catholic church's claims are weak n early history, regarding papacy

catholic church's claims are weak in early history, regarding papacy

because the extent of what i would like to post exceeds the number of characters i am allowed, i will just reference a link that has all my arguments in it:

http://www.phatmass.com...

My opponent is misinformed. The Catholic Church claims about what the
early Christians believed about the papacy is strong. My response this
round will consist of rebuttals and quotes from early Christians that
show they believed in the existence of the Pope (leader of the Church).

I. Rebuttals:

A. Concerning Cyprian, the Pope was not present at the council, so his
comments did not apply to the Pope.

B. Concerning Firmilian, even if one Christian denied the Pope' s
authority, he doesn't speak for the majority of Christians.

C. Concerning Polycrates, one can make suggestions to the Pope without
denying his authority. I may not agree with all the decisions
President Obama makes, but that doesn't mean I deny he has the
authority to make them.

D. Concerning the Council of Nicea and Pope Gregory, there were some
people at this time in history that thought the local bishops were mere
figureheads. That the local bishops had no local power in their
dioceses. This is what the council addressed in that canon. The local
bishops dis have local authority because they are the successors of the
Apostles. But that doesn't mean the Pope isn't their leader. As the
successor of Peter, he is their leader just like Peter was the leader
of the Apostles.

As for Pope Gregory, he knew he was Pope. The reason he rejected the
title of universal bishop is because at that time the title meant there
was only one real bishop. He knew that the other bishops has local
jurisdiction. [1]

E. Concerning Jerome, I have no problem with what he said. All bishops are successors of the Apostles... but only the Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter (the first Pope).

F. Concerning Ambrose, as you will see by the quote from Ambrose below, he believed Peter was the foundation of the Christian Church.

II. Quotes from the early Church fathers supporting my claims concerning the papacy:[2]

Pay special attention to two people my opponent tries to use (Cyprian and Ambrose).

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]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let
no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of
the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl,
but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D.
350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a
statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and
Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set
the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their
like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to
earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was
there"he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid.,
6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the
apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the
name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now
called Diospolis [Acts 9:32"34]" (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of
the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support
all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on
Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you,
the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain
from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples.
Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving
sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the
firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor
of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I
have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D.
351]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build
my Church. . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man
to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he
called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the
Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . .
the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the
conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by
the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will
not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom
of heaven . . . " [Matt. 16:18"19]. The first see, therefore, is that
of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain
nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

""But," you [Jovinian] will say, "it was on Peter that the Church was
founded" [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be
their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against
Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the
province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief
of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and
having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second
year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal
chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the
fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of
martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground
and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be
crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1
[A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment
is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that
is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this
position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom
the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have
emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to
represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the
Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven"" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle
Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the
Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on
account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is "I
will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and other
similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were
Christ"s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed
Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: "We offer our
thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our
holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves
to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses
is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the
apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle"" (Acts of the Council, session
2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said:
"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the
holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of
the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of
the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the
human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding
sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his
successors"" (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the
blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head
wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to
secede from Peter"s solid rock may understand that he has no part or
lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into
partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was,
when he said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church" [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might
rest on Peter"s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that
neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail
against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the
divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the
sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way
that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the
highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the
entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that
anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter
would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine
mystery" (ibid., 10:2"3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same
rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in
honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in
being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others.
. . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church
would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at
odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

Sources:
1. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com...
2. http://www.catholic.com...

con offers speculation on all the quotes he counter attacks. but not the best argument. for example, cyprian called that council and said "none of us sets hisself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical forces compels...". he is clealy speak in reaction to the bishop of rome's responses, and his words describe that bishop. firmilian's response as cyprian's colleuque is telling.

con also ignores all the middle ages information posted in the link. the idea of a inerrant pope didn't arise until around 1200. and,a pope seems to be rebuking the idea of an infallible pope.... most straightforward interpretation of that pope. before then, the most that could be said is that hte pope was 'irrefomable'. but that means a lot like an orthodox biship is irreformable. that doesn't mean they are infallible. and, a later pope can come and change somehting if he doesn't see a past popes teaching as definitive enough. irreformable doesn't necessarily translate into inerrant. and, the fact that there was so little said about irreformable is telling... and there is nothing in terms of inerrant. it makes sense that if infalliblity was true, that it would develop naturally... it doesn't make sense that it'd take a thousand years to develop.

con also doesn't respond the fact that ecumenitcal councils to catholics and orthodox early in the church usually had zero to very little papal representation. if the pope was what he said he is in terms of infallible etc, he would have played a lot bigger role. also the tacit admissiom by pope emeritus ratzinger pope benedict is ignored by con as well

con also ignores tha tthe first vatican counil was pretty much a sham and the vote for infallibiity was 'bought' and 'shoved' in.

con also ignores an entire history of disregard for the bishop of rome
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rebuttals

My opponent's comments will be in quotes.

