The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

[Ecce_Homo]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ did NOT offer the priests sacrifices for His sin therefore NOTHING Christ did is analogous to Mary’s turtledove offering for her sins.

You have yet to demonstrate that Mary’s turtledove offering was for her own sins.

You said,

LetsObeyChrist:

If Mary were sinless when she offered sacrifice for sin that doesn’t exist THEN she sinned by trampling upon the Law of the LORD which does not require the innocent pay penalty as though they are guilty."

This could only be true if she offered it for *her own *sins.

Furthermore, the argument itself is faulty, because it would condemn Christ, Who clearly paid the penalty for those who are guilty even though He was innocent–regardless of any analogy (or lack thereof) between Jesus and Mary.

 

[WBB]

#1…The Catholic Church has a Magisterium so that scripture will be interpreted in the Tradition of the Apostles and to prevent yahoos from corrupting scripture by their own interpretations.

#2…Chapter 12 of Leviticus deals with purification of a woman after childbirth. Childbirth was regarded as a loss of vitality; this loss had to be made good by ritual means: union with God, the source of life, is then re-established.

Mary and Joseph were being obedient to the law, period.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JKirkLVNV:

Well, slap my butt and call me Shirley!!! This makes SO much sense!!! How could I have been so blind?

Dear Shirley,

Sarcasm doesn’t become you. By comparison, you come off looking foolish and unable to answer the OP’s argument – the posting of which for all you know could represent a turning point for the better in his faith life.

I didn’t care one way or the other how the argument turned out, but when I saw your post I thought to quote Jesus on behalf of the OP, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (John 18:23)

My :twocents: anyway, unsolicited.

Alan

 

[A.Long]

beng:

LOC finish the argument where you started it, DCF board.

Pax (not the one in this board) has killed killed killed your obfuscation.

Guys:

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=21041&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

You’ll find quiet the dialog there on this.

 

[j_arden]

Kudos to AlanFromWichita for a thoughtful and charitable response to the mockery in an earlier post. Mockery, besides being off-topic and a hinderance to one’s own argument, is demeaning and uncharitable.

• JP

 

[stumbler]

LetsObeyChrist:

Incompatible properties, clashing qualities render analogical conclusions impossible.

What I love about complex biblical arguments proclaiming that the Catholic Church is wrong is that they unwittingly show the futility of the perspicuity requirement underlying sola scriptura. That poor ploughboy in the field. He has to rely on some authority somewhere.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Shirley,

Sarcasm doesn’t become you. By comparison, you come off looking foolish and unable to answer the OP’s argument – the posting of which for all you know could represent a turning point for the better in his faith life.

I didn’t care one way or the other how the argument turned out, but when I saw your post I thought to quote Jesus on behalf of the OP, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (John 18:23)

My :twocents: anyway, unsolicited.

Alan

Yeah, you’re right. I apologize. I couldn’t edit it, though, after I thought better of it. I came from a horrendous Fundamentalist nit-pick-your-way-through-scripture-to-prove-Catholicism-wrong and this just set me off. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JKirkLVNV:

Yeah, you’re right. I apologize. I couldn’t edit it, though, after I thought better of it. I came from a horrendous Fundamentalist nit-pick-your-way-through-scripture-to-prove-Catholicism-wrong and this just set me off. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Dear JKirkLVNV,

I fully understand. I brought a great deal of baggage to this board, which I have (hopefully) nearly used up by now. Thank you for such an honest response, and for caring what I have to say.



Alan

 

[mlchance]

LetsObeyChrist:

Clearly the RCC Magisterium, which has infallibly decreed doctrinal error as correct, cannot be God’s Teaching Authority.

Then who is?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Apologia100]

If you worked this hard to evangelize people, Jesus would be very happy.

LetsObeyChrist:

The RCC has infallibly stated the Vulgate is doctrinally correct.

The Vulgate rendered the Hebrew CHATTA’AT as peccato and this was translated into English by the Catholic Douay Rheims as “sin.”

I didn’t do it.

Leviticus 12:8 And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed. -Douay Rheims faithful translation of the doctrinally correct Vulgate

As “sin” that is “not sin” cannot exist being a contradiction in terms, the RCC dogma of a “sinless Mary” offering a turtledove “for sin” is impossible.

Therefore the RCC is doctrinally at odds with the Vulgate which they said is doctrinally correct, they have infallibly declared contradictories as both correct.

Hence One or both of their infallible statements are in error and as God’s teaching authority would never teach doctrinal error the RCC cannot be God’s teaching authority.

Moreover the dogma of a sinless Mary is in hopeless paradox.

If Mary were sinless when she offered sacrifice for sin that doesn’t exist THEN she sinned by trampling upon the Law of the LORD which does not require the innocent pay penalty as though they are guilty.

Sacrificing to God what He did not command is rebellion against God, a sin, the sin of Korah and his troop, also Nadab and Abihu:

DRA Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them.

Moreover it is an offensive act to slaughter animals for sin offering when there is no sin liability, that is senseless killing.

