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, I’m not.

Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition and Church Teaching. We don’t depend on each translation into many languages!

Sola Scriptura attempts this, and results in many opposing interpretations.
 
We do rely on accurate translation and understanding of the language in order to understand what was written. That’s just how reading works.
 
Yep, and the Greek manuscripts accurately convey the True meaning of the message. The Church also approves of some other translation, while rejecting others.
 
You do realise that reading still involves translating, right? We’re talking dead languages and ancient languages. And I don’t think we have the original texts, we have plenty of copies.
 
The good aspect of your thought process is that you don’t seem to subscribe to Sola Scriptura. The bad aspect, is that you have no use for Scripture at all, since you believe the Greek manuscripts have been corrupted.

The result, is that you take a passage like Matthew 19:9 and are unable to conclude what Jesus meant by “porneia” because you think it’s possible God did not intend to use the word “porneia” at all!!!
 
You seem intent on being both insulting and conjuring up things I never said, friend.

I never said I had no use for scripture; you really shouldn’t tell fibs. And disagreeing with your interpretation is not the same as not having one.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that God intended Matthew to use the Greek word “porneia” in Matthew 19:9?
 
Ok. I strongly believe that is twisting Scripture as a whole.

Mark and Luke do not use the exception at all. And St Paul goes on to greater length, and even conveys that a Christian is bound to a marriage, even if separation occurs!
 
How come you don’t doubt the exception clause like you doubt what St Paul wrote?
 
You are still believing in Tradition and the Magisterium over the actual source texts.
If a better translation appeared (such as ’virgin’=maid=young girl - it’s an example!) wanna bet you’d deny it, because it would run counter to 2000 years of your tradition and practice?
 
Alex337 said:
We do rely on accurate translation and understanding of the language in order to understand what was written. That’s just how reading works.
Click to expand...
But you’ve already stated that we cannot rely on Scripture being accurate from the Greek manuscripts, No? So what translation of Scripture do you rely on??
 
SnowRose said:
You are still believing in Tradition and the Magisterium over the actual source texts.
If a better translation appeared (such as ’virgin’=maid=young girl - it’s an example!) wanna bet you’d deny it, because it would run counter to 2000 years of your tradition and practice?
Click to expand...
No, not over at all. They all rely on each other to properly understand God’s Teaching.

But even some Protestant denominations recognize the absolute prohibition of remarriage just based on the texts.
 
rcwitness said:
We use Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium to affirm the public revelation of Jesus.
Click to expand...
The logic is problematic. That if Scripture is problematic, insufficient in itself, so is Tradition, and a magisterium.Like saying three problematics make a right, or three insufficiencies make a sufficiency, even infallibility.

Indeed all three can be good but if we can not agree that what God wrote , not its understandings or translations etc, but what He wrote as being a sufficient foundation for any tradition or teaching, we be on problematic ground.
 
Last edited:
The faith was preached before Scripture was penned… so Scripture is not the only source of the revelation of Jesus.

Understanding various Teachings in Scripture relies on Tradition and affirming what is Scripture and what is not relied on Church authority.

What did Matthew mean when he wrote Matthew 19:9?

It’s a super significant thing!
 
rcwitness said:
Ok. I strongly believe that is twisting Scripture as a whole.

Mark and Luke do not use the exception at all. And St Paul goes on to greater length, and even conveys that a Christian is bound to a marriage, even if separation occurs!
Click to expand...
You’re entitled to your interpretation. I personally think what Jesus says on the matter is a bit more important than Mark or Luke, but if you prefer them then that’s your prerogative.
 
Alex337 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Ok. I strongly believe that is twisting Scripture as a whole.

Mark and Luke do not use the exception at all. And St Paul goes on to greater length, and even conveys that a Christian is bound to a marriage, even if separation occurs!
Click to expand...
You’re entitled to your interpretation. I personally think what Jesus says on the matter is a bit more important than Mark or Luke, but if you prefer them then that’s your prerogative.
Click to expand...
It’s not my interpretation. It’s the Catholic faith.

And it’s not more important or less important than what Mark and Luke and Paul say, it is just recognizing that a couple who have a relationship of porneia (and contracted a marriage), can divorce, while a Christian marriage can never be dissolved.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top