Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. Pax vobiscum. --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Clarification: The two propositions below were the "loaded premises" to which SHobson referred (in the statement below them) that Dataclarifier tried to set up, to which I referred (in the statement above this one, two weeks ago), as alternative opposite statements using the second largest header font on the debate page, after which he immediately made off to leave.
I don't even remember what the orginal name of the debate page was, which wasn't much better, and I am given to understand was changed at least once. I was referring to these premise names, not to whatever the names were to which they changed several times afterward or the ones they are called now (at the time of my signature):
Yes, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it committed the Great Apostasy, and therefore Jesus obviously either was powerless to keep his promise or he lied.
No, the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it never committed apostasy from the faith, because Jesus remains with the church always to the end of the world, and the Spirit of truth is with the church for ever leading into all the truth as Jesus promised, and Jesus is God Who cannot lie.
VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 04:10, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
There is a mid-ground alternative explanation. The Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the church Jesus established, and Roman Catholic claims to authority and succesorship are bogus and based upon a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. RobSFree Kyle! 10:36, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
In passing let me observe, this kind of reckless verbosity is used to deceive people. RobSFree Kyle! 10:38, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Let your answers be "Yea yea" and "Nay nay"; everything else comes from the devil. They think they shall be heard for their much spamming. RobSFree Kyle! 10:41, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

The title of this debate is unacceptable

Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." Shobson20 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.
My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

This is practically the definition of bad faith

Please end it. --LawfulLibertarian (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. They think by their many words they shall be heard. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)


Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once.
First the creator ot the page did not state it was created in bad faith.
Second (and I hope finally) I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. Nuff said! Oh Yeah! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Just remember, by grace are ye saved, not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
As Solomon said, much study is a weariness of the flesh. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
"By grace are ye saved". Exactly! The Catechism says the same thing!
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: Grace and Justification
You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
No it doesn't. The Catechism says grace is not grace. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
You lie! No such text in the Catechism. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the Catechism.
Oh, the logic is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by confirmation bias can't see it.
Look at John 9:39-41. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. You just won't admit it. That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the Catechism. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at Grace and Justification.
You lie about what the Catechism says. But you keep repeating the same lie. You are spamming Falsehood.
I will waste no more time with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
If grace is merited, grace is not grace. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....… RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues

RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

This page has turned into an incoherent mess

Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war here marked in red is making the page incomprehensible. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Mistaken reversion

My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:
  • Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.
  • [...]
  • [...]
  • [...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. 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.
In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:
  • Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting.
    —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.
    —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.
In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows.
(This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.)
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "not muzzle the ox".

RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "Torn away". It says
Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.
—RSVCE ("rend away" KJV)
But RobSmith says "Torn away" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "because his heart was turned from". While there are many different versions of the Bible, none of them says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13.
And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the Twelve Apostles whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles.
1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture taken entirely out of context as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "you shall not muzzle the ox".
In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (presbyteroi/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.
2 Corinthians 11:8-9 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
1 Corinthians 9:6-18 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?
Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.
RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to witness to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "preacher of the gospel" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" RobSFree Kyle! 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? RobSFree Kyle! 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. RobSFree Kyle! 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
  • that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit.

