The Catholic Church is the only true Church

I thank my dear opponent for his response. However, I feel it to be quite inadequate and I will now show why. Sacred Scripture “The New Testament canon was basically in place even before the turn of the 1st century[1]” This claim has me baffled. The claim itself is quite implausible*, but also his source is curious. The text refers to B.B. Warfield’s (a Reformed professor of theology) claim about the canon being in place before the turn of the 1st century. However, the text blatantly says: “Warfield's position certainly simplifies the canon question by making the New Testament a closed book by the end of the first century, but it fails to do justice to the historical facts. We must pay attention to the diversity of opinions that came to expression in the early church” So unless I am somehow missing something, it would seem that my opponent’s source not only does not support his claim, it actually opposes it. “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]” That is not quite true. Several councils approved the “Apocrypha” as Scripture, including Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), which were influenced heavily by St. Augustine. These councils are accepted among Protestants who, however arbitrarily, deny the inspiration of the “Apocrypha”. “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included the Apocrypha because they considered it scripture, or simply because they considered them important historical documents” Well, unless my opponent can argue for the last part, then it seems more arbitrary to assume that they would include non-Scripture in a translation of Scripture. I would not add the writings of Plato to my Bible even if he is one the greatest philosophers in history. “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.” It does not contradict the Catholic position. “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.” Is that not an example of circular reasoning? The Canon is true if it does not contradict the Canon. It still took around 350 years for the Church to establish the Canon. If that was the only criteria, then how could it take almost 4 centuries for the early Christians to settle the Canon? Apocrypha quotes-and-problems-a-plenty My opponent’s argument presupposes his individual authority to determine the meaning of Scripture. This is a topic, which I contested in the very beginning of the debate. Until my opponent establishes this principle, then this argument is just pointless. When he offers a problem based his understanding of a verse, then I can offer the Catholic position and we can go on like this ad nauseum if private judgment is all that matters. On top of that, if we follow my opponent’s demand of me to account for every perceived problem/contradiction in the “Apocrypha”, then I challenge my opponent to follow this train of thought to its consequence and refute every proposed contradiction of Scripture proposed by the Sceptic’s Annotated Bible. Either he must do so or he must concede that we cannot have a debate, if I have to deal with particulars all the time. Remember what I said in my opening statement: “Now I will not quote-spam as that would just make it impossible for my opponent to argue his case” I hope my opponent will extend that courtesy to me as well. Argue against my first principles and my general principles. Papal infallibility “The 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” Again, that presupposes the very thing we are contesting in this debate: the individual’s authority on interpretation. My opponent has yet to refute my understanding of “Peter the Rock” as well. Deuteronomy That line of interpretation could easily exclude any book written after Deuteronomy. I hope my opponent is not suggesting that. The Eucharist All right, we are once again that the source and summit of De Fide. “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.” May I refer my opponent to John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” Jesus is the Word of God and it is by Him we live. However, these arguments are still pointless until my opponent establishes his authority to interpret Scripture. “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?” He said to believe in Jesus Christ. That is to trust or have faith in Jesus. That would include accepting what Jesus taught and I still maintain that Jesus quite clearly taught the doctrine of the Real Presence. Conclusion My opponent has more or less just begged the question in favor of private judgment, which is a doctrine I started the debate by contesting. He does not respond to several of my criticisms of his arguments, so I will presume he has conceded them. He seems to have conceded my starting argument of “The Church Fathers were Catholic” as he has only argued against the Eucharist on the presumption of private judgment. *As you saw in my opening statement, I made a well-documented assertion, that the Canon was disputed until a series of councils and final papal ratification settled it around the turn of the 4th century.