The Instigator
WLCJWC
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Strycora
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

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 4 votes the winner is...
WLCJWC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 58234
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

WLCJWC

Pro

1.Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
2.Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
3.It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
4.Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
5.Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
6.Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority.
7.Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.
Since the election of Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis") by the March 2013 conclave, more and more Catholics have started to wonder whether the sedevacantist explanation for the state of affairs in the post-Vatican II church might not indeed be the correct one. After all, how can you reconcile the countless outrageous public statements that Bergoglio has made (no Catholic God, who am I to judge, doctrinal security is not possible, proselytism is nonsense, etc.) with the claim that he is indeed the true Successor of Peter? On the face of it, you can"t.

The only explanation that makes any sense alongside the Catholic (pre-V2) theology of the Church and the papacy is sedevacantism. Bergoglio is not a real pope, and the papal office is therefore objectively vacant (sede vacante = the Holy See is vacant). The man who deposited a beach ball on the altar of a Roman basilica and, more recently, donned a clown nose, is not, thank God a real pope, despite the fact that he wanders around in a white cassock.
Strycora

Con

You have not proven that the Church is indefectable or infallible. The BOP is on you, you made those claims. There is no reason to believe that doctrine can be stable. There is no reason to believe that Church teaching has ever been perfect. You have not proven that Vatican II and post Vatican II teachings promote evil or that pre-Vatican II teachings promote good. Without proof for any of these claims, there is no good reason to believe that Pope Francis is a heretic. Since there is no good reason to believe that Pope Francis is a heretic. saying that he is not a true Pope is unjustified.
Debate Round No. 1
WLCJWC

Pro

1. The Church is Infallible and Indefectible. An essential property of Christ"s Church is her infallibility. This does not apply (as some traditional Catholics seem to think) only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Infallibility also extends to the Church"s universal disciplinary laws. The principle, set forth in classic dogmatic theology texts such as theologians Salaverri , Zubizarreta, Herrmann , Schultes and Abarzuza , is typically explained as follows: "The Church infallibility extends to" ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above " and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged
when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life. [Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology. 2:91. Westminster MD, Newman, 1958). It is therefore a fact that Church teaching cannot change or be understood differently than when it was first promulgated. To say otherwise is the heresy of Modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #53 " The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution."

2. Vatican II teachings promote evil. 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.
Strycora

Con

I concede that, within the framework of all your definition and dogma, your argument is both valid and sound. I argue that the dogma and definiton off which you base your very argument is corrupt, however, and that it is a contradiction to the message of Jesus Christ, and by extension, the Word of God.

In John 14:26, Jesus tells us that He will reveal further Truth in the future through the Holy Spirit. What this means is that at the point of the Ascension, the Church was only just born, and would grow and develop over its lifetime.

I argue that the early Church leaders who made it a rule that the Church cannot evolve or be changed are the true heretics; the ones who tried to kill the living, growing Church in its infancy. None of the doctrines you've talked about are the direct words of Christ, nor are they in the Bible, so even to a Christian they are not definitely true.

All of the Vatican II statements and the statements of Pope Francis that you have attacked have to do with accepting people outside of the Catholic Church, and I would say that this is part of the evolution of the Church, part of God's project of Universal Acceptance and Love.

In the Bible, Jesus Christ confirms that the Will of the Lord is to cultivate Universal Love and Acceptance between all members of humanity. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus sums up the Law of God quite succinctly: "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Mark 12:31, Jesus confirms that one of the two greatest commandments of the Lord is to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is a message of Universal Acceptance and Love incompatible with earlier Catholic doctrine that condemns anyone outside of the Church.

