The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Misterscruffles
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Misterscruffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 32207
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church".

you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years.

the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.

note:

-this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference.
-since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years.
-also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
-there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
Misterscruffles

Con

I accept your challenge.

I would like to thank my opponent here, as well as the audience (for listening in and giving their honest opinion), as well as Martin Luther.

As a side note, I would like to point out that my opponent has contradicted herself in the very terms of this debate.

"the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes."
"since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years."

To serious Catholics, the bible is considered an authoritative source- indeed, it is considered the infallible word of god. For the terms of the debate to be followed as my opponent laid them out, one would have to assume that the Catholic Church does not consider the Bible the inerrant word of god- which, since they say they do, would represent a contradiction. Furthermore, my opponent seems to imply that everything the pope says is considered infallible; this is not true. Only statements made Ex Cathedra are considered infallible. The official concept of Papal Infallibility as dogma (as opposed to simply popular belief) did not come into existence until the First Vatican Council of 1869. Lastly, many, if not most, of the church"s teachings are based on sources that are considered infallible by the church, but the teachings themselves are mostly not infallible.

If you truly believe that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself, how do you reconcile The Council of Trent with Jesus saying "No one comes to the father except through me."?
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

as expected, someone took the debate just to bicker with me about the rules.
i would have also expected someone to ignore the rules, just fyi.

how do you address the point that you'd think the CC would have contradicted itself even outside the bible, over two thousand years?
are you trying to argue the bible because you are not knowledgeable enough to find it contradicting itself beyond the bible? just a speculation, perhaps not

i dont contest that the bible is considered infallible, even by catholics. i simply see it as too open to interpretation. because i can tell at this point that the debate is not going anywhere productive i invite you to use a bible quote against church teaching, so that i can show you that this is all true.

i do see you cited the council of trent, and Jesus..,,, but you did not specify what in the council you were referring to, so i can't address it. also find another example of contradiction w the bible, just in case i am misunderstanding you here.
Misterscruffles

Con

"how do you address the point that you'd think the CC would have contradicted itself even outside the bible, over two thousand years?"
What is the nature of god? (Honorius I was censured by the Third Council of Constantinople over this point)
Is Galileo's heliocentric model correct or not? (Urban VIII forced him to retract his views, John Paul II stated that Urban VIII had handled the situation inappropriately and that Galileo as right)
Is Joan of Arc a heretic or a Saint? (Eugenius IV thought she was a heretic, Benedict XV canonized her)
Can non- Catholics be saved/united with god? (Boniface VIII and Pius IX stated that that was impossible, John XXIII and John Paul II said that it was possible)
Do non-Catholic religions have a grain of truth in them? (the First Vatican Council says no, the Second says yes)
Can the pope err on religious matters? (Adrian VI said so, Pius IX disagreed)

"are you trying to argue the bible because you are not knowledgeable enough to find it contradicting itself beyond the bible? just a speculation, perhaps not"
It's not in good taste as to speculate as to your opponents motives, beyond what is implied from their arguments.

"i dont contest that the bible is considered infallible, even by catholics. i simply see it as too open to interpretation. because i can tell at this point that the debate is not going anywhere productive i invite you to use a bible quote against church teaching, so that i can show you that this is all true."
My point was that your premises were nonsensical. You cannot have a proper understanding of the church without understanding the Bible. You argued that you would only want me to cite things that were "authoritative" and "infallible", but not the Bible- and to the church, the document that is the most "authoritative" and "infallible" is the Bible. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the Church whilst intentionally excluding the Bible.

Since you're Pro, and your argument is affirming an absolute assertion, you have most if not all of the BOP in this argument. I don't see how simply arguing my counterarguments will win you this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you did not specify the council of trent passage as requested, but ignored it, not sure why

it looks like you just found a bunch of stuff from the internet and are requesting that i negate each one. that is pretty cheap as a way to show contradictions. vague references, when you have the burden to show there's contradictions that meet the criteria i set forth, for infalliblity. maybe i should make a criteria that you quote the alleged statement and cite it etc, as people could go on all day finding easy things on the internet that dont fall into the criteria, are vague, and then require me to put in the effort to negate it all.
for example, Honorus speculated about the nature of God in a letter to another person Sergius, this does not meet the definition of infallible teaching, "teaching the church".
Censoring someone like Galileo is not a teaching of the church, but a practice the pope did.Same goes for treatment of Joan.
The boniface salvation of noncatholics point you brought up is a violation of the rules in this debate, no limbo talk or noncatholic salvation talk in this debate.
Youd have to cite the quote as to whether noncatholic religions have a "grain of truth" in them. this is so vague it's almost surely reading way too much into stuff. (unless they said "they have no grain of truth in them" etc which almost surely never happened. probalby just saying other religions are not the full truth, etc or are wrong isn't saying they have no grain of truth in them
The quote by Adrian was either written in a private document that he did not address to the church as a whole, he didn't teach the church, a criteria that i set forth at the beginning.... or it is a fabrication. These are the two responses i got from catholics that i can find. I cannot find hte acutal letter or enough details, but this is at least as specific as you are being. The one person said it is a fabrication and that is why no one can find the source. My guess is you cant find the source? i read that many of Adrian's letters no longer exist so perhaps it did exist once? i cant say but i can say im almost sure you cant find the source. (i found a quote but it wasnt cited, so a quote doesnt count given it could be a letter or fabricateddd
Misterscruffles

Con

"you did not specify the council of trent passage as requested, but ignored it, not sure why"
I realized that the point I was going to build up to was not as significant overall as I first thought it was.

