The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlchance said:
LetsObeyChrist,

In the midst of the bandying about of words, you missed a question that I’d really like answered.

You claim that the Catholic Church does not have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. If this is true, then who does have this authority?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...

I seem to have missed the answer to where scripture says offering a sacrafice for sin, when you haven’t sinned…is a sin…as well.

Chuck
 
Let’sObeyChrist,

Hey, great chat name. Let’s do it. You are really going to go through some much trouble to “prove” that Jesus’ mother was a lowly sinner even though Jesus himself exalted her. Wow! Truly try to spend more time trying to imitate Christ and pray that you might love His mother (and yours) as much as He does. How much would it offend you if someone talked down about your mother. How much more offensive is it to a perfect son?
 
LetsObeyChrist,

Just to recap your original argument that Mary was not sinless:

The offering of turtledoves was for sins commited by the offerer.
Mary offered turtledoves.
Therefore, Mary commited sins.

So you don’t believe Mary was sinless. Alright. How about Elijah?Using the strict rules of logic you so clearly hold dear, let me prove to you that Elijah was sinless:

Sin leads to physical death.
Elijah had no physical death.
Therefore, Elijah did not sin.

Obviously, we have no reason to believe Elijah was sinless, so what is the fault of the argument? It’s the same fault you make with Mary: God makes rules that we are bound by but He is not bound by His rules. Just as God made an exception in the rule of death for Elijah, so too could He have allowed Mary to make an “unnecessary” common sin offering that was tied to birthing without it being a sin for her to do so.
  • JP
 
40.png
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
Click to expand...
Here are my 2 cents. This poster thinks that AlaFromWichita was well intended but he failed to detect that LetsObeyChrist has twisted, turned and yes, ignored valid questions.

LetsObeyChrist is a Fundamentlist/Protestant who read something somewhere that told him there was an error in the Vulgate. I’d wager he has used this obtuse thought before.

Lets get back to the original argumentative statement that LOC began his hunt for an argument on a Catholic Forum.
  1. The word sin or a sin LOC says was misinterpreted from the Vulgate into the Douay-Rheims Bible.
    2.    *** Therefore LOC is saying that since one word was misinterpreted in the Douay-Rheims, the Magisterium is totaly wrong, invalid and incapable of interpretation of the Bible. He will say very shortly, I suspect, that since one word was incorrectly interpreted then* The Entire Catholic Church was built on sand.* * We have not asked for a definitive explaination of the exact words that were wrongly interpreted in the Vulgate. Does LOC have the ability to translate Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic? If he does, I can test him very shortly.***
***3. I think LOC is a Troll, a very wordy Troll. Why? Because why would a person “contend” that one word in the wrong place ( and an inconsequential one at that) would cause the fall of the Church…this is total misplaced energy, to be charitable. ***
 
I am reading from my Douay-Rheims Bible.

LOC pointed to Levitcus XII:8. Go back and read verses 6 throught 8.

You will see the sugested Temple sacrifices WERE FOR A HAPPY DELIVERY. Mary had a HAPPY DELIVERY. Go read in the D-R.
 
40.png
Exporter:
Here are my 2 cents. This poster thinks that AlaFromWichita was well intended but he failed to detect that LetsObeyChrist has twisted, turned and yes, ignored valid questions.
Click to expand...
Despite being the poster you refer to, I have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you missed which post I was refering to and AFW responded to.
  • JP
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
The RCC has infallibly stated the Vulgate is doctrinally correct…

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.

There is no contradiction in the Church’s teaching. The contradiction arises only because you have misinterpreted the scriptures to suit your own point of view. Nothing in the text of the scriptures contradicts the Church’s teaching that Mary was without sin. Indeed, the Scrptures support this conclusion:

Lk. 1:28, 30: Gabriel - “Hail full of grace.”
Lk 1:42: Elizabeth - “most blessed among women”
Lk 1:48 Mary - “all generations will call me blessed”

Why do you insist on attacking the Catholic Church by beating up on the Mother of God. I never have understood the visceral protestant reaction to Marian doctrine. Mary is truly the ultimate example of discipleship to Christ. We have so much to learn by contemplating her life and its interconnectedness with her Son.

Take some time tonight to sit and contemplate Mary and what she must have felt knowing that she would give birth to the Son of God who would come into this world to suffer for our sins. The absolute trust in God that she must have had as she watched the Romans nail her only child to a cross. It must have taken a truly remarkable nature - one preserved free from original sin - to bear it all with the kind of grace that scripture reveals to be so.

Peace
Click to expand...
 