Yes, the fleshly kingdom was torn away from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart turned away from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. RobSFree Kyle! 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.
P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. RobSFree Kyle! 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict) Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter,
Numbers 16:3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?
The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Was Israel under grace or under law" RobSFree Kyle! 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. RobSFree Kyle! 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Proposal: Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel? RobSFree Kyle! 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 has nothing to do with Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
One says teach, one says preach. RobSFree Kyle! 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel? --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. RobSFree Kyle! 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict) Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20.
For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See Loaded question, Misrepresentation, Putting words in someone's mouth, Confirmation bias and Fallacy of invincible ignorance. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
You're full of bull. RobSFree Kyle! 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. RobSFree Kyle! 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
  • Psalm 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. RobSFree Kyle! 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back to the faith of the holy saints and angels. I know. I've heard them.
There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" but not all of the truth revealed by God.
Answer!. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? You say you were raised Catholic. You claim to be catholic (small "c"). Are you a Catholic? Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel? Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no". Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(ec) I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me, were instructed from an early age not to read the bible, not hear instruction from the bible, and were taught that they already had been adopted into God's family and received the Holy Ghost at infant baptism. (What you say about Catholic prison ministries is irrelevant to what we are discussing here). These gangbangers tell me, without solicitation, that they had been lied to by the Roman church and their parents.
  • Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness
This verse is meaningless to someone who is told they have already been adopted into God's family as an infant. RobSFree Kyle! 12:18, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict)
As always, misleading and false. They, like you, were taught from the Bible in their religion classes—unless they refused to listen, even running away to go join a gang. That teaching from the Bible in religion class by the sisters and brothers and priests was and is the pedagogy of the parochial schools since the beginning of the 19th century, so they were taught the Bible as the word of God and the whole faith of the Church as established by God with authority. Private reading leads to private interpretation. That's dangerous. It can lead to destruction and being led into error by lawless men (those who twist the doctrines of the scriptures and lean on their own understanding), and into falling from security in holding to the faith by the knowledge of Jesus Christ, as Peter warned (2 Peter 1:20–2:3; 3:15-18). The devil quotes scripture too. That's why they were told not to read the Bible (for themselves). But anyone who really wants to know the truth will finally find it, just as we did, in the Catholic Church, and find the way of holiness by "partaking of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-11—read it!). And anyone among us who leads a sinner back from the error of his way will save a soul from death. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith: Stop continually provoking more debate on this talk page. This is not the place. You locked the page to prevent more debate, but you perpetuate it here.
You have our answer. That should have been enough!
But you continue to spam more distortions and misrepresentations that beg for correction. You just won't let it lay down and rest. You just have to have the Last word with more unjustified libel and misquoting scripture out of context.
And I quote: "At worst, it
[having the last word] reflects a lack of personal responsibility or bullying, which is a characteristic of wrongdoing or sinfulness."
Enough! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

We add that both Dataclarifier and I independently made inquiries and found that without exception a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in every parochial school, and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism. Problem was, some students didn't care and were not interested, too bored with school to listen. So, they felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness. Not the Church's fault, nor their teachers'. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

What a farce! The 7th & 8th grade classrooms I and my brother attended at St. Thomas Aquinas school did not have any bibles until my father donated two with inscriptions dedicated to my dead mother. They may still be there, and have probably never been opened since the day they were dedicated more than 50 years ago. Neither did the grade 1-6 classrooms me and my 3 older brothers went through have a single bible, and probably still don't. Likewise, the larger bible my father donated to St. Mary's school in Burlington, Wisconsin is probably still the only bible in the entire school, which included a high school. And my mother who taught there knew nothing of the bible outside Catholic doctrine, and certainly never conducted a bible class. I had to learn it after she was dead.
Likewise, in the town I live now, where I am involved with several homeless ministries, Catholic Charities is right across the street from the Baptist Rescue Mission. The Baptists give out bible's of all sizes like candy in Spanish and English, whereas you can't find a bible within the four walls of the Catholic ministry if your life dependent on it. Don't give me this crap that Catholics teach or respect the bible. They don't. They fear the bible, as rightly they should. RobSFree Kyle! 14:01, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Let me guess where you and Dataclarifier, two adult converts, got your information about bibles in Catholic schools - a Catholic website! RobSFree Kyle! 14:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict)
Nope. We got it from former Catholics in our own city who'd always lived there. When we discovered they had once been Catholic we asked pointed questions about it, and they admitted they'd had Bibles in their parochial schools. But they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring. So, we got first hand info from people who'd actually been there. Not from online Catholic websites! Others who'd gotten away from the Church and become Protestants and then returned because they read the Bible more carefully, also said they weren't interested in the Bible in school, but came back when they felt they should read it. They said it was the Holy Spirit. So were some of the former inmates of prisons of Anamosa and San Quentin. When they read the Bible they were converted from their evil past, really repented, and became Catholic, they said because of the Bible. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Having been born, raised, and baptized Catholic, and around them my entire life, I can say, you were lied to. But that's okay, they can confess, "I lied X number of times" without enumerating or going into specifics about what they lied about and to who. RobSFree Kyle! 14:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
And this raises a good point: the penitent sinner can go to confession to cleanse their own soul, but no consideration is given to the party done an injury. That's a little self-serving, don't you think, what Catholic doctrine teaches? RobSFree Kyle! 14:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
For example, a liar gets off with three Hail Marys, but you go around looking like a fool for life having believed him. RobSFree Kyle! 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