"vague references, when you have the burden to show there's contradictions that meet the criteria i set forth, for infalliblity"
First of all, I don't have the BOP. You are affirming an absolute assertion. Second of all, the criterion you set forth for infallibility is different than what the Church says is infallible. Your criteria would include things that the church considers fallible, and exclude things that the Church considers infallible. You are attempting to define terms in such a way as to give yourself in assured victory in this debate.

"for example, Honorus speculated about the nature of God in a letter to another person Sergius, this does not meet the definition of infallible teaching, "teaching the church"."
The incident I was referring to was him being censured by the Council for saying that Christ had two natures and one will. This is two contradictory statements issued in official capacity by the church.

"Censoring someone like Galileo is not a teaching of the church, but a practice the pope did.Same goes for treatment of Joan."
Joan of Arc was officially deemed a heretic and later declared a saint. The treatment of Galileo was in part due to to his contradicting the church's teaching of a geocentric model of the solar system- any the church only apologized after changing their doctrine to be heliocentric. No, it was not just "a practice", it is official church dogma that Joan of Arc was a heretic, and now she was a saint. It was official church dogma that Galileo's assertion of heliocentricism was "vehemently suspect of heresy", and that his works were officially banned by the church, and it is now official dogma that that was a mistake.

"The boniface salvation of noncatholics point you brought up is a violation of the rules in this debate, no limbo talk or noncatholic salvation talk in this debate."
So, you admit that in order to arrive at your conclusion "catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity", you have to exclude certain topics, which include important core beliefs of the Church.

"(unless they said "they have no grain of truth in them" etc which almost surely never happened."
Yes, pope Pius IX declared exactly that, in the First Vatican Council.

"probalby just saying other religions are not the full truth, etc or are wrong isn't saying they have no grain of truth in them"
Pope Pius IX declared that them other religions had NO truth in them, that "Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". John XXIII declared that other religions had SOME truth in them, and that "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.". These two statements are mutually exclusive.

I noticed that in your entire argument, you put forth few if any statements or facts in support of your assertion that the church contradicted itself, seeming to imply that it was true unless proven otherwise. I assert, therefore, that in this debate, my opponent had the burden of proof, and failed to meet that burden.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
itd have helped if you hadnt pretty much wasted the first post. had you posted the second post from the get go, i'd have had a chance to respond.
the final post was so terrible by con that i had to ensure i responded. many people do not understand catholic doctrine etc so thatd be the only reason itd have been helpful to have one last response.
Posted by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
Nice attempt there to get in an extra argument after the debate is finished. If you wanted a longer debate, you should have scheduled one.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
he didnt address the point that it was a letter and not a teaching to the church, deeming someone a heretic is not doctrine or dogma, there's no official teaching that the sun revolved around the earth etc, the pius quote doesnt even say what he says it does "no grain of truth" etc
the other stuff is just bickering about the rules of the debate, when almost all of em are reasonable. (limbo and no salvation outside is reasonable to fight about, but I have my reasons for excluding them
Posted by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Posted by candid_atheist 3 years ago
candid_atheist
By reading the opening statements, it seems as if Pro has tried to guarantee his success. He has told Con that he cannot bring up certain points, even though they would be effective in arguing against his position.

For example, the Bible is the Church's holy book...and yet he refuses to let it be used, most likely because he realizes the large amounts of contradictions regarding it..
Posted by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
Oh, from an official capacity... well that changes everything! Again?
Posted by dont-out-of-line.1 3 years ago
dont-out-of-line.1
Its a sad thing that this person whats to prove something but no one wants to talk about it I would except but I have never been in a debate on this sight....
Posted by Revolver 3 years ago
Revolver
Kinda ridiculous how you are posting the same pointless debate over and over and over.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed to me like you (pro) spent more time trying to tear con down than arguing. His grammar was atrocious. As an added bonus he put incredibly difficult rules to meet in order to give himself an edge, but still got beat. Sad my friend, sad.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Protest vote.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I was just hoping Dairygirl would at least improve their grammar this time.. but wow, it really is deja vu! they keep on setting the debates to be more unfair and the most they could get is one conduct point for it. (which I will not give to them)