The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Hypnodoc
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

catholic church not contradicted itself

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,667 times Debate No: 3090
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (12)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

catholic church has not contradicted itself

if the catholic church CC isn't true, you'd think there'd be a contradiction in its teaching given its long history.

the teaching has to be from the pope.

you cannot include the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, no salvation outside controversy for this debate as i feel i am aware of the ramifications of this debate. i tend to think it has contradicted itself, but want some other proof.
http://www.justforcatholics.org...
Hypnodoc

Con

Thank you to my opponent for bringing this topic.

My goal in this debate is to prove that the Catholic church has contradicted itself at least once in its history.

In accordance with the rules of this debate I will not mention the
"Salvation" controversy, and I will use the teachings of a Pope to prove my point.

The Doctrine of "Solo Scripta"

The church is based on this is the infallibility of the Bible. Essentially it states that the bible is the ultimate guide for life and that it must be followed. The bible is the basis for the religion and for my argument.

The bible contains Hundreds of contradictions within itself and thus the Catholic church has contradicted itself by blindly following this book.

Here I will show only 2 examples of the contradictions in the bible.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

First we have the Lord being depicted as an entity that is both of War and of Peace. Clearly a contradiction one that will be exemplified by the quote below.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Note here he loves all yet he will not pity nor spare even fathers and sons together.

The doctrine the church has been founded upon inherently requires the church to contradict itself.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the main point is that you haven't shown that the CC teaches the bible is infallible.

in fact, there's some sentiment out there that it might not be, and only is inspired generally.

the second point is that your examles are weak. i'd tend to believe that the bible has contradicted itself, but not for the reasons you state. (i haven't seen a full fledged irrefutable one yet, but enough to say it has probably)

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Look at a person. A person is prone to peace and to anger. Anger is sometimes justified. War is sometimes justified. It doesn't mean you're no longer peaceful. You've created a false dichotomy.
It's clear this is a false dichotomy, not necessarily a contradiction at all, so i'd assume you have an ax to grind and an ulterior motive.
THat argument refutes both of your examples as they made the same point.

So, however you slice it, you've not shown a contradiction.
Hypnodoc

Con

While I do not have an "Axe to grind" your point is noted however I must state that this debate is in fact weather the church has contradicted itself in its long history. If at any point it has taught the bible as literal or completely valid then it has contradicted itself. We are not solely dealing with the church of today but the church throughout history.

That being stated thoughts of the bible for today's church do not necessarily do anything other than strengthen my argument. I could show that at one point in history the church demanded its followers believe every word of the bible. If today there are people in the church that are denying that the bible is the perfect true word of god I will have shown contradiction.

I will instead look to the Pope for my contradiction. The pope being the head of the church should never contradict the teachings of the church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states very clearly that there is only one true god. As do the teachings of the church. In the following quotes I will show that the Pope has contradicted this. Pope Innocent the third proclaims that preists are Gods

"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36

Nicholas the first declaring that the Pope is in fact God.

.-Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

I will present here the case that the church has declared the pope to be Infallible. In the belief of the church man cannot be infallible only God is infallible.

"The Pope's authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, "orbi," (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the [Roman Catholic] Canonists put it—"The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same." -Ignaz von Dollinger, "A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich" 1871; as quoted in MacDougall, The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press) pp. 119,120.

It is very clear that the church through history has contradicted its teachings on numerous occasions. The Bible, which is the basis of catholicism is full of contradiction and is taught to be the final word on Faith and Practice.

The Bible was named as the churches "Sola Scripta" as one of the five seals of reformation. The church at that time declared it infallible and the true word of God.

I have Clearly proven my argument and I am looking forward to your Rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you said you clearly proved it ocntradicted itself with the first post, which i showed you clearly did not do so your claim of being clear here has less credibility.

you cannot show what people in the church believe or think... you have to show what the pope taught as a matter of faith and morals to the church, show contradictions.

--there is only one true god. As do the teachings of the church.

yes, he referred to them as gods. Even Jesus and the Old testament said "ye are gods".
the main point is that you're being overly techincal...but even using techincal arguments, your argument is weak.
also, techinically, "true God" means that God is God, and anything else is not really "true"

really, these are word games and semantics. that you can't find something more substantive like "jesus is God" v "jesus is not god" or something shows that you as grasping at straws.

---Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

again, word games. this is obscure. is God giving the appellation of infallible.... or is it as you suggest that the appellation "God" being applied to the pope? it could be the former. but even if the text said the later, you're being overly literalististic.
Notice, you can't find any explanations as to how they wanted to be treated as divinities etc, because these sorts of passages are cursoroary, dicta.

also... you purport ot say that the CC is not infallible, and from that unfounded assertion say that since it claims to be fallible, it's contradicted itself. you're begging the question.
what you're saying is similar to "the bible is true because the bible says it's true"
the whole point of this is to show that the pope is not infallible, as he suggests, so you can't assume he's not infallible.
also, you can't assume he's not infallible as a premise, just to show that he's contradcited that assertion, if you don't substantitate that he's not infallible first.

your statemtens about hte bible is empty rhetoric until you provide some texts about the CC teaching on the inerrancy of the bible. and until you show a clear contradiciton in the bible, secondly.
(it appears you're also confusing the church genreally with the CC also, which seems to me, making me wonder how primitive your understanding is of what the CC is and claims to be)
Hypnodoc

Con

Again my opponent is attempting to derail my argument through semantics and interpretation. The members of the CC do not have the luxury of Interpretation because the Pope is always right. I will in this my final round use indisputable Historical fact. Fact is not up to interpretation. The following facts were gleaned from the historical record of the CC itself.

According to Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future.

"Webster's Dictionary" defines "infallible" as "not capable of erring". It says that "infallible" as used by the Catholic Church means "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals".

Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the "infallible" pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other "infallible" pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct.

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history.

Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope.
He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made.

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.)

He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century.

In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils.

My opponent would like you to believe that the argument set forth is full of Holes she would like you to believe that previous posts are up to interpretation.

The preceding are historical FACT by showing a historical reversal of doctrine I have shown contradiction.

Keep in mind while voting that personal beliefs are not the issue I do not decry anyone's ability to have faith. My point is simply that I have proven without a doubt that the CC has contradicted itself at the very least on these occasions.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
Though I don't agree with Con's arguments, I will vote for him on the premise that he presented the better argument.
Posted by byebyepats 9 years ago
byebyepats
you're catholic and support huck?
Posted by Hypnodoc 9 years ago
Hypnodoc
The statement is meant to show that the teachings of the church in some instance contradict.

A reversal of a decision by the church to a contrary view is indeed a contradiction.

The debate was not about weather the church ever admitted to contradicting itself.

It was about weather it had ever contradicted itself.

When you have a Pope that is said to be selected by God that is later deemed a Heretic by the Church that is the most definitive contradiction.

A very basic research of Papal history will show you that the Papacy has indeed contradicted itself several times and therefore the church that is ultimately ruled by the Pope has contradicted itself.

We are not discussing what the church thinks of itself we are discussing its actions.
I defy you to prove me wrong. No opinion's only fact
The facts I have presented show the Papacy considered by the church to be Infallible reversing infallible decrees by other infallible popes. As stated in my last post Truth cannot disprove Truth.

Can you honestly state that you have studied the entire of the Papacy and can therefore unequivocally state that there has never been a contradiction.

If one is infallible there should be no reversal.
Posted by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
Con, in your first rebuttal, you posted two scripture references, one Old Testament and one New Testament. You can't expect OT scripture to be peaceful because the OT speaks more of punishment and retribution, whereas the NT speaks of peace and unity.

But what do I know, I'm just a deluded non-Atheist.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
the catholic church has never admitted contradictions. that shows a very bad understanding of the church.

they've admitted mistakes in the sense of not stopping peodophiles or the holocaust, and for burning people at the stake.... but these are not contradictios in faith and morals.

the catholic church does not admit to contradictions, and i defy you to show otherwise.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
that anyone would find his bible arguments compelling is idiotic. there's clearly an ax to grind, or all the tools are not in the shed.

i'm peaceful. if i go to war, or willing to go to war and if attacked a lot so i fight a lot, mean that i'm not peaceful?

if i have to be either or, doesthat mean i'm peaceful, or warful? since i do both, does that mean i'm going to explode for violating false dichotomies?

these games are juvenile.
the god stuff was a little better... but Jesus wasn't saying that we're gods and contradicting the first commandment of "no other Gods beside me", so i'm not going to assume it in that message.

anyway, you guys are either stupid or skewed if you thought that bible one was a solid argument.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I just don't see how she expects to have a debate when she refutes facts with nothing... how do you say "no because you don't understand" and expect to win???
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
CON wins for sure.

He put up three undisputable facts. Dairy tried to say they weren't right and that Hypnodoc hadn't backed them up, but clear research from any average human shows he is correct in his so called "assumptions". I suggest you, Dairygirl, go read the Bible again, unless you are not really Catholic.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl, you can try to manipulate how someone understands what someone else says, but you can't manipulate what they actually said. The CC has admitted to contradictions... simple.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
thanks for posting those at the end so that i can't respond.

also, thanks for simply posting assertions without backing up the claims with evidence.

if you were to actually research those, you could see how they were not contradicted.
if you really want to know, but are too lazy to look it up, start a new thread, or post the stuff here: www.phatmass.com and someone will answer you.

i am familiar with those claims, and they have been made and refuted in the past.
i'm not going to do it in the comment section though.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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 
Vote Placed by critterrice 9 years ago
critterrice
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cHypnodocTied
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:03