a bible in Catholic schools

These statements,

...without exception a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in every parochial school, and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism.....they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring...."

are certainly very interesting and revealing. "required teaching resource at every desk....teachers and students together....weren't interested in reading it. It was boring."

The Bible was boring. Hmmm, what possibly could be of more interest? sin? pride? The teachers evidently were pretty incompetent in that they didn't make students read a "required teaching resource".

  • Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness,

but the Roman Catholic teachers couldn't even secure this blessing for these baptized children, cause "it was boring". Evidently the blessings of God were boring for the teachers, as well. Who needed any more blessings from God? They were already baptized. RobSFree Kyle! 15:29, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You never mentioned the numbers of criminals and gangbangers with Protestant Bible-believing backgrounds in prison who relied on being saved by faith alone, who were told that there is therefore now no condemnation for all eternity for any sin they might commit, past, present, and future, "because they were in Christ and freed from the law of sin and death", and gave testimony and were baptized, and later rebelled against their parents, the Bible, and forgot what they had been taught by their pastors in their churches, and now in prison have come back to the Bible. "But they were saved!" (Once). And they're from all races, Hispanic, White, Black, Brown, Red. Protestants! Fundamentalists! (Once upon a time). I know about all this, because I was Disciples of Christ, and Dataclarifier was a fundamental Baptist. And we both "got away with sin" for too long, until we read more of the Bible and saw that we couldn't rely for our eternal salvation on the fact once and for all that we had professed Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. Both of us have committed jailable offenses worthy of long terms in prison that no one else knows about. (Difference is, we got away with it, but no more.) That's no different than what you said about those Hispanic Roman Catholics baptized as babies. Other prisoners guilty of horrible acts have been once saved, and did what they did anyway! Look at the news about so many privileged white kids growing up in Bible-believing homes and churches in their youth who threw it all off to commit in secret monstrous crimes of passion and corruption, but got caught later and brought shame to their families, and grief to the innocents they preyed on, and their families. So much for Eternal security (salvation). Your blaming Catholicism and Infant Baptism for their gang raping activities is a crock.
Oh, if you're wondering: We each did our own independent interviewing of former Catholics by ourselves long before we ever met each other, like about 30-40 years ago. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

