For we are told that the Church shall be unified, and visible. The various churches squabble amongst themselves over virtually every issue, break off into their own little denominations, and are invisible to the world.

The Catholic Church hid scripture..even from its priests before Luther. Some early Catholic Theologians did not even read it. The people only "heard it" in a foreign language (latin)

Nor was this attitude toward the Bible essentially different among the theologians. Even though the Bible remained the source book of theology during the Middle Ages, it was seldom studied directly by the theologians. Luther complains that both in the monasteries and the universities the Bible was seldom read directly, and when it was, it was understood according to the categories of Aristotle. Those seeking "real" theology were instead directed to study the scholastic theologians, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, and others. As a typical example of this, Luther mentions his fellow professor Andreas Karlstadt, who did not even own a Bible when he earned his doctor of theology degree, nor did he until many years later (e.g., WA TR 1, no. 174).

[SoothingDave]

The Catholic Church hid scripture..even from its priests before Luther. Some early Catholic Theologians did not even read it. The people only "heard it" in a foreign language (latin)

You toss these accusations around. You act like there was no Scripture to be found in any of the works of the great theologians. This is pitiful.

As for the poor people being forced to listen in a foreign language, it never fails to amuse. Anyone who could read or write at that time could read and write Latin. Duh.

SD

[RnMomof7]

But where I believe Hank's position is flawed, and maybe some of you can answer this, is how do we ultimately know what's a core issue or not? What is worthy of utter repudiation as heresy and what is tolerable debate? We can lay out a series of "you-must-believe-this-to-be-a-Christian", but what divine authority does it have? There is no clear delineation in Scripture and in the end it seems to be just a personal opinion.

Hi Claud, gee it has been a long time since we "talked".

I can not speak for Hank, but I would say the core issues that he is talking about is the nature of God and the work of the persons in the trinity . We agree with the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed . I do believe that He would call that the essentials to be a part of the "visible (professing) church".

Obviously neither of us consider the other to hold correct doctrine on Salvation.

For you it is salvation by faith and works, for us it is faith alone (with the works of the saved appointed to us by God )

These are not "minor" differences by any means , and should not be painted over

[RnMomof7]

Number 3 and number 8 above conflict. "Rich" should proof read his work before he goes to publication.

"Rich" is a famous Theologian and no they do not conflict a bit.

. 3) But it has only one Great Head - one Shepherd, one chief Bishop - and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it - neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods.

8.) This is the only Church WHICH IS TRULY APOSTOLIC. It is built on the foundation laid by the Apostles, and holds the doctrines which they preached.

The apostles preached repent and believe and salvation by faith not rituals

PS Ryle was an Anglican Bishop

[RnMomof7]

I am not into writing long essays and especially any essays on judging my fellow man. I do note that the main text of the article seems to have the Roman Catholic Church as its target. This is unfortunate because St. Paul instructed us to have faith hope and love but to make sure we have love.

I believe you rush to judgment .Ryle was an Anglican Bishop and I believe he was addressing a doctrinal change in his own church..;but if the shoe fits wear it.:>)

[RnMomof7]

You're mixing apples with oranges. The article you cite was of a hard line Catholic. It stated nothing about Muslims. Anyone who believes Protestants are in error would not embrace Muslims

You need to read the entire thread..it was a part of the conversation..

[dangus]

>>The Catholic Church hid scripture..even from its priests before Luther. Some early Catholic Theologians did not even read it. The people only "heard it" in a foreign language (latin)

Everything you think you know about Catholicism was taught to you by hate-mongering, screeding propagandists.

For most of church history (1500 years), bibles weren't available commonly simply because there was no mass publishing invented yet. For that history, people learned what was in the bible from their priest, and yes, every pastor had a bible, and could read it well, and the countryside teamed with religious who could teach. Which was OK, because it was thought only right that people should learn from educated people. In fact, for 3,000 years, the Jews omitted vowels and spaces to make it impossible for anyone to read the Bible without a rabbi.

When Luther began publishing the Bible in the vernacular, he actually omitted 7 books of the New Testament which are currently in the Protestant bible (Revelations, James, etc.) for the precise reason that they refuted directly his assertions... He reasoned they so baldly contradicted his beliefs that they must be fraudulent. Given the omissions, the purposeful mistranslations and tragic translational errors (ever hear of the "Devil's Bible"?), and the ease at which bible verse can be taken out of the bible (Satan himself quotes scripture!), is it any wonder the Church suppressed the distribution of Protestant bibles?

The use of Latin was not to enable people from being misinformed about what was contained in the bible. It wasn't only the bible that people used latin to study. It was the language of philosophy, science, history, and every other subject. And for a good reason. "Vulgate" meant the language of the common people, and until long after Gutenberg, far more poeple were literate in Latin than in all other languages in Europe combined. The use of a common language prevented theological misunderstandings, as had tore the Latin and Greek churches apart. It persisted through the 1960s, and to this day, Catholic schools still teach Latin to their students.

And I have to laugh at people who find something sinister about insisting on Latin while so many Protestants insist on using a Jacobian bible whose language they don't even realize how poorly they understand. And it's not even due to the ignorance of the reader: Jacobian English isn't even standardized enough to avoid theologically devestating ambiguity.

[opus86]

Interesting article. Here's probably a silly question regarding #8..."The two grand objects at which its members aim are apostolic faith and apostolic practice..."

What does "apostolic practice" mean? Just stuff the apostles did (church-building, evangelism, preaching)? Or Christian "reasonable service" (prayer, Bible reading, etc.) I'm not familiar with the author.

[SoothingDave]

You need to read the entire thread..it was a part of the conversation..

No one who thinks "Protestants" worship a different God thinks Muslims worship the same God. You imply the article said so, when it didn't. And I hardly think any poster would hold such ideas in his head.

Maybe two different Catholics would hold these two different ideas. Or mean two different things by the term. But no one person or article would say what you say they said. That's dishonest of you to state it that way.

SD

[RnMomof7]

As for the poor people being forced to listen in a foreign language, it never fails to amuse. Anyone who could read or write at that time could read and write Latin. Duh.

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

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

So only those that spoke Latin could understand the gospel.

Dave do you know how pathetic that sounds?

Dave why do you think the church kept the Bible from almost everyone?