Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

Inability to qualify by simple adherence to the rules: Those who are viewing the debate should take note of Con’s inability to adhere to the specific parameters I set for the debate in the rules. A prerequisite for the debate was, “Please read the rules carefully before accepting this debate” (Round 1) and Round 1 from Con’s end, according to these rules should have been, “acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.” Immediately in round two we see that Con has openly ignored the entire premise of the debate as I began round one by saying, “Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions.” Con’s misconception however is as follows; “This debate is centered around “Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible” as that is what I agreed to be against NOT “Are the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions biblical?”” Furthermore, the rules that Con accepted (“Hello I accept this debate”) includes rule #2, which makes this debates’ POINT very, very, clear, “This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture.” In addition, Con breaks rule #3 by ignoring the prerequisites of this debate as this debate rejects “any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate.” Con’s semantics, and blatant ignoring of laid out rules should be considered. He continues this trend until he actually makes a point in which I apologize for as I forgot to mention that all of my Scripture comes from the ESV (English Standard Version). Con forgets, however, that the rules of the debate are to be accepted in the first found and he consequently forfeits in his attempt to redefine what rules to debate by. Again, it is worth noting that this was made abundantly clear, “Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions.” While I will debate further so that this is not a complete waste, this should be taken into account. Rebuttals: Cons Claim: “Catholicism has spread the bible across the global..Catholicism has help and supported the bible.” Response: This has no relevance within this debate. However, this is false, and Con provides no evidence for its claim. The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church was very reluctant in even allowing translations of the bible into the common language of the people. This is seen historically through men such as William Tyndale, Jan Hus, John Wycliff who were executed for translating the Bible. The council of Trent, following the protestant Reformation, was where we see the public status of the church being formally elevated in equality with scripture as well as the call for interpretation through, "the fathers". "The Church has the sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. This teaching essentially denied the need for the Bible in the language of the common man. In fact, placing the Bible in the hands of lay people was considered dangerous." (http://www.newadvent.org...). Cons Claim: “Impossible to follow the teachings of the bible. he bible has numerous incidents of contradictions”. Response: This is another debate within itself. Cons Claim: “The biggest contradiction is whether Jesus and Yahweh are the same.” Response: This is firstly, not relevant to the debate as both orthodox protestants and Roman Catholics believe Jesus to be Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the being God, while Jesus (Yeshua) is the name of one of the persons within the God head. Trinitarianism and the deity of Christ is another debate all together. Not only this, but Con assumes the non-existence of proper hermeneutics. Again, Trinitarianism and Christ’s deity is a non-issue between orthodox protestants and Catholics. 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: “The teaching of the bible contradicts the teachings of the bible..” Response: Not only is this begging the question, but Con assumes his first premise true in order to justify his conclusion. Con not only assumes contradictions in the bible in order to somehow maintain that the Roman Catholics follow the bible, which he has stated is impossible, but he sets the stage for ignoring core biblical teachings as if they are doomed to failure already. On the Tradition of Eucharist – Con provides no information that addresses the claims of the Catholic Church’s Catechism, and actually contradicts the teachings of the Roman Catholics View of the Eucharist. Sadly, Con’s source is that of the Orthodox Church (also known as the Greek Orthodox Church), not the Roman Catholic Church. A simple search of “Antiochian Orthodox Christian” would have made this very clear. In addition, from a Roman Catholic site, “(The Eucharist) 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...). All of Con’s arguments fall short as he (1) Cited a Greek Orthodox Church believing it to be the Roman Catholic Church and (2) Did not address the Roman Catholic view held by the Catholics. I both provided information now from the Catholic Church’s Catechism and now a Catholic Encyclopedia. On Mary is a sinless mediator– Con’s Claim: “Neither in CCC 494 and 969 does it state that mary is a mediator" Response: This is just wrong, from his own source, “969 Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." #494 Is not obvious in its statement, but also supports what is already been expressed as Mary is seen as a means of salvation, thus a Mediator between God and man, which also includes intercession. Con fails to not only to support his own claim, but fails to address the scripture provided that states Christ is the ONLY mediator. In regards to Priest synonymous with believer: Con’s Claim: “The new testament teaches that you no longer NEED a priest to mediator with god.” Response: Con puts another nail in his coffin without realizing it. As I have shown scripture supporting that there is ONE meditator between God and man, Con admits that we do not need a priest or mediator and the Roman Catholic Church provides both priests and Mary as mediator. Regarding Confession: Con’s Claim: “Priests do not forgive sins; this has never been the case.” Response: “Rome teaches that divine forgiveness is granted through the priest’s absolution to those who confess their sins to a priest and make satisfaction for them.” (http://justforcatholics.org...) In Regards to Direction of Prayer: Con’s Claim: “Catholics are not praying to mary, they are asking mary to pray for them.” Response: Instead of arguing on intersessory work; Con conveniently leaves out his biblical support for asking Mary to pray for believers. On Salvation assurance: Con states, “so salvation cannot be assured”, while I cited the purpose of 1 John, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13, ESV). Con cites John 3:16, which states that if you believe you have eternal life. He also cites James 2:14-17, which talks about genuine faith producing works. He cites Luke 10:25-28, which has nothing to do with Assurance of Salvation. Matthew 7:21-23, which does not address whether or not assurance of salvation can be obtained. Regarding Salvation through church: Con argues that the Catechism does not show this to be the case, however, he is wrong. To make the argument more obvious here: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.” Conclusion: (1) Con openly rejects the rules he accepted by accepting the debate. (2) Con cannot tell the Greek Orthodox Church apart from the Roman Catholic Church (3) Con claims it is impossible to follow the teachings of the Bible, yet argues that the Roman Catholic Church is following the Bible. (4) Makes points irrelevant to the debate without supporting them sufficiently and uses these assumptions to further his case. (5) Does not provide biblical support for the traditions I have cited, yet attempts to explain them while stating that there is no proper interpretation of scripture. (6) Con’s rebuttals were not actually rebuttals, and claims that my initial cases were wrong, while being wrong himself (ex: Mediator), and failing to actually provide biblical support for his claims. -S.C.