There's plenty of them - Protestants. Most who received the word as a child have a conscience and more easily convicted of sin. Roman Catholics, by contrast, have a longer road to travel, first having to unlearn all the garbage they were taught. So it begins with having a pure, genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness, which conflicts with being brainwashed that they don't need it cause they were already baptized as an infant.
So at what point is the righteousness of Christ imputed? RobSFree Kyle! 14:45, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
It also conflicts with being brainwashed by once saved always saved. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
Well that's left to each to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. At least hearers receive the Good News of being freed from the curse of the law. RobSFree Kyle! 16:52, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
"At what point"? I've already told you! By the washing of water with the word. He saved us by the water-washing of regeneration. Baptism saves you now. His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. And also when we're brought back from the error of our way. When we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us. And again, His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Look at all the scripture cited in it. The correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible according to the mind of Christ is explained in it. Repent and come to the truth. --I/S and DC --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
We're done here. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
We've debunked that bullrot a thousand times. You loose Christ when you take a crap after communion. So his righteousness has to be re-imputed again through the wash, rinse repeat cycle of sin, confession, communion. RobSFree Kyle! 15:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(Edit interrupted by Edit conflict) Any further comments and rebuttals by RobSmith is going to be only repetitive spam adding nothing new to the discussion. He is a perfect example of someone who absolutely must have the Last Word. You have been warned. "He'll be Back!" We're done. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
"take a crap" Crude as ever. False. Consistent misrepresentation and ignorance. The presence of Christ passes from the Host into the body and soul of one who has devoutly received Communion the moment the Host dissolves and ceases to be the form of bread. We eat his flesh and drink his blood as he promised in John 6:32-58. We actually "partake of the divine nature" by receiving Christ Himself in Holy Communion (2 Peter 1:3-11). He remains in the body and soul of the communicant who receives Him, unless they deliberately cast Him out by mortal sin "unto death". But they can be restored by sincere repentance, and devout purpose of amendment to not sin again if possible, and confess their sin to one entrusted with the message of reconciliation as the ambassador of Christ who is authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin, as explained more completely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church citing abundant passages of scripture about the biblical doctrines of Sacramental Eucharist and Sacramental Penance and Reconciliation.
A fundamental principle of evaluating and discerning any such interpretation of Catholic doctrine and dogma, like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by libel or scandal and falsehood, is not Catholic doctrine but error based on falsehoods unworthy of belief. Do not rely on enemies of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a lie. He is not telling you the truth. We know this. Because we know both the Bible and the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism actually teaches, not what people say is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, is to sin against God. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
"authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin" - we've debunked the mediator other than Christ B.S. several times. When will you admit either you, God, or the Roman church is a liar with this claim? Repent! RobSFree Kyle! 16:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
"take a crap", hey sorry. I am all things to all people, that by all means I might save some while carrying out the commandment of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to preach to those in prison. But I suspect you find those parts of the bible "boring", too. RobSFree Kyle! 16:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
(ec) Hey, I asked a simple question. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed during the Eucharist?
This stuff gets pretty confusing pretty quickly. Catholic doctrine says the Holy Spirit is given to infants at baptism -before the righteousness of Christ is imputed?
C'mon, give it your best shot. None of this junk passes the smell test of scripture. RobSFree Kyle! 15:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I/S says, "We checked for ourselves what Catholicism actually teaches, not what people say is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God."
Then answer two simple questions:
  1. Was Paul in rebellion against God since he withstood Peter to his face?
  2. When do you receive Christ? Before or after you receive the Holy Spirit?
RobSFree Kyle! 16:09, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

(ec) I was not taught the Bible in 8 years of religion classes - I was taught catechism. And so were they in jail. As young people, me and the prisoners in the ministry felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness, since catechism taught us we were already adopted into God's family, and only had to follow church law to maintain it. None of this is biblical.
Ye are of your father the devil. Repent.
Above, once again, you practice pride and idolatry:
I/S: "sin against the preaching of the Church".
The Church is not God.
The correct understanding would be, "the preaching of God", "the preaching of Christ", "the preaching of the Gospel". But you glory in men (the church), not God. You and DC have made that abundantly clear over months. It is the sin of idolatry and a manifestation of pride. A rejection of God, a lack of faith, and disobedience. RobSFree Kyle! 13:08, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was a scandal to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change. He had faith in Jesus Christ, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage had a strangle hold on the priest.
The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the priest’s hands and kissed them...“Sinner or no.” Francis said, “I kiss the hands of this man whom God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.” The wayward priest fell to his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. The scandalous priest there, kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ.
The priest who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner.

Borrowed from another source.

