Roman Catholicism is true Christianity

My opponent has attempted to show that the Catholic Church is not truly Christian based of the arguments routinely put forth by Protestants. These arguments are easily refutable and are by their very nature weak and self defeating. They put forth the absolute authority of the Scriptures, which themselves refute the arguments. The ones that are on the table for the debate are: the validity of Sacred Tradition; the existence of purgatory; and the necessity of good works to enter Heaven. This will be a lengthy response, but it is necessary to fully explain the side of the Church on these issues.RebuttalsValidity of Sacred Tradition:"Because the life, teachings, and death of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament, the Bible is the ultimate authority on Christianity, and any denomination that claims to be Christian must acknowledge this fact."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. The Church determined which books were divinely inspired and worthy of the canon of Sacred Scripture; thus, they have authority over them. It is fallacious circular reasoning to say that the books that appear in the Bible canon are divinely inspired because they are in the Bible. They require an outside entity to affirm their validity; the Church is the only entity with authority bestowed on it by Christ himself: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16).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 the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15). This passage dually supports the credibility of both apostolic tradition and scripture. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”(2 Timothy 3:16-17). The argument put forth by John Henry Newman in 1884 thoroughly refutes the idea of this passage supporting the Protestant idea of sola scripture (scripture alone):"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient." Also, when read out of context (as Protestants often do with this passage), one fails to see that it is a statement being made in addition to this, which comes right before it: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15). The words "from whom you have learned it" clearly are another affirmation of apostolic tradition by Paul himself. This is in addition to the "sacred writings" of scripture."Claiming that Scripture and tradition must be “honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” brings God’s infallible word down to the fallible traditions of fallible men."Human tradition is commonly with Sacred tradition, which is was given to the Apostles by Christ has been orally passed down and protected by the Church. 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. Existence of Purgatory:"Complete holiness is necessary to enter heaven, but this holiness must be achieved during life, not after death."Paul clearly states that when a righteous man dies in the friendship of God but fails the test of perfection, he must be sanctified through his own loss after death. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Whether this proves the existence of purgatory or not based on the scripture or not (as I believe it does), it suggests the existence of such a place. 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.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. If Protestant theology places the ultimate authority on the bible, then why should Martin Luther, a man, be allowed to contest their validity? It seems by excluding certain books of the bible, he challenges the authority of scripture that has already been determined to be divinely inspired. This contradicts the premise that Protestant theology is based solely on scripture. One of the books excluded is Maccabbees 2, which affirms the existence of some form of purgatory: a place where the dead can and should be prayed for:"In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Why would they be praying for the dead if the only two places they could be are heaven and hell? The fates of souls in Heaven have already been determined, and those in Hell cannot be saved. This passage also refutes the idea that the Church invented purgatory. People not long before the birth of Christ already held it to be a sacred truth. Necessity of good works"These are seen by the Catholic Church as “good works” even though it is impossible to merit salvation for oneself or another."The protestant argument against the necessity of good works is inherently weak. I will reference two biblical passages that clearly invalidate them.1. James 2:14-26"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 2. Matthew 25:34-46 (no more characters)http://goo.gl...SourcesScripture and Tradition: http://goo.gl...Purgatory: http://goo.gl...Martin Luther: http://goo.gl...