The Roman Catholic Church v. Baptist

"In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" - The Sign of the Cross "credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem...et in unum dominum Iusum christum filium dei unigenitum...et in spiritum sanctum" - Excerpts from the Nicene Creed I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. My only fear is that I will not do the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church justice. Contention I: SalvationI do not know where my opponent is getting his information on the Roman Catholic position. I would appreciate it if he could provide a citation from the CCC or other reliable source on Catholicism (the numbers provided cannot refer to the CCC, as that particular section is on baptism). In counter to my opponent, I cite James 2:26: "(26) Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu emortuum est, ita et fides sine operibus mortua est." (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) "(26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (King James Version)The Roman Catholic position, as affirmed by the Council of Trent's Canon III on the Decree of Justification: "If any one saith [says], that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema [excommunicated]." - Council of TrentThis position concurs perfectly with Ephesians 2:8-10. The works do not save you, they are a proof and result of your faith. You cannot have faith if you do not do works, as it says in James 2:26. Looking at this logically, shouldn't one who truly has faith do good works? If you truly believe, why would you not work as Jesus taught? Contention II: Justification and SacramentsFirst of all, my opponent is using epistles here. While I will not deny the argument solely off that basis, I do not think that this evidence would be sufficient to negate the resolution. Now, on to my actual argument. First, let us look at 2 Corinthians 5:21: "(21) Eum, qui non noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit, ut nos efficeremur iustitia Dei in ipso." (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)"(21) God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (NIV)I congratulate my opponent for his usage of the word "imputation", which is a word so uncommon even I didn't know it. Now on to actual analysis. My opponent first asserts that justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God. However, this is merely an assertion. Nowhere does it say in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that the perfect righteousness of God would be imputated to us, that is a complete non sequitur. We can become actually righteous through the grace of God, so this claim fails. In fact, let's look at some scripture referenced by my opponent recently, Romans 4:5:"(5) ei vero, qui non operatur, sed credit in eum, qui iustificat impium, reputatur fides eius ad iustitiam" (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) "(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (King James Version) His faith is counted for righteousness? Sounds like that counters the theory that righteousness can only be imputed from God. I can provide further support if need be. Contention III: Doctrine not following the scriptureI mean to my opponent no offense, but I do not even really see much of an argument here. I just see scriptural passages that are seemingly unrelated to my opponent's argument. He writes "While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Roman Catholics.The Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the pope should be rejected because it is not "in continuity" with the teachings of the original church related to us in the New Testament.", then fails to back this up with his earlier and (as far as I can tell) unrelated scripture. I would appreciate clarification of this argument. I thank my honorable opponent for this debate, and hope that this debate will be an educational experience. I hope that we affirm the resolution together. Since I have the characters, I will make a few notes relevant to the debate following this statement.Information A: The Biblia Sacra VulgataI will use the version of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata found on the Vatican's website [1]. Although I have studied Latin for several years, to maximize readability for all and to ensure that I do not mistranslate a passage, I will use other translations. My reason for using the Biblia Sacra Vulgata is that it is the definitive Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Information B: CCCI believe it will be necessary to use the CCC in this debate. I will again use the version found on the Vatican's website [2]. Information C: Burden of Proof Since I am instigator and Pro, it might seem rather poor of me to explicitly shift the burden to my opponent. I do this because I believe that placing it on myself would create a massive, almost unupholdable burden as I would have to cite every teaching attributed to Jesus and show how the Roman Catholic Church adheres to it. On my opponent, the burden is much more manageable, and saves me the time of bringing up issues over which there is no controversy. Sources: 1. http://www.vatican.va...2. http://www.vatican.va...