The Instigator
WLCJWC
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
milady6969
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Pope Francis Is Not A Heretic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
WLCJWC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 58511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

WLCJWC

Con

As this debate could not be finished because of a tragic death in the family of my opponent, I'm opening this up to anyone who wishes to take it.

"Pope" Francis IS a heretic

I. Definition of heresy. A heretic is "one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith." (See Canon 1325.2. 1917 Code of Canon Law). This is how heresy has always been understood by the Church pre-Vatican II. The canonist Michel warns that one must clearly distinguish three problems:

(1) Dogmatic " heresy as false doctrine.

(2) Moral " heresy as sin.

(3) Canonical " heresy as an ecclesiastical crime (delictum). (See A. Michel, "H"resie, H"retique," in "Dictionnaire de Th"ologie Catholique" or "DTC" 6:2208.)

Here we need only discuss points (1) and (2), false doctrine and sin, because a pope"s public sin of heresy " the offense against God"s law " strips him of Christ"s authority.(See L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Gregorian 1927) 1:632. "He would automatically lose pontifical power, because, having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis], he put himself outside of the Church by his own will."). Point (3) does not apply, because as supreme legislator a pope cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime (delictum) against canon law.

2. How must doctrine be denied to constitute heresy?
The teaching must be an article "of divine and Catholic faith" that the Church has authentically proposed as such. A prior "ex cathedra" or conciliar definition is not required. "The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful." (See, op. cit. Michel, DTC 6:2215.) The heretic may deny the doctrine "in explicit or equivalent terms," (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638.) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition (e.g. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man is de fide; Jesus Christ is NOT true God and true Man is a contradictory proposition. Jesus Christ is an angel is a contrary proposition. Either of the latter two statements thereby constitutes a denial of a truth of faith).

3. Other requirement= pertinacity. "Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence," says Michel, "to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church"s Magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.

"This willed opposition to the Church"s Magisterium constitutes the pertinacity authors require for the sin of heresy. With Cajetan we must observe that pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another." (See Michel, DTC 6:2222. In-text citations omitted).

4. Vatican II teaches heresy and those who promulgated and/or adhere to it are heretics and not Catholics.
I will reiterate what I wrote in my last debate concerning Francis as a heretic:
The documents of Vatican II along with the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the official pronouncements of Wotyla ("pope" John Paul II) and Ratzinger ("pope" Benedict XVI) state the following:

" Schismatic bodies are "particular Churches" united to the Catholic Church by "close bonds." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (1992), 17.

" The Church of Christ "is present and operative" in churches that reject the papacy. See, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Declaration Dominus Jesus. 6 August 2002, #17

" The universal Church is the "body of the [particular] Churches." Op. Cit. at #8

" There exist "numerous "spheres" of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it."John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981.

" Schismatic Churches have a "wounded" existence. Op. Cit. at #17

" The "universal Church becomes present in them [the particular Churches] with all her essential elements." Ibid #7

" "Elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church, and without this fullness, in the other communities."See, John Paul II encyclical "Ut Unam Sint" # 14

Here is what the One True Church of Christ has always taught prior to Vatican II:
Pius IX, "Amantissimus", 18 Apr 1862: Those who leave the Roman See "cannot hope to remain within the Church."

" Pius IX, Holy Office Letter, 16 Sep 1864: The novelty of "branch churches" "destroys at one stroke the divine constitution of the Church."

" Pius IX, "Jam Vos Omnes", 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or "all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create."

" Leo XIII, "Officio Sanctissimo", 22 Dec 1887: He who separates from the Pope "has no further bond with Christ."

" Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 29 Jun 1896: "Jesus Christ did not "institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church."

" Leo XIII, ibid. The Church regarded as rebels and outside her "all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own."

" Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis", 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth "who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely "spiritual," as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link."

The ecclesiology pre- and post- Vatican II are mutually exclusive. If Vatican II is correct, then one can be saved apart from the Catholic Church. This is why Francis says "proselytism is nonsense" and claims atheists can get to Heaven because having the Faith is not essential to salvation, you only need to be a "nice guy/gal." If pre-Vatican II theology is correct, then membership in the Church is essential for salvation and it is evil and heretical to say otherwise leading souls to be damned.

Therefore, (a) it is the constant teaching of the pre-Vatican II Church that the Church is indefectible and infallible, (b) the teaching of ecclesiology in both Vatican II and the putative "popes" that followed is a blatant contradiction of ALL official magisterial documents prior to the death of Pope Pius XII so it cannot be true, and (c) it is an evil that leads to damnation.
Since "Pope" Francis embraces Vatican II, he is a heretic, and cannot be a true Pope.

