The Instigator
Stanthony
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,983 times Debate No: 36824
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (76)
Votes (3)

 

Stanthony

Pro

Since Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the newly intalled Antipope Francis, has deviated from the catholic faith prior and after his "election", according to the bull "cum ex apostolatus officio" of Paul IV that says that a election, even of the Roman Pontiff and even by unanimity of the cardinals, ought to be consider null and void if it can be shown that the person supposedly elected has deviated from the faith prior to his elevation; according to common sense that says that someone who is not even a catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church; and according to Innocent III "Eius exemplo"
that says there is "one Church, not of heretics", we ought to conclude that Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church and, as follows of course, nor Its head.

Examples of the apostasy of Bergoglio can be found here:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...

Some examples are:
He asked to a "protestant minister" for a blessing; he calls jews the "people of God" and
teaches by his words and deeds that they don't need to be converted. He teaches that a Rabbi is our master and that he has a true spiritual ministry; he prayed that the ramadan could bring "spiritual gifts" etc, etc.
imabench

Con

The debate is about whether or not Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church,

Its not about whether or not Pope Francis is leading the church in the right direction, about whether or not he will be overthrown from the papacy, about whether or not he SHOULD be removed from being pope, none of that..... The debate is whether or not Francis is indeed the head of the Catholic Church.....

1) Pope Francis is the Pope
http://en.wikipedia.org...
2) The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since Francis is the Pope, he is therefore the head/leader of the Catholic Church

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
Stanthony

Pro

I mean... have you even read my opening statement? t seems that you don't know anything about what the topic is about.
The problem in your argument is in the first premise. You just need to read the opening statement for the answer.
My opening tries to argue that he is not the pope.
imabench

Con

"My opening tries to argue that he is not the pope."

But he is the Pope, as I have shown.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
Stanthony

Pro

Since my opponent refuses to deal with my argument and also insists to rest on the authority of of Wikipedia to determine to legitimacy of Francis as the head of the Catholic Church, I cannot continue to develop my case. I'll put my argument in a silogism and continue to substantiate the second premise. But first i'll present five assumptions:

1)Catholic teaching, (i.e. the Church's magisterium) is the rule by which we know if someone is a heretic. It is by comparing what one person believes, says or does to what the Church teaches that we know that this person is not a Catholic.
2) A formal heretic is an obstinate and public heretic.
3)The papacy is an office of the Catholic Church.
4)The papacy is the office of the head of the Catholic Church.
5)What the Catholic Church teaches about formal heretics membership and office in the Church is the rule on this matter. So, if the Church teaches that a formal heretic cannot hold office in the Church, then, he cannot hold office in the Church.

If the contender does not agree with all the above mentioned assumptions, then this debate is worthless. Because the discussion here pressuposes that both sides agree that Catholic teaching is our proximate rule of faith. I say this because, reading his comments on the debate, it seems that he does not agree with all this assumptions nor he claims to be Catholic.

First premise:
The Catholic Church teaches that formal heretic is not a member of the Church neither can he hold office in it.

Second premise:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio (i.e. Francis) is a formal heretic.

Conclusion:
Francis is not a member of the Church nor holds office in it. Being the papacy an office in the Catholic Church, namely the office of the head of the Catholic Church, Francis therefore is not the Pope, which is the same as to say that he is not the head of the Catholic Church.

As it is obvious, the contender cannot attack the conclusion. He has to refute the first or the second premise.

I'll proceed to expose the facts that prove the validity of the second premise, namely, that Francis is a formal heretic. All material will be extracted from here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... and http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...

1- To call someone a believer is the same thing as to say that someone is part of the faithful. I think no one will deny this.
Francis called the rabbi Sergio Bergman a "believer". Francis therefore says that Sergio Bergman is part of the faithful, which is the same as to say that this rabbi is in the Mystical Body of the Church. In other words, according to Francis, this rabbi is a member of the Church despite the fact that he rejects Jesus Christ. THIS IS HERESY. And if he means that someone can be a "believer" outside the Church, THIS IS ALSO HERESY, for the Catholic creed says that all the faithful have "one Baptism and one Lord. The Catholic creed teaches that the Faith, The Lord and the Baptism, are inseparable. Sergio Bergman does not have the Lord nor the Baptism. Therefore, he does not have the Faith, hence, he is not a "believer".

