Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

I have provided the reasons I am debating what I am debating, and this has become a point of semantics, which as part of the rules would be decided by dictionary.com, which I am adhering to. I have not forfeited. Rather than going into further detail, I’m not going to beat a dead horse on this topic as it’s a matter of contention that is outside the scope of the actual debate. I have addressed this debate in a serious manner from what the debate states is my side, even if mistakes were made on definitions. Con1 – SupportsPro claim “this is false”I did not expect the spread of the bible by catholics to be contested or I would have provided supporting information. “Clearly, Christianity has spread far from its historical origins.”http://www.pewforum.org...There were also many catholic missions.https://en.wikipedia.org...And they are still sending missionary’s to this dayhttps://archden.org...To spread the bible is very relevant to show if the catholic church opposed the bible or not. If you oppose something, then you do not assist in the spread of it. Catholicism has obviously assisted in the spread of the bible; therefore, it has not opposed the bible. The point stands.Con2 – Impossible to follow the teachings of the biblePro does not refute this point. The point stands.Con3 – Imitation is the sincerest form of flatteryAs Pro did not refute Con2 then Con3 is not begging the question, because that conclusion is unopposed, and therefore stands as true. As to the point of making it ignore core teachings and doomed to fail, this is not so. There are simply different interpretations of what defines “core teachings”. (see the part about jesus being yahweh, or being a separate entity earlier in the debate) These core teachings can be contradictory to a degree with the bible but cannot completely ignore it. By Pros logic there can only be one religion based off the bible, yet there are thousands of Christian denominations. The point stands.http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...EucharistYup missed that, no big deal though I’ll start from here. (thanks for finally providing a link to something)The sacrament is an outward sign of christBlessed Sacrament - the Eucharist the definition of a Christian sacrament as "an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" is verified.http://www.newadvent.org...being the bread of life.John 6:35 - Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hungerhttps://www.biblegateway.com...So that yahweh can give them gracehttp://www.newadvent.org...which is eternal salvation.http://www.newadvent.org...So to recap. The bread of life which is jesus, is an outward sign(not a sacrifice/offering) instituted by jesus to gain internal grace from yahweh. This references to eternal life not redemption. http://www.newadvent.org...Redemption removed original sin. Grace is eternal life. Not the same thing.Mediators"Mary's maternal function towards mankind in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ but rather shows its efficacy," because "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"And“The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.”http://www.newadvent.org...So the church does not see Mary as a mediator, but the mother of the mediator which is a subordinate role to the one mediator who is jesus.ConfessionConfession is a sacrament of Penance, as previously linked sacrament is an external sign of internal grace given by jesus. Part of the sign includes absolution, which completes the sign, so that jesus can give grace, and wash away the sin. “The grace conferred is deliverance from the guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment” Again priests don’t remove sin jesus does, and this whole process was instituted by jesus.http://www.newadvent.org...Direction of PrayerThe church does not see mary as an entity to pray to, and you have proved no links to support that claim. The only reason I brought it up was to explain to you what’s happening because you seemed confused. An intercessory is to pray FOR others, so that’s not praying TO mary, that’s asking mary to pray for you. This is not a contradiction of scripture stating that you should pray TO yahweh. Does that help?Salvation assuranceAs previously stated you are assure salvation if you follow the teachings, but there are no assurance that you are following the teachings correctly. To put it another way, you assure winning the game if your team has more points, but there is no way to know how many points you have, so there is no way to assure you are going to win eternal life.Salvation through churchWould it be too much to ask to use a source and a link every now and then??? This is what I found:https://www.ewtn.com...The subjection to the Roman Pontiff which Boniface VIII demanded would be fulfilled as each soul came to the gate of heaven - Submission to the Roman Pontiff could be a result of the soul’s salvation rather than the condition for their salvationhttp://www.patheos.com...ConclusionPro has ignored my arguments, or dismissed them without explanation or sources. He has shown repeatedly that he is not taking this debate seriously. I have presented three ways in which Catholicism has NOT opposed the bible, and I have addressed all his arguments. He has yet to address mine. Pro has ridiculed me and made a game of this debate. I have consistently provided sources, links to support my arguments, and presented them clearly, researched, and seriously, and yet at every turn he just keeps repeating what he sees as my mistakes. I feel that his conduct in this debate poor, and frankly I’m getting very tired of it, and would like some civility.