God and all of his Laws transcend time, and the only way for an eternal law to be expressed within the framework of time is through evolution over time from the most abject ignorance of the Law to the ultimate confirmation of the Law. I have argued that the only Law of God, other than personal love for Him, is Universal Acceptance and Love for Others. Therefore, the true heretics are the ones who stop the evolution of the Church and the ones who reject the fact that the Lord's ultimate goal is that all can become conscious of His glory and take part in it through love for Him and Universal Love and Acceptance for everyone else. Vatican II and the words of Pope Francis come closer to Universal Love and Acceptance than any Pre-Vatican II doctrine, therefore, Vatican II is not a defection or a corruption and Pope Francis is a true Pope that leads the Church further towards its ultimate goal.
Debate Round No. 2
WLCJWC

Pro

My opponent concedes that my argument is both valid and sound, and attempts to escape its inevitable conclusion by a series of arguments that are little more than red herrings. The issue is whether or not Francis is a heretic and not a true pope as Catholics have always understood the Papacy. The First Vatican Council gave formal definition to what the office of the papacy, in the dogmatic Constitution on the Church. To his credit Francis never refers to himself as "pope" but as "bishop of Rome" so as to exclude the powers and privileges all recognize as inherent by the term "pope." Furthermore, even if what my opponent is trying to say were true, the end result would be the same---Francis cannot be pope. I will first respond to each assertion of my opponent:

Con: "I argue that the dogma and definition off which you base your very argument is corrupt, however, and that it is a contradiction to the message of Jesus Christ, and by extension, the Word of God."

My response: Here he makes an assertion with nothing to back it up other than his own private interpretation of what HE thinks the message of Jesus Christ and the Bible is supposed to be according to him. He offers no citation to any authority outside himself.

Con:"In John 14:26, Jesus tells us that He will reveal further Truth in the future through the Holy Spirit. What this means is that at the point of the Ascension, the Church was only just born, and would grow and develop over its lifetime."

My response: Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible. Furthermore, my opponent is in line with the Modernist heretics. Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane CONDEMNED proposition # 4 states " Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures."

Con: "I argue that the early Church leaders who made it a rule that the Church cannot evolve or be changed are the true heretics; the ones who tried to kill the living, growing Church in its infancy. None of the doctrines you've talked about are the direct words of Christ, nor are they in the Bible, so even to a Christian they are not definitely true."

My response: If the early Church Fathers were heretics (his word), then they taught error. God permitted His Church to teach lies. It therefore ceases to be a "magisterium" or "teaching authority" because you can't know or trust as true anything She decrees. Today's "truth" could be tomorrow's heresy. The Catholic Church becomes, de facto, another Protestant sect. As far as the direct words of Christ are concerned, my opponent will search his Bible in vain for the Word "Trinity." Christ never uses it, nor is it in the Bible, yet that does not mean it's not an implicit teaching accepted by most Christian denominations. For the Catholic, we know what to believe because we have an infallible Magisterium that interprets the TWO sources of Divine revelation--the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

Con: "All of the Vatican II statements and the statements of Pope Francis that you have attacked have to do with accepting people outside of the Catholic Church, and I would say that this is part of the evolution of the Church, part of God's project of Universal Acceptance and Love."

My response: We accept people with love, and true love is telling people the Truth, even when they may not like what they hear. If it is true that "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est" ("Outside the Church there is no Salvation"), then the ultimate act of Charity, love and acceptance is to try to convert the world to the Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation.

Con:" In the Bible, Jesus Christ confirms that the Will of the Lord is to cultivate Universal Love and Acceptance between all members of humanity. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus sums up the Law of God quite succinctly: "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Mark 12:31, Jesus confirms that one of the two greatest commandments of the Lord is to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is a message of Universal Acceptance and Love incompatible with earlier Catholic doctrine that condemns anyone outside of the Church."

My response: Universal acceptance of people as persons, does not entail accepting their errors. If my neighbor tells me 2+2=5, I show my love and acceptance by pointing out that 2+2=4, not 5. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love the heretic, hate the heresy. Did not Our Lord, love and accept the adulteress, and protect her from being stoned to death? Yet His response to her was "GO AND SIN NO MORE."

