The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 54943
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count.

limbo, just some examples:

Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..."

Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

No salvation for noncatholics:

you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here:

the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political statement loaded with far out possibilities while making it look like they actually have a shot. it's a political statement.


To be clear ,the Bible is the only credible source to be used, as tradition morphs to suit the era's distinctive character, events needed for a public acceptance. The Pope is not Jesus on Earth- nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New Testament does the Bible even make a VAGUE MENTIONING of anything even resembling a representation of Jesus, or even Peter. Peter was the rock of the early church, but just like Mary, mother of Jesus, he deserves respect, admiration even, but not an evolution to a near full-blown deity. The Pope is an elevated man who is ELECTED. The representation of Jesus, to Catholics, is ELECTED. This should pretty much just discredit this teaching almost entirely, as nowhere in the Bible does it say non-Catholics and unbaptized infants go to Hell.
Debate Round No. 1


my argument involves whether or not the catholic church teaches the things i've mentioned. con merely argues about whether the pope is who is says he is, and about whether the bible says what God would probably do or not do concerning the teachings involved. con doesn't even address the actual issues presented. he missed the point entirely.

on a side note, there is decent evidence for the pope. peter was given the power of binding and loosing, only he was given the 'keys', he took a primary leadership role. the apostles laid hands and had successors in the bible. he was referred to as the rock on which the church was built. to name just some of the points. catholics also dont make the pope out to be a deity. (neither with mary)


WhitePanic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2




WhitePanic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
it would be a cheap shot to cite vatican ii, though, cause i from the beginning made note of it. it would be more telling to cite another authoritative source.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
Sorry to see that Con couldn't find Vatican 2 which pretty explicitly says the opposite of pro.
Posted by XenaXIV 2 years ago
it's asinine to even suggest noncatholics go to hell just because they're not Catholic, simply because it's completely uncharacteristic of the loving God we believe in.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
@The: "the church doesn't have contradictory teachings." Please tell me that was a joke. You even admitted the head of the church, the Popes would be in disagreement on the very issue under debate.
Posted by Martley 2 years ago
I think this will be any easy debate for con to win... The key is the word "teaching" in the title. The Catholic Church has not actively taught this for decades. And even though the pope has not offically rejected the issue it is a well known common practice to teach the contrary. Current popes have looked into reversing this as it is a dead view that few hold. However the anti-abortion lobby fear it's reversal will remove a tool in thier arguement
Posted by TheMaster_Debator 2 years ago
Ragnar, the church doesn't have contradictory teachings. And yes some past popes would agree, but you have to remember the church today teaches that if all people are morally good they can make it to Heaven. The church doesn't say you must be Catholic to go to Heaven. I hope you realize this.
Posted by XenaXIV 2 years ago
*raises hand* question!
are you arguing that noncatholics go to hell? or nah?

because if that's your pro I will gladly accept your challenge.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Key problem that will come up in voting, is the catholic church has directly conflicting teachings.

Anyway the current Pope would disagree with pro:
Yet some past Popes would agree with her.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
If nobody else takes you up on this in a couple of days I might.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: FF with Con getting S&G and no sources.