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"... those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews..."

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311R08;1312, ex cathedra:
"...there is... one universal Church, outside of which there is no
salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism""

2- Francis took part in a interreligious cerimony to honor deceased jews whom rejected Jesus Christ. To honor someone who has passed away is to consider that that person could have been saved. THIS IS HERESY. A jew who reject Jesus Christ, as explained above, is not part of the faithful. [And I say "who reject Jesus Christ" to prevent misundertanding: racial jews (the correct word is Judeans by the way) that is, someone who is of the blood descendence of the biblical Judeans can be saved as anyone else, PROVIDED THAT HE REJECTS JUDAISM, BE BAPTISED AND CONVERTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH.]

But the Catholic Church teaches that those who are not part of the faithful cannot be saved.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
"There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved..."

(Explicit mention to the jews)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives..."

3- Francis promotes religious freedom, but the Catholic Church condemns religious freedom.

Francis, Address, May 18, 2013: "" promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be." L" Osservatore Romano, May 22, 2013, p. 11.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: "... that erroneous opinion... NAMELY, THAT "LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN"S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY..."

Conclusion: it is a documented fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a formal heretic.
To deny this after seeing this facts is simply to lie. And there are many more heresies that I could have mentioned. Therefore, the second premise is true.
In my opening statement I showed that my first premise is true.
Therefore the conclusion that Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church is true, wether someone likes it or not.
imabench

Con

"Since my opponent refuses to deal with my argument and also insists to rest on the authority of of Wikipedia to determine to legitimacy of Francis as the head of the Catholic Church, I cannot continue to develop my case."

Well if youre one of those dinguses who thinks wikipedia is good for nothing then allow me to present other sources

Evidence that Francis was elected Pope:

http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://ncronline.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://news.blogs.cnn.com...

And here are numerous sources that explain why the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church:

http://catholicism.about.com...
http://www.dummies.com...
http://www.catholic.org...
http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org...
http://www.bible.ca...

"Second premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio (i.e. Francis) is a formal heretic."

You kinda need evidence to back up such a claim. An no, your own opinion isnt a valid source :)




"Francis called the rabbi Sergio Bergman a "believer". Francis therefore says that Sergio Bergman is part of the faithful, which is the same as to say that this rabbi is in the Mystical Body of the Church."

Except that it isnt.... Anyone who believes in God is a believer, but that doesnt mean calling someone a believer includes them into the Catholic faith like you claim.






"Francis took part in a interreligious cerimony to honor deceased jews whom rejected Jesus Christ. To honor someone who has passed away is to consider that that person could have been saved."

Again it doesnt. Paying respects to those who died is simply paying respect to them, it doesnt mean that he was trying to save them like you claim.






"Pope Francis - " promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be."

"Pope Pius IX - Liberty of Conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society"

There is literally nothing contradictory about these two statements. Both are proclaiming that each man has the inherent right to worship, and it says nothing in either that they HAVE to worship God as the Catholic Church sees him.....




===========================================================================================




All of pro's claims that Pope Francis is a heretic are based on his own warped interpretations of Pope Francis's actions as that of heresy, which are no different then then the actions that many Popes have done before him.

Pope Francis is not a heretic and therefore is the Pope, and therefore the head of the Catholic Church.....

Debate Round No. 3
Stanthony

Pro

I mean, this guy is just a troll. It's completely worthless. But i'll answer anyway for instructive purpose.

He cut my citation of "Quanta Cura" to make it appear that Pius IX and antipope Francis are saying the same thing.

The citation goes as follows:

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: "... that erroneous opinion... NAMELY, THAT "LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN"S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY..."

He put it like this:
"LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN"S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY..."