There are weeds among the wheat today and now, as even way back then, and will be in the future. Let both grow together until the harvest. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish. All are called to repentance and and to living a holy life in purity and good deeds of charity and mercy in the very image of God who is love. 2 Peter 3:8-18 and James 5:19-20; Acts 17:30-31. --Dataclarifier (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

So he used the woman and tossed her on the ash heap? Is that church teaching? What does God say about that? RobSFree Kyle! 14:51, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
And then a lynch mob was gonna beat the devil out of him to enforce God's law. Sheeesh. RobSFree Kyle! 14:53, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
  • Romans 2:23-25 - You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.
No wonder we have a feminist movement today that blames Christianity and the patriarchy for oppression. RobSFree Kyle! 14:57, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
So what about the woman? What happened to the woman? RobSFree Kyle! 14:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
Yes, Francis here is an example of God's grace. But church law is still a curse, per God. RobSFree Kyle! 15:03, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
Who provided love, care, and sustenance to the woman after church law was enforced? Did she end up working as a hooker after the church required she to be tossed out? RobSFree Kyle! 15:01, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
  • 2 Samuel 3:16 - But she said to him, “No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.” But he would not listen to her.
While Francis exhibits the grace and forgiveness of God, your "saintly" story is sorely unimpressive telling us only half. And the point of this half-story is sorely mistaken, grievous, and wrong. You're preaching church law again. RobSFree Kyle! 15:11, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
When the woman herself saw that "the parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner", her heart too was stricken and melted along with the parishioners, and she fell down and repented, and confessed that she had seduced the priest, and she received absolution, and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins. The Poor Clares ministered to her needs along with some of the parishioners of the town. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
(1) Huh? "in reparation to Christ for her sins". Seriously, you haven't a clue what the gospel is. Unless I wash you, you aren't clean {John 13:8) You're preaching pride again, as if your reparations make you acceptable to God, as if Christ died for nothing.
(2) This parish sounds more like a village in the Islamic State. But it makes no difference. All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. It makes no difference to God if that law is the Pentateuch, the Koran, or Catechism. RobSFree Kyle! 20:27, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
"reparation to Christ" - you have the gospel of grace exactly backwards. RobSFree Kyle! 21:28, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
Now in the Original sin article DC writes:
  • "as representative head of the whole body of humanity chose to suffer the penalty for all human sin as an atonement (full reparation) for its offense, in him all of mankind making atonement";
Okay, that's good. Nothing wrong with that. A bit wordy, but nothing wrong with it. Now where, pray tell, in the scripture does it say we have to repay Christ? Nowhere. You got that B.S. from catechism. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins PERIOD No reparation PERIOD No 3rd party mediator PERIOD RobSFree Kyle! 01:20, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
See Debate: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins? --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
Not much of a debate. Nobody seems to wanna take on a loaded question. Repeating the same garbage with 5,000 bytes or 50,000 bytes over and over again that can be said in 20 or 30 bytes is not helpful for any understanding. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. This pretense to knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and scholarship really gets tiresome. It makes about as much sense as gender studies, really. RobSFree Kyle! 02:35, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
And I got news for you, God meant for men and women to be together. "dedicating herself to a life of poverty". Yah right. Why do women sell themselves on the street? RobSFree Kyle! 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

The forgotten point of this discussion

And neither "Saint" Francis nor the sinful priest did their primary job as pastors of the flock - teaching the people the gospel. The whole parish thought beating a sinner with clubs was doing God's work. Here we are centuries later, and the Roman church still holds up this failure of God's alleged servants as holy and righteous. The Roman church as a whole, then or now, has learned nothing from this experience. RobSFree Kyle! 21:25, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

Two tier justice system

But the real point of DC's story is that a priest living in mortal or venereal sin doesn't loose his magic abracadabra powers and the Holy Spirit, unlike mere laymen. God is kinda like the Mueller team or the Obama DOJ; McCabe, Strzok, Comey et al can lie their butts off but scum like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn bare the brunt of God's wrath. RobSFree Kyle! 15:21, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

This whole thing is screwed up, start to finish. First, the whole parish never heard of the mercy and grace of God, and think beating a fornicator with a club is doing God's business. Sounds like Islam. Killing an infidel non-believer, an enemy of God and the people of God, is doing God a favor.

