catholic church's claims are weak n early history, regarding papacy

Rebuttals: My opponent's comments are in quotes. "con missed a bunch of pages apparently in the initial link i posted in the first post. it is a forum with more than one page to that thread." Actually, it's an article that she blogged, and some people commented on it. I responded to the article in its entirety. As she has introduced other material, I have responded to it. "con ignores the context of the cyprian quote. it isn't too much to assume he is being against roman power given how he responded to the pope with forming the council, and given his collaeque firmilian con continues to ignore in context with everything else." There have been many councils called over the centuries. Calling a council doesn't mean you are mad at the Pope or that you think he has no authority. Firmilian is one person. I have offered over a dozen other early Christians who agree the Pope has authority in the Church. "the middle ages stuff was on page two or three i think of that link i initially posted." My opponent is not even sure where her alleged evidence can be found! How then can she expect us to accept the veracity of her claims? "we see a man named Olivi who articulated inerrancy. and a pope who seemed to be against the idea." So my opponent mentions one guy by name that said the Pope was just as the Church says he is, and "some Pope" who "seems" to disagee. Again, how can my opponent expect us to trust her claims when she can't even tell you which Pope she is referring to, or what he allegedly said?!?!?!! "vatican I stuff was posted later in that link as well...." "Later in the link"????!!! Am I supposed to do my opponent's job for her? "and shows how the pope then 'bought' the council into affirming infallibility. it was very corrupt." Any evidence to support your claims? "the article that is linked in that initial link by me in this debate, shows that people like Aquanis can't be used one way o another to support infalliblity, because he is so ambiguous." So my opponent only rejects Aquinas because she believes he is vague, but not because he's not an early Christian. I am fine with that perspective. Let's see exactly what he said, and I will let the voters decide. Here's what Aquinas had to say about the Pope [4] "Though populations are different in different dioceses and cities, still, as there is one Church, there must be one Christian people. As then in the spiritual people of one Church there is required one Bishop, who is Head of all that people; so in the whole Christian people it is requisite that there be one Head of the whole Church." Aquinas then said, "One requisite of the unity of the Church is the agreement of all the faithful in faith. When questions of faith arise, the Church would be rent by diversity of judgments, were it not preserved in unity by the judgment of one. But in things necessary Christ is not wanting to His Church, which He has loved, and has shed His blood for it: since even of the Synagogue the Lord says: What is there that I ought further to have done for my vineyard and have not done it.? (Isai. v, 4.) We cannot doubt then that by the ordinance of Christ one man presides over the whole Church." Aquinas also said, "None can doubt that the government of the Church is excellently well arranged, arranged as it is by Him through whom kings reign and lawgivers enact just things (Prov. viii, 15). But the best form of government for a multitude is to be governed by one: for the end of government is the peace and unity of its subjects: and one man is a more apt source of unity than many together." Next Aquinas said, "Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others. For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgment from henceforth, now, and for ever (Isai. ix, 7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: Lo, I am with you to the end of the world (Matt. xxviii, 20)." Finally Aquinas said "Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavour to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church." Seems pretty clear to me that Aquinas believed what the Catholic Church believes. My opponent says "i did respond to the quotes con gave. i said irreformable was an idea in the early church, but that doesn't tranlate into inerrancy. even orthodox consider early churches and their leaders are irreformable, but that doesn't neceessarily translate into inerrant." That reply was for ALL the quotes I provided?!?!?!! I offered almost 20 quotes, and my opponent tries to use a blanket answer to cover all of them??!!! As a voter, ask yourself if this suffices. con argues that it would naturally develop, infallibility and inerrantcy. he continues to argue that the fact it took so long for it to be defined is proof that it was established. that sort of argument might hold up for something like the eucharist." My opponent just admitted that doctrinal development is s valid argument for one doctrine of the Catholic Church. So my question is, why can't it be for others? "there need be no 'statute of limitations' on developing infalliblity. " Then your arguments against doctrinal development is invalid. In summary, my opponent misspelled many words, and never capitalized even once. She didn't respond to a single quote I offered to support my claim. And her only source was a blog. I, on the other hand, had better spelling and grammar, refuted every point from the article she wrote, and had more than one credible source Sources 4. http://www.calledtocommunion.com...