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

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

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

OK, so just to make it absolutely clear that what I'm citing is papal doctrine, everything I mention is a papal bull, also known as the infallible word of god.

1773- papal bull Dominus ac Redemptor permanently suppresses the Society of Jesus
1814- papal bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum reestablishes them

1569- papal bull Habraeorum Gens Sola restricts jews in the Papal States to rome and ancona
1586- papal bull Christiana Pietas revokes it
1592- papal bull Caeca et obdurata reverses Christiana Pietas, restricting the jews all over again

1139- Omne Datum Optimum endorses the Knights Templar
1307-1312- papal bulls Pastoralis Praeeminis and Vox in excelso condemn and abolish the Knights Templar

1120- Sicut Judaeis states that jews should be treated with respect, noting 'The Jews ought to suffer no prejudice."
1555- Cum Nimis Absurdum states that they should be restricted to ghettos and made to identify themselves, as well as banning them from many occupations, stating that their 'guilt has condemned them to eternal slavery'

Ok, there's four flat out contradictions, in which the papacy said something, then said it was wrong. For some of them, they even go back on it again. All of the documents I cite are papal bulls, considered infallible, and easily meeting the standard set by my opponent. I eagerly await my opponent's refutation of my arguments.

these seem more like practice/discipline than official teachings about faith and morals.
the thing about the jews almost seems like a matter of faith. i wont say you're wrong, but i will say it's debateable.

They're four examples of the papacy saying one thing is good/ endorsing it/saying it it ought to happen, then saying the same thing is bad/condemning it/saying it ought not to happen. As papal bulls, they are by definition official teachings. Please extend my arguments.

a catholic professor i know responded to what you posted, when i sent him the examples. here is what he said, i'll just reiterate what i said, with the words of someone respectable who is also vouching for it...

"Faith concerns that which has been divinely revealed, and I do not think where Jews may and may not live is a divinely revealed truth; and morals concerns those acts that conform to the natural law (i.e., to the logos of man's nature) as determined by the exercise of right reason.

None of those papal documents appears to concern matters of divine faith, but some of them (and I say this without actually having read the documents in question) may fall into the moral sphere since it appears that they may concern treating others with the respect due to them as creatures created in the image of God. That said, most of the documents - at least based upon the summaries given - appear to be of a political nature, and no one ever said that the popes would be consistent when it comes to acting as secular rulers in the papal states."

Well, for starters, a papal bull is as a matter of definition considered divinely revealed. A pope may say something political, but the very nature of the papal bull, as well as of his office means that when he says, for instance, that the templars are good, it is meant to represent a truth from god, and if he reverses that belief, the reversal, too, is supposed to be a revelation from god. As far as the jews are concerned, the pope was not claiming that he, personally, believed the jews were guilty of past digressions, he was claiming that god himself believed so.

As far as the professor's definitions are concerned, I suggest that we defer to a more neutral source, the oxford dictionary:

Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Faith - a system of religious belief.

The papal bull I mentioned about the jews made a judgment of past behavior as wrong, and the restricting based on that of a specific religious belif, and the others all involve the belief that some organization is acting rightly or wrongly.

In this debate, I managed to demonstrate how the Catholic Church, in papal bulls, the ultimate of official Catholic doctrine, has repeatedly made pronouncements on topics of religious and moral significance that directly disagree with each other. My opponent, although he stated in one previous round that my arguments were 'debatable', he failed to debate them. Vote Con.