Secondly, let's imagine a priest commits a mortal sin, a sin unto death, like murder. (A) Does he still have the power of transubstantiation? (B) Does he still have the Holy Spirit? (C) Would you wanna receive confession or communion from him? (D) Even if he refused to repent, do you think God still hears his 3rd party mediation for your sins?

Let's carry it a step farther; (E) Let's imagine a pope blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Does he still have infallibility? Can he still turn bread and wine in to the body and blood of Christ? RobSFree Kyle! 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

See Donatism, by Matt Slick - CARM Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ( and Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Well that certainly answers the question. I'll spell out the answer in plain simple English so the folks viewing at home can understand what Roman Catholic doctrine is, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or exaggerating.
Under Roman Catholic doctrine, an admitted, confessed, servant of Satan who is irreparably beyond salvation and destined for hell can serve as Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and re-write catechism and scripture through Papal Encyclicals, which become, under Catholic law, the infallible Word of God and binding on Roman Catholics for all future generations.
Did you get that? One of Satan's minions can dictate God's word, per Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis, for all you dummies out there. RobSFree Kyle! 02:26, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
And get this, while Catholic doctrine rejects once saved, always saved and mocks it, once the magic powers of ordination are passed from man to man, God himself can't revoke it. Satan could have been in control of the papacy for hundreds , if not thousands of years, and passed along those magic powers to other avowed Satanists, and neither God nor man can do anything about it, because Jesus gave authority to Peter. That, in a nutshell, is Dataclarifier's teaching. RobSFree Kyle! 02:49, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I can't believe that. Sure a Pope may change a canon law or two, but Scripture? Can he even convene a council to offer a single new article of faith? At the first council of Ephesus it was decreed:
It was unlawful to utter, write or draw up any other creed, than that which was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicaea together with the Holy Ghost.
—under pain of anathema. This was repeated in the acts of the council of Chalcedon. This was Medieval teaching as well, was it not? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 05:54, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
That's right! Not only that. Not one pope has been "an admitted, confessed, servant of Satan" passing the powers of the papacy "to other avowed Satanists". Those statements are lies. Satan is a liar. All of RobSmith's statements and insinuations about Catholic doctrine are satanic lies. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
And like Satan in Luke 4:3-12 and Matthew 4:3-10 RobSmith uses Half truths and Loaded questions and Misrepresentations, and quotes scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church out of context, using scripture against scripture and the Catechism against the Catechism. Any Catholic who is "an admitted, confessed, servant of Satan" is excommunicated!. The fact that RobSmith posts citations and quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church against the Bible proves he is lying. It's not a case of ignorant falsehood. He knows better, and he does it anyway. Don't believe anything RobSmith says about the Catholic Church. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
As of this hour, RobS hasn't said a pope has yet. But he did say a pope can. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:23, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I have to admit, the wave after wave of powerful emotions you have churned up make them seem almost impossible to quell. But they have leapt up into your thinking as well and have carried you away far beyond the bounds of reason. If you expect to carry on the conversation, please scale down the reach of your conclusions to more reasonable levels before proceeding. I think RobS will agree that if you do with sincerity, he will excuse in the same measure this histrionic outburst. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:07, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith's saying "a pope can" is also a lie. No pope would get away with doing what RobSmith says he could do. He would be excommunicated and any false doctrine would be condemned. Not only that, but not one of the notorious "bad popes" ever changed Catholic doctrine. Which is a miracle in itself. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Look at this article . --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
RobS is speaking about conclusions he sees to be drawn from the nature of the limits (or lack) of the office of the pope's power itself. Even long experience may not entirely refute his position. If the pope's task is to be of a limited nature, shouldn't there be limits on the nature of the office's power? Maybe RobS has an opinion about that too, so please don't sweep him away before he has a chance to answer. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:07, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I was speaking hypothetically - but that's one of those 50 cent words. Perhaps Dataclarifier, who's an expert on Latin, can explain what it means to IndependentSkeptic. RobSFree Kyle! 09:20, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I/S: " No pope would get away with doing what RobSmith says he could do. He would be excommunicated and any false doctrine would be condemned."
Since the Vicar of Christ determines what doctrine is, and his infallible powers cannot be revoked (unlike eternal life which is not eternal) who's going to sit in judgement of him? RobSFree Kyle! 10:52, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Again, a RobSmith lying distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine by insinuation, using half truths.