Con: "God and all of his Laws transcend time, and the only way for an eternal law to be expressed within the framework of time is through evolution over time from the most abject ignorance of the Law to the ultimate confirmation of the Law. I have argued that the only Law of God, other than personal love for Him, is Universal Acceptance and Love for Others. Therefore, the true heretics are the ones who stop the evolution of the Church and the ones who reject the fact that the Lord's ultimate goal is that all can become conscious of His glory and take part in it through love for Him and Universal Love and Acceptance for everyone else. Vatican II and the words of Pope Francis come closer to Universal Love and Acceptance than any Pre-Vatican II doctrine, therefore, Vatican II is not a defection or a corruption and Pope Francis is a true Pope that leads the Church further towards its ultimate goal."

My response: Who says the only way to express an eternal law is through evolution over time? Cannot the Almighty give us absolute Truth and certainty from the start? I assert that you will find no one (including my opponent) who will deny that to kidnap and slowly torture a baby to death for fun is evil. This is an eternal truth expressed through the natural law from the beginning of time--it wasn't something we needed to "develop." God can (and does) reveal Truth without evolution. Further if Vatican II is NOT a defection, then there is continuity between pre- and post-Vatican II teaching. Yet, I have proven that the eccesiology of the two are mutually exclusive, and my opponent called the Church Fathers "heretics" for teaching no salvation outside the Church! He implicitly admits that there is a rupture and no continuity between pre- and post- Vatican II teaching. So there WAS a defection! Even by my opponent's definition, the Church could not have a pope that is infallible and authoritative, so Francis cannot be pope as always understood.
Strycora

Con

I really shouldn't have taken this debate. With Pro's exceptional knowledge of the self-defensive dogma of his Church, I have little room to argue against him. However, I still believe that when two doctrines are in conflict, the more unitive one is to be chosen, not the first one that was chronologically established. With that being said, I recognize that the schismatic churches are the ones who divided themselves from the Catholics, and I appreciate Pro's sentiment of "love the heretic, hate the heresy."

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
Sorry Geogeer.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Well then I'll zip my lip and let the debate develop.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
I do acknowledge that to be true. However, I argue that the pope only defects from inessential doctrine on the grounds that it contradicts the more essential basis of the Catholic faith. Therefore, he does not defect from the Catholic faith as a whole, and as Pope, he has the authority to defect from doctrines that he sees as contradictory to the essence of Catholicism.

Though I am a Buddhist, I went to a Catholic school and am well equipped to handle this debate within the Catholic framework.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Well I'm not going to say much, but within the context of Catholicism it is. Heresy is a term that is related to the adherence of the particular faith's doctrine.

Thus if I claim to be Muslim but say that Mohammed was not the great prophet, I would be a heretic. It doesn't matter if Islam is correct or not as to whether I am an Islamic heretic.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
Pro's opening argument is deductive. The conclusion of a deductive argument is certainly true if an only if the premises are true. Seeing that Pro has used sound deductive reasoning, the only way to counter his argument is to attack his premises directly. The best way to argue that a claim is not necessarily true is to point out that it has not been proven.

So let us not go into a debate assuming that the initial premise of the argument is valid.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Geez-Louise! Why did a buddhist accept this debate?

Given Con's opening arguments this will never get to the meat of the topic...
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Well I never expected to see this debate on this site. I cannot wait to see it.
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
This disgusts me.
Posted by Jikpamu 2 years ago
Jikpamu
I will say this: Pope Francis kisses the feet and washes the feet of prisoners. He has a $5 plastic wrist watch which he wears on his person. He cold-calls members of the Catholic Church who need his prayers for them. And in Argentina where he is from, he rode the bus.

He has said a few things I don't agree with, but he is a very humble man. : )

I am a Reformed Baptist btw.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
WLCJWCStrycoraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially forfeited. Sede Vacantists generally have a very good knowledge of Church teachings and require someone very knowledgeable to debate them.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
WLCJWCStrycoraTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
WLCJWCStrycoraTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's Concession.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
WLCJWCStrycoraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says Pro wins.