Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will focus on answering some of the points/arguments he brought up in R2. My opponent seems to think that if he succeeds in proving that the Catholic Church has not changed in any and every single way, then he wins this debate. However, I have never claimed this at all. Moreover, my opponent has yet to bring forth any evidence or historical rebuttal against the original arguments in my opening challenge. Let us define ‘Catholic Church': "The congregation of all baptized persons who share the same faith, the same sacraments, under the authority of the hierarchy, particularly the pope and the bishops" [1] More than simply a ‘community of people', the N.T. makes it clear that the Church - apart from being an organization - is also a spiritual organism - a Mystical Body composed of members linked together through baptism. "So in Christ we who are many form one BODY, and each member belongs to all the others". [2] My opponent said: 'If one member dies, then the Catholic Church is not the same anymore.' This is true in the sense that change means development. But not in every sense. The Church is composed of both 'living' and 'dead' members and remains essentially the same body, even though one of Her members should die or split away. When a tree sheds or loses one of its leaves, it still remains essentially the same tree. The tree is also continually rejuvenating itself by growing new leaves. As does the Church, by continually receiving new members while remaining essentially the same 'tree'. My opponent states that the Catholic Church 'split in two' in 1054 AD and thus the Church is not 'the same' anymore. This is false. A careful look at Church history will conclude that it truly was the Eastern Orthodox which had deliberately chose to separate themselves from the Authority of Rome. The early Church was unanimous in declaring that the ultimate authority within the 'Catholic' Church was the 'Bishop of Rome' [3]. The Eastern Orthodox have splintered into dozens of nationally autonomous and independent 'churches', similar to Protestant churches, since the Schism. With no visible head, the broken up Orthodox 'churches' have not held an Ecumenical Council since 1054. The 'tree' simply had a member cut off Her in 1054, (unfortunately) but still remained the same united Catholic Church. My opponent argued that the Church renounced its position on the origin of man and went to an 'evolutionary doctrine'. I respond, and your source is the Sunday Herald? The Church has never ‘renounced' its position nor has She ever taught evolution. In fact, She warns us not to hold evolution as proved, nor use it to explain the origin of all things; [4]. Here is the official Church position on the origin of man:"‘The literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis can not be doubted with regard to: the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man;... the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer."[5] Fact: Pope John Paul II did NOT renounce official church teaching in 1996, when he stated in a letter that evolution is ‘more than a hypothesis" [6] C) Regarding the Crusades: My opponent offers no proof for his accusations (which is entirely off topic anyway). I read the web source he linked to, which attempts to prove how 'evil' the Catholic Church was during the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. With no source proof or historical references to back up its claims, it is a purely speculative read based entirely upon the web author's own personal opinion. D) The Catholic Church never lost its belief that Her lawfully ordained ministers can cast out demons by the power of God. If some members, including priests, do not believe in the devil or in the Rite of Exorcism anymore, it does not change what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed on this manner. My opponent asked me why I thought most his arguments thus far have been 'straw men'. Because I believe they have ignored, misrepresented and averted the three original arguments I brought forth about the Catholic Church in R1, which was what I originally sought to debate. Definition of 'straw man' here: http://brainz.org...... Again, thus far my opponent has failed to bring forth any historical proof or solid rebuttal against my three original claims about the Church in R1. In the next round, I will put forth the historical proof for the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession, and also discuss 'Papal Infallibilty' if time/space permit. Thank you. [1] Catechism of the Catholic Church [2]]Romans 12:5;1 Corinthians 12:13 -28; Ephesians 4:1 [3] http://www.freerepublic.com...... [4] Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Humani Generis; 1950; (para 5.6) [5]The Pontifical Biblical Commission decree; Pope Pius X; June 30, 1909 [6]http://www.cin.org...