Difference between revisions of "Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?"

Revision as of 18:01, August 25, 2020

Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

Format

The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions

I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's Summary in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion outside the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section

I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

Proposed rules in future debates

• Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

• Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

• No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Proposal for another Debate

• Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

Phony scholarship and phony authority

Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:

• ye are not under law, but under grace

A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that grace is not grace. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Strike 2

User:Dataclarifier just added an additional 57,166 [1] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical

You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? in a narrative context. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is not biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--Dataclarifier (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.

It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine.
It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the support. But watch that page!
Peace be with you. Semper Fidelis! --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for Conservative, as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages.
But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments (Fallacy of invincible ignorance and Confirmation bias) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a specious proof that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the straw man distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine really is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a cover up of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his straw man fallacy arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant garbage spam".

My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! .

I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith Santa Fe.
The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.
Pax vobiscum. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart

Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

What if I.S. can just post on my user mail page once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!

Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

For those who defend the sola scriptura position, Romans 13:1-2 and Matthew 16:17-19 with 1 Timothy 3:15 should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind who the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, God is not the author of confusion. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did specify a reason REPEATEDLY. it was to get rid of debates on the talk pages. Shobson20 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

This is extraordinary specious reasoning; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the Magisterium, which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
No context? The Bible speaks for itself sola scriptura. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? And you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive adversarial response. Then you locked it. Context. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The strength of your argument should be able to stand without all the excess spam. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. The Bible is not spam. It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who cannot lie. In the Bible. "All of his promises are faithful and true." We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Romans 6:14 - ye are not under the law, but under grace.

So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

Conservative—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure this edit by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the Catechism, I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the Catechism as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the Catechism says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article Intercession for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of intercession with mediation stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says both the Holy Spirit and Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, besides and in addition to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "only one mediator" meaning "only one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit cannot make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive eisegetical reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

ARTICLE One Mediator Between God and Men TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE: Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.

This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, without spamming, in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:

1 Timothy 2:5 - there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

CCC 1456 - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest" [my bolden and emphasis added].:^[1]

And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. Antinomianism utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance. That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article Individualism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Who is the rock the church is built on? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. By grace are ye saved, through faith; not of works: if by works, grace is not grace; ye are not under law, but under grace. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Obey your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Render unto Caesar is essentially what those verses mean. He bares not the sword in vain, i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget My kingdom is not of this world. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (they neither marry nor are given in marriage); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to render the word of God to no effect. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Titus 3:1 and 3:9-11--Dataclarifier (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Deceptive sophistry, putting words into someone's mouth by a strategy of misrepresentation. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a higher authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ye are not under law but under grace. God is not the author of confusion. Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon is not Christ. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Let me pause momentarily for a comment on render unto Caesar; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, Whose image and inscription is this?. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). TThey are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.^[2] Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the aeonos the end of the Eon of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the aeonos the end of the Eon of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

It's the Word of God. The Catechism cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
Your position is the fallacy of assertion against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent confirmation bias in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a falsehood. It's an example of the Fallacy of invincible ignorance and Willful ignorance which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely (fallacy of assertion) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. God is not the author of confusion. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Refs

Template design

Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)