The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ardenwa
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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...
Ardenwa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 32435
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

n 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

also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to.

also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
Ardenwa

Con

My primary contention is the First Council of Nicaea. According to the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, it began with the first pope, Saint Peter. Therefore, the Catholic Church began c.30CE. The First Council of Nicaea commenced in 325CE. The existence of the council shows that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself for the purpose of the council was to reach a consensus about the churches true beliefs. Indeed, prior to the council, there were many sect of Christianity that believed in many things that are not in the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, yet they were Bishops of Christ. The problem of separatists and bad ideologies was so bad, that they needed the council. This shows that for the first 300 years of the Catholic Church, it was in a constant state of contradiction.

This concludes my opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the heart of catholic teaching and the question of "infallibility" is the pope's teachings. the pope intentionally teaches the church on faith and morals. if there were tons of discord, and even if the bishops were trying to reach consensus, all that matters is the end result... what did the pope ratify? what did the pope say? it doesn't matter what one bishop said, or even lots of bishops... only the bishop of rome, the pope.
the issue you are presenting has nothing to do with the pope
Ardenwa

Con

The pope himself is indeed the bishop alone. Reincarnation after death ( like in Hinduism) was a voting issue. Does it not bother you that reincarnation was not officially a doctrine because of 1 bishops vote. The pope accepted whatever happened to be in the majority vote. It is how they created the Nicene creed. The pope accepting other doctrines as true shows that the pope is not infallible as he simply put the next 1700 years of Christianity to vote.

To give another perspective and to quote the Catholics via their Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages. Innocent III (1198) points out nine species of forgery [of ecclesiastical records] which had come under his notice.
But such frauds of the Church were not confined to the Middle Ages; they begin even with the beginning of the Church and infest every period of its history for fifteen hundred years and defile nearly every document, both of "Scriptures" and of Church aggrandizement. As truly said by Collins, in his celebrated Discourse of Free Thinking:
"In Short, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by priests or priestly men... For it is certain they may plead the authority of the Fathers for Forgery, Corruption and mangling of Authors, with more reason than for any of their Articles of Faith.."(p.96.)"

They give you the example, Innocent III.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it doesn't matter how the pope makes the decision, only that the deicion he made is considered authoritative, arguably infallible.
it shows the humanity of the pope... he is only a man, but when he speaks authoritatively that is final. as only a man, he might just take the majority vote. surely if infallbity or the catholic church were true, God would be present in those proceedings too etc.

not sure what the forgeries have to do w this debate. sure there were forged documents.. the pope doesn't teach them to be true, or ratify their content etc/
Ardenwa

Con

You are assuming the infallibility of the pope, which is a logical fallacy. It presents a ground which I cannot debate. If we were to assume that the pope is completely divine and true, then that means you can never make arguments that he is not. You are making a circular debate. Moreover, during the Council of Nicaea, the pope voted in ways that were not passed, yet he accepted all of the voted doctrine. This means that he is changing his supposedly divine nature because of the will of man.

Furthermore, the quotation from the Catholics says that popes have changed religious doctrine. This means that the pope was sworn in under certain doctrine and then changed them for personal or political reasons. This clearly shows that the pope is contradicting himself.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ardenwa 3 years ago
Ardenwa
FYI, I know about the great schism, but I was using the definition that the Catholic Church gives. They beleive they began with St. Peter, who was the first pope. I also give the example of Innocent III, who was pope in 1200 CE. Therefore, my argument accounts for both pre and post great schism Catholicism. I knew the debate was set up to be in my opponents favor, but I followed her initial statement:
"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."

Through this, I gave examples of how contradictions have occurred and I negated the idea of papal infallibility.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 3 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Thou shalt not kill.
Posted by LotusNG 3 years ago
LotusNG
Wait... You want us to debate you... While extremely crippled and not able to use anything the Church itself uses in its teachings?

Sense?
Posted by campbellp10 3 years ago
campbellp10
Don't feed the troll!
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
I agree with campbellp10-
If you want to exclude valid arguments against your position, the burden is on you to show why those arguments should be excluded as part of the debate itself.

In the example of L. Ron Hubbard, that quote is certainly damning. To refute that quote should be part of the debate itself, not chucked just because you don't like what it does to your argument.
Posted by campbellp10 3 years ago
campbellp10
"what if he meant he never would start a religion just to make money alone, and that quote made him look like that was his sole motivation, but you had reason to think that quote was taken out of context?"
That's why we DEBATE about it. This is DEBATE.ORG after all.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
yeah i'll probably stop for awhile after this debate. maybe just every once in awhile
Posted by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
Why are you debating this so often?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
for example, to use your quotes. what if he meant he never would start a religion just to make money alone, and that quote made him look like that was his sole motivation, but you had reason to think that quote was taken out of context?
maybe money wasn't not a motivation, but still was a reason, and that quote was just out of context etc
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it would be within reason for a person to ask for someone to find another quote or evidence that he did it just for the money, at least if they had reasons for not trusting or taking the context of what you said differently.
i have my reasons for excluding those two doctrines, i hope that's enough. as much as people bring it up, maybe i should make note of it all etc.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
dairygirl4u2cArdenwaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: presenting a debate and saying that you can't argue against me with any of (list examples) that hurt my position leads to an un winable debate. I am surprised that someone even tried to debate when rules preventing good debate were outright blocked without given rational.
Vote Placed by Volk23 3 years ago
Volk23
dairygirl4u2cArdenwaTied
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: Note to CON: The Catholic Church that the PRO is talking about didn't exist in the form we know it until 1054 with the Great Schism. Prior to that, there was only one universal, lowercase-c catholic church. Comparing the modern Catholic denomination with the first thousand years of the church is disanalogous. That said, the CON still has more sophisticated argumentation than the PRO, but not by much.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
dairygirl4u2cArdenwaTied
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: Conduct, for attempting to set up the rules of the debate so as to favor her position, S/g, as con found the shift key, arguments as pro missed her BOP by a country mile.
Vote Placed by lindseyloo92 3 years ago
lindseyloo92
dairygirl4u2cArdenwaTied
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: Ardenwa is hot.