Roman Catholicism is true Christianity

I will take the opportunity now to remind my opponent, as well as the voters, that the overall point of contention is not whether the Catholics or the Protestants are more correct - see the rules of the debate in round 1. That conflict hasn't been definitively resolved for the past 500 years, and this debate has become, to a certain extent, a recitation of traditional Catholic vs Protestant arguments. The point of contention is whether Catholicism fits the criteria of a true Christian denomination. These criteria are outlined in the second round with definitions from both myself and my opponent. I am going to respond to his rebuttals for the purpose of proving that Catholicism fits those criteria.Counter-rebuttalsThe definition of the "Church" given by my opponent is correct; I recognize that. Throughout my arguments, I referred to the Catholic Magisterium by calling it the Church because to many non-Christians, "Catholic Church" more refers to the authoritative body instead of the communion of believers. "... when, in reality, the books of the New Testament were compiled by Athanasius."Athanasius was a bishop and thus part of the Church, especially under the aforementioned definition of Church. Also, the Church leaders at Carthage did approve and officially canonize his list of books, with some exclusions, thus making my statement correct. They combined them with the Old Testament canon, including the Apocrypha, so it is correct to say that they compiled the canon."The Catholic Church used the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, but they added the Apocrypha, which was not in the original canon made by the Jews because the Apocrypha was a fictitious writing, not the inspired word of God like the rest of the Bible.""The reason Protestant Bibles exclude the Apocrypha is not strictly because Martin Luther excluded it, but because the Jewish people excluded it from their canon because they were either fictitious writings or reinterpretations of historical writings."The reason that the Apocrypha was excluded by the Jews was because they could find no Hebrew manuscripts and so believed that they were fictitious. The Dead Sea Scrolls found in the past century included Hebrew manuscripts for several of these books, which renders such reasoning invalid (1). The Council of Carthage included them because they believed them to be divinely inspired. Why should the Jewish leaders who rejected the very Incarnation of Christ be considered a higher authority on this than Christians? Martin Luther simply used their canon as justification to exclude books that contradicted his teachings. "...we clearly see that Paul is telling the Thessalonians to stand firm in what they had been taught about the second coming of Christ, since that is the context."The rebuttal to 2 Thess. 2:15 fails to recognize that by Paul telling them to rely on oral and written traditions validates both as a reputable source. Just because Paul was talking about the return of Christ doesn't change the implication that they are both reliable and so are valid elsewhere."... as I have previously proven, there is no "Sacred Tradition" that Scripture tells of." My opponent has not, as he claims, proven that there is no Sacred Tradition. While the bible does not specifically include the two words, it is invalid to say that this disproves it. It does, however, suggest it, and can be interpreted either way. I will remind everyone that such is the case with the Trinity; the word is not found in the bible (http://goo.gl...), yet it is suggested and believed. "Human traditions and "Sacred Traditions," created by the Roman Catholic Church, are both the same..."This is false. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between human and sacred traditions; this is explained in one of the original sources I used:Human traditions are "transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching." (2) "...the Catholic Ten Commandments are not the Ten Commandments found in the Bible! The second commandment (stating that you shall have no other gods before the one true God) is completely omitted, and the tenth commandment is just broken into two commandments. This is, honestly, because in Roman Catholicism the Virgin Mary... is placed higher than Jesus..."This entire quotation is a set of erroneous statements made by someone who clearly displays a limited knowledge of Catholic teaching. First, the commandments taught by the Catholic Church are the same ones as Protestants, just grouped differently. The bible does not break them up into a list of ten, so the lines are drawn as interpreters see fit. The second Protestant commandment is grouped with the first, not omitted. This is similar to how Protestants group the final two into one. Finally, the Catholic Church does not hold the Virgin Mary to be higher than Christ. She was made pure by God to be the mother of Christ, and so she is honored, not worshiped. Her continued virginity is interpretable and is not explicitly confirmed or refuted by Scripture"There is no reference in Scripture that supports the claim that after death there is any second chance, purification, or anything else of the sort." Hebrews 9:27 does not, as stated, contradict the idea of purgatory. Simply saying that there is judgment after death does not exclude the possibility of final purification through fire for the righteous, who are imperfect. As I have stated, 1 Cor 3:15 does strongly suggest this, so it can be interpreted as such. "On James 2:14-26, the author is not saying that you are saved by good works. Rather, good works are an illustration of a person's salvation." This is in direct contradiction with the text, which explicitly states: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." In addition to this, the passage restates this idea numerous times in different ways to the point of redundancy. Now, whether Protestants choose to accept this or not, it is is further erroneous to ignore the point that good works are necessary, whether they are a result of salvation or the cause of it. The second passage I quoted was the parable of the goats and the sheep. Jesus announces the salvation of those on his right, saying "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; [etc.]." He then announces the damnation of those on the left, saying "...for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; [etc.]." This clearly shows that Jesus considered good works to be necessary for salvation. Conclusion Based on the Encyclopedia Britannica definition, Christian teaching stems from the life of Christ. Under the Merriam-Webster definition, the teachings must be based on and derived from the teachings of Christ. These two are in agreement. Furthermore, there must be belief in the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and the bible. None of the definitions require absolute conformity or limiting to what is in Scripture. Different interpretations of the bible can be made, but Roman Catholicism cannot be excluded under any of the three definitions. I have shown through my arguments that Catholicism does not contradict scripture in any of the ways presented by my opponent by thoroughly refuting each and every one of his arguments. I will remind all that any further arguments my opponent might give in this round are invalid as I will not have the opportunity to refute them. He may only give counter rebuttals and a conclusion.My thanks go to my opponent for a solid debate; this is the best I've participated in so far. Sources1. http://goo.gl...2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...