The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

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.

what a strange argument.

I wonder why Jesus went to John for Baptism?
(Come to think of it, John wondered the same thing)

tee

[quote=jeffreedy789]what a strange argument.
[/quote]

IT is sound, “a” cannot be “not a” at the same time.

The RCC ruled as doctrinally correct Vulgate says turtledoves are for sin.

The RCC ruled as doctrinally correct Magisterium dogma of a sinless Mary says Mary was sinless when offering turtledoves.

So she offered turtledoves for what is “not sin,” that is rebellion against the Law of Moses, a violation of the law of the Lord, sin.

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.

[quote=tee_eff_em]I wonder why Jesus went to John for Baptism?
(Come to think of it, John wondered the same thing)

tee
[/quote]

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”.

and if we’re going to be technical about this (which it definitely seems we are) :slight_smile: then the text doesn’t say WHOSE sin the sacrifice is for. just ‘for sin’. it could be for MY sin that she sacrificed. it was when she made her FIRST sacrifice (the magnificat).

[quote=tee_eff_em]I wonder why Jesus went to John for Baptism?
(Come to think of it, John wondered the same thing)

tee
[/quote]

Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself, His baptism and circumcision are completely dissimilar to Mary’s sin offering. These things are not a sacrifice to the priests for reparation of HIS Atonement with God.

This incompatible property means what is true of Jesus is not analogically true of Mary.

To illustrate this fact, you would reject any proposition predicted upon your analogy that Mary’s turtledove offering for sin teaches Christ could have offered two turtledoves instead of Himself at Calvary for the sin of mankind.

Then He died unnecessarily evidently not being able to accomplish simple analogical deduction as you can.

Hence He is not God…etc ad nauseam…

Clearly what is true of Mary’s sacrifice is not analogically true of Christ’s sacrifice, therefore what is true of Christ sacrifice is not analogous to Mary’s sacrifice.

As Jesus(and what He did) is very different than Mary(and what she did), incompatible properties abounding, your proposed analogy is non-analogous.

I’ve tried Occam’s Razor, but I find that I get a better shave with Gillette’s Good News razor.

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.

[quote=LetsObeyChrist]IT is sound, “a” cannot be “not a” at the same time.

The RCC ruled as doctrinally correct Vulgate says turtledoves are for sin.

The RCC ruled as doctrinally correct Magisterium dogma of a sinless Mary says Mary was sinless when offering turtledoves.

So she offered turtledoves for what is “not sin,” that is rebellion against the Law of Moses, a violation of the law of the Lord, sin.
[/quote]

You are assuming that Mary was aware of her own sinlessness; which is not something that the Church has ever taught. It is entirely possible that she offerred the turtledove to attone for any sins that she had even if she was not aware of any. This offering is not like the current rite of Pennance where you need to name your sin. You simply went to the temple and made the offering.

Another possible reason is that she did not want to face the derision of her fellow Jews. If she never offerred anything to attone for sin, she would likely have been chastized and rediculed for it. If she was aware of her own sinlessness (which is not necessarily the case) she could have made the offer in order to avoid scandal within the community.

A third possible reason that fits in with the second, is that she could have been doing this as yet another means of supporting the Temple. She was a devout Jew and would have welcomed the opportunity to support the Temple of God.

A fourth possible reason is that she could have offered the turtledove for the sin of another.

[quote=LetsObeyChrist]Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself, His baptism and circumcision are completely dissimilar to Mary’s sin offering. These things are not a sacrifice to the priests for reparation of HIS Atonement with God.

This incompatible property means what is true of Jesus is not analogically true of Mary.

To illustrate this fact, you would reject any proposition predicted upon your analogy that Mary’s turtledove offering for sin teaches Christ could have offered two turtledoves instead of Himself at Calvary for the sin of mankind.

Then He died unnecessarily evidently not being able to accomplish simple analogical deduction as you can.

Hence He is not God…etc ad nauseam…

Clearly what is true of Mary’s sacrifice is not analogically true of Christ’s sacrifice, therefore what is true of Christ sacrifice is not analogous to Mary’s sacrifice.