JKirk…but why stop there? You have about another 33,000 possibilities to go…how is that for a conundrum?
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
I wonder why Jesus went to John for Baptism?
(Come to think of it, John wondered the same thing)

tee
Click to expand...
***Your reply is in fact the very heart of the matter. Protestants in their bones do not recognize the profound mystery of the condescencion of God. They do not deeply own in their spirituality the adoption because they focus on the judicial aspects of the Divine Nature over the familiar. This is also why they want to put Mary in her place; how dare she recieve this very grace that more than any other highlights those very things about God that they claim they alone understand deeply and truly. ***
Jesus is a sign of Contradiction to the pride of man outside the body of Christ and Mary, in a unique way, is a sign of Contradiction for the pride of those overzealous in religion within the church, whether uncharitable in excessive orthodoxy or orthopraxis, or more especially heretics.
The reason Calvin or Knox could never say a Hail Mary, unlike Luther who depended on Our Lady to his dying day, is the true Reformation heart is proud as Lucifers’.
*** Marys beautiful and holy docility to the will of God rapproaches both pride and uncharity.***
Many Hospitals and Orphanages are named for Our Lady. None that I know for Calvin, Knox or Spurgeon.
***God, King of Kings, took human vesture, was born into poverty and scandal, greeted by the poorest of the poor and brought gifts by Gentile Seers who were the scorn of the rabbinic commentary at a time, hunted like a dog by a baby killing monarch who sat on His rightful David throne, but was himself not only not a Jew but an Edomite. ***
That is to say, Herod descended from Essau who sold His Birthright.
Tell me the God we worship is hemmed in by Ockhams Razor, hmmmm.
 
mlchance said:
LetsObeyChrist,

In the midst of the bandying about of words, you missed a question that I’d really like answered.

You claim that the Catholic Church does not have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. If this is true, then who does have this authority?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...

While I, too, would like to know that answer, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic is whether or not the Catholic Magisterium has made an irreconcilable contradiction in declaring the perpetual sinlessness of Mary when, in fact, she offered a sin offering at the end of her purification as required by the Mosaic law.
 
40.png
theMutant:
While I, too, would like to know that answer, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic is whether or not the Catholic Magisterium has made an irreconcilable contradiction in declaring the perpetual sinlessness of Mary when, in fact, she offered a sin offering at the end of her purification as required by the Mosaic law.
Click to expand...
Well, since you aren’t the Thread Police (:p) , I’ll continue to insist I get an answer to my question. After all, one of the topics of the thread is that the Catholic Church has no ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. That is LetsObeyChrist’s overall contention.

So, then, LetsObeyChrist: Who does have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Well, since you aren’t the Thread Police (:p) , I’ll continue to insist I get an answer to my question. After all, one of the topics of the thread is that the Catholic Church has no ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. That is LetsObeyChrist’s overall contention.

So, then, LetsObeyChrist: Who does have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Fine, have it your way. I hope that the moderators don’t view this as a flagrant violation of the forum rules. They do actually moderate the forum and they do actually close threads that they consider to have changed topics. So, even though I am certainly not the Thread Police; they are out there… :eek:
 
40.png
mlchance:
Well, since you aren’t the Thread Police (:p) , I’ll continue to insist I get an answer to my question. After all, one of the topics of the thread is that the Catholic Church has no ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. That is LetsObeyChrist’s overall contention.

So, then, LetsObeyChrist: Who does have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
In re-reading the original post, I find that you are quite right and I am wrong. Note to Thread Police: I withdraw my previous post! 😃
 
40.png
mlchance:
So, then, LetsObeyChrist: Who does have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture?
Click to expand...
I just got an idea on this topic.

Authority must go with responsibility to make sense. If I have authority over something but do not have to take responsibility, then I am prone to err. If I have responsibility but have no authority, that is pointless because I am just a fall guy.

Therefore, whoever has the authority should have the responsibility. If the RCC claims authority, then she also must claim responsibility. That is, if she misleads us little ones, she will pay the penalty for it, not us. That is why, if you believe she has that authority then you also believe she has the responsibility for yourself being properly instructed, or indoctrinated, in scripture. That gives peace to people who wish to rely on her understanding and not their own. If you do not believe she has that authority, then you also accept responsibility for your own formation.

