What Is Necesssary For Salvation?

[amarkich]

[quote]"You must be born of water (Physical Birth) and born again of the spirit (the second birth)."[/quote]

No, Spriles, that is incorrect. Dave explains it well, but, in addition to that, it is not even stated that way in English. The correct quote is: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Your paraphrased quote was inaccurate and simply benefits your false belief. You probably use an illicit "Bible" anyway, but, as I said, Our Lord affirms this in his commission to the Apostles, and Saint Paul affirms it in his Epistles. Please reference my actual argument if you wish to attempt to refute it. Since we do not have the original Greek manuscripts, the closest thing we have is from the Vulgate, and the Latin reads as follows: "respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei." The translation I gave is a literal translation of that. It is clear in the Latin that it reads "ex aqua et Spiritu", that is, "from water and the Holy Ghost" (not "spiritu" but "Spiritu"; not "ghost/spirit" but "Holy Ghost"; N.B., it is also seen as "Spritus Sanctus" or, in this case, it could have been written "Spiritu Sancto").

Edit: As Dave says, birth of water never means natural birth. This is completely fabricated and has no indictation in either Greek or Latin (or even English).

Edited August 2, 2004 by amarkich

[Aloysius]

Ghost is the english word for spirit derived from the Germanic influences on the english language, while Spirit comes more from the french influences on the English language. We started calling it the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Ghost because of the way the culture made the word "ghost" have the connotation of like, casper. Holy Spirit means the same thing.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 2 2004, 06:58 PM'] Ghost is the english word for spirit derived from the Germanic influences on the english language, while Spirit comes more from the french influences on the English language. We started calling it the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Ghost because of the way the culture made the word "ghost" have the connotation of like, casper. Holy Spirit means the same thing. [/quote]
The Holy Ghost is not an "it" but a He, just as God the Father and God the Son are. (Yes, God has no gender, but I don't think anyone here would recommend using the feminine, and the neuter seems even less becoming.) In any event, it only makes sense to use the most ancient terms in worship, such as we do at Holy Mass. Latin, which is more ancient, is used. When we pray in English, we (should) use the more ancient form (Holy Ghost, Thee, Thou, Old English: doth, deign, etc.) rather than the newest form of language that changes day by day. We should avoid completely any form of slang or irreverent speach. This is all done to make sure a level of reverence is kept in prayer. Certainly hip-hop slang, etc. is much less reverent than Old English. A good Novus Ordo Priest near me (who says TLM privately) makes a good case as to why the more ancient form of language should be used rather than the new (apart from the fact that the new is constantly changing, which entails a constant change in meaning, which is why Latin is the language of the Church: the meanings never are confounded, since they remain constant).

[cmotherofpirl]

The Church uses the term Holy Spirit [Spiritu Sancto] so it is a completely appropriate term.

[Aloysius]

I always say He when speaking of God, i just slipped up there on the "it" because i was talking about words that refer to God and not God Himself, but now that i look at it that it was used in reference to God and I should not have done that (and at the least should have capitalized the It)

anyway, this is not a case of changing with the language, but rather of using the french influenced word instead of the germanic influenced word. both have been around just as long. the term "ghost" now has a casper-connotation, and thus the equally old "Spirit" is now used to clarify God is not casper. If we're siting awesome preists with good cases for our cause, Fr. Mitch Pacqwa makes a good case for the word "Spirit"

[XIX]

I'm trying not to speculate too hard as far as who exactly gets into heaven. My inate tendency is to be optimistic, but I really can't add a second to my lifespan by worrying about what I don't know. Nor can we save souls by worrying-either our own or others. *sigh* The lessons I learn the hard way...

We (I) really should be more concerned about saving our own souls.

[amarkich]

The use of modern terms, most notably Holy Spirit instead of Holy Ghost and "you" instead of "Thee", while being used in the New Mass, contradict every tradition and custom of the English-speaking world. Further, the Mass itself contradicts itself. The Mass uses "you" to refer to God rather than "Thee" and says Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost. The problem with this is that for one part of the Mass, the Pater Noster, the Mass reverts to the traditional English structure. The Pater of the New Mass is as follows: "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo." The translation given by the ICEL for English Masses is: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." This is interesting to say the least. In modern English, the Pater would be translated as follows: "Our Father, you (who) are in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (considering that individual words are not translated to have a different meaning) This simply illustrates a contradiction within the English version of the New Mass.