5. Summary and Conclusion.

Through contrary propositions, Vatican II and the putative "popes" that follow deny an article of divine and Catholic faith: "I believe in one Church." (See SALAVERRI, J. Sacra Theologiae Summa: De Ecclesia. Madrid: BAC 1955, 1962.)

The Church"s universal ordinary Magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what this unity means: "The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other." (See J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Manz 1906) 153)

"The practice of the Church," said Leo XIII, "has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." (See Encyclical "Satis Cognitum" 29 June 1896)

Vatican II's heresy posits a "People of God" and a "Church of Christ" not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it "--- an hitherto unknown entity--- created from "elements" of the true Church that are possessed either "fully" (by Catholics) or "partially" (by heretics and schismatics).

It is evil as it leads souls to Hell and Francis embraces and promotes this heresy. Unlike Roncalli (John XXIII), and Montini (Paul VI); Luciani (John Paul I), Wotyla (John Paul II), Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), and Bergoglio (Francis) never LOST their authority, because they were already professed heretics at the time of their election and were ineligible to be elected in the first place. Heresy removes one from membership in the One True Church of Christ, and one who is not a member of an organization could obviously never become the Head of that Institution.

Therefore, Francis is a heretic and is not (nor was he ever) the pope.
milady6969

Pro

Pope Francis, how many letters are in that combination of words? Eleven, 9/11? i didn't say that what i did say is ELeven the fallen ANG of EL is satan, satan is illuminati. ggnore
Debate Round No. 1
WLCJWC

Con

As my opponent has not posted anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument, I will simply restate mine.

"Pope" Francis IS a heretic

I. Definition of heresy. A heretic is "one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith." (See Canon 1325.2. 1917 Code of Canon Law). This is how heresy has always been understood by the Church pre-Vatican II. The canonist Michel warns that one must clearly distinguish three problems:

(1) Dogmatic " heresy as false doctrine.

(2) Moral " heresy as sin.

(3) Canonical " heresy as an ecclesiastical crime (delictum). (See A. Michel, "H"resie, H"retique," in "Dictionnaire de Th"ologie Catholique" or "DTC" 6:2208.)

Here we need only discuss points (1) and (2), false doctrine and sin, because a pope"s public sin of heresy " the offense against God"s law " strips him of Christ"s authority.(See L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Gregorian 1927) 1:632. "He would automatically lose pontifical power, because, having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis], he put himself outside of the Church by his own will."). Point (3) does not apply, because as supreme legislator a pope cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime (delictum) against canon law.

2. How must doctrine be denied to constitute heresy?
The teaching must be an article "of divine and Catholic faith" that the Church has authentically proposed as such. A prior "ex cathedra" or conciliar definition is not required. "The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful." (See, op. cit. Michel, DTC 6:2215.) The heretic may deny the doctrine "in explicit or equivalent terms," (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638.) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition (e.g. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man is de fide; Jesus Christ is NOT true God and true Man is a contradictory proposition. Jesus Christ is an angel is a contrary proposition. Either of the latter two statements thereby constitutes a denial of a truth of faith).

3. Other requirement= pertinacity. "Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence," says Michel, "to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church"s Magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.

"This willed opposition to the Church"s Magisterium constitutes the pertinacity authors require for the sin of heresy. With Cajetan we must observe that pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another." (See Michel, DTC 6:2222. In-text citations omitted).

4. Vatican II teaches heresy and those who promulgated and/or adhere to it are heretics and not Catholics.
I will reiterate what I wrote in my last debate concerning Francis as a heretic:
The documents of Vatican II along with the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the official pronouncements of Wotyla ("pope" John Paul II) and Ratzinger ("pope" Benedict XVI) state the following:

" Schismatic bodies are "particular Churches" united to the Catholic Church by "close bonds." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (1992), 17.

" The Church of Christ "is present and operative" in churches that reject the papacy. See, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Declaration Dominus Jesus. 6 August 2002, #17

" The universal Church is the "body of the [particular] Churches." Op. Cit. at #8

" There exist "numerous "spheres" of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it."John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981.

" Schismatic Churches have a "wounded" existence. Op. Cit. at #17

" The "universal Church becomes present in them [the particular Churches] with all her essential elements." Ibid #7

" "Elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church, and without this fullness, in the other communities."See, John Paul II encyclical "Ut Unam Sint" # 14

Here is what the One True Church of Christ has always taught prior to Vatican II:
Pius IX, "Amantissimus", 18 Apr 1862: Those who leave the Roman See "cannot hope to remain within the Church."

" Pius IX, Holy Office Letter, 16 Sep 1864: The novelty of "branch churches" "destroys at one stroke the divine constitution of the Church."

