Roman Catholicism is true Christianity

"The Bible is not the single, original authority on Christianity. To assume this neglects the fact that the books of the Bible were compiled and canonized by the Church itself, which received its authority from Jesus himself." Before I refute your argument, let's make sure we have an understanding of what "the Church" is. It's not a church, in the sense that it's a building. The Church is the body of Christ, and, therefore, consists of all true believers, not only people who belong to a certain denomination. "For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free and have all been made to drink into one Spirit"(1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Now, you said "the books of the Bible were compiled and canonized by the Church itself," when, in reality, the books of the New Testament were compiled by Athanasius, whose list of the 27 books were confirmed by the Council of Carthage in 397 based on two criteria: "apostolic origin and the use of the writing in the churches"(1). The first criteria, obviously, meant that whoever wrote the book had to have been an apostle of Christ. "Although Paul had not walked with Christ, he had met Him on the road to Damascus, and his widely spread missionary activity -- testified by the Book of Acts -- made him the very model of an apostle"(Ibid.). The second criteria meant that whatever churches used the book would, if it were the inspired word of God, experience spiritual edification from using it. Now, because in your statement you said "the books of the Bible were compiled and canonized by the Church," you are referring to the entire Bible, including the Old Testament. 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. "My opponent seems to imply that Sacred Tradition in general is invalid based on the supposed omission of its mention in Scripture. However, there are in fact numerous places that Sacred Tradition is supported by the Bible, most notably by Paul. He explicitly affirms the authority of Sacred Tradition taught by the Church: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to thetraditionswhich you were taught, whether bywordof mouthor byletterfrom us" (2 Thess. 2:15). This passage dually supports the credibility of both apostolic tradition and scripture." The so-called "Sacred Tradition" is not invalid because of its failure to mention Scripture, but because of its incompatibility with Scripture. The verse you used (2 Thess. 2:15) is explained by this article: "In the New American Bible and the KJV the verse begins with 'therefore.' In the NASB it says 'so then.' This means that we must look at the preceding context to see what Paul was talking about. If we do this, 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. It is not about Sacred Tradition. Let's take a look. "In 2 Thess. 2:1-3 Paul says, 'Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.' Obviously, Paul is speaking about the return of Christ. He continues and warns the Thessalonians not to be deceived because the return of Christ won't hapen until after the apostacy (v. 3). Paul had already instructed them about this in v. 5. He then speaks of the Man of Lawlessness in vv 6-10 and the coming delusion (vv. 11-12). Then Paul says that God has chosen them for salvation (v. 13) and called them through the gospel (v. 14). It is after this that Paul then tells the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught. He is telling the Thessalonians to stand firm in the teaching of the return of Christ"(2). "Human tradition includes customs and rituals which may change with the passage of time. Christ condemns human traditions that contradict the teachings of Christ here: 'And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?' (Matt. 15:3). This statement does not refer to the truth contained in Sacred Tradition, which does not erroneously contradict the commandment of God." First of all, as I have previously proven, there is no "Sacred Tradition" that Scripture tells of. Human traditions and "Sacred Traditions," created by the Roman Catholic Church, are both the same, as there is no mention of any "Sacred Traditions" in Scripture. Second, the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church do, in fact, contradict Scripture. For example, 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(1). This is, honestly, because in Roman Catholicism the Virgin Mary (who did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ) is placed higher than Jesus, who is God. That is in complete contradiction with Scripture. "It is open to interpretation, but by no means do the Catholic teachings of purgatory exist independently of scripture, and they certainly do not contradict it." It certainly does contradict it. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Hebrews 9:27). 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. "Protestant bibles exclude seven Old Testament books because Martin Luther used only the books of the bible for which a Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript could be found." 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. 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. If a person is saved, by the grace of God and not by anything he can do, he will wish to do "good" things in order to illustrate the fact that he has been saved. In Romans 12, Paul commands Christians to act like Christians, writing, "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men"(Romans 12:17). Because Paul is talking to Christians, it's apparent that so-called "good works" are only necessary after a person has been saved, because "good works" cannot save anyone, rather they prove that a person has been saved because he demonstrates his faith with his works. (1) A. Kenneth Curtis, J. Stephen Lang, and Randy Petersen, The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History, p. 37. (2) http://carm.org... (3)http://www.vatican.va...