Yet another way to look at it is that God is the architect, artist, potter, and otherwise creator of all things. In the beginning was the Word, and that Word came to us eventually in flesh and blood in Christ and a vestige of Him was recorded by human beings in human language so that we may have some connection to him. Great artists may know what they intend when they write a particular song or poem or paint or sculp, but the effect it has on each person is an individual matter. Looked at this way, listening to different opinions – including scholarly ones from the Church – about what is meant by any given scripture is fascinating and edifying, but the transforming effect it has on us as God’s children transcends the whole concept of “interpretation.” To experience the Bible goes beyond “understanding its interpretation” just like seeing a great painting goes beyond reading about it. Again, the book knowledge does not necessarily detract, but is a poor replacement for the actual art. We must strive for a deeper relationship with the scriptures than the literal surface level. Arguing over what Christ did or didn’t mean by a particular word in a particular passage amounts to a fight over spiritual baby food.

Alan
 
40.png
WBB:
You seem to be missing the point, LetsObey…

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.

The offering is to purify the uncleanness which occurs after childbirth. It is this “uncleanness” which was defined by the Levitical Code which is at issue, not original sin, which is what is at issue with the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
Observe the burnt offering and the sin offering are given AFTER purification of all uncleanness, Lk 22:24ff; Lev 12:6-8.

If uncleanness(impurity) were the only reason atonement were terminated then cleanness(purity) would suffice to restore it:

Luke 2:22-25 22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished…24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:

Hence the additional sin offering is for cleansing sin from the relationship, not ceremonial uncleanness.

What is atonement, reconciliation with God if not being “in His presence,” “AT ONE MENT” with Him?

Therefore:

It is sinful to touch, unwittingly or not, what is unclean while one is standing in the Presence of the holy God for then one is defiled while in His presence thereby exposing Him to it.

Cleansing from uncleanness AND sin are required before atonement is restored.

Leviticus 15:28 If the blood stop and cease to run, she shall count seven days of her purification: 29 And on the eighth day she shall offer for herself to the priest, two turtles, or two young pigeons, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: 30 And he shall offer one for sin, and the other for a holocaust, and he shall pray for her before the Lord, and for the issue of her uncleanness. 31 You shall teach therefore the children of Israel to take heed of uncleanness, that they may not die in their filth, when they shall have defiled my tabernacle that is among them.

Being in atonement with God = being in His presence.

Therefore oozing bodily fluids in the Presence of the Sovereign misses the mark of proper conduct, of respect, and is exposing God to what is unclean, nasty.

That is “missing the mark” if I ever saw it, “sin.”

It is wrong to expose God to such, He did not author such manifestations of disease and death. These exist because of the sinful rebellion against God and are the consequences of sin.

It is hardly surprising God considers the heavenly entrance of such nasty things as leprous sores, seminal and menstrual issues and dead bodies, things which exist solely because man followed the devil in his rebellion against God, sin.

I don’t believe you would like such in your living room if these were naked before your sight as they are to God.

All women are required to give this offering because of their bleeding during birthing, this introduction of uncleanness into the tabernacle of God is “sin” and is not “uncleanness” itself.

Impurity in abstract is NOT sinful, what is sinful is introducing such into the presence of God thereby exposing Him to it.

NAB Mark 7:19 1 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Christ would never have declared pork etc “clean” if something in it really was ‘unclean.’

In the context of Christ (the truth) the law of the clean and unclean teaches spiritual truths, He fulfills their intent of revealing God and His ways to us.

It is certain 19th century RCC dogma about this stands in direct contradiction to the most Holy Deposit of the faith, Holy Scripture.

Therefore the RCC cannot be God’s teaching authority.
 
This is clearly not what I was arguing. I was noting the difference between actual sin - which Mary never committed - and ritual uncleanliness which was referred to as sin in the Old Testament despite the fact that it was not actually sin.
Click to expand...
You should be clearer that the word has two different but related definitions. You seem to be saying that violations of ritual purity were wrongly called sins. In fact, it is a perfectly good use of the term to call those violations “sins,” so it is not erroneous for the Vulgate to use the term peccato for these actions. One simply needs to understand that the term has a different meaning in the context of the OT Law as opposed the moral teaching of the NT. They are related, because the ritual purity laws of the OT were metaphors for the moral law, but they are not identical.

As as example, suppose I were describing a football game, and I said “The Cowboys got killed” (not a bad description for this weekend). Someone then replies “Oh, what a tragedy! Was it a plane crash?” I reply, “No, no, they’re alive.” Imagine if the person then said “You just contradicted yourself! You said that they were killed, and now you’re saying that they’re alive!” Imagine that I explained my idiomatic use of the word, including the metaphorical connection with actual combat between armies, and the person still insisted that it was a contradiction, pointing to a dictionary and saying “Look, it says right here that ‘kill’ means to take someone’s life.” Put that person in the context of the present discussion, and you have LOC’s position.

