The Catholic Church IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH

I appreciate the debate and Pro's arguments.Once again, Pro stated the Catholic belief that the Apostles are the foundation of the church, but the only relation the Catholic Church has to Apostles is a claim of succession. The Catholic Church does not claim to have the foundation of prophets and apostles as provided in Ephesians. Any church can claim they have succession, but still won't fit the requirement of having Apostles to witness Christ's resurrection.Pro still wants to use Catholic teachings and beliefs as evidence, not understanding that the veracity of the Catholic Church, as well as its teachings, are the very topic of this debate. I could just as easily say 'The Mormon Church is true because it claims succession from Peter, and because it has succession from Peter the Mormon Church is true'. This is begging the question and holds no value as an argument.Pro states that the Catholic church was founded on Peter, who was an apostle, but my point is that the Catholic Church no longer is founded on apostles, but rather bishops.Christ's reasons for choosing Peter aren't on the table. No scripture shows clearly that the apostleship would be passed on after Peter. Christ said He wouldn't leave his sheep alone, and for that purpose he sent the Holy Ghost. Nor does the leadership of a church dying off mean the 'gates of hell' have prevailed against the church. It simply means the apostles died. Pro provided a definition of witness. All of the apostles were witnesses. No member of the Catholic Church claims to be so. St. Paul was witness to the resurrected Christ[1]. Pro provides no reference to Paul, Timothy, or Titus being referenced as apostles. Paul is called an apostle in Titus 1:1. The word apostolos in Timothy and Titus is Paul referring to himself as an apostle. Without citation, there is no evidence that Timothy or Titus would need to fulfill the requirement."My opponent said "I assert that the teachings we must hold on to are the teachings of scripture."This is not what the passage says." The passage in question is 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which reads as follows:"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."We have no verifiable record of the verbal words of any of the apostles, other than what is written. Therefore, the written word is the only reliable source by which we can compare truth."The Catholic Church is historically the Original Church therefore the Catholic Church is the Church which the gates of hell shall not prevail against."Circular reasoning. The Catholic church is the Original Church so it is Christ's Church. This argument has no merit." The Catholic Church is the Church that is the body of Christ."Again, no merit besides reference to a scripture. These scriptures say nothing about a Catholic church. This same argument applies to the rest of Pro's paragraph. He is stating a position with no evidence or argument.Pro then provides quotes from Catholic teachings that assert the truthfulness of the Catholic Church. We've been over this before.Pro closes with time lines for different churches. The Catholic Church claims to have been established when Christ established His church. We have come full circle at last. Christ established a church with prophets and apostles. The Catholic Church does not have prophets and apostles. Therefore, the Catholic Church cannot be the same church as the one that Christ established.To briefly summarize Pro's and Con's arguments:Pro's argument is as follows:1 - The Church of Christ is the pillar of truth.2 - The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ.3 - The Catholic Church is the pillar of truth, and it's teachings are to be taken as scripture.My argument is as follows:1 - The Church of Christ is founded on prophets and apostles.2 - The Catholic Church is not founded on prophets and apostles.3 - The Catholic Church is therefore not the Church of Christ.[1]Acts 26:9-23