The Catholic Church is the only true Church

The canon of sacred scriptureI apologize for my poor choice of words. When I said that the Catholic church decided the scriptural canon, I didn't mean to imply that I meant they had the authority to decide which book were, and were not scripture. I simply meant that the Catholic was indeed the first organized church to decide the cannon of the bible. The New Testament canon was basically in place even before the turn of the 1st century[1]The fact that the Apocrypha was included in the Septuagint does not change the fact that it was not considered holy scripture until the Council of Trent in 1543, where the Catholic church officially canonized the Apocryphal books, as a part of the counter-reformation. [2]There is also no proof that the authors of the Septuagint included the Apocrypha because they considered it scripture, or simply because they considered them important historical documents. The esteemed biblical historian Josephus never included any of the Apocryphal books in his list of bible-canon, and the equally esteemed biblical philosopher Philo never quotes, or even mentions any of the books. [3]Canon decides itself, if the books are divinely inspired, quoted by Jesus, or any of his apostles, and doesn't contradict with the canon, they can be considered holy writ. There is however not one of the books in the Apocrypha which claims divine inspiration, and as I said in my last response, they are never quoted by any apostle or prophet. Also, the entire Book of Acts, never accounts for any of the historical events taking place in the Apocrypha, despite important historical events being mentioned throughout the whole book. [4]My opponent’s alternative interpretation of Sirach 12:4-7 seems kind of far fetched for something that's meant to be holy scripture. But I can see how it would make sense to someone who read the verse from a Catholic point of view. This is not however the only troublesome verse in the Apocrypha:Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss. None of these verses sound like anything that should be included in a divinely inspired book. This blame game of which gender is more responsible for the fall of man than the other, has nothing to do with the word of G-d. These verses confirm that none of the Apocryphal books were prophetic:And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)All these verses simply confirm, that at the time of the Apocrypha's writing, there were not faithful prophets in the land. There are also several historical error in the Apocrypha, one of the larger ones being a claim made by the supposed author “Tobit”He claims to have been alive during both the revolt of Jeroboam (931 B. C. ) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B. C. ). That's two events separated by more than 200 years, but Tobit never got any older than 158. [5]Judith also calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians. [6] Even though he was the king of Babylon[7]Papal infallibilityThe very notion that the pope could speak infallibly at any time is still unbiblical. If what he says contradicts scripture, or adds/subtracts anything from it, we should not listen to it. "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. " Deuteronomy 4:2"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. " Deuteronomy 12:32This can not be subjected onto Luther for removing any of the Apocryphal books, since they were not even officially considered holy writ until the year 1543, after he had removed them from the reformed bible. The EucharistI understand my opponent's interpretation of this verse, I however must insist that the interpretation of Jesus' words being taken 100 % literally is not necessarily the correct way of interpreting it. When Jesus said to Satan: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:4)I do believe he was talking about the same thing. We do not live only by food, but also by Jesus, and thereby, also by the word of G-d. What I mean is, it is meant to be understood spiritually, not literally. There are several verses in the bible which states that the Eucharist is meant to be done in remembrance of Christ, and not to achieve salvation[8]If indeed the Eucharist is as important as most Catholics make it out to be, then why is it not mentioned even more in the scriptures? When the jailer asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, what did Paul say? “30 and having brought them forth, said, `Sirs, what must I do -- that I may be saved? ' 31 and they said, `Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved -- thou and thy house;' 32 and they spake to him the word of the Lord, and to all those in his household; 33 and having taken them, in that hour of the night, he did bathe [them] from the blows, and was baptized, himself and all his presently, 34 having brought them also into his house, he set food before [them], and was glad with all the household, he having believed in God. ” -YLT of the bible. He did not say anything, except that he had to believe in Jesus Christ. Would he not have mentioned the Eucharist, had it been that important? .Conclusion I believe I have strengthened my previous arguments, and that I have made clear some misunderstandings from my first argument. I do not think my opponent thoroughly dismantled my previous arguments, since he mostly showed an alternate way to interpret the arguments I had presented. My opponent is still to show sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church should indeed be raised above the several protestant and orthodox denominations, when it comes to the word of G-d. I apologize for the potential abundant amount of grammar errors, It is getting late, and I did my best. I hope my opponent can make out what I was trying to say. Sources[1] . http://www.bible-researcher.com...[2] . http://www.bible-researcher.com...[3] Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, Brill Academic Publishers, 1984[4] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[5] Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11[6] Judith 1:1, 7 [7] 2 Kings 24:1[8] 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28