There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy.

I found it very interesting. Having said that, I did find some flaws in it. I would like to go over those now: PLAGIARISM WARNING I ask my opponent to be careful not to fall into acts of plagiarism. I asked Voting Rights Moderator, Bluesteel, about your practice, and here is what I found out. .. It's ok to copy and paste chunks of information, but you have to be sure you place quotations marks before and after the quote. Simply providing the source is not good enough. I doubt Con was deliberately engaging in plagiarism, but I wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if this warrants a conduct point or not. REBUTTALS Logical Fallacies Con said that when it comes to interpreting scripture, "The Pope is not such an authority. " He also said that "many Popes have misunderstood Biblical passages, changed the decrees of other Popes,. .. " and acted contrary to scripture. This argument is a combination of a couple of logical fallacies: Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. " [2] How the Pope acts is not relevant to the question of authority. President Nixon broke the law, but that doesn't mean he didn't have any authority. This has no bearing on the issue at hand. Bare Assertion: "A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. " [3] List of Apostles Con asked me to give a reason to believe why the way the Bible lists the Apostles is evidence that Peter was the leader. I'd be happy to oblige: 1. Every time the Bible lists the Apostles by name, Peter is listed first, and Judas Iscariot is listed last. But don't take my word for it, check the verses I offered from last round. Now, does anyone think that Judas being listed last is an accident? Of course not. Judas was the betrayer of our Lord, so he was the least of the Apostles. Well, if it's no accident Judas was listed last, it's no accident Peter was listed first. He was listed first because he was their leader. 2. The fact Luke 9:32 calls a group of them "Peter and his companions" is more evidence Peter was their leader. Peter Spoke for the Apostles For Con to say Peter was only speaking for himself in the pages of Scripture is not accurate. As I alluded to by offering Luke 12:41, Peter asks Jesus if our Lord was addressing "us" (the Apostles), or the crowd. If Peter were only asking about himself, he wouldn't have used the word "us". Con went on to say, "Pro states that Peter was a part of many important events, however manyother apostles were also in key events. " This is a mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't just say Peter was present at many key events in the early Church. I said he LEAD the Church in these events. As I mentioned in the last round: " 1. On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). 2. It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ"s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). 3. An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). 4. He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). 5. He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). 6. He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). 7. It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48). " So as anyone can see, in each of these examples, Peter either lead the Church, or was the only one to do something. Sounds a lot like a leader to me. CON'S CASE Con said that scripture doesn't teach that Peter was the leader of the Church. I would disagree. I would assert that in Matthew 16 Jesus appointed Peter as the earthly head of His new Church. As I pointed out in the last round, "Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18). Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense. Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city"an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost"meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). " Bishop of Rome Con made another irrelevant comment by saying the Bible nowhere says the Bishop of Rome was to be the earthly leader of the Church. The point is Jesus appointed a man to be the head of His Church Shared Authority? Only Peter was given "the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" and only Peter was the "Rock" which Jesus built His Church (Matthew 16) Apostolic Succession Con claims that scripture doesn't teach that "the authority of the Apostles was passed on. Well let's see about that: When the Apostle Judas died, was he replaced, or did they just go on with 11 Apostles? Acts 1 gives us the answer: "15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, "Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry. " 18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. ) 20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms: ""May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,"[e] and, ""May another take his place of leadership. "[f] 21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John"s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. " 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone"s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs. " [4] So we see the Bible records the succession of an Apostle. As a matter of fact, it was Peter who made the decision. No surprise considering he was their leader. False Teaching/Bare Assertion Scripture is silent on what the false teaching would be. For Con to claim it is concerning the papacy is yet another bare assertion by my opponent. Compare to Scripture Nowhere does the Bible teach we should compare teachings by comparing them to scripture ALONE. Instead, it tells to follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Apostles Infallible Con says the Bible doesn't teach the Apostles were infallible, but Jesus said, "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven" (Matthew 16) Definition of Pope (for the purpose of this debate)/ Con's Concession On the one hand, Con says Peter wasn't the first Pope, but then in the very same paragraph, explicitly says "Yes, the Apostle Peter has a leadership role among the disciples. " Sounds to me like Con subconsciously knows Peter was the first Pope. Peter Was a Man, So What? With all due respect, these next few arguments seem like they're grasping at straws. I agree that Peter was only a man, but so what? That's irrelevant. David was only a man too, but that doesn't change the fact that God put David in charge of His people. Sure, Peter was unworthy of worship, but so what? That's irrelevant. Catholics don't worship the Pope. Jesus Giving Authority Con misrepresented scriptures here concerning the Apostles "arguing who was the greatest. Jesus's point was they were not to Lord it over them, but to rather lead other in service. To know this we only need to read what Con quoted: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. .. . But not so among you". John the First Pope? Jesus's best friend is irrelevant. Peter wasn't leader because of some quality he had. He was pope because Jesus made him so. POSITIVE CASE Historical Evidence that One of the Apostles Was the Leader of the Church "Clement of Alexandria "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g. asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3"5 [A. D. 200]). Tertullian "For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A. D. 211]). "[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18"19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9"10 [A. D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A. D. 221]). Origen "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A. D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. " . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i. e. , apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? " (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A. D. 251]). " [5] Sources: 2. . http://www.nizkor.org... 3. . http://www.toolkitforthinking.com... 4. . https://www.biblegateway.com... 5. . http://www.catholic.com...