A fundamental principle of evaluating and discerning any such false interpretation of Catholic doctrine and dogma, like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by libel or scandal and falsehood, is not Catholic doctrine but error based on ignorant falsehoods and deliberate lies unworthy of belief. Do not rely on enemies of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a lie. He is not telling you the truth. We know this. Because we know both the Bible and the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism actually teaches, not what people say is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, and therefore to speak that way is to sin against God.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Look at the article Ex cathedra. You'll see what I mean. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
The Pope, as the successor of Peter and Jesus, has the authority of God. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Dataclarifier, not me.
If the Pope were to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and commit a sin unto death, he'd still be Pope with the authority of God. If you have a problem with that, take that up with Dataclarifier, the Pope, and the doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, not me. RobSFree Kyle! 12:28, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Again, another RobSmith lying distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine by insinuation and innuendo, using half truths. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Ah! See Fraud. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
If what RobS just said is such a good example of those things, can you refute it using propositional speech? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 15:01, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
And RobS, why wouldn't that pope be excommunicated for his unbelief? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 15:33, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Cause there's nobody above the Pope. He doesn't even have a board of directors to answer to. God would have to take him out with a lightning bolt to get rid of him. RobSFree Kyle! 15:56, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
  • Acts 12:22-23 - And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
Yep. No scripture describes better what happens when I discuss Roman Catholic doctrine with Roman Catholic true believers. Herod, who was in the line of David, kinda imagined himself a Christ-like messianic figure. And Herod was a party animal, always surrounded by an entourage he assumed loved him and worshipped him. One day in the midst of a party, Herod had a paralytic stroke and was still conscious. But his party friends stood over him, drinks in hand, saying things like, "Physician, heal thyself!" and just kept on partying, Herod had to endure this humiliating treatment, true sentiment, and mockery from his followers while still semi-conscious, unable to respond. And then he died. RobSFree Kyle! 16:33, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
The Holy See is not the Chair of Peter, it is the Chair of Herod. And like Herod, puffed up in its Pride#Christianity, it ends up on the floor, eaten of worms when its own words are read back to it. RobSFree Kyle! 16:42, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I don't remember that story from Ecclesiastical History. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 16:59, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
The people regarded Herod as the voice of a god and not of a man, like the Vicar of Christ. How many times have DC & I/S demanded obedience to the church, and not God? RobSFree Kyle! 17:05, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Now some people will say "eaten of worms" means the maggots started feeding on Herod before he died; on a spiritual plane, a pretender to God's throne can be eaten by maggots by simply having to endure their own false teachings thrown back into their face, while being powerless to do anything about it. Either way, the truth of God's word is borne out. RobSFree Kyle! 17:13, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Maybe it's not right for all to be united under the Catholic church. But for the sake of Christian unity, maybe it ought to be. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:28, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
"Right" I mean, not "united". Augustine discussed unity as a powerful force in City of God. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:30, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
The church is for edification, but we're moreless specifically commanded not to preach to the choir. RobSFree Kyle! 17:59, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
The catechism is what you call "a drill". It's no different than Mao's Little Red Book, or the cultural Marxist rot drilled into the present day rioters heads. You start drilling into children's heads when they are 4 years old that a man can become a woman, that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun, or that a communion host is the actual physical body of Jesus drained of blood, and by 17 you have a convert for life. It has nothing to do with God, Christ, or the Christian faith. RobSFree Kyle!
That sounds like an exaggeration, especially since Catholics have tended to be anti-Communist (correct me if I'm wrong). —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 18:13, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
My point is, through the same methodologies and technique - drilling into a kid's head that heteronormative white males are responsible for the world's problems or that priests can grant 3rd party absolution - you arrive at the same result - dedicated footsoldiers who will die to defend the faith. And communists will be quick to remind you that the Roman church was once just as murderous and merciless toward dissenters. RobSFree Kyle! 19:58, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Comparing the Catholic Church to communist regimes still seems far-fetched.
LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Sunday, 20:23, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
Not necessarily; both are systems of law that reject the grace of God. God says to Christian believers, ye are not under law but under grace, and all who rely on law are under a curse. Both the Catholic faith and communist ideology pointedly reject God's grace and choose to be under law and a curse. RobSFree Kyle! 20:58, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

