Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

Con insists that I am playing semantics when I clearly defined the nature of this debate. Rebuttals: Con’s Claim: “To spread the bible is very relevant to show if the catholic church opposed the bible or not.” Response: This is just not true. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the largest organizations of bible destitution yet most of their doctrines completely contradict scripture. Again, English Translations would have never occurred if it was up to the Roman Catholic Church. I extend my arguments. Cons Claim: “The point stands.” Response: If this point stands than Con loses the debate. Note from round three, “Con’s Claim: “This leads to it being impossible to follow the teachings of the bible.” Response: Here Con puts a nail in his own coffin. If it is impossible to follow the teachings of the Bible, than the Roman Catholic Church could not possibly be following the bible and thus is in opposition to the Bible.” Con’s Claim: “As Pro did not refute Con2 then Con3 is not begging the question, because that conclusion is unopposed, and therefore stands as true.” Response: This is logically fallacious, Con is grasping at straws. Con also goes back into the Jesus being Yahweh discussion, which I have already stated is not a matter of this debate and it is NOT an issue that Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree on. As for “thousands of denominations” this is a myth, though, there are different denominations. Con fails to understand the reason for denominational differences. There are three types of teachings; Dogmatic, Doctrinal, and Tradition. Dogmatic are the essential and core truths. If you don’t hold to these than you are not a legitimate church such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. As much as they claim to be Christian, orthodox protestants do not consider them a denomination. Doctrinal teachings are those that aren’t essential, that can be disagreed upon, but doesn’t affect salvation. Traditional teachings are exactly that; things such as music preference or clothing preference. Denominations exist because of Doctrinal and traditional difference, not dogmatic difference. Those that differ from Dogmatic teachings are not denominational. A denomination is a recognized branch of the Christian Church. Since this is a NON-Issue, I digress without stressing the point. Regarding the Eucharist: Con’s Claim: “Yup missed that, no big deal though I’ll start from here.” Response: Yes, it is a big deal. You are debating for the Roman Catholic Church, not the Greek Orthodox Church. Let’s look back at what I provided, that Con overlooked. I provided the following definition: “The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine.” (http://www.newadvent.org...) What is the Sacrifice of Mass? Exactly what Con in round two state it is not, “Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice” (http://www.newadvent.org...) Again, “The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. It is now in the New Law, the sacrifice that is acceptable to God.” (https://www.ewtn.com...) I extend my argument as Con has yet to properly understand or address the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. In Regards to Mediators: Con’s Claim: 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. Response: The most compelling argument thus far, however, the argument stands as Mary should not be a Mediator, period. Con takes his own citations and attempts to say that Mary is not considered a Mediator, while his quotes say nothing of that. I extend my arguments that There is ONLY one mediator. Again, the Church documents clearly present Mary as a Mediator, “Mediatrix.” (CCC, 969) Regarding Confession: Con’s Claim: Again priests don’t remove sin http://www.newadvent.org...... Response: Con attempts to turn his argument here, but still cannot agree with Catholic Teachings. Initially Con stated, “The priest is only there to help practitioners with that, they hold no power to forgive sins by any catholic traditions.” First from his own source, “Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same” What is Absolution? “Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin” and “Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church.” (http://www.newadvent.org...)Con in his arguments continues to contradict the Roman Catholic Position. Concerning Direction of Prayer: Con’s 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.” Response: Because I did not want to get into intercessory prayer, I asked Con for biblical support telling believers to ask the dead saints to pray for them. However, he can’t because it is not biblical. Regardless, I have already made it clear that Jesus is sufficient for intercessory prayer as High Priest. A point Con ignored. Salvation assurance: Con’s Claim: “As previously stated you are assure salvation if you follow the teachings, but there are no assurance that you are following the teachings correctly.” Response: Again, Con IGNORES the purpose of the entire letter of 1 John. He also brings up a works-based salvation, which is another debate in itself. Since he cannot address that John wrote so that people may KNOW they have salvation, I’ll throw in a bonus, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV). This is another debate as the Roman Catholic Church describes salvation differently. Before Con references the passage of James again, I have already states that James makes the claim that genuine faith will produce works, however, you are not saved by those works. Regarding Salvation through church: Response: Con ignores Catholic Church writings, and the declarations of the council of Trent. He further tries to turn the argument for his own gain while ignoring what was provided. Conclusion: “Pro has ignored my arguments”, Most of Con’s arguments deviate from the debate itself as he blatantly ignored the purpose of this debate and carries the debate on his presupposition that the Bible cannot be followed or properly understood. I have ignored arguments only in that the word count does not allow me to address all of the fallacious arguments. “I have presented three ways in which Catholicism has NOT opposed the bible, and I have addressed all his arguments.”, Con has only shown that he does not understand Catholicism’s teachings and he has not addressed all of the arguments, but skipped over most of them or misrepresented his OWN arguments in order to further his position. “He has yet to address mine.”, All of the points have been addressed. “Pro has ridiculed me and made a game of this debate.”, Con’s emotionalism is based on the comments of the debate, not the debate itself. Con’s accepting of this debate without (1) adhering to the rules of the debate and (2) failing to understand the institution he is representing has shown to be a game in itself. Con: (1) Has not proven his case (2) Continues to ignore arguments (3) Appeals to “Conduct” to save his argument (4) Does not represent Roman Catholic Teachings correctly (5) Quote Mines as I have shown from his own sources (6) Furthers arguments that were not a part of this debate and uses them as his lifeboat. (7) Shows little consistency as he has claimed it is (a) impossible to follow the bible and (b) there is no proper interpretation:a. He states The Catholic Church follows the Bible even though he claimed it is impossible to follow the bibleb. He also attempts to interpret scripture, while saying his interpretation is correct, while previously saying there is no objective or proper interpretation. -S.C.