The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear RMP,

LOC has been suspended, but I have some questions about your reasoning. I am making no claims about Mary one way or the other; the only thing I am addressing is your argument.

RMP:

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.

I’ve often wondered about that. If Mary had to be without sin to bear Christ without sin, then what about Mary’s mother? Her grandmother? Eventually do we not get back to Eve? How do we know that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless so that Christ could be, if Mary could be made sinless with sinful ancestors?

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.

I see your point on that one.

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)

Perhaps all that is true, but if Christ didn’t do that, how does that mean He was breaking a commandment?

Alan

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

What has to be understood is that the points RMP brought up only prove the appropriateness of the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness; they do not prove that the doctrine is actually true, only possible and appropriate.

Even if Christ had a sinful whore for a mother, it would not have been unjust or unloving for him to have had one.

God can do whatever he wants . . .

 

[GAssisi]

There are several points that need to be made. First of all, it is true that the sin offering was indeed for Mary. Leviticus states that the priest shall make atonement for the woman, indicating that the sin offering would indeed have been for Mary.

Second, the “sin offering” that LOC makes such a fuss over is not for sin per se. That is, it is not for any sort of sin that counts as a disobedience to God. It is simply for RITUAL UNCLEANLINESS. The same proscription is applied to a man who is a leper and being cleansed of his leprosy. He must provide a sin offering as well, but who believes that he did anything disobedient just by being a leper? (see Lev 14).

Thus, the fact that Mary offered a sin offering does not mean that she herself had sin that needed to be forgiven.

Third, LOC does not seem to have responded to the point made earlier regarding Jesus’ baptism. Whatever reason one can propose why Jesus who was sinless was baptized, it would be the same reason Mary offered a sacrifice for sin despite herself being sinless – that is, to fulfill all righteousness; in other words, obedience to God’s law.

God bless,

Greg

 

[RMP]

HMMMM

the only thing I am addressing is your argument.
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.

I’ve often wondered about that. If Mary had to be without sin to bear Christ without sin, then what about Mary’s mother? Her grandmother? Eventually do we not get back to Eve? How do we know that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless so that Christ could be, if Mary could be made sinless with sinful ancestors?

The church has never declared Mary HAD TO BE W/O sin, (to bear christ w/o sin) only that she WAS w/o sin. This was GOD choosen method of coming into the world. If MARY had to be sinless, then every mother in ancestory would have had to have been too. But, God could have IMMACULATELY concieved HIMSELF. But he choose otherwise, he allowed Mary a special grace, a special place, a special honor.

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)

Perhaps all that is true, but if Christ didn’t do that, how does that mean He was breaking a commandment?

By not honoring his mother fully, like the sin of ommision. Christ not only fulfills the law, he usually goes above and beyond it out of love. He showed this fullness of love to his Mother. If GOD is truly full of love, How could he do anything less, He did truly honor her the way he did IT.

 

[RMP]

It not my job to prove the immaculate conception. The church has done that for me. All I have to do is hear or listen. The proof is the POPE declaration of the tradition that has been kept and preserved. who am I to question that? by what authority? MY own?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi!

I agree with those who had said that the doves were offered in obedience to the Law. Offering them in the absence of sin being a sin itself seems and idea rooted firmly in opinion rather than scripture.

Also, does scripture tell us that Mary offered them only for herself or did Joseph and Mary offer them together? If they offered them together would it have been proper for Mary to speak up and say “Just for the record this is only for Jospeh because I’m sinless”? Not likely. Mary and Joseph were acting in humble obedience to the Lord.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[MarkInOregon]

theMutant:

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

Could one of you clarify for me what gets someone kicked off or suspended by the forum administrators.

this is the second person i’ve heard of being suspended in the last week or so. Both seem to not see what they read or to really consider the replies to their posts–but what is the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak?

Thanks
Mark

 

[rcwhiteh]

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.

…

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

If it hasn’t been pointed out already, Mary probably didn’t know that her conception had been immaculate, and therefore couldn’t have known she was sinless. In any event, it was the norm that such offerings be made; had she not made them, she would have likely incurred censure from the temple for not doing so.

