Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but I prefer current translations into modern English!

I prefer the RSV-CE, and reject translations which use terms which directly contradict what the Church has professed through history.

For example, I do not accept a translation of Matthew 9:19 which uses the term “adultery” from the Greek word “porneia”.
 
Of course! But I don’t use the fact that there are faulty translations to discredit the fact that the Church is able to know the meaning of the message.

We have the original Koine Greek which the Church uses as her basis for textual understanding.

We also have Sacred Tradition which is the manner in which the Church has accepted the Teachings of the Apostles.

For example, we know from Sacred Tradition that the Church always Baptized infants brought to the Church by their parents of guardians.
 
Cool. Really don’t know why you decided to attack me for thinking translations are important then.

You seem to flip flop a lot on this. You swapped from saying you didn’t worry about translation to thinking it was important in the space of two posts.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
Cool. Really don’t know why you decided to attack me for thinking translations are important then.
Click to expand...
I didn’t. You claimed St Paul’s writings are fallible!
Click to expand...
Are we back to you thinking every copy of his writings, all the different translations and interpretations over the centuries, are all somehow correct even when they’re different?
 
Of course they are fallible, because they are translated too.
Or are you going to repeat the exchange of posts on the Epistles as separate from the Evangelical writings?
 
Alex337 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Alex337:
Cool. Really don’t know why you decided to attack me for thinking translations are important then.
Click to expand...
I didn’t. You claimed St Paul’s writings are fallible!
Click to expand...
Are we back to you thinking every copy of his writings, all the different translations and interpretations over the centuries, are all somehow correct even when they’re different?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe all translations into different languages are necessarily free of error. The words must not contradict the Greek texts and the Tradition of Doctrine.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Alex337:
Cool. Really don’t know why you decided to attack me for thinking translations are important then.
Click to expand...
I didn’t. You claimed St Paul’s writings are fallible!
Click to expand...
Are we back to you thinking every copy of his writings, all the different translations and interpretations over the centuries, are all somehow correct even when they’re different?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe all translations into different languages are necessarily free of error. The words must not contradict the Greek texts and the Tradition of Doctrine.
Click to expand...
So some are fallible.
 
Some contain words that do not convey the intentions of the message, for sure!
 
rcwitness said:
No, I don’t believe all translations into different languages are necessarily free of error. The words must not contradict the Greek texts and the Tradition of Doctrine.
Click to expand...
And if the Tradition of Doctrine is based on a mistranslation you’d still swallow it? Because it’s the Magisterium, right?

You know, I do respect the RCC, but this is a prime example why I conversion is an absolute Nope, even when it would be convinient.
 
rcwitness said:
How can you not see that each separate Communion (Lord’s Supper) represents the body of teachings from each relative community who offers that bread and wine?
Click to expand...
I think I didnt get my point across very well. I cant see any difference in spiritual outcome, benefit to participant, despite the fact of participants coming from different “body of teachings” on the matter (of communion)…Is the Catholic more spiritually equipped to face the week due to receiving communion than say a baptist or Lutheran participating in their communion?..that was my point, given the post saying communion is for spiritual life and thriving and should be drawn to Catholic view…i guess i am asking why, if it is not apparently any more beneficial to the participant, save for unity, but then why not pick consubstantiation for all of us, or pure symbolism etc…
 
Last edited:
Well can you see the division and contradiction of Teachings? Jesus does not contradict Himself.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
40.png
rcwitness:
Some contain words that do not convey the intentions of the message, for sure!
Click to expand...
So… fallible?
Click to expand...
People are fallible, not texts. Texts either misrepresent or accurately represent a message.
Click to expand...
So the people who translated those texts did so with their fallibility.

Also, you accused me earlier of believing texts were fallible which I do, so why didn’t you try this semantics on then?
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Alex337:
40.png
rcwitness:
Some contain words that do not convey the intentions of the message, for sure!
Click to expand...
So… fallible?
Click to expand...
People are fallible, not texts. Texts either misrepresent or accurately represent a message.
Click to expand...
So the people who translated those texts did so with their fallibility.

Also, you accused me earlier of believing texts were fallible which I do, so why didn’t you try this semantics on then?
Click to expand...
Yes! That is why the Catholic faith does not use Scripture alone to conclude her Doctrines.

We use Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium to affirm the public revelation of Jesus.
 
So, I still don’t know why you attacked me for saying it’s fallible when it obviously can be. But there you go.
 
Because the Church Teaches that Scripture is NOT fallible. Rather, it Teaches that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and morals.

You claimed that St Paul actually wrote something opposed to Jesus’ Teaching!

You have zero use for Scripture when you discredit it’s inerrancy.
 
rcwitness said:
Because the Church Teaches that Scripture is NOT fallible. Rather, it Teaches that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and morals.

You claimed that St Paul actually wrote something opposed to Jesus’ Teaching!

You have zero use for Scripture when you discredit it’s inerrancy.
Click to expand...
So we’re yet again back to the idea that all renditions of the Bible are concurrently correct. Sigh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top