Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity

First, on to proving my last claim of unbroken Apostolic succession within the Catholic Church. Complete list of popes throughout the centuries: http://ww.newadvent.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org... The Vatican's current list in the 'annuario pontificio' is confirmed by ancient Christian writers who made catalogues of the successors of the See of Rome from the time of St. Peter to their present day. St. Irenaeus of Lyons records the succession of Popes in c.178 AD. [1], St. Optatus in 366 AD [2], and St. Augustine in 400 A.D. [3] From the 5th - 20th centuries, papal succession lists are even more complete. Here is an excellent list of Papal ordinations of Catholic primary bishops from the 1st - 20th centuries http://www2.fiu.edu... Primary bishop ordination lines from 492 to 2010 AD here: http://www2.fiu.edu... The Archaeological evidence is also strong. For example, you can visit the catacombs outside of Rome and see the actual room (discovered in 1854 by J.B. De Rossi) where early Christians buried the the remains of 9 Popes from 235 AD to 283 AD. In Rome, one can visit the tombs of more than half the Popes throughout history. These Popes existed and their remains are a testament to the fact that Catholic rulers go back to the earliest days of Christianity. In fact, there is more historical/archeological evidence for St. Peter's successors then there is for the existence of men like Alexander the Great, who's first biography was written 400 years after his death. Conclusion: whether one believes in the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession or not, history and archaeology both prove that the successors of the Bishop of Rome can indeed be traced back to the 1st century AD. On to addressing my opponent's points.. From the beginning of this debate, my opponent has attempted to place false arguments into my mouth, knock them down, and then claim 'victory'. This is a 'straw man'. Of course, I never said what he claims. Either he has deliberately twisted the framework of this debate to favor his views or has misunderstood my views. I have argued all along that the Catholic Church has 'stayed the same' only in three important respects, NOT in any and all respects. I even agreed with my opponent that the Church has changed in some respects. It is R5, and my opponent has yet to bring forth one historically solid rebuttal against any of the three claims I made about the Catholic Church in R1, which was the framework for this debate. Even though I considered the topics he has brought up thus far to be largely irrelevant (like the Crusades), I still respectfully addressed and countered. My opponent erroneously concludes that millions of Catholics can and have believed different things, therefore the Church has 'changed'? This is false. Catholics must believe in ONE set of (unchanging) doctrines. If any 'Catholic' deliberately denies even one article of faith, that person ceases to be Catholic and is a heretic. [4] Fact:Catholics of every age have admitted to the exact same articles of faith as Catholics today. The Orthodox were the ones who split into 'independent' groups with no centralized head since 1054 AD, not the Catholic Church. She has remained unadulterated and 'the same' in the sense that Catholics continue to profess the exact same doctrines and have the same unity of govern't as they did before the Schism. One cannot judge the entire Catholic Church on the basis of a few 'bad apples' or disbelievers, then claim that the Church has 'changed her doctrinal teachings'. We do not judge the entire medical profession based on a few 'quacks', nor judge the entire Law profession on the few who engage in malpractice. My opponent argues that his source is more 'credible' than mine because it is more recent. Yet he cites the opinion of a newspaper article on the words of the Pope! I have cited official Church documents outlining exactly what Church teaching is on the subject - and NOTHING has changed in 100 years, so 'recent' does not mean more credible. Evolution is not an officially held Catholic belief and my opponent cannot prove otherwise. Also, non-Catholics very often do not understand the doctrine of 'Papal infallibility'. Not everything the Pope says or does is official Church teaching or is even right. He is believed to be protected from error only under certain conditions[5]. Conclusion: The Catholic Church has never retracted/went back on any officially held pronouncement or dogma. My opponent has failed to refute the historical facts I presented during this debate; esp in R2 where I showed how the Church's officially held teachings regarding faith and morals have indeed remained essentially the same for over 1900 years. [1]Adversus haereses Bk III 3.3 [2] De Schismate Donatistarum Bk. II 1-3 [3] Ep. 53 ad Generosum [4] Catechism of C. of Trent [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...