Other common examples of modern English translations of Latin are as follows: If a prayer begins in Latin, e.g., the Collect or the Postcommunion, is written "Deus, qui es bonus", it would be translated "God, you are good" whereas in traditional English it would be translationed "O God, Who art good". In Latin, like the Romance languages which come from it, the pronouns are not necessary. One could say "Ego sum" to mean "I am" or just "Sum" to mean the same thing. In the example given, "Deus, qui es bonus" it would literally be translated "[O] God, thou who art good" (or "God, you who are good"). Most often, in modern English, "qui es" or "qui ordinis" ("Thou Who ordainest") or "qui [insert any verb in the second person singular, i.e., the 'you' form]" these phrases are translated simply as "you [insert verb in second person, singular conjugation]", i.e., "you are (in heaven)". This translation ignores the word "qui" (who). In traditional English the translation incorporates the English to match the Latin, i.e., in Latin the prayer reads "qui[second person singular without the pronoun being used, e.g., 'es']" and in traditional English it reads "Who [second person singular without the pronoun being used, e.g., 'art' or 'are' rather than 'is' which would be the correct noun-verb agreement between the word 'who' and the verb 'to be']".


All in all, modern English omits the word "who" while inserting the second person singular pronoun (you) and using the second person singular form of the verb (are). Old English maintains the use of the word "who" while combining the second person singular pronoun and verb into one statement using only the verb "art" (the Old English form of 'are'). In addition to this difference, modern English has done away with the traditional endings to words, e.g., rather than saying "Who hath made heaven and earth", modern English would say "Who has made heaven and earth". Instead of saying "Thou Who bringest all things to completion", modern English says "You bring all things to completion." The differences I have listed are the major discrepancies between modern English and Old English. Even if modern English were translated consistently without contradictions, the translation is inferior to the Old English which can more fully incorporate the words of the prayer from its original form into our language.


Other than all of these things, Old English simply sounds better and much more sacred than modern English. Rather than the bland "Through Jesus Christ our Lord who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.", Old English says "Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen." This is essentially what some of the "High" Anglicans will do for their (invalid) services. Some of the more 'traditional' Anglicans will use the Traditional Latin Mass but they will simply do everything in English. Instead of chanting "Asperges me Domine, hyssopo, et mundabor; lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor", they chant "Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, [O Lord, and I shall be cleansed]; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow" N.B., the part in brackets is omitted because it cannot match the music (they use the same music as would be heard at a Traditional Latin Mass). The Asperges has been deleted from the New Mass, but it was the sprinkling of the people with Holy Water before High Mass on Sundays.

Another thing about using Holy Ghost rather than Holy Spirit, the Latin reads, as cmom said, "Spiritus Sanctus" which literally translates as "Sacred Spirit" (if you take the latinized English terms, since both of these are now English words--sacred and spirit) but, in traditional English diction, translates "Holy Ghost". If one wishes to use the modern English (which I disagree with doing), one must say "Sacred Spirit", not "Holy Spirit" or "Sacred Ghost" in order to maintain consistency. This is just another example of the inconsistent and contradictory translations of many prayers into English.

Until I hear "Hail Mary, full of grace (or, "highly favored one" :mad: ), the Lord is with you; you are blessed among women, and the fruit of your womb, Jesus, is blessed; holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." or "Our Father, you (who) are in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.", then the 'arguments' for modern English should not be made.

Edited August 3, 2004 by amarkich

[amarkich]

Aloysius, see my reply.

XIX, it is important to recognize what is necessary for salvation because most people will neglect converting others because they are "already going to Heaven". This is seen regarding the Jews. Some people erroneously believe the Jews have their own Covenant and can somehow be saved apart from the Church. Some people also believe that we do not need to convert the "Orthodox" (Eastern Schismatics) because they have valid Orders. These beliefs are both false. It is necessary for us to convert all to the one, true Church.

[amarkich]

I added this to my long reply (in case anyone missed it):

Until I hear "Hail Mary, full of grace (or, "highly favored one" ), the Lord is with you; you are blessed among women, and the fruit of your womb, Jesus, is blessed; holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." or "Our Father, you (who) are in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.", then the 'arguments' for modern English should not be made.

