roman catholic church has never contradicted itself
Debate Rounds (3)
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 bad 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.
Something doesn't have to contradict itself for it not to be true.
I tell my parents I'm going to a friends house, when in reality I'm going to a party.
My parents try calling me, I don't answer due to loud noise. The next day my parents ask me why I didn't answer their call, I say me and my friend fell asleep early. This doesn't contradict my story, but it doesn't make it the truth either.
I suppose you're referring to truth as in the true Church?
If this is the case then, why does the Catholic Church teach praying to Mary and Saints as reasonable? Some would see this as idolatry.
The Catholic Church calls all their priest father, Jesus himself spoke against this.
The ball is in your court for you to explain why you feel the Catholic Church is the objective truth.
"But Timothy"s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
"To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul"s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
"No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13"14).
i know some books in the deutero canonical bible 2 Maccabees (12:44-45) has people praying to the dead. the issue here is whether tge catholic church is the authority to begin with for why the bible exists. for the bible didn't just fall from the sky, it was put together and ratified by the pope.
In 2 Timothy 1, there is a form of prayer on behalf of the family of Onesiphorus (v. 16). Subsequently, in verse 18, the apostle prays for Onesiphorus himself.
whether you use the protestant or catholic bible. id also use a common sense example. .... most people except the extreme, find no problem praying to their dead loved ones. they often even go to cemetaries and talk to them there.
we could also note that jewish people pray or their dead... who we take traditions from, and early christians did too, who we take even more tradition from (just example Tertullian (A.D.160-240) wrote about anniversary Masses for the dead, advising widows to pray for their husbands. St. Augustine remarked that he used to pray for the sins of his mother, remembering her request: "When I die, bury me anywhere you like, but remember to pray for me at the altar
instead of all this at best debateable stuff, matter of interpretation, things you personally disagree with at best, you should be finding some contradiction. this bible stuff as said is too open o interpretation. and it deont seem like it'd be too much to find some contradictionfrom popes over a two thousand year period. this was all the standard of the debate anyway
kgill28 forfeited this round.
kgill28 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for forfeiture. Arguments to con because pro's rebuttals were, at best, a matter of interpretation and also broke their own rule about excluding the bible. Grammar and spelling to con because... well look for yourself
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.