The Catholic Church is the only true Church

Now I will begin my first refutation. Sacred Scripture is Catholic “I do not question that the current canon of the Holy Bible was indeed decided by the early Catholic church. I will however argue, that the Catholic church has gone further and further away from what it was supposed to be. An example would be the Apocrypha…” That seems like a contradiction to me. In one instant, my opponent affirms the authority of the Church to determine the canon of Scripture, and then he goes on to affirm that the same Church was mistaken in determining the Apocrypha to be canonical. “…most Jewish rabbis at the time denounced it as counterfeit. It is not quoted once by Jesus, or any of the apostles…” Would that be the same Jewish rabbis, who denounced Jesus of Christ as a blasphemer worthy of crucifixion? It would be quite problematic for a Christian to consider them authoritative. The Rabbis’ reasoning was also shown to be mistaken as they rejected the books, because there was no Hebrew version of the texts. This has been falsified as several of the books have been found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls among others [1]. My opponent is right in saying the Gospels do not quote the Apocrypha. They do however, quote the Septuagint, which includes these books as authoritative [2]. Sirach 12:4-7 As many supposed contradictions of Scripture, this one fares not well. The passage has traditionally been understood as to mean, “That we must not partake in the crimes of others. We may also make presents to the virtuous, and pass over people of a different character, particularly when they would abuse our gifts. The honest poor must be preserved” [3]. It is quite sound advice. Would my opponent give his alms to a drug addict instead of a non-addict? The drug addict certainly requires our love, but it would not be love to sponsor him financially. Papal infallibility I am afraid that my opponent’s argument is a mere strawman. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope speaks infallibly at all times and neither does it teach that the Pope cannot sin (impeccability vs. infallibility). The Pope only teaches infallibly under very specific circumstances and this has only been utilized very few times [4]. As for Galatians 2:11-14, the passage does not contradict papal authority. Several saints have rebuked Popes and still recognized his supreme authority [5]. St. Paul fraternally corrected St. Peter on the latter’s behaviour, not teaching. There is no contradiction present. The Eucharist Yes, the Catholic Church does interpret the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John quite literally and the 63rd verse does not contradict it for two reasons. Firstly, when spirit and flesh are contrasted in the New Testament, it is always inthe sense of sinful human nature (“flesh”) contrasted with humanity enriched by God's grace (“spirit”)[6]. Jesus is simply teaching that you need the Grace of God in order to receive His Word. Secondly, several disciples abandoned Jesus over this teaching, since they thought it to be absurd [7]. Why would Jesus allow them to leave if they had simply misunderstood a metaphor? When Nicodemus misunderstands the term “born again” as if he literally has to be born again of his mother, there Jesus corrects his literal understanding of a metaphor. That was for an honestly seeking man, how about several disciples? Jesus did not leave misunderstanding people to their fate, but he did leave people who understood, but did not believe, to their fate [8]. As for the heretics burned at the stake, that is and was not a Christian thing to do. However, it seemed perfectly rational within the medieval psychology of heresy and the medieval social structure. The medieval understating was that of the heretic being inherently of evil will rather than honestly mistaken. For a heretic not to recant after being denounced by the Church was viewed as crime in a religious and secular sense. Several heresies did in fact threaten civil order such as the Albigensians, who taught suicide, fornication and called marriage sinful [9]. The Catholic theologian Karl Adam notes: It is true that heretics were tried and burnt in the Middle Ages . . . The origin of such persecutions is to be sought rather in the Byzantine and medieval conception of the state, whereby every attack on the unity of the faith was regarded as an open crime against the unity and stability of the state, and one which had to be punished according to the primitive methods of the time… [10] The Catholic Church does not view the killing of heretics as a good thing, but neither does the killing of heretics disprove of the Catholic Church’s claims about itself. It is no secret that the Church will contain sinners and saints. “These are just a few of many” My opponent’s source includes all sorts of heretics, not just doubters of the Eucharist. It even includes St. Jeanne d’Arc and several of the “heretics” were killed by angry mobs rather than by an ecclesiastical court. Conclusion My opponent’s arguments have been dismantled and several shown to be based on misunderstandings of basic Catholic theology. Sources [1] Abegg, Jr. , Martin, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, [2] G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Protestant) [3]. http://www.veritasbible.com... [4] . http://www.newadvent.org... [5] Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, 1929. [6] Several passages noted: Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6,25, Romans 8:1-14, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Galatians 3:3, Galatians 4:29, Galatians 5:13-26, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 4:6, [7] John 6:61, John 6:67. [8] Matthew 15:10-20, Matthew 16:5-12, Matthew 19:24-26 [9] Will Durant, The Age of Faith, 1950. [10] The Spirit of Catholicism, 1929