Notice that he hides the "that erroneous opinion "part. That's complete dishonesty to make it look that Pope Pius IX was promoting religious liberty. And a mortal sin, also.

He still cannot understand the difference between being a Pope and being recognized as such. According to his line of reasoning, Jesus Christ was not the Messiah at the time of his crucifixion since the majority did not recognized him as such.

He still cannot understand that, according to Catholic teaching, his "election" is completely worthless since he was already an apostate before being "elected".

According to him it is reasonable to say that when Francis honoured deceased jews he still believed that they were in hell. He was comemorating someone's condemnation to eternal fire. This is bizarre. But even if it was the case, it would still be an act of apostasy since he was participating in an interreligious service.

Except that it isnt.... Anyone who believes in God is a believer, but that doesnt mean calling someone a believer includes them into the Catholic faith like you claim."

He is completely wrong. The Catholic Church considers everyone who has a faith other than the Catholic faith as infidels,
and publicans. Look at how the Church treats those who have false faith:

Pope Callixtus III, 1455: "I vow to" exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the
diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet[Islam] in the East."

Pope Callixtus III calls the Mohamedans infidels, not believers.

But what is also interesting about this passage of the Contender's "argumentation" is that it proves that he is not a Catholic since he considers that anyone who claims to believe in God is a believer. Which means that he considers someone who does not believe in the Trinity as a believer in God.

I could go on but i'll not waste my time anymore. This guys is just a joke.
Look at the about me of his profile:
"If you look at my Bio it mentions trolling 8 times and my debating skills only once, so that alone summarizes what kind of member I am. I do a lot of trollish debates..."
imabench

Con

"I mean, this guy is just a troll. It's completely worthless. But i'll answer anyway for instructive purpose."

Just because youre being a complete idiot it doesnt mean you have to lash out to try to prove your case when youve already failed...

"That's complete dishonesty to make it look that Pope Pius IX was promoting religious liberty"

The way you quoted it implied that he was, dont blame me for your inability to cite sources properly.

"he Catholic Church considers everyone who has a faith other than the Catholic faith as infidels, and publicans. Look at how the Church treats those who have false faith: Pope Callixtus III, 1455: "I vow to" exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet[Islam] in the East."

And if you cite evidence from Popes who didnt die over 500 years ago, then you could see why that claim that that all who arent Catholics are infidels is complete crap.



=========================================================================



The fact that pro has resorted to such pathetic measures to try to prove his case shows that his argument is completely false and that he knows it. The simply facts aare that Pope Francis was elected Pope, he still is the Pope, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis isnt a heretic just because Pro thinks he is.

Pro's claims that the Pope is a heretic are based on his own flawed interpretations of completely normal actions which means he has failed to prove his case.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Con

Ok then, extend all dropped arguments.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
76 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Catholic_AX 4 years ago
Catholic_AX
I saw a gentleman comment below that those who hold the sedevacantist position are saying "the gates of hell have prevailed." The opposite is true. The Gates of Hell, according to the Catholic Church are Heresy and Heretics. So if Francis is a pope, the gates of hell have prevailed because "Francis", as well as the other V-2 sect antipopes, have been heretics.

Pope Vigilius, 2nd Council of Constantinople, 553: "... we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said *the-gates-of-Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of *heretics)..."

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter ... because by *the-gates-of-Hell, that is, by the disputations of *heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome."

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): "Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of *heretics, fittingly referred to as *the-gates-of-Hell."

So, are "the gates of hell" antipopes? No. We can see by Catholic teaching that is false. MOREOVER, there have been over FORTY (40) antipopes in Church history. So, if the gentleman below is correct about his private interpretation of "the gates of hell", well, "the gates of hell" have prevailed over FORTY (40) times.

