The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mlchance:
Then who is?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Hi mlchance
Jesus is your priest, The Holy Spirit does as He hears.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
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
Click to expand...
Hi Alan,
Great post. Makes the mind work.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
40.png
edwinG:
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.
Click to expand...
You appear to be confused. There’s only one person in Christ, and that person either is or isn’t a member of the Kingdom of God. If Christ’s divine nature is a member of the Kingdom, then so is His human nature. There are not two Christs, and it’s absurd to say that God needed to be baptized to become a member of the Kingdom of God. You answered the question accurately at the end, though. His baptism was a sign of the New Covenant; that was its purpose, not because Christ someone “had to be baptized.” Christ didn’t need to become a member of the New Covenant; He Himself was the New Covenant, the reconciliation between God and man, simply by virtue of His Incarnation. The baptism by John simply showed it.
40.png
edwinG:
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.
Click to expand...
But your explanation would separate Christ’s natures. You’re saying that He is part of the Trinity in His divine nature, but not even part of the Kingdom in His human nature, which is complete nonsense. It simply doesn’t follow from God’s lack of partiality that God would require people to do something utterly purposeless purely in order to avoid being partial.
40.png
edwinG:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, people need to be baptized. Why? To join themselves to Christ. Christ doesn’t need to join Himself to Himself. His baptism was a sign of what He was, not a sign that He was becoming something else.
 
40.png
JPrejean:
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.
Click to expand...
Which only goes to prove that a plethora of words will not necessarily make something clear. Thanks for the clarification. This is exactly what I meant! 🙂
 
40.png
edwinG:
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.
Click to expand...
edwinG,

The very verse you cite proves you wrong. Jesus did not say that he had to be baptized; only that it was fitting. Catholics believe that God is omnipotent and could ahve fulfilled the New Covenant in any number of ways. We accept the mystery of how He freely chose to do so as a tremendous gift. However, He was not limited in methods of doing so.
 
Thanks for the clarification. This is exactly what I meant!
Click to expand...
Glad to be of assistance, although I’d be even happier the Protestants would listen! You’d swear that LOC had skipped over the part in Hebrews about the atonement in the Old Covenant being about not actual (spiritual) atonement but instead ritual purification of the physical, which served as a shadow of Christ’s atonement for sin and a reminder of the existence of sin (Hebr. 8:4-7; 9:8-10; 9:13-14; 9:23; 10:1-4). And, yes, there is certainly some irony in a Protestant attacking Catholics using a decidedly unscriptural premise, while simultaneously alleging that Catholics are the ones who don’t follow “clear Scriptural teaching.”
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Great Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!!! Well, slap my butt and call me Shirley!!! This makes SO much sense!!! How could I have been so blind? That’s it, I’m abandoning the evils of Papistry and returning to the hard shell Southern Baptist teachins’ of my youth, where we all interpreted Scripture according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit! Oh, wait…maybe I’m better off with the Methodists…no, I think they’re Arminians, maybe I’d better go with the Calvinists…um, I wonder what the Bible has to say about that, maybe I’d better look at where that old Bible came from…wait, you mean a buncha Catholic bishops sat down in a council and set up that, whatcha call it, Canon of Scripture? Hmmmm, so the Bible came from the Catholic Church? Well, that’s okay, everyone knows they departed from “the faith once given” pretty toot sweet after Jesus ascended back into Heaven, let’s see what the ancient church fathers have to say about…um…I…um. Well, then, Martin Luther CLEARLY…:confused:

AMEN!!!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
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.”
Click to expand...
LOB,

Since I am not a Hebrew or Latin scholar could you clarify what CHATTA’AT and peccato both mean? I am unclear if you have a problem with the translation into Latin or from Latin into English? or if you are saying the translation is o.k. I’m not clear on the what you are driving at here.

Thanks

Mark
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
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.
Click to expand...
LOC,

Is this really Catholic Doctrine? Granted I am far from being as well versed in Catholic Doctrine as I would like, so could you please direct me to the Catholic teaching/Doctrine on Mary’s offering of the turtledove for her sin so that I might review it as wasn’t aware we had a doctinal teaching on this.

Thanks,
Mark
 
40.png
MarkInOregon:
LOB,

Since I am not a Hebrew or Latin scholar could you clarify what CHATTA’AT and peccato both mean? I am unclear if you have a problem with the translation into Latin or from Latin into English? or if you are saying the translation is o.k. I’m not clear on the what you are driving at here.

Thanks

Mark
Click to expand...
For those who haven’t noticed, LetsObeyChrist’s account has been suspended by the forum administrators.

Peccato is the Latin word for sin. While I too do not know enough to compare the Latin Vulgate to the Hebrew, it appears from his original post that Jerome translated CHATTA’AT as peccato. When the Douay-Rheims translation was made (Rheims New Testament published in 1589, Douay Old Testament volume 1 published in 1609 and volume 2 in 1610), peccato was translated as “sin.” (I don’t know if this is consistent with previous English translations.)
 