As Jesus(and what He did) is very different than Mary(and what she did), incompatible properties abounding, your proposed analogy is non-analogous.

[/quote]

With this argument, as I understand it after re-reading it several times, you could claim any analogy is non-analogous. For example, if I said,

rock is to mountain as lake is to ocean

then you could just come back as say that a rock is not a lake, doesn’t serve the same perpose, etc. Hence the analogy is non-analogous.

I just can’t see the validity of your argument here.

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:

"And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I shall give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

[quote=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”.
[/quote]

What is true of Christ is not analogically true of Mary, the incompatible properties would fill a book.

Moreover you are wrong to say Christ sacrificed for the innocent, He was God’s sacrifice for the guilty:

[left]DRA Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me.[/left]

LetsobeyChrist,

I like your name. I cherish your concern. I thank you for your time and zeal. I will pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you to all truth.

Your Catholic sister in Christ,

Maria

[quote=LetsObeyChrist]What is true of Christ is not analogically true of Mary, the incompatible properties would fill a book.

Moreover you are wrong to say Christ sacrificed for the innocent, He was God’s sacrifice for the guilty:

[left]DRA Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me.[/left]

[/quote]

To your second statement:

I did not say that that Christ sacrificed for the innocent. I said that Christ was innocent and was sacrificed for the guilty–apparently in direct affront to “…the Law of the LORD which does not require the innocent pay penalty as though they are guilty”.

To your first statement:

Just because some things are not analytically true of both does not mean all things are not analytically true of both.

[quote=Ecce Homo]With this argument, as I understand it after re-reading it several times, you could claim any analogy is non-analogous. For example, if I said,

rock is to mountain as lake is to ocean

then you could just come back as say that a rock is not a lake, doesn’t serve the same perpose, etc. Hence the analogy is non-analogous.

I just can’t see the validity of your argument here.
[/quote]

Incompatible properties, clashing qualities render analogical conclusions impossible.

For example, both a ball and an orange are round so both will roll.

But one cannot eat a ball as they can an orange.

The incompatible property is that one is a fruit, the other is not.

Christ wasn’t baptised for sin although John’s Baptism was a baptism for repentance.

Observe John’s response to Christ, it is the response of one who knows Christ is not a sinner:

Matthew 3:14-15 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Jesus agreed with John, He had no need to repent, however His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness:

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Philippians 2:7-8 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

It fulfilled all righteousness Christ blaze the trail all who are His must follow, they must repent and be purified of this world, sell all they own and follow Him, die and be born again immersed in God.

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

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

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

[quote=theMutant]You are assuming that Mary was aware of her own sinlessness; which is not something that the Church has ever taught. It is entirely possible that she offerred the turtledove to attone for any sins that she had even if she was not aware of any. This offering is not like the current rite of Pennance where you need to name your sin. You simply went to the temple and made the offering.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=LetsObeyChrist]Incompatible properties, clashing qualities render analogical conclusions impossible.

For example, both a ball and an orange are round so both will roll.

But one cannot eat a ball as they can an orange.

The incompatible property is that one is a fruit, the other is not.

Christ wasn’t baptised for sin although John’s Baptism was a baptism for repentance.

Observe John’s response to Christ, it is the response of one who knows Christ is not a sinner:

Matthew 3:14-15 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Jesus agreed with John, He had no need to repent, however His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness:

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Philippians 2:7-8 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

It fulfilled all righteousness Christ blaze the trail all who are His must follow, they must repent and be purified of this world, sell all they own and follow Him, die and be born again immersed in God.

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

[/quote]

Why wouldn’t all of these argument apply equally to Mary?

Just as Christ had no need to repent, but did not sin by allowing himself to be baptized, Mary may have had no need to repent, but may offer sacrafice, to “fullfill all righeousness”.

Just because it wasn’t necessary doesn’t make it sinful.

In fact you could more easily argue that not offering the Sacrafice prescribed by the Law would have been sinful.

Chuck

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.