"con offers speculation on all the quotes he counter attacks. but not the best argument. for example, cyprian called that council and said "none of us sets hisself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical forces compels...". he is clealy speak in reaction to the bishop of rome's responses, and his words describe that bishop."

Since Cyprian doesn't name the Pope, we can't be sure if he was referring to anyone specifically in his comments. He could have been simply saying that this council of bishops is not trying to be tyrannical. We need to be careful not to put words in his mouth.

"con also ignores all the middle ages information posted in the link."

I responded fully to everything in the article. Every single point. If something was in the comments section of the article, I can't be expected to respond to that. Ask yourself if you've ever considered the comments section of an article to be something that must be rebutted or responded to. Having said that, now that my opponent has made the claim, I will be happy to respond to it in the paragraph below. Before I do that, since we're on the subject of people not responding to claims I would like to point out that it was ACTUALLY MY OPPONENT who did not even attempt to rebut ANY of the 14 quotes I offered showing the Catholic Church's claims are STRONG concerning the papacy and the early Church. With this in mind, I extend all of those quotes and will await to see if my opponent will at some point respond to them.

"it doesn't make sense that it'd take a thousand years to develop."

I would like to ask my opponent what the statute of limitations is concerning doctrinal development? On what basis does she declare something to have taken too long? The Church.only sees the need to define something when there is controversy concerning a belief. The fact that it took some time before the Church had to step in officially actually supports MY claims concerning the early Church.

"con also doesn't respond the fact that ecumenitcal councils to catholics and orthodox early in the church usually had zero to very little papal representation."

This is irrelevant. Travel in early centuries of the Church was dangerous, difficult, and time consuming. Sometimes a Pope would simply sign off on a council after receiving the documents of the council, and finding that they were without doctrinal error. Then, and only then, would the council considered ecumenical and valid.

"also the tacit admissiom by pope emeritus ratzinger pope benedict is ignored by con as well"

What admission? My opponent has not offered any alleged "tacit admission" at this point of the debate. It not in any round of this debate, nor in the article she offered.

"con also ignores tha tthe first vatican counil was pretty much a sham and the vote for infallibiity was 'bought' and 'shoved' in."

The article makes no mention of any such thing. Before I respond, Pro is going to have to offer evidence for her claims.

"con also ignores an entire history of disregard for the bishop of rome
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

This is the first time my opponent has referenced this issue, so I haven't ignored anything. Now that she has, I'd be happy to respond: The split between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church concerning the Pope didn't occur until after the first 1,000 years of Christianity had passed. According to my opponent, a thousand years is too long of time to pass for something to be true. With that in mind, this fact actually supports MY claims concerning the early Church and the papacy because it took so long for there to be a controversy.

New Arguments

I will now offer further quotes from the early Church fathers showing the Catholic Church's claims are strong when it comes to the early Church and the Pope. [3]

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the Church would be built" [Matt. 16:18] with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth" [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9"10 [A.D. 220]).

The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] "For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church" [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? "Oh you of little faith," he says, "why do you doubt?" [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68"69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: "Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian"s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head"that is why he is also called Cephas ["Rock"]"of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"It is to Peter that he says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it." Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

Sources
3. http://www.catholic.com...

con missed a bunch of pages apparently in the initial link i posted in the first post. it is a forum with more than one page to that thread.

con ignores the context of the cyprian quote. it isn't too much to assume he is being against roman power given how he responded to the pope with forming the council, and given his collaeque firmilian con continues to ignore in context with everything else.

the middle ages stuff was on page two or three i think of that link i initially posted. we see a man named Olivi who articulated inerrancy. and a pope who seemed to be against the idea. both are quoted verbatium. vatican I stuff was posted later in that link as well.... and shows how the pope then 'bought' the council into affirming infallibility. it was very corrupt.
the article that is linked in that initial link by me in this debate, shows that people like Aquanis can't be used one way o another to support infalliblity, because he is so ambiguous. id argue if it was true infallibility it wouldn't be so ambiguous from such a prominent figure, and then again with the silence from the rest of christianity on the matter, even in te roman church, concerning 'infalliblity'.

i did respond to the quotes con gave. i said irreformable was an idea in the early church, but that doesn't tranlate into inerrancy. even orthodox consider early churches and their leaders are irreformable, but that doesn't neceessarily translate into inerrant.

con argues that it would naturally develop, infallibility and inerrantcy. he continues to argue that the fact it took so long for it to be defined is proof that it was established. that sort of argument might hold up for something like the eucharist. but it doesnt necessarily hold up on every doctrine. there was no talk prior to 1000 ish or next to no talk, about the roman pope being wihout eror on faith and morals in teachings to the church. that is a very weak point for catholics, that it took so long to say 'the pope is inerrant'
there need be no 'statute of limitations' on developing infalliblity. it would just according to common sense be establishd sooner than later if what catholics claim is true. and we see that it was not

maybe to the latin and roman church, it matters only to the extent that the peope affirms a council. but to by far most biships, that rome was not the final say is very illuminating. the extetnt of disregard is further established with that wiki link con responds to.

the tacit admission to the pope was in regards to 'the ratzinger principle' thta was quoted in the first link of this debate. it said that the west developed more than the east did, and that if there was communion with the east and west it would be understodd that they can follow their own views of authority, as that was what was permsissible to the earliest church in the first century, so it should be permissible now, and all still be in communion.

that it took so long for their to be a split doesn't necessarily show the catholis are correct. it shows that authority of the roman biship developed so much over that time, tat itw as beginning to become time for everyone to start excommunicating each other.... a schism developed.

