Catholics Are Unbiblical.

The Pro said, "I just completely forgot and got sidetracked with school but let's start this anyway." The debate had already started a while back. You obviously didn't care enough about the topic of this debate to take any interest in debating it. Instead I am the one which kept this debate going. The Pro said, "First, I would like to start out by attacking baby baptism" So if you are going to attack baby baptism, then shouldn't we see the Bible also attacking baby baptism? After all, you claim that you hold to what the Bible teaches right? Strange how you would make such a claim and not post one passage from the Bible to back up your claim. But since we Catholics are biblical, then I will be the one citing Bible passages to make my case. Firstly, it must be noted that Protestants like yourself who reject infant baptism are in the minority, even among Protestants. Second, the Bible teaches that whole households were baptized: 1 Cor. 1:16- "And I [Paul] baptized also the household of Stephanas..." Acts 16:15- "And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household... Acts 16:33- "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Entire households were baptized. Think about these verses. The Bible refers to a woman and "her household." It refers to a man and his "household." Why didn"t the passage just say a woman and "her husband"? Why didn"t it say a man and "his wife"? Households generally include children. Scripture connects the two: Gen. 18:19- "" he will command his children and his household after him"" Gen. 36:6- "And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house." Since households generally include children " and the Bible repeatedly mentions that whole households were baptized " these passages by themselves make the case against infant baptism extremely unlikely. In fact, if a Protestant who rejects infant baptism believes in Scripture alone, he would have to find an explicit teaching in the Bible that infants should not be baptized. But there is nothing like that. Please also listen to this recorded audio which goes into detail from the Bible as to why infant baptism is Biblical and also it explains from the Bible why baptism doesn't have to be by immersion,...... http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... Pro said, "Second, you worship the pope and say he is that head of the church" Strange how the Pro can't seem to focus on the topic of the debate. Nonetheless, I will respond to his accusations anyway. True Catholics who hold to the Holy Catholic faith do not worship the Pope. So that is a false charge. Now as to the Pope being the head of the Church, then yes. He is the head of the Church in authority given to the Apostle Peter by Jesus over the Church Jesus founded, but that does not mean that Jesus gave up his own authority. It is Jesus who is the ultimate head of the Church in Heaven and on Earth. So when Jesus handed authority to the Apostle Peter and the rest of the Apostles, then did not Jesus still hold ultimate and supreme authority over the Church he established, even though he gave his own 12 Apostles authority over that same Church? Ofcourse he did. Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. The evidence is in the change of Peter"s name; the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter" Matthew 16 and Isaias 22; who is the Rock of Matthew 16? It"s Peter; Peter"s unfailing faith; Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter; the prominence of Peter"s name in Scripture; Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas; Peter"s primacy in the Acts of the Apostles and more. There is Biblical (and some patristic) evidence for the Catholic teaching on the Papacy. The early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter"s authority. The offices of the Apostles (bishops) and the office of St. Peter (the Papacy) were instituted to continue with successors. They were founded by Jesus to continue through the history of the Church after the original apostles and Peter had died. St. Peter was in Rome and was its first bishop; apostolic and papal succession come from the teaching of the Bible; the origin of the term "Catholic Church," Gal. 2:11 and more. Please also listen to this recorded audio which goes into detail about Peter having been made the first Pope and all those who succeeded to his Papal office since then have been Popes,......... http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... The Pro said, "Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her" So does the Bible say that we cannot ask the mother of Jesus to pray to her son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf? Again, if it does say that, then where is that verse? The reason you didn't post it is because that verse does not exists. Now, if I asked you to pray to the Lord for my 3 yr old daughter because she is very sick, then would you refuse? Would you tell me that you won't pray to Jesus for my 3 yr old daughter to get well, and that I should not be asking you but instead go straight to Jesus? Ofcourse you wouldn't say something like that. The Bible tells us to pray for others. 1 Tim 2:1-2 - the Apostle Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints" prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected. Matt. 5:44-45 - Jesus tells us to pray for (to mediate on behalf of) those who persecute us. God instructs us to mediate Matt. 26:53 " Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints, then so can we, who are called to imitate Jesus in word and in deed. Again, the Pro said, "Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her" So since I have proven from the Bible that we can ask the virgin Mary to pray to her son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf, then now I will respond to the part where the Pro claims we should not "hail her". Has the Pro never even read the Bible before? When the angel Gabriel was sent by God to deliever the message to the virgin Mary that she would give birth to the Lord, then the very first words out of the angel's angelic mouth was,...... Luke 1:27-31- "" and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. The Pro said, "Also you say Mary hasn't sinned unlike everyone besides Jesus" JESUS SAVED MARY IN A GREATER WAY So, if Mary was preserved from the stain of the original sin, does that mean that she didn"t have a Savior? No. Mary answers that herself. Luke 1:46-47- "And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." God saved Mary by preventing her from contracting original sin. Suppose that a man falls into a deep hole in the forest, but is pulled out by his friend. It is true to say that the friend saved the man. Now suppose a man sees a woman walking toward the deep hole, and catches her just before she falls in. He stops her from falling into the hole in the first place, so that she doesn"t get injured or dirty at all. Did he save the woman? Certainly he did. He saved her in a greater way, by preventing her from falling into the hole and suffering any of the harmful consequences. That"s how God saved Mary. Jesus was her Savior in an even greater way, by preventing her from ever contracting original sin, and by preserving her from sin throughout her life. He did this for Mary, in view of her unique role. The sinlessness of Mary is indicated by numerous types in the Bible. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...