Back to the woman who repented and made reparation for having seduced a priest and lived with him in sin

RobSmith, you said
I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me...
The miracle of a changed life is visible to you. You see it by their new works,
  • in their dramatic reversal from a life of sinning, to a life of goodness dedicated to Christ,
  • in their making genuine reparation to him for having lived a life of violent sin, by their being sorry for their sins, and living a life of goodness instead,
  • in their thanks to God for the gift of salvation they could not earn, and for saving them from hell, and final damnation.
In the same way, in the story about St. Francis, the woman who had seduced the priest, and previously lived with him in sin, in the same way showed the miracle of a changed life, like the story says
and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins.
Your taking issue with the fact that she lived a completely changed life dedicated to Christ alone in reparation to Him, and prayed for the conversion of sinners, is the same as taking issue with "the gangbangers, like me" (your words), who experienced the miracle of changed lives. They repented. They were genuinely sorry. They renounced their past. They made reparation to God by changing their lives. Same thing. No difference.

We are all sinners. Yet Christ can work through us, if we will. The Church is full of sinners. Yet Christ works through the Church. Because the Church is His body.

The Church is God's temple, built of living stones into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit, just like Paul and Peter both said. And it is the household of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth, as Paul says. It's the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as Paul says. And judgment begins with the household of God, as Paul says. And even with that, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, as Jesus says, because the Spirit of truth He sent from the Father is leading the Church into all the truth for ever, as Jesus says. And Jesus Himself is with us and in the Church always, dwelling in the united members of His body, to the end of the world, to the end of time, just as Jesus says. He never guaranteed behavior. He guaranteed doctrine. He remains faithful even if we individually fail and fall into sin and turn away. God cannot lie. It's absolutely true that nothing outside of us can take us out of the Father's hand. But inside of us by ourselves we can separate ourselves from Him by committing mortal sin. Because in Him is no sin. We can always repent and come back and confess our sins and be reconciled. If we come to Him He will not cast us out.

It's Christ Jesus Who works the sacraments through sinners. Even if they're in a state of mortal sin. It's Christ Jesus who preaches the truth through the lips of sinners. It's Christ Jesus Who Mediates through the ministry of the priest. It's Christ Jesus who publishes the Bible and the Catechism. It's Christ Jesus Who exercises the ministry of mercy to the sick and imprisoned. It's Christ Jesus Who sanctifies marriage, keeps spouses faithful to each other, and raises children in the Lord. It's Christ Jesus Who exercises self-control and chastity in single men and women who struggle to keep faith with Him by offering their bodies as living sacrifices to God in moral purity as their reasonable worship. It's Christ Jesus Who gives Himself in lives dedicated solely to God without the entangling distraction of worldly attachments of marriage and property for the sake of healing, helping and saving others. Without Him we can do nothing. He does the works.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boase. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-9
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2020 (EDT)