The Catholic Church is the only true Church

I commend my opponent on his obvious in-depth research on the subject matter.I will proceed to respond to my opponent's claims, and present some evidence for my point of view. I hope 8000 characters will be enough.Sacred Scripture IS, technically, 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, most Jewish rabbis at the time denounced it as counterfeit[1]. It is not quoted once by Jesus, or any of the apostles. It also contradicts scripture several times, and example:Sirach 12:4-7: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him... give unto the good, and help not the sinner.”[2]Luke 6:27,30: "But I say to you who are hearing, Love your enemies, do good to those hating you... And to every one who is asking of thee, be giving; and from him who is taking away thy goods, be not asking again;"This is of course not the only one, there are several, but to save space, i will refer to a source of more contradictions between the apocrypha and scripture. [3]Papal infallibility is dangerous, and not biblical.Now some people might think "But the Catholic church denies Sola Scriptura! It does not necessarily HAVE to be in the bible to be true!" Now, that might be correct, but, if we can somehow put the infallibility of the pope in doubt, then all the traditions of the catholic church can be put into question.My opponent suggests that Christ made Simon the first pope of the Christian church, okay. But if Simon was indeed made the pope, then surely, no one should question his authority, especially not after Christ's resurrection? That sounds about right, until you realise he was indeed corrected, even condemned, by Paul, apostle of the Gentiles:Galatians 2:11-14 : "And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision, and dissemble with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?"I humbly apologize for the long scripture quote, but I do feel it is of great importance, since it bluntly shows Paul correcting the way Peter, the supposed first pope of the Christian church, acted.Now, I know this doesn't instantly proves that the pope has no authority, but it does justify one questioning his infallibility. And the fact that several popes have been rumored to have done very unchristlike things. Here are a few examples:Pope Alexander VI (January 1431 – August 1503) supposedly hosting The "Banquet of Chestnuts" where several prostitutes crawled along the floor without clothes, collecting chestnuts, to the amusement of the guests, and afterwards, all the guests got to have their way with the prostitutes. [4]Pope Honorius III (1148 – March 18, 1227) is rumored to have wrote a grimoire, involving magic, dark arts, and the summoning of demons. [5]Pope Sergius III (897, 904-911) is rumored to have had several of his rivals for the papacy murdered. [6]Now, even if none of these are 100 % percent confirmed, they do make one think. "Wow, should these people really be considered the holiest men on earth?"This actually brings me to the last part my second round.The Eucharist, symbolic or literal?Most Catholics like to point to John 6:53-57 to prove that the Eucharist should be taking literally, those verses state: "Jesus, therefore, said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, If ye may not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and may not drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves; he who is eating my flesh, and is drinking my blood, hath life age-during, and I will raise him up in the last day; for my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink; he who is eating my flesh, and is drinking my blood, doth remain in me, and I in him. `According as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, he also who is eating me, even that one shall live because of me;"Now, if these verses were interpreted 100% literally, I could see how one would come to think that the Eucharist is indeed the consumption God's flesh and blood. But if one takes a closer look at a following verse, namely John 6:63 which states:"the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"This suggests that Jesus' words had spiritual meaning, and were not meant to be understood as actually eating his flesh and blood.Now, I am not trying to say that this proves the Eucharist isn't literal, but my point is, it certainly makes it acceptable for some people to doubt it, doesn't it?Not if the sitting pope has anything to say about it, that's for sure.William Sawtret was burned at the stake for doubting the literal meaning of the Eucharist.[7]Botulf Botulfsson was also burned, for doubting the wafer's actually transforming into the flesh of God. [8]John Badby, also burned for doubting the actual consumption of the flesh of Jesus.[9]These are just a few of many [10]When Martin Luther insisted that burning people at the stake was not the will of The Holy Spirit, as according to the sixth of the ten commandments"`Thou dost not murder."The current pope at the time, Leo X, made sure to address this in his long list of Luther's "heresies", one of them being:33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.[11]Another danger of papal infallibility: it's not considered murder, if the pope calls it heresy.ConclusionNow I am running out of room. I had more things to add, but I hope I will get the chance to address more of my opponent's arguments later in the debate.I would like to address again, that my purpose in this debate is not to make the Catholic church seem unchristian, but simply to call into doubt the infallibility of it.Sources:All my biblical quotes are from the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible.[1] Mercer dictionary of the Bible, Watson E. Mills,Roger Aubrey Bullard[2] http://www.catholic.org...[3] http://www.justforcatholics.org...[4] Wiegand, Steve; Sass, Erik (2008). The Mental Floss History of the World. New York: Harper.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] Feiling, Keith. A History of England. London: Macmillan, 1950.[8] Saints, peasants and warriors. Stories from the Swedish history, 1994.[9] Foxe's Book of Martyrs - John Badby[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.papalencyclicals.net...