" Pius IX, "Jam Vos Omnes", 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or "all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create."

" Leo XIII, "Officio Sanctissimo", 22 Dec 1887: He who separates from the Pope "has no further bond with Christ."

" Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 29 Jun 1896: "Jesus Christ did not "institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church."

" Leo XIII, ibid. The Church regarded as rebels and outside her "all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own."

" Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis", 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth "who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely "spiritual," as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link."

The ecclesiology pre- and post- Vatican II are mutually exclusive. If Vatican II is correct, then one can be saved apart from the Catholic Church. This is why Francis says "proselytism is nonsense" and claims atheists can get to Heaven because having the Faith is not essential to salvation, you only need to be a "nice guy/gal." If pre-Vatican II theology is correct, then membership in the Church is essential for salvation and it is evil and heretical to say otherwise leading souls to be damned.

Therefore, (a) it is the constant teaching of the pre-Vatican II Church that the Church is indefectible and infallible, (b) the teaching of ecclesiology in both Vatican II and the putative "popes" that followed is a blatant contradiction of ALL official magisterial documents prior to the death of Pope Pius XII so it cannot be true, and (c) it is an evil that leads to damnation.
Since "Pope" Francis embraces Vatican II, he is a heretic, and cannot be a true Pope.

5. Summary and Conclusion.

Through contrary propositions, Vatican II and the putative "popes" that follow deny an article of divine and Catholic faith: "I believe in one Church." (See SALAVERRI, J. Sacra Theologiae Summa: De Ecclesia. Madrid: BAC 1955, 1962.)

The Church"s universal ordinary Magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what this unity means: "The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other." (See J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Manz 1906) 153)

"The practice of the Church," said Leo XIII, "has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." (See Encyclical "Satis Cognitum" 29 June 1896)

Vatican II's heresy posits a "People of God" and a "Church of Christ" not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it "--- an hitherto unknown entity--- created from "elements" of the true Church that are possessed either "fully" (by Catholics) or "partially" (by heretics and schismatics).

It is evil as it leads souls to Hell and Francis embraces and promotes this heresy. Unlike Roncalli (John XXIII), and Montini (Paul VI); Luciani (John Paul I), Wotyla (John Paul II), Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), and Bergoglio (Francis) never LOST their authority, because they were already professed heretics at the time of their election and were ineligible to be elected in the first place. Heresy removes one from membership in the One True Church of Christ, and one who is not a member of an organization could obviously never become the Head of that Institution.

Therefore, Francis is a heretic and is not (nor was he ever) the pope.
milady6969

Pro

milady6969 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WLCJWC

Con

"Pope" Francis IS a heretic

I. Definition of heresy. A heretic is "one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith." (See Canon 1325.2. 1917 Code of Canon Law). This is how heresy has always been understood by the Church pre-Vatican II. The canonist Michel warns that one must clearly distinguish three problems:

(1) Dogmatic " heresy as false doctrine.

(2) Moral " heresy as sin.

(3) Canonical " heresy as an ecclesiastical crime (delictum). (See A. Michel, "H"resie, H"retique," in "Dictionnaire de Th"ologie Catholique" or "DTC" 6:2208.)

Here we need only discuss points (1) and (2), false doctrine and sin, because a pope"s public sin of heresy " the offense against God"s law " strips him of Christ"s authority.(See L. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Gregorian 1927) 1:632. "He would automatically lose pontifical power, because, having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis], he put himself outside of the Church by his own will."). Point (3) does not apply, because as supreme legislator a pope cannot commit an ecclesiastical crime (delictum) against canon law.

2. How must doctrine be denied to constitute heresy?
The teaching must be an article "of divine and Catholic faith" that the Church has authentically proposed as such. A prior "ex cathedra" or conciliar definition is not required. "The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful." (See, op. cit. Michel, DTC 6:2215.) The heretic may deny the doctrine "in explicit or equivalent terms," (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638.) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition (e.g. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man is de fide; Jesus Christ is NOT true God and true Man is a contradictory proposition. Jesus Christ is an angel is a contrary proposition. Either of the latter two statements thereby constitutes a denial of a truth of faith).

3. Other requirement= pertinacity. "Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence," says Michel, "to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church"s Magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.

"This willed opposition to the Church"s Magisterium constitutes the pertinacity authors require for the sin of heresy. With Cajetan we must observe that pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another." (See Michel, DTC 6:2222. In-text citations omitted).