Therefore if Mary were sinless then she became a sinner indeed by her needless slaughter harmless and inoffensive turtledoves, and by rebellion against the Law of Moses as recorded in the doctrinally correct Vulgate.

Some have suggest Mary only thought she was a sinner, 19th century popes with the charism of teaching know her better than she did herself!

Talk about violating Occam’s Razor!

However even if it were possible a person born sinless would still think they are sinners, the paradox still exists as the law of Moses identifies violations done unwittingly or in ignorance as sin requiring sacrifice for sin:

Leviticus 4:2 2 Say to the children of Israel: The soul that sinneth through ignorance, and doth any thing concerning any of the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded not to be done:

So a sinless Mary wrongly believing herself to be a sinner would not excuse the needless slaughter of Turtledoves and sinful rebellion against the law of God by offering sacrifice for reparation of unbroken atonement.

Then her disobedience to the law of Moses, ignorant and unwilling as it be, is sin and Mary is no longer sinless.

Clearly the RCC Magisterium, which has infallibly decreed doctrinal error as correct, cannot be God’s Teaching Authority.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

quintessential5:

Wouldn’t Jesus have been committing the same sin by participating in the Paschal sacrifice?

Also, shouldn’t Mary and Joseph have done what God commanded all parents to do? The sin offering was merely an act of obedience.

Non-Christians use the same type of reasoning when they cite Jesus’ calling out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” as a demonstration of his lack of faith. But the Son of Man had to be rejected by the Father as well. Likewise, regardless of the fact that Mary was sinless, she had to participate in the same kind of obedience that Jesus endured for our salvation.

You are comparing a propitiatory sacrifice for sin with a memorial commemorating the Exodus from Egypt. These aren’t analogous, God would not allow the Israelites eat Turtledoves instead of the Paschal Lamb, nor could Christ say:

DRA Mark 14:24 And he said to them: This is TURTLEDOVE blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

If He could then He died for nothing and clearly is not God as He was unable to deduce Turtledove blood = Christ’s blood as these are analogous and both are given for the sins of others, as you did.

Clearly you are smarter than Christ.

As for Mary and Joseph, you are begging the question.

Mary offered the sacrifice of turtledoves stipulated in the ‘law of the Lord’ which doesn’t command this offering be given by the sinless or for the sins of others.

The Deposit of the Faith says Mary gave this according to the Law of the Lord, not according to 19th century RCC Marian dogma of a sinless Mary.

The Vulgate contains this Law of the Lord relevant to sacrifices for sin and they are done for the sin of those commanded to give the sacrifice.

The Vulgate expressly says this is a sacrifice for sin.

To say Mary sacrificed for what is “not sin” (or for the sin of other people) is to doctrinally disagree with the Vulgate which the RCC Magisterium has ruled is “doctrinally correct.”

Clearly the RCC Magisterium, which has infallibly decreed Mary was sinless when she gave this sacrifice for her sin, is in hopeless self contradiction and therefore cannot be God’s Teaching Authority as God is not the author of confusion:

KJV 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not *the author *of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[Apologia100]

Until Jesus shed his own blood on the cross as expiation for mankind’s sinfulness, all had to maintain the Mosaic sacrificial system, regardless of their own personal cleanliness. If you denounce Mary’s sinlessness, then you are by your very admission saying that Jesus was gestated in a corrupt body. SInce Malachi says that God is the refiner’s fire, what impurities can withstand Him, Mary had to be clean by virtue of her proximity to Jesus.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jeffreedy789:

lol. (the razor joke was a good one)

ok, letsobeychrist - so what you’re basically saying is that since Jesus was God He could do the thing that you’re saying mary did, and it was ok. but when mary did it, it was a contradiction.

this, to me, sounds like a contradiction.

and - please address the ‘whose sin?’ question. i’m interested in your reply.

The razor joke as about as funny as an infected toe nail.

Neither is your straw man summary remotely close to what I said.

It is nice to see you win these debates you have with yourself, not doubt they are good for your self esteem.

But if you want to address my post, take the time to understand it first.

Ps: According to the Law of the Lord in the doctrinally correct Vulgate, turtledoves are only given for the sins of the one giving them, not the sins of others.

As the RCC decreed the Vulgate doctrinally correct it is clear you must adjust your opinion about Mary giving this sacrifice for others.

However, that is a problem as the RCC also decreed Mary was sinless at this time.

Seems their tradition is in self-contradiction, confused.

As God’s teaching authority would not teach confused contradictory tradition, as God is not the author of such, it is clear the RCC cannot be God’s teaching authority:

KJV 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not *the author *of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

stumbler:

What I love about complex biblical arguments proclaiming that the Catholic Church is wrong is that they unwittingly show the futility of the perspicuity requirement underlying sola scriptura. That poor ploughboy in the field. He has to rely on some authority somewhere.

He does, sola (only) scriptura (scripture).

Your argument is non sequitur, what has “complex biblical argument” to do with observing incompatible properties render different entities non-analogous?

That is not citing authority, it is stating reality.

Your argument makes as much sense as to say “pointing that out about analogies show the futility of buying two cars at the same time, only one can be driven at a time.”

