The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
dragonb95
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

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 3 votes the winner is...
dragonb95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 31928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

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.
dragonb95

Con

My job is to name one way in which the Catholic Church has contradicted itself through its doctrines (aka bible and teaching). I will name many ways just in case you consider one invalid.

1. Calling priests father.
The catholic church teaches that we should call their priests "father", however...
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

2. Bishop celibacy.
The catholic church teaches that bishops must be married, however...
"A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" 1 Timothy 3:2-5

3. Masses in latin
The catholic church gives masses in latin, however...
"in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." 1 Corinthians 14:19

4. Understanding of the bible
The catholic church teaches that only priests fully understand the bible and that no one can understand the bible without help of a priest, however...
"By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ" Ephesians 3:4

5. How many gods are there
The Catholic Church teaches that there is only on real god, however...
"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36


On a more moral subject, one last example.

6. The portrayal of the lord as a god of war and a god of peace.
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Clearly these are all contradictions. Seeing as I only had to bring up one example, and I brought up six, a vote for con would make sense.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

first much of what you arguei s based on the bible, which i prohibited from the get go. we are to compare church teaching itself. second nothing that you talk about involves church doctrine, mostly just dicipline or culture of catholics.
i gues you aren't teh first and won't be the last getting hung on on this stuff, not able or conversant enough on papal writings and councils.

priestly marriage is one of practice not doctrine anyway. plus priests were allowed to marry, and then the church forbad it, so that the priest would be able to dedicate himself to the people, and to the churchs political world. anyway, it's not a contradiction to say we're gonig to not allow marriage so that we can improve the insittution of the priesthood. it's just trying to improve it, like urging people to praying more often. did the fact that they weren't being urged and now they are, a contradiction? no its just different approach. approach v contradiction.

you are being too literal with the prohibition on "father". first, that is a practice, not a doctrine. and second, we have to look at it as less literal. Jesus meant not to call people father as if they are God etc. here are some father son verses from the New Testametn.
"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).

masses are often desired to be in one language, that one it is more universal. of course it's in many languages as the side won out that wanted it to be in people's native language. practice too not doctrine.

the church doesn't teach only priests understand the bible. they recommend not reading it unless you have guidance of someone like a priest though. they are more equipped than the lay person in understanding it. culture, not even practice per se, not docxtrine.

Jesus when confronted about being a God among men said "doesn't teh bible itself say "ye are gods"? in reference to everyone. you are taking that quote too far. being too literal.

as for the biblical protrayals, you are taking vague references against vague references. a person could be said to be peaceful, but if you push anyone too far, there's bound to be war. not church doctrine... in terms of being from the church's own extra biblical wirtings.
dragonb95

Con

I apologize for biblical quotes when I shouldn't have (why did you even limit it like you did in the first place).

Also, you never limited it against practice. I completely consider practice a part of Catholic doctrine.

Anyway, if I have to pay attention to your ridiculous limit and further limitations you enacted last round, here is the one point that still stands.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only on real god, however...
"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36

It explicitly states in the Catholic Encyclopedia that there is only one god. Then, in a pope's doctrines, he says that priests are also gods.

My opponent refutes this by saying that Jesus said in the bible that the bible says "ye are gods". If Jesus said this is in the bible, my opponent should also quote the bible, not what Jesus said. Also, he has provided no source for this quotation, and since there is a spelling error, we can assume he did not copy paste it but paraphrased it.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i do give credit to con for focusing on actual papal writing, instead of cultures practices etc. but he is being too literal in it. the pope said "it is not too much to say" almost as if it's a sort of figure of speech. Jesus referenced us all as being gods at one point, i could also reference teh old testament where he reference... but referencing Jesus himself seems to be sufficient.
Id have assumed a bible quote like that was pretty common knowledge, perhaps I was wrong in thinking so.
it almost seems like con is expecting the lack of citation to win the debate, as if were i able to cite it, then i'd have won?
anyways...

John 10: 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"? 35"If he called you gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?
dragonb95

Con

In conclusion, this is how the debate went.

My opponent issued the challenge.

I issued six points.


He ruled them out with his unnecessary limitations.

I focused on my one point about the catholic teaching of "one god only".

He refutes that point by citing the bible, even though he said that the bible was irrelevant to this discussion. That's right, he excludes my arguments because they cite the bible, and then cites the bible to refute my one point. Go figure. Vote con for logic.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i see con's point. but if the bible has the same apparent contradiction as the catholic church... and most every usually assumes the bible is true, it's at least relevant.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
dairygirl*
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
dairygurl, you are a trooper.
Posted by Sheldor 3 years ago
Sheldor
It seems to me that you are being quite exclusive in your definition of "The Catholic Church", and that anything that seems to be hypocritical or self-contridactory has been cut off from this association...it is likely anything pointed out would be cut off from this definition as well.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
dairygirl4u2cdragonb95Tied
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: Pro attempted to state that con had broken the rules of the debate after con's strong refutation- and then broke the rule in the same exact way. "Jesus when confronted about being a God among men said "doesn't teh bible itself say "ye are gods"? in reference to everyone."
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
dairygirl4u2cdragonb95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used the Bible and applied it to the teachings of the church. Pro was hard to follow and used horrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization that made it hard to read her contentions.
Vote Placed by martianshark 3 years ago
martianshark
dairygirl4u2cdragonb95Tied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were well-made and made sense. Con did not pay attention to what he was accepting, and all his arguments ended up being automatically refuted by the original rules. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con. Pro failed to capitalize, and his grammar was often hard to understand.