"One of the most notorious cases in Church history was that of the Antipope Anacletus II, who-reigned-in-Rome from 1130 to 1138. Anacletus had been implanted in an uncanonical election after Innocent II, the true pope, had already been chosen. Despite his invalid and uncanonical election, Antipope Anacletus II gained control of Rome and the support of the majority of the College of Cardinals. Anacletus held the support of almost the entire populace of Rome, until the true pope regained control of the city in 1138." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Anacletus," Vol 1, 1907,p 447)

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.c...
Posted by Catholic_AX 4 years ago
Catholic_AX
Sadly, Johnny Depp (the contender) doesn't know the Catholic concepts of Church membership nor loss of office. The fact that a manifest heretic can not be Pope is rooted in the Dogma that heretics are not members of the Church. They're outside:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441 ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that ALL those who are OUTSIDE the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or HERETICS..."

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208 ex cathedra: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics..."

Francis is a Heretic, no doubt. We now ask, has the Church taught anything on this subject? We find yes, it has. St's, Dr's and Popes on this subject are clear, that Heretics are #1 OUTSIDE the Church, and #2 those OUTSIDE the Church can-not-lead-the-Church.

Pope Innocent III (1216): "... less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, OR RATHER, HE CAN BE SHOWN TO BE ALREADY JUDGED, if-for-example-he-should-wither-away-into-heresy, because "HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IS ALREADY JUDGED." (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men. '"

I now direct those interested to the heresies of "Francis":
Heresies of "Francis", 2nd edition->
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Dr of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest-heretic-automatically-ceases-to-be-pope and head, just-as-he-ceases-automatically-to-be-a-Christian-and-A MEMBER-of-the-Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This-is-the-teaching-of-all-the-ancient-Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio - http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 4 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Dmot, stop complaining about being "attacked". You sound like a big cry baby.

Dmot said, "(P.S. you misquoted Pius IX on religious liberty by taking it out of context.....)
You have me confused with someone else Dmot. I never posted anything from Pope Pius IX.

Dmot said, "Who is it that has more faith? The one who says that the gates of hell have triumphed or the one that says they haven't...." My answer to you, Dmot, is that obviously the one who says the gates of hell have not triumphed is the one who has more faith, unlike you since you keep throwing stuff at the wall over and over again until it sticks to somehow make your false case that the gates of hell have prevailed.
Posted by Dmot 4 years ago
Dmot
CT,
I apologize for the use of the word nutcases. That was over the top. However I do get worked up about this because I think that they pick and chose and are seriously misled about understanding the Pope's comments and the teachings of the Church...for example Baptism of Desire.

Anyway, you haven't responded to my arguments. I have faith that even if some things the Pope says are a little sketchy, Christ will preserve His Church. You haven't told me how the Church can survive without the Papacy. You have insisted that we have lived without Popes before and without Cardianals. However you have not made it clear how without an explicit Magisterium the Church even exists. Because of this, I think you haven't made your case. I notice this is what many sedevecantists do. They insist they are right and the other person is:
1) Lying
2) Blind
3) of Bad will
4) A hypocrite

etc.
Who is it that has more faith? The one who says that the gates of hell have triumphed or the one that says they haven't and you are misreading the Papal claims.

(P.S. you misquoted Pius IX on religious liberty by taking it out of context. you also fail to realize a fellow Cardinal commented on that passage at the time (Newman). You act like how protestants interpret Scripture with your interpretation of the Magisterium. This is why I discount your "evidence" and take it on faith that the Church is still around)
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 4 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Dmot, any honest person reading these back and forth comments would clearly see that I have responded to your questions and objections. But it was essentially a waste of time to have responded to them all because ultimately you admitted that you don't really have any faith in the Catholic Church to choose a pope even if the Magisterium was still intact. Stanthony was correct about you when he said that you need 'evidence' to know that the Church has a way by which it can elect a Pope. So unlike you, we traditionalist Catholics do not need 'evidence' because we have 'faith' in Christ and in his Holy Catholic Church.

