Catholicism practices Christianity

All right, here we go."he will agree that the Catholic Church does all of the 19 statements I posed"Not at all.3, 13 and 18 are obviously false. Especially 3 and 13 show that my opponents claim of "...I was a Catholic until I was 14 years old, that's why I knew all the doctrines of the Catholic Church..." is extremely questionable. Considering that he is very young and born after Vatican II, there is just no way to have been a Catholic and believe the above.8,15,17,19 are completely misrepresented. My opponent also seems to have completely ignored my opening statement, where I warned him against begging the question about Sola Scriptura and using Shotgun-tactics. Alas, I guess it can not be helped.1. Using statues/idols and graven images during their worship, and kneeling to them when they pray.All right, I guess the debate has to turn to a Bible-interpretation ad nauseam.Regarding Exodus, this is basically a warning against idolatry. However, God himself appears in several "idolatrous" ways, such as a burning bush and a strong wind. He even commissions the fiery serpent. We must distinguish between idolatry and sacramentalism. "If Catholics will say that the idols do miracles and they came from God, they're totally wrong."God can and has used material "dispensers" of grace. Matter can not do this by itself, but only by God.Catholics are anti-idolatry and pro-sacramentalism.2. Claiming Apostle Peter as the first pope."according to the doctrines of the Catholic church, popes are prohibited to marry"False claim. The Catholic Church has made a disciplinary decision to not allow priests to marry. It is not a doctrine and could be changed. 1 Corinthians 3:11Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone. In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses. Protestants are too often steeped in Either/Or-reasoning. Catholics on the other hand say, Yes/And.3. Adding and taking away anything in the Bible, traditions made by men, using the rosary , and claiming that the Bible is not a sufficient proof for doctrine.The Catholic Church has so many traditions (patron feasts, Holy week, using the rosary during prayer, praying for the dead to be saved in purgatory, idol worshiping, and praying to dead saints and to Mary) which are generally made by men, and not according to the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus Christ.Ignoring the blatant misinterpretation of Catholic teaching (trust me, it does test my patience), how many things do you do, which you cannot find in the Bible? Excuse me, but when was the last time Saint Paul had an account on Debate.org? Where were the altar calls of 33 AD? Where was the Bible itself in 33 AD?"But first, here are Bible verses that tell Christians that the Bible is a sufficient proof for doctrine, and all in it should not be added or subtracted."No. None of these verses say anything about the collection of 66 books (Protestant) known as the Bible in common language. My opponent's best shot is 2 Timothy, but that is flawed as well. Read in context: "And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus."The Holy Scriptures mentioned is the Old Testament. When Timothy was an infant, there was no such thing as the New Testament, neither written nor canonized. ConclusionMy opponent has ignored my opening statement for the debate. He is presupposing Sola Scriptura and his own authority to interpret Sacred Scripture dogmatically. He also seems determined to continue his Shotgun-tactics: "(The continuation of this and other things will be on the 3rd round.)"