[MitzaLizalor]

Even without the reference though, Queen Candace's eunuch only requested baptism after having The Good News explained and understood. The word "requested" seems significant in this context – it could be that an understanding of language is a minimum requirement. I'm not claiming that though because it's not in The Bible.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship

Actus Apostolorum VIII xxvii et surgens abiit et ecce vir aethiops eunuchus potens Candacis reginae Aethiopum qui erat super omnes gazas eius venerat adorare in Hierusalem

There's an English text included with the Vulgate translation. It's the Douay-Rheims.

Douay-Rheims¹ And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

Have you heard of Jacques Derrida² and Julia Kristeva³ who suggest words have no meaning? Catholicism would be an example of how an abstract or non-existent concept becomes real – for some meaning of "real" you may be unfamiliar with but don't panic, we have no idea either. Kristeva suggests the following path into [what she calls] reality:

A difference between the sign and the symbol can, however, be seen vertically as well as horizontally: within its vertical function, the sign refers back to entities both of lesser scope and more concretized than those of the symbol. They are reified universals become objects in the strongest sense of the word. Put into a relationship within the structure of the sign, the entity (phenomenon) under consideration is, at the same time, transcendentalized and elevated to the level of theological unity. The semiotic practice of the sign thus assimilates the metaphysics of the symbol and projects it onto the “immediately perceptible.”

I'm very certain you don't want me to go on to the the horizontal function⁴ of the difference between signs and symbols because Romish catholicism exists as a gargantuan example right before our eyes. What has been removed from the Vulgate is already dealt with. Here is something added, and note the slippery use of words, well in keeping with Kristeva's gobbledygook:

[footnote to Acts chapter 8]
The scripture many times mentions only one disposition, as here belief, when others equally necessary are not expressed, viz., a sorrow for sins, a firm hope, and the love of God. Moreover, believing with the whole heart signifies a belief of every thing necessary for salvation.

I've highlighted the red flag: what a priest tells you is necessary for Salvation is as excessively verbose and over-bloated as anything written by Kristeva or Derrida. Worse, in fact. They have all these objects for you to adore (see buzz-word in verse 27) and traps set at every turning to lock you in. By muttering and waving the arms around in the sign of the cross, exactly what Julia Kristeva describes is taking place. The nonsense becomes real (“reified”) and not even reading the source material—for which they'd burn you alive when their words had the force of law—is sufficient to change anyone's mind once envenomed. But if you do, they've butchered it in advance.

So sad.





1.
The original text of the Douay-Rheims is available here
https://originaldouayrheims.com/acts8
current version is at Douay-Rheims site
it does not have a secure https protocol
copy/paste to read: http://drbo.org/chapter/51008.htm

2.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Inc

3.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com...21911-0063.xml

4.
In case you did, both start on page 40 of
Desire in language : a semiotic approach to literature and art
by Kristeva, Julia, 1941-