So, you ignore all the clear 'evidence' that proves the last 6 papal claimants are public manifest heretics while at the same time you demand 'evidence' from the Catholic Church to present to you a way by which they could choose a new Pope, otherwise you won't accept the Catholic Church. Like I said, you are a hypocrite. Its not uncharitable for me to point that out, but instead I have a duty as a Catholic to point that out to those reading these comments so as to warn faithful Catholics that they should stay away from listening to you as you are an occasion of sin against obedience. Just as you claimed that MHFM are "nutcases" and that "faithful Catholics should stay away from them as they are an occasion of sin against obedience."
Posted by Dmot 4 years ago
Dmot
CT,
Please try to actually hear what I am saying. Please. Listen.
I do not say it is not okay to judge others (in the sense that you mean...) I said that it was not good manners and it was uncharitable in that it turns people away from answers and makes the debate over personal attacks rather than truth. I do not think that this is the case with my criticism over MHFM. Obviously, we disagree about the state of the Church. To say that my position is wrong and harmful is different than saying I am spiritually blind or morally culpable. I do not accuse MHFM, as wrong as their opinions are, of willfully hiding the truth. I say that faithful Catholics should stay away from them as they are an occasion of sin against obedience.

That said, its really besides the point. lets just have good manners if we want to discuss this.
You have not answered my objections. You keep repeating the same 2 lines: "You lack faith in the Church because you don't see how the Church could elect a Pope" and "the Church elected Popes before the Cardinals"
1 is just an insult and only can be substantiated by a response to my questions/arguments.
The second thing I agree with however it is irrelevant. Read through my comments--especially the last few where I explicitly list the options. Then please respond where my reasoning is faulty...?
In Good Catholic Manners please.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 4 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Dmot, I see. So you can judge others( i.e. MHFM ) by the position they hold, but nobody else has any right to judge you by the position you hold based on your own stated position in your comments. How hypocritical of you.

I have already responded to all of your questions and objections. The problem is that you refuse to accept my answers, which is why you ignore them and instead continue to repeat your objections again and again, like a broken record. Besides, you've already admitted that if the seat of Peter is presently empty and the Magisterium does still exists today, then you still would conclude that the gates of hell would have prevailed since you cannot see a way by which the Church could choose another Pope. This admission of yours is simply evidence that you lack faith in the Church which our Lord established, and it proves you lack faith in Jesus' own words when he said, "hell would not prevail over his Church".
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 4 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Dmot, I see. So you can judge others( i.e. MHFM ) by the position they hold, but nobody else has any right to judge you by the position you hold based on your own stated position in your comments. How hypocritical of you.

I have already responded to all of your questions and objections. The problem is that you refuse to accept my answers, which is why you ignore them and instead continue to repeat your objections again and again, like a broken record. Besides, you've already admitted that if the seat of Peter is presently empty and the Magisterium does still exists today, then you still would conclude that the gates of hell would have prevailed since you cannot see a way by which the Church could choose another Pope. This admission of yours is simply evidence that you lack faith in the Church which our Lord established, and it proves you lack faith in Jesus' own words when he said, "hell would not prevail over his Church".
Posted by Dmot 4 years ago
Dmot
PS, I address the link you provide's content in my other comments. But to summarize:

I am NOT saying that the Church must have a Pope at every moment or CARDINALS at every moment. What the Church must have is 2 things:

1) Bishops
2) A way to elect a Pope (i.e. the Papacy even if there is no man)

If there is no 1, there is no 2. If there are no Cardinals, there is no 2 under current Canon Law. UNLESS there is an exception provided in a proper interpretation of CL OR the Bishops have the authority to establish a new way of electing a Pope WITHOUT the Pope. Both of these seem to me to be doubtful. Hence I asked the questions.

Even if however you accept that Canon Law allows for the Bishops to determine HOW to elect a new Pope. I see this as practically impossible. How are we to know which Bishops are the true Bishops? What if the Bishops cannot agree on a method? How would we know for sure that the Bishops had such authority? At the end--its essentially AS IF there was no Papacy and thus no Unity of the Church. So for all intents and purposes, no Cardinals under current Canon Law (since I know of no emergency provisions in the case of no Cardinals alive) would be the end of the Papacy and thus the end of the Church.