According to it Mary’s turtledove offering was for HER SIN.
Click to expand...
Mary submitted to the Mosaic Law for the same reason than Christ submitted to circumcision and Passover.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
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
Click to expand...
You are not making good sense; here is the translation from NIV:
Lav 12:8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’

The meaning is the same. Please clarify your contention so that we can continue the conversation.

Yours in Christ.
 
Robert in SD:
Why do you insist on attacking the Catholic Church by beating up on the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
I think we can answer this by asking “Who would want to beat up on the Mother of God?”.

The answer is clear enough; it’s the adversary, no matter by what name he calls himself.
 
40.png
theMutant:
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! 😃
Click to expand...
I bow to your wisdom. 😃

Well, since LetsObeyChrist got suspended, I’ll not be getting an answer from him about who has ultimate authority to interpret Scripture, edwinG’s non-answer notwithstanding.

Ah well.

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

The Catholic Church teaches that we obey the Mercy Commands of Christ outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5-7.

Protestants, especially dispensationalists exempt themselves from these as works of the ‘law’.

God wants mercy not sacrifice.

We are certainly exempt from the deuterocanonical laws. We may not refuse the demands of mercy.

Christ did not come to abolish his own teaching and Paul did not come to supplant the Gospel with a Super-Gospel, pleasing to bible chapel fundamentalists and contrary to the apostles.

Every duty is not ‘law’ in the sense you are talking about. And Faith is only Faith if it is the living out of Christs’ grace in deeds of love. Or have you not read 1 Cor 13? And where in the Judgement of Matt 25 does Jesus say that correct opinion saves the soul? The doers of the word are the sheep and the hearers are the goats.

And do not hunt with that Scofield-Darby dog that says Matt 25 is not for the Church. Remember they all call him Lord.

Reformation Christianity informs us by the examples of its heroes, Calving, Knox, Rutherfordton, the Ethnic Cleanser and Puritan Father of Irish Genocide Oliver Cromwell and of course Spurgeon, Moody and Dulles.

We hold out as our roll models St Francis of Assisi, St Vincent and Mother Teresa.

Who has more mercy centers named for them? I have yet to see a hospital named for Spurgeon or Knox.

Mercy and Love are not optional and they are not ‘works of the law’.

If you do not get that, your hope, whatever your faith tradition, in Christ is in vain because He himself has promised to disclaim ever knowing you.

Some of you fundamentalists act like forgiving your neighbor, doing Christs’ mercy or obeying the Sermon on the Mount is suspect because it makes a person too Catholic.

Lets not show our Saviour love by actually obeying Him. Lets just keep our faith locked up in our head as correctly defined opinion.

Doesn’t really sound like you get what adoption is really about, does it?

Paz y Caritas Amigo,

Steve
 
so CA has had the dubious pleasure of butting heads with LOC…what’s amazing to me is that it took him 198 posts to get suspended… he’s still going strong with 1542 posts at Defenders of the Catholic Faith message board… as a couple of the posters here pointed out, he tried to argue the same worthless drivel over there too… did you notice he has a habit of posting the same thing over and over and over again… rarely responding to other posts… it does get tiresome after a while…and incredibly boring

mark…in answer to your question… he is the ultimate and infallible authority to interpret scripture… if your interpretation doesn’t jive with his, then you are obviously wrong
 
I suggested to Catholic Answers that they put in a button where people could vote (once) for deleting a thread.

For sure, we should be able and charitable to answer critics, but on a different level, a thread like this is a waste of resources.

Perhaps the original post and one good subsequent post should be left and the thread closed.
 
I cannot agree with your suggestion. People respond to different things. How could the moderators know what post would be useful to any particular member or guest? They could be deleting the very ones that the Holy Spirit could use to stir hearts to a greater love of God?
 
LOC,

Im not sure what the Catholic church would officially say in response to your accusation.

BUT this what I say:

I believe in the immacualte conception for several reasons.
If I were to accept your accusation that mary was a sinner, then this would effect CHRIST drastically. First, he would be born into sin by his mother’s sin. We know christ was w/o sin. Second, If Mary was sinless and offered a sin offering, you call THAT a sin. I call THAT a virtue. She went above and beyond what was expected. She offered herself much like her son offered himself as an act of reparation to sin. Third, IF mary was indeed in sin then JESUS broke a commandment! “honor your father and mother”! What greater honor could our LORD give to his mother than to share in the ressurrection that we all will share with redemption by anticipation, hence the immaculate conception. Jesus fullfilled this commandment, amazingly. He did it so we can all look forward to the same ressurection that MARY participated. SHE is the MOTHER of the church (CHRISTIAN RESSURECTION)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top