4. Vatican II teaches heresy and those who promulgated and/or adhere to it are heretics and not Catholics.
I will reiterate what I wrote in my last debate concerning Francis as a heretic:
The documents of Vatican II along with the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the official pronouncements of Wotyla ("pope" John Paul II) and Ratzinger ("pope" Benedict XVI) state the following:

" Schismatic bodies are "particular Churches" united to the Catholic Church by "close bonds." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion (1992), 17.

" The Church of Christ "is present and operative" in churches that reject the papacy. See, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Declaration Dominus Jesus. 6 August 2002, #17

" The universal Church is the "body of the [particular] Churches." Op. Cit. at #8

" There exist "numerous "spheres" of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it."John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981.

" Schismatic Churches have a "wounded" existence. Op. Cit. at #17

" The "universal Church becomes present in them [the particular Churches] with all her essential elements." Ibid #7

" "Elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church, and without this fullness, in the other communities."See, John Paul II encyclical "Ut Unam Sint" # 14

Here is what the One True Church of Christ has always taught prior to Vatican II:
Pius IX, "Amantissimus", 18 Apr 1862: Those who leave the Roman See "cannot hope to remain within the Church."

" Pius IX, Holy Office Letter, 16 Sep 1864: The novelty of "branch churches" "destroys at one stroke the divine constitution of the Church."

" Pius IX, "Jam Vos Omnes", 13 Sep 1868: "No non-Catholic sect or "all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create."

" Leo XIII, "Officio Sanctissimo", 22 Dec 1887: He who separates from the Pope "has no further bond with Christ."

" Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 29 Jun 1896: "Jesus Christ did not "institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church."

" Leo XIII, ibid. The Church regarded as rebels and outside her "all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own."

" Pius XII, "Mystici Corporis", 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth "who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely "spiritual," as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link."

The ecclesiology pre- and post- Vatican II are mutually exclusive. If Vatican II is correct, then one can be saved apart from the Catholic Church. This is why Francis says "proselytism is nonsense" and claims atheists can get to Heaven because having the Faith is not essential to salvation, you only need to be a "nice guy/gal." If pre-Vatican II theology is correct, then membership in the Church is essential for salvation and it is evil and heretical to say otherwise leading souls to be damned.

Therefore, (a) it is the constant teaching of the pre-Vatican II Church that the Church is indefectible and infallible, (b) the teaching of ecclesiology in both Vatican II and the putative "popes" that followed is a blatant contradiction of ALL official magisterial documents prior to the death of Pope Pius XII so it cannot be true, and (c) it is an evil that leads to damnation.
Since "Pope" Francis embraces Vatican II, he is a heretic, and cannot be a true Pope.

5. Summary and Conclusion.

Through contrary propositions, Vatican II and the putative "popes" that follow deny an article of divine and Catholic faith: "I believe in one Church." (See SALAVERRI, J. Sacra Theologiae Summa: De Ecclesia. Madrid: BAC 1955, 1962.)

The Church"s universal ordinary Magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what this unity means: "The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other." (See J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Manz 1906) 153)

"The practice of the Church," said Leo XIII, "has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." (See Encyclical "Satis Cognitum" 29 June 1896)

Vatican II's heresy posits a "People of God" and a "Church of Christ" not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it "--- an hitherto unknown entity--- created from "elements" of the true Church that are possessed either "fully" (by Catholics) or "partially" (by heretics and schismatics).

It is evil as it leads souls to Hell and Francis embraces and promotes this heresy. Unlike Roncalli (John XXIII), and Montini (Paul VI); Luciani (John Paul I), Wotyla (John Paul II), Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), and Bergoglio (Francis) never LOST their authority, because they were already professed heretics at the time of their election and were ineligible to be elected in the first place. Heresy removes one from membership in the One True Church of Christ, and one who is not a member of an organization could obviously never become the Head of that Institution.

Therefore, Francis is a heretic and is not (nor was he ever) the pope.
milady6969

Pro

milady6969 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Poor WLCJWC. Nobody will competently debate him on this topic. Too many trolls on this site.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Hahaha, total troll
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
I have to say though, after having read that comment through several times, it gave me quite a laugh.
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
LiberalLogic101
Wow, I'm sorry. You have a very lovely little argument for a debate going, and as of yet, I haven't actually seen any sort of coherent response from the other side.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
... just...
Posted by WLCJWC 2 years ago
WLCJWC
As a young person who grew up in a post-Vatican 2 world, I can understand how you would call "tyranny" at any organization that claims to be the sole guardian of Truth and Salvation.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Wow. Everything about this argument screams that the Catholic Church is a tyrant.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Your motion is pretty iron clad, however maybe in a different debate , I would argue that the catholic church has traditionally been a terrible force in the world and Pope Francis is a more understanding and moral pope.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
WLCJWCmilady6969Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
WLCJWCmilady6969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF