The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Dogma)

Con:Or is it rather proof that the church in Rome has authority over all other churches and that 1,800 years later we should all listen to the bishop of Rome whether he's preserved apostolic truth or not?"--------------------Pro:The Pope is not allowed to change or create Dogma, I'll give an example at the bottom for the biblical basis of Indulgences which opens the door for Communion of Saints and Purgatory -------------------Con: My opponent cannot use Cyprian for his stance on Papal Primacy because it is clear that he is against such notion as I pointed out in Round # 3------------------------------Pro:Your Round #3 Quotes were censored and out of context. Here is a more conclusive quote and it's explanation: 7th Council of Carthage: http://www.ccel.org... It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676 **Note: It is an acknowledgement that the Pope is not present at the Council and an agreement not to excommunicate each other for differing stances on the rebaptism issue; it is not a confirmation that there is no Pope, they were discussing if the Pope was a heretic for his rejection of re-baptism. Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org... ”3107 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” 3108 And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”3109 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs[1] designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.”] [1] Poetry censored in Protestant bibles **Note: "On the Unity of the Church" is just poetry making analogies about Unity, it even references Poetry that the Protestants call "Apocrypha".------------------------------- Con:There’s no dispute thatRomewas the chief church. None at all. Nor is there dispute that the bishop ofRomewas successor of St Peter in a unique manner, because St Peter himself helped establish the Church of Rome. The fact is, however, that this unique Petrine privilege was shared with the bishops ofAlexandriaandAntioch. ---------------------------Pro: That is just wrong. I will use the example of Paul of Samosada to demonstrate otherwise: in 269AD Paul of Samosada was excommunicated. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History Book 7 Chapter 30 "Paul had fallen from the episcopate as well as from the Orthodox Faith, but as Paul refused to surrender the Church Building the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned and he decided the matter that the building should be given to those whom the Bishops of Italy and the City of Rome should adjudge it." This is especially interesting because Antioch is in the East, and there were many Bishops in the East such as Jerusalem that could have handled it; but the Emperor recognized that the Church of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church. ----------------Con:"Firmillian"-----------------Pro:You might notice that Firmillian was suggesting people receive multiple baptisms. That is not biblical, he was a heretic; and Cyprian lapsed there too. Firmilian recognized the supremacy of the Papacy and was in shock and disbelief that who he considered a heretic would hold it. ----------------Con:Cyprian repeatedly denied, in multiple contexts, that the bishop of Rome or any other bishop has universal jurisdiction (Letter 51:21, Letter 54:14, Letter 67:5, Letter 71:3, Letter 72:26) ---------------------Pro:Denials? He doesn't speak about it. Letter 51:21 http://www.ccel.org... Bishops that Sinned didn't break unity Letter 54:14 http://www.ccel.org...; Is the earliest recognition of "Papal Infallibility" "Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access"Reference to: Luke 22:32 "But I have prayed for thee (Peter), that thy faith fail not:" Letter 67:5 http://www.ccel.org... says a Bishop in Spain lied to Pope Stephen to protect his position - LOL guy you are just proving the Papacy for me. Letter 71:3 http://www.ccel.org... says everyone has "free will."Leter 72:26 http://www.ccel.org... says everyone has "free judgement" -----------------------Con: 1) The laying on of hands doesn’t prove Papal Primacy at all. --------------------------Pro:No it doesn't prove the Papacy, it proves the sole legitimacy of the Catholic Church as the one biblically compatible doctrine. It is necessary to first understand the Apostolic Succession: ++++++++++++++++++++In the Old Testament Spiritual Authority is passed through the "Laying of Hands": Deut. 34:9 And Josue the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses. In the New Testament Paul establishes Bishops through the "Laying of Hands": 2 Timothy 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. Paul tells Titus to appoint more Bishops under him: Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: *Note: Protestant Bibles have censored Exodus 29:9 that the Priest's Hands are Consecrated for this purpose, thus Non-Catholic Successions are Invalid. (Exodus 29:9 (DR) To wit, Aaron and his children, and thou shalt put mitres upon them: and they shall be priests to me by a perpetual ordinance. After thou shalt have consecrated their hands,) +++++++ Now we look at the mission given to the Apostolic Succession: +++++++++ John 20:21-23 Jesus said, "As the father sent me, I send you...If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." This Fulfills: Leviticus 5:1-10 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned...and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. +++++++++++ Indulgences: +++++++++++++++1 John 5:16-17 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. We see that Indulgences are given by Priests to forgive "Venial Sins" which prevent entry to heaven but do not condemn to hell. This fulfills: Job 42:7-10 God tells 2 men to repent by having Job pray on their behalf. "For him I will accept" And enters the greater concept of the Communion with Saints and Purgatory largely censored from Protestant Bibles ----------------------Con: I challenge my opponent to present his irrefutable and unambiguous proof/ argument for Papacy. Pro:We can get into the 4th century and see how everything I laid out led up to it.