The Catholic Church is the only true Church

I am pleased to note that my opponent has accepted my challenge. However, one thing is to be noted before I start my argumentation. The Catholic Church claims to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It cannot merely be viewed as yet another Christian denomination. It is either a champion of lies or it is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). There is no neutrality to be found. Now let the debate begin. Sacred Scripture is Catholic The canon of Scripture was determined by the Catholic Church by the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and formally ratified by the Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD. St. Athanasius had named the New Testament-canon in 367, but it was still disputed until the Pope closed the Canon[1][2][3]. This leaves the Protestant with the problem of the Church's authority. How can they reject the Catholic Church on other doctrines while still accepting her authority on the canon of the Scripture they claim to be formally sufficient for salvation? Now let us look at some Scripture: In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 16, we see the following passage: And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [4] Behold the establishment of the Papacy? Maybe I am getting ahead of myself. Let us analyze the passage. Peter is the English rendering of the Aramaic name Kêfâ‎ which means "rock". Therefore, Jesus is saying thou art "Kêfâ‎" and upon this "Kêfâ‎", I will build my Church. Therefore, the Church is built upon Peter. We can further note the expression "keys to the kingdom of heaven" in Sacred Scripture. For example, the Prophet Isaiah said "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open"[5] Here the marks of dignity were worn. Eliacim was appointed master of the palace, over all the other servants. This is what a 1st century Jew would have thought of after hearing Jesus speaking. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” is also something a 1st century Jew would understand well. "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law. Thusly, Peter and his successors are giving authority in the New Covenant and in the New Israel of Christianity. The Church Fathers were Catholic Ah yes, the Church Fathers. It would take us years if we were to discuss every belief of every father on every doctrine, so I will take The Eucharist. The Eucharist is understood to be the literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Catholic Church contrary to Protestant understanding (modern Protestants, even Luther accepted the Real Presence as consubstantiationrather than Catholic transubstantiation[6]). So what did the Church Fathers believe about the Eucharist? Listen to Ignatius of Antioch: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up” [7] Now I will not quote-spam as that would just make it impossible for my opponent to argue his case. Instead, I will refer to F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221: That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes' there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century, Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . . It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, 'covenant,' 'memorial,' 'poured out,' all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times, the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . . From early times, the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ. I can also refer to Philip Shaff’s History of the Christian Church. Shaff was a Protestant: The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . Till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . . In general, this period . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim... [Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements. The evidence for the Eucharist is presented. Reason is Catholic? Protestantism relies on personal interpretation of the Scriptures, but is that even tenable from a philosophical perspective? Imagine the same with the U.S Constitution. Pure anarchy would like ensue if every American citizen was to interpret it according to his/hers bias and opinion. Instead, they have the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret it. Likewise, we have the Church to interpret the Scriptures. By their fruits you shall know them saith the Lord. What are the fruits of Sola Scriptura? Certainly, they are not unity. John Henry Cardinal Newman puts it like this: How are the sheep of Christ's flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken. [8] Conclusion This is my compact case for Catholic Christianity. Catholic Christianity is a thinking man’s religion and hence, it is very hard to get around every topic in the 8,000 characters available on debate.org I look forward to my opponents opening statement. Sources: [1] Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., [2] Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, [3] Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, 1974, [4] The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Douay-Rheims Bible of 1899. [5] Isaiah 22:22 [6] Early 1520s:Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, 1966. [7] Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2. 110 AD. [8] Parochial and Plain Sermons