On a side, I do not know if most sedevecantists would admit the existence of
A. Valid Bishops
B. Bishops who are not heretics

It depends on if you think modern day Orders is valid and how strict you are with sedevecantism. People like the MHFM (which I do not know how much affiliation you have with them btw) do not accept Baptism of Desire (I guess Pope Innocent III was an imposter antipope...who knew we haven't had a Pope since the 12th century...but I digress) and this would probably mean 99.9% of all Bishops were heretics if not 100%. You'd be hard pressed to find a Bishop who agrees with the MHFM on EVERYTHING. Maybe I'm wrong but still...when he dies....
Posted by Dmot 4 years ago
Dmot
To "Stanthony",
I object to simply name-calling another commenter like that. I do not object to telling others to stay away from a website because the people on that website tell harmful things about the faith. I would say stay away from anti-Catholic Calvinist sites as well for the same reason---the stuff they put on there is usually nuts and always harmful. That's different than conversing with a person asking questions and raising serious objections to a point. What I was doing is warning about staying away from something harmful. What CT was doing was just insulting. I am seeking the truth, I just disagree with your position.

Note on St. Athanasius ---> I agree that even if very few held the Catholic Faith the Church would remain. I also think that we need some valid Bishops. Its that simple. You can't have the Church without Bishops.
You accuse me of being like Martin Luther and the Devil. Look: sometimes people who both want the truth disagree. I think that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. This means that I believe that there will always be a way to elect the new Pope. This is different from the Schism btw because during the schism we had: 1) A true Pope (albeit not all recognized it) 2) Cardinals to elect a new one 3) A clear body of Bishops.
Finally, it is YOU who do not answer my last objections. I made it clear with 2 options in my last comment. Which do you chose? Where is the error of my argument? Don't just ACCUSE someone of being like the devil, SHOW them where their argument is wrong.

It is charitable to do this. It is prudent to do this. It is honest to do this. Are Catholics prudent, charitable and honest? I would hope.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
StanthonyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument did not need to continue past round1... CONDUCT: Both insulted each other, before that started I was leaning toward giving it to pro. S&G: leans to con (not enough to give it), who had less errors... Use bold or underline, all caps with quotation marks in random places is annoying enough to distract from the argument. ARGUMENT: Pro did make a strong case that the pope is a heretic and should not be the head of the catholic church, were either of those in the resolution I'd give him argument without a second thought (as much as I do actually like the current pope, particularly his views on atheism and good deeds to get into heaven); however this argument boiled down to a legal question that was never quite raised (one mirroring when Bush Jr was elected president, even when in a more pure democracy he would have lost). Con's arguments were a little trollish, but the changes to the resolution were suggested in the comments and ignored. SOURCES: Con spammed them, so tied.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
StanthonyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL @ this debate. Pro attempted to have an honest debate over traditionalist Catholicism versus the Catholicism of the contemporary papacy. Con attempted a semantics game which equivocated on the word 'pope'. Pro, as explained in the first round, stated this debate was to be about whether or not Papa Francis abides by the Dogma of the Catholic Church, NOT whether he was elected as Pope -- Pro, like Con, probably heard the news within hours of his election. Con completely threw what would be an engaging debate on an obscure intra-Catholic issue into a lexical competition laden with the fallacy of equivocation. I hence give conduct to Pro for Con's thwarting of the debate, arguments to Pro for Con's unconvincing semantical play, and sources to Pro for Con's use of Wikipedia to demonstrate that Francis does indeed carry the title of 'Pope,' for whatever that's worth.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 4 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
StanthonyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have written another topic because his seemed to be stating a brute fact, the current Pope being the head of the church. He should have proposed something along the lines of "Pope Francis doesn't deserve to be the head of the church." Even with this factual victory for Con, Con diminished Pro's allegations and showed how he was committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy throughout the debate (or connecting dots to suit his position in explaining the behavior of the pope) as Con explained. Arguments go for Con. Conduct also goes to Con because of Pro's misconduct and personal insults such as calling his opponent a "worthless troll." When it comes to sources, Con offered sources to prove his point that the Pope is the head of the church officially, regardless if someone believes he is too corrupt to take this position. I believe this debate was clearly won by Con.