Rebuttals:

My opponent's comments are in quotes.

"con missed a bunch of pages apparently in the initial link i posted in
the first post. it is a forum with more than one page to that thread."

Actually, it's an article that she blogged, and some people commented
on it. I responded to the article in its entirety. As she has
introduced other material, I have responded to it.

"con ignores the context of the cyprian quote. it isn't too much to
assume he is being against roman power given how he responded to the
pope with forming the council, and given his collaeque firmilian con
continues to ignore in context with everything else."

There have been many councils called over the centuries. Calling a
council doesn't mean you are mad at the Pope or that you think he has
no authority. Firmilian is one person. I have offered over a dozen
other early Christians who agree the Pope has authority in the Church.

"the middle ages stuff was on page two or three i think of that link i
initially posted."

My opponent is not even sure where her alleged evidence can be found!
How then can she expect us to accept the veracity of her claims?

"we see a man named Olivi who articulated inerrancy. and a pope who
seemed to be against the idea."

So my opponent mentions one guy by name that said the Pope was just as
the Church says he is, and "some Pope" who "seems" to disagee. Again,
how can my opponent expect us to trust her claims when she can't even
tell you which Pope she is referring to, or what he allegedly
said?!?!?!!

"vatican I stuff was posted later in that link as well...."

"Later in the link"????!!! Am I supposed to do my opponent's job for
her?

"and shows how the pope then 'bought' the council into affirming
infallibility. it was very corrupt."

Any evidence to support your claims?

"the article that is linked in that initial link by me in this debate,
shows that people like Aquanis can't be used one way o another to
support infalliblity, because he is so ambiguous."

So my opponent only rejects Aquinas because she believes he is vague,
but not because he's not an early Christian. I am fine with that
perspective. Let's see exactly what he said, and I will let the voters decide. Here's what Aquinas had to say about the Pope [4]

"Though populations are different in different dioceses and cities, still, as there is one Church, there must be one Christian people. As then in the spiritual people of one Church there is required one Bishop, who is Head of all that people; so in the whole Christian people it is requisite that there be one Head of the whole Church."

Aquinas then said, "One requisite of the unity of the Church is the agreement of all the faithful in faith. When questions of faith arise, the Church would be rent by diversity of judgments, were it not preserved in unity by the judgment of one. But in things necessary Christ is not wanting to His Church, which He has loved, and has shed His blood for it: since even of the Synagogue the Lord says: What is there that I ought further to have done for my vineyard and have not done it.? (Isai. v, 4.) We cannot doubt then that by the ordinance of Christ one man presides over the whole Church."

Aquinas also said, "None can doubt that the government of the Church is excellently well arranged, arranged as it is by Him through whom kings reign and lawgivers enact just things (Prov. viii, 15). But the best form of government for a multitude is to be governed by one: for the end of government is the peace and unity of its subjects: and one man is a more apt source of unity than many together."

Next Aquinas said, "Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others. For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgment from henceforth, now, and for ever (Isai. ix, 7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: Lo, I am with you to the end of the world (Matt. xxviii, 20)."

Finally Aquinas said "Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavour to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church."

Seems pretty clear to me that Aquinas believed what the Catholic Church believes.
My opponent says

"i did respond to the quotes con gave. i said irreformable was an idea
in the early church, but that doesn't tranlate into inerrancy. even
orthodox consider early churches and their leaders are irreformable,
but that doesn't neceessarily translate into inerrant."

That reply was for ALL the quotes I provided?!?!?!! I offered almost 20 quotes, and my opponent tries to use a blanket answer to cover all of them??!!! As a voter, ask yourself if this suffices.

con argues that it would naturally develop, infallibility and
inerrantcy. he continues to argue that the fact it took so long for it
to be defined is proof that it was established. that sort of argument
might hold up for something like the eucharist."

My opponent just admitted that doctrinal development is s valid argument for one doctrine of the Catholic Church. So my question is, why can't it be for others?

"there need be no 'statute of limitations' on developing infalliblity. "

Then your arguments against doctrinal development is invalid.

In summary, my opponent misspelled many words, and never capitalized even once. She didn't respond to a single quote I offered to support my claim. And her only source was a blog. I, on the other hand, had better spelling and grammar, refuted every point from the article she wrote, and had more than one credible source

Sources
4. http://www.calledtocommunion.com...