The ironic part is that Protestants will be the first to argue that the term “justify” (dikaioo) can be used in different ways, which they use to explain away the Epistle of James. But here, when Catholics obviously understand the term to have two legitimately different meanings, they insist that we are being inconsistent. It’s just the tired old tactic of misinterpreting what Catholics are saying and deriving absurd consequences from the misinterpretation.
 
And you are an obtuse Legalist, so who cares.
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Observe the burnt offering and the sin offering are given AFTER purification of all uncleanness, Lk 22:24ff; Lev 12:6-8.

If uncleanness(impurity) were the only reason atonement were terminated then cleanness(purity) would suffice to restore it:

Luke 2:22-25 22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished…24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:

Hence the additional sin offering is for cleansing sin from the relationship, not ceremonial uncleanness.

What is atonement, reconciliation with God if not being “in His presence,” “AT ONE MENT” with Him?

Therefore:

It is sinful to touch, unwittingly or not, what is unclean while one is standing in the Presence of the holy God for then one is defiled while in His presence thereby exposing Him to it.

Cleansing from uncleanness AND sin are required before atonement is restored.

Leviticus 15:28 If the blood stop and cease to run, she shall count seven days of her purification: 29 And on the eighth day she shall offer for herself to the priest, two turtles, or two young pigeons, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: 30 And he shall offer one for sin, and the other for a holocaust, and he shall pray for her before the Lord, and for the issue of her uncleanness. 31 You shall teach therefore the children of Israel to take heed of uncleanness, that they may not die in their filth, when they shall have defiled my tabernacle that is among them.

Being in atonement with God = being in His presence.

Therefore oozing bodily fluids in the Presence of the Sovereign misses the mark of proper conduct, of respect, and is exposing God to what is unclean, nasty.

That is “missing the mark” if I ever saw it, “sin.”

It is wrong to expose God to such, He did not author such manifestations of disease and death. These exist because of the sinful rebellion against God and are the consequences of sin.

It is hardly surprising God considers the heavenly entrance of such nasty things as leprous sores, seminal and menstrual issues and dead bodies, things which exist solely because man followed the devil in his rebellion against God, sin.

I don’t believe you would like such in your living room if these were naked before your sight as they are to God.

All women are required to give this offering because of their bleeding during birthing, this introduction of uncleanness into the tabernacle of God is “sin” and is not “uncleanness” itself.

Impurity in abstract is NOT sinful, what is sinful is introducing such into the presence of God thereby exposing Him to it.

NAB Mark 7:19 1 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Christ would never have declared pork etc “clean” if something in it really was ‘unclean.’

In the context of Christ (the truth) the law of the clean and unclean teaches spiritual truths, He fulfills their intent of revealing God and His ways to us.

It is certain 19th century RCC dogma about this stands in direct contradiction to the most Holy Deposit of the faith, Holy Scripture.

Therefore the RCC cannot be God’s teaching authority.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
I wonder why Jesus went to John for Baptism?
(Come to think of it, John wondered the same thing)

tee
Click to expand...
Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness"Then he allowed Him 16 "When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediatedly from the water; and behold , the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

Jesus was fully man, and thus to fullfill the new covenant He had to be baptized to become a member of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven and to receive the Holy Spirit as a forerunner to future baptisms. Jesus also became a witness to John.

Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinG
 
Ecce Homo:
I was just about to bring this up. You beat me to it.

But just to elaborate, by the logic of LetsObeyChrist’s argument, Jesus must have sinned by being baptized, since He didn’t need it.
Furthermore, Jesus must also have sinned by dying on the cross, since He would then be violating “…the Law of the LORD which does not require the innocent pay penalty as though they are guilty”.
Click to expand...
Hi Ecce Homo
See above re baptism. Also there seems to be a general consensus by members of this forum.that Jesus received preferential treatment from God, or that really really He was not fully man… In God there is no partiality. Ask your self this question. Do people in the New Testament need to be baptized. As John heralded in the new testament Jesus had to comply. Regarding Jesus and His sacrifice, He didnt die for His sins as He was sinless, He died for your sins. In the old testament, a perfect sacrifice was always being offered up for the peoples sins. So Jesus the perfect sacrifice was offered up for your sins.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
The KJV Bible says Joseph had a coat of many colors. In fact it is a coat with long sleeves in Hebrew. Ergo the KJV is fallible and in error. As it is the Protestant authorized version it proves that Protestantism is in error. Wow, what logic. I should have become a Baptist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top