Besides, Scripture does not identify St. Joseph as being without sin; the offerings could have been made for him.

This kind of theological hair-splitting is ultimately unworthy of Christians, and is a frantic, pathetic effort on LetsObeyChrist’s part to besmirch the Catholic Church. :tsktsk:

 

[rcwhiteh]

quintessential5:

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.

I have read that Jesus’ cry from the cross was the beginning of a particular type of Jewish sacrificial prayer (the name escapes me) wherein the officiant cries out to God from his misery, and ends by praising God for His love; many rabbis have predicted that in the future, all sacrifices would be of this type.

Christ may be identifying His sacrifice on the cross as being of this type, thus obviating the need for any other type of sacrifice.

Peace,
Bob

 

[Philthy]

LetsObeyChrist:

Some have suggested 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.

Relax a little. Your Levitical quote doesn’t have anything to do with sacrifices, it has to do with the 10 Commandments. No?
And again, even if it was of the Law, you haven’t supplied a law that she broke. I don’t believe there was a law that : “If you have not sinned do not offer a sin offering - If you do it is a sin” You’ll need to produce that to bolster your argument. Where are you going with this anyhow?

 

[theMutant]

MarkInOregon:

Could one of you clarify for me what gets someone kicked off or suspended by the forum administrators.

this is the second person i’ve heard of being suspended in the last week or so. Both seem to not see what they read or to really consider the replies to their posts–but what is the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak?

Thanks
Mark

I have seen lots of accounts that got banned. I think that civility is the best word to describe it. The forum has rules and those who break them get suspended. Those who REALLY break them get banned. Ignoring responses to questions and challenges is one of the reasons. I know of at least one account of a Catholic who got banned for telling sedevacantists that they were going to hell.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

I hesitate to respond to any post till I know WHY I was suspended.

This happened before for unknown reasons.

What rule did I break?

Does anyone know?

If not, how do I find out?

This discussion has progressed unhindered here:

forums.catholic-convert.com/posting.php?mode=quote&p=414447

Till I know why I was suspended I cannot respond to posts, sorry. But I will gladly do so at Steve Ray’s board.

 

[theMutant]

LetsObeyChrist:

I hesitate to respond to any post till I know WHY I was suspended. … how do I find out?
Welcome back! I suggest you send a private message to one of the forum moderators to get an answer to your question.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

theMutant:

I have seen lots of accounts that got banned. I think that civility is the best word to describe it. The forum has rules and those who break them get suspended. Those who REALLY break them get banned. Ignoring responses to questions and challenges is one of the reasons. I know of at least one account of a Catholic who got banned for telling sedevacantists that they were going to hell.

I was suspeded prior to this while striving to answer every post.

I work for a living, often 12 hours a day. When MANY people post responses to you it is impossible for ONE person to answer them all, properly, even if they didn’t work for a living.

I do.

Being suspended and not being told why is odd to say the least.

I again “the administrator” for an explanation, perhaps this time I’ll get a response?

I have heard from Catholics who used to post here ‘no objective criteria exists.’

Presumably moderators “analyze the moment” by keeping in touch with their “feelings” and conclude “what to do” by mystical device(s).

Similar methods for determining action exist elsewhere to it would hardly be special pleading to suppose something of that nature is utilized here.

It is public record, the result of trespass charges because of the many pot holes in his neighbor’s property, that Mr. Joseph Smith (of Mormon fame) used special “peep stones” he would put into a hat and then bury his face therein, keeping out all light, to find “buried treasure” and discern what to do next.

Then there is the bloke who gently puts his head in a thick paper bag which results in revelation as oxygen is depleted.

Some prefer tossed bones to reveal what to do about others.

In any event it is highly unlikely civil posts will result in banning/suspension at Steve Ray’s Board therefore any wishing to dialogue further on this, on substantive points, should feel free to join in:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/...ghlight=&sid=1efdbcef59394224217b2053aa76c178

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Just a reminder to review the forums rules and discuss moderation action through pm with the moderators. We take every step necessary and even beyond before making the final decision to ban a member.

Feel free to begin a new thread, but this one is off topic and is now closed.