[phatcatholic]

lets try to stay on topic people.

the issue is rather or not "water" in John 3:5 means amniotic fluid.

in response, i offer every greek term/phrase used for "water" in the New Testament. click on each one and you will find that none of these (not even "hudor" used in John 3:5) have as a possible definition the amniotic "water" of our natural birth:


[b]English Translation -- Original Word -- Transliterated Word[/b]

[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4215&version=kjv"][b]water[/b][/url]..........................potamovß.............potamos
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4222&version=kjv"][b]water[/b][/url]..........................potivzw................potizo
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4222&version=kjv"][b]watering[/b][/url].....................potivzw................potizo
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=504&version=kjv"][b]without water[/b][/url]............a[nudroß..............anudros
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5201&version=kjv"][b]waterpot[/b][/url]....................uJdriva..................hudria
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5202&version=kjv"][b]drink water[/b][/url]................uJdropotevw........hudropoteo
[url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5204&version=kjv"][b]water[/b][/url].........................u&dwr...................hudor


pax christi,
phatcatholic

[amarkich]

Thank you, phatcatholic. I was just making the point as to why modern English should not be used. I have never received a refutation and argument for modern English. I assume most people probably agree that Old English is better. God bless.

[Aloysius]

I'm not arguing for modern english. Spirit is not modern english, it has been around as long as ghost and means the same thing. it's an issue of either the part of english that was german influenced or the part of the language that was french influenced. those are the two sources from whence our language comes, germanic influences and french influences. that's why in english there's alot of pairs of word that each mean the same thing. neither one is more reverent or less reverent.

anyway, your argument for older english demands we use this for the Our Father:
...g fæder, þu þe on heofonum eardast,
geweorðad wuldres dreame. Sy þinum weorcum halgad
noma niþþa bearnum; þu eart nergend wera.
Cyme þin rice wide, ond þin rædfæst willa
aræred under rodores hrofe, eac þon on rumre foldan.
Syle us to dæge domfæstne blæd,
hlaf userne, helpend wera,
þone singalan, soðfæst meotod.
Ne læt usic costunga cnyssan to swiðe,
ac þu us freodom gief, folca waldend,
from yfla gehwam, a to widan feore.

that's OLD ENGLISH

Pax

Edited August 3, 2004 by Aloysius

[XIX]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 2 2004, 08:01 PM'] Aloysius, see my reply.

XIX, it is important to recognize what is necessary for salvation because most people will neglect converting others because they are "already going to Heaven". This is seen regarding the Jews. Some people erroneously believe the Jews have their own Covenant and can somehow be saved apart from the Church. Some people also believe that we do not need to convert the "Orthodox" (Eastern Schismatics) because they have valid Orders. These beliefs are both false. It is necessary for us to convert all to the one, true Church. [/quote]
I don't disagree with you about the importance of converting people to the Catholic faith. But I really don't feel that it's necesary estimate the current state of everybody else's soul in order to preach effectively. People should [i]never, ever, ever[/i] be presumptuous about the salvation of another person. Even your most pious friends, you shouldn't say "Awww, they're going to heaven anyways, I don't have to guide them." It is even more urgent that we avoid giving up on another person who appears headed for hell. My point is that we have to focus on saving the souls we can sae, not worrying about what is outside of our control

I can compare my point to studying for a big math test. We might not know how the test is going to be graded, or how it's going to be curved, or even how dificult it is going to be. We have no clue how anybody else is going to do. The teacher has told us only what to study. We really can't improve our scores by trying to figure out the teacher's caviats in the grading system or by wondering if it is going to be curved or whatever. All we can do is what the teacher has asked us to do. Now granted, the teacher's "judgement" (AKA grading system) could have a greater effect on the class's scores that your individual studying. But if you know weather the teacher is a tough grader or a weak one, that isn't going to help you much. All you can do about it is to do exactly what the teacher tells you to do. (we are assuming he is pointing you in the right direction). The optimism or pessimism doesn't change your job as a student. In the same way, it doesn't change oui mission as Catholics.

Besides, if you are saved, then you have every reason to be optimistic. Jesus has promised eternal happiness in the Kingdom of God!

[phatcatholic]

Spriles.....................Icthus.....................your thoughts on my last post?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 2 2004, 08:51 PM'] Spriles.....................Icthus.....................your thoughts on my last post? [/quote]
bump