The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
iCompose
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,144 times Debate No: 32327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

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
iCompose

Con

Very good debate topic, thank you for posting this. This provides a very specific and well outlined argument.

My position stands to be, that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself in the course of history. As to stay away from the "weeds," I will rely only on Papal decrees.

The Catholic has contradicted itself in these areas:
Papal Bulls regarding Jews
Stance on what is a Knights Templar is allowed and not
The establishment and oppression of the Society of Jesus

Papal bulls Regarding Jews
1205 AD Etsi Judaeos by Innocent III
Forbids Jews to own Christian slaves
Jews were not forced to convert
Houses of worship were allowed for Jews
1442 AD Super Gregem Dominicum by Eugene IV
Revokes Privileges of Castillian Jews

Knights Templar
1145 AD Militia Dei by Eugene III
Allows Knights Templar to accept
tithes
burial fees
bury their dead in their homeland
1308 AD Faciens Misericordium by Clement V
Sets up procedures to persecute the Knights Templar

Society of Jesus
1540 AD Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae by Paul III
Confirms the formation of Society of Jesus
1773 AD Dominus Ac Redemptor Noster by Clement XIV
Permanently and irrevocably suppressing the Society of Jesus
1814 AD Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum by Pius VII
Re establishes the Society of Jesus

As we can tell the Catholic has contradicted itself in Papal Bulls several times(there are more than I have brought up in the first round). The Papal Bulls are considered "infallible" yet they appear to be fallible as well as some of the councils of the Catholic Church are fallible.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your points are all extremely vague. I don't know what i'm suppose to be responding to. for example, papal bull regarding jews. what does this mean, what specifically is contradicting what? I don't know enough and you haven't said enough for me to even begin addressing it. "burial fees", what about em, and how was there contradiction?
I could go on.
if this list is as strong as you're making it out to be, find the top three, find the cite and quote from the pope where he is contradicting other popes, councils contradicting other councils. and then I will rebut the arguments you've made.
iCompose

Con

iCompose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

reiterate
iCompose

Con

iCompose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
post a debate about the proposition, and rules.... and i'll show you who's nonsensical, and i'm sure i will own you in the debate too. at least then it'd be an actual debate that sticks to the topic and rules, and not everyone just taking stabs at bickering with me about it all in the debates themselves, where it's all off topic etc
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
I do not think you know what it means to stand on substance of debate since all you seem to debate is the same nonsensical proposition with outrageous rules that make it heavily in your favor (yet still lose).
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
again another poster ie massivedump with nothing of worth to say, unable to stand on substance of debate, so just spewing hot air, and bile.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
I found something that could potentially help you, kind debater.

mkay.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
seriously if you could with a straight face read that pius quote really hard, or ask anyone with basic comprehension skills.. it doesnt say what you said it does, "no grain of truth" etc. just one example of a terrible debate by scruffles/
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
as if you are? your first post wasn't even anything to debate. i could have responded and negated your last post had i had the chance. you probably didnt even know what you were debating till the second post after you found a bunch of superficial points on an internet search. otherwise why didnt you hit the ground running?
i will give you props for at least using authoritative points that followed the rules, eventually, unlike most people who debate this.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
as if you are? your first post wasn't even anything to debate. i could have responded and negated your last post had i had the chance. you probably didnt even know what you were debating till the second post after you found a bunch of superficial points on an internet search. otherwise why didnt you hit the ground running?
i will give you props for at least using authoritative points that followed the rules, eventually, unlike most people who debate this.
Posted by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
"get a life alchemind."
You're the one who proposes the same debate over and over.

"if you have nothing productive to say, don't say anything. go spew bile somewhere else."
"seems pretty obvious to me that people just talk sh*t so much instead of debating.... because they have no room to stand on, in substance"
You're one to talk.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
seems pretty obvious to me that people just talk sh*t so much instead of debating.... because they have no room to stand on, in substance
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
get a life alchemind. if you have nothing productive to say, don't say anything. go spew bile somewhere else.
No votes have been placed for this debate.