…it shows why purple shoes are a bad idea…

…it proves a cheerios sometimes get soggy in milk…

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

A. Long:

Guys:

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=21041&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

You’ll find quiet the dialog there on this.

Also here:
new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=107&topic_id=181007&mesg_id=181007&page=

I find it odd you cite pax’s arguments, they are among the worst. His “sig” warns he cares little for grammar and proves himself consistent with that disdain.

Often contradicting the correctness of the very teaching authority he is trying to defend, till I point out that is what he did.

forums.catholic-convert.com/posting.php?mode=quote&p=406244

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Apologia100:

Until Jesus shed his own blood on the cross as expiation for mankind’s sinfulness, all had to maintain the Mosaic sacrificial system, regardless of their own personal cleanliness. If you denounce Mary’s sinlessness, then you are by your very admission saying that Jesus was gestated in a corrupt body. SInce Malachi says that God is the refiner’s fire, what impurities can withstand Him, Mary had to be clean by virtue of her proximity to Jesus.

Incorrect:

KJV Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

God the Holy Spirit kept Jesus so that He is “that holy thing,” separate unto God.

Having God as father and not a son of Adam is why Christ’s human nature was unfallen. Only in Adam is original sin found:

**Romans 5:18-19 **18 Therefore as by the offence of one *judgment came *upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one *the free gift came *upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You evaded the point of the post. Your teaching authority is in self contradiction and paradox. They ruled the Vulgate is doctrinally correct. According to it Mary’s turtledove offering was for HER SIN.

Yet they say Mary was sinless at the time.

The paradox is that if the RCC were correct, that Mary offered a sacrifice for what is “not sin” or “for the sin of others,” then she offered this “not according to the law of the Lord” and therefore was actually rebelling against the Law of the Lord = sinning.

 

[rwoehmke]

Can one assume that we are all referring to the Vulgate in its original Latin or are we talking an English Translation? I can’t help but ask. Is it Occam’s Razor that we use to split hairs?

 

[Apologia100]

LetsObeyChrist:

Incorrect:

KJV Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

God the Holy Spirit kept Jesus so that He is “that holy thing,” separate unto God.

Having God as father and not a son of Adam is why Christ’s human nature was unfallen. Only in Adam is original sin found:

This is the heresy of Pelagius.

**Romans 5:18-19 **18 Therefore as by the offence of one *judgment came *upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one *the free gift came *upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What does this have to do with the apparent sinfulness of Mary.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

rwoehmke:

Can one assume that we are all referring to the Vulgate in its original Latin or are we talking an English Translation? I can’t help but ask. Is it Occam’s Razor that we use to split hairs?

Douay Rheims text was cited, but the Vulgate’s Latin was declared doctrinally correct.

Peccato = sin.

Hence your point was pointless.

The paradox is clear. If Mary were sinless then she was NOT offering this sacrifice “according to the law of Moses” (Lk 2:22).

The law of Moses says this sacrifice is made only for one’s own sins and never in mere ceremony for what is “not sin.”

Not doing this sacrifice exactly according to Moses is sin and if Mary did as the RCC says she did then she became a sinner at that time by her needless slaughter of harmless and inoffensive turtledoves, and by her rebellion against the Law of Moses as recorded in the doctrinally correct Vulgate.

 

[theMutant]

Yes, but re-read what it actually says in Leviticus (as I should have prior to my previous response) - and also what it does not say. The sacrifice is an offering that is required for the “sin” of having a child and - SPECIFICALLY - for the bleeding (and other fluid discharge) that is involved in delivery. Clearly, we are not talking here about the same level of sinning as deliberate wilfull sinning (which is what the Church says Mary never did) but the “sin” of being unclean. Indeed, this is clearly the contextual meaning of the passage as it appears within a whole large list of other sacrifices for purification. This sacrifice is required by all women after childbirth regardless of whether they are conscious of actual sin or not. It is the emission of blood and fluid in childbirth that invokes the requirement of the sacrifice.

Let’s grant that it is an offering for actual sin, however, and see where your position goes in that case. Does Leviticus state that the offering is made for the sin of the new mother? No. It merely states that one of the turtledoves is for a sin offering and the other is a burnt offering. Whose sin is it for? Leviticus doesn’t say so you have no biblical grounds for saying that it is for the sin of the mother since no actual sin is mentioned in regard to the sacrifice. You may argue that the sacrifice doesn’t make sense if it is not for the sin of the mother but you are still inserting your own assumption into Scripture and not relying on what Scripture actually says. Within the realm of Jewish religious practice, one could offer sacrifice for the sins of another and, since no mention of actual sin is made in the relavent passage, it is possible that this sacrifice is made for the community in which the child is born, it could be made for the child, it could even be made for Eve and/or Adam.

You are clearly not actually arguing against the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Mary’s sinlessness - which only states that she was preserved against original sin from the moment of her conception and that she committed no actual (wilfull) sin during her life - but against God for using the word sin in Leviticus relation to the flow of blood and fluid involved in childbirth.

Therefore, the Catholic Church is not in irreconcilable self-contradiction.