The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 32130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




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.


-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


I will not only be expecting to drive the opinions of any audience we might attract my way, but your opinion too. Now, I will site one, very important, contradiction. In February 1939, Adolfo Hitler, in the attempt to befriend Pope Pious XI, visited Vatican City. For the time that Hitler's visit took (in days), the Pope of that time chose to stay in his summer house on the other side of Roma. Although, the Vatican was kind enough to Hitler, Pope Pious XIIIV openly exclaimed that "His politics seem unintelligible and his methods inhumane".

So then, let's fast forward to 8th July, 1943. A new pope has been Papal elected, Pope Pious XII. This Pope, just 4 days after he was elected to the position of Papal head of the Roman Catholic Church, had written a letter to Berlin (which can be found and read quite easily, if you want to check). In the letter, he talks about how "His duties are to ensure that the leadership of Adolph Hitler be rewarded and revered".

Now, I'd think that it's a great leap of opinion to go from Anti-Hitler, to Pro-Hitler; maybe you're able to convince me other wise! But, sir, I doubt that anyone in such an educated audience as ours may be, is credulous enough to even think of believing such nonsense as you propose.
Debate Round No. 1


for something to be "infallible" it has to be... the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals.

first, i'd say the pope wasnt teaching the church here. his letter was to berlin, not the church at large. i don't know the context of the first statement.. but it was something people would ever disagree with anyway.

second, and a lesser point... it wasn't a teaching on faith and morals. whether hitler should be deemed someone to work with etc is more a political point, not moral or faith. you could squabble it being moral, but.

either way, not a teaching to the church.


What an incredibly silly argument I just read. First you confirm that the letter was from the pope, the leader of the Church. Then you say that agreeing with Hitler is not a moral issue! Subsequently, you admit that you don't know the context of my argument! One would think, that you would do at least some research before you try to tell anyone that this Cult of Death, that is absolutely shrouded head to toe in contradiction, that it has never contradicted itself. I wish not to be rude, but even you must see how ridiculous your argument is! If it wasn't so disgusting as defending this institution of lies and hypocrisy, you would have almost made me laugh.
Debate Round No. 2


i'm not sure you got the main point of my last post as you didn't address it. i primarily contested that the pope did not teach the church at large. yes it was the pope who said it, not disputing that. the pope wrote a letter to berlin, not a statement for the church at large. please respond to this point.

i said it's not a moral issue, but agreed it could be characterized as such. i dont know enough context to say whether the pope knew of hitler's atrocities etc at the time he wrote it. and, as the church says regarding politics and such... it's not an issue of faith and morals, but political. socialism, capitalism, democrat, republican etc... they have teaching, but not considered faith and morals, even said by the church. which means tehy aren't really teaching when they talk about it, if they always qualify it like that.

how do you say it's shrouded to head to toe in contradiction? we're talking about official church teaching, not all the things i made note about. and i take exception to limbo etc as said, for reasons i dont wish to get into. your example is extremely weak. you have not established any basis to say it's shrouded with contradiction.
i don't even consider myself catholic, just someone knowledgeable of its teachings etc, trying to look at this objectively.


Oh, I understand your point now. And now that I do, it no longer seems deluded, just an outright falsehood.

I need not a full argument to finish with this Church, and the single "point" you've made. Since you're familiar with Germany's history at the dates ranging from 1939-1945, you will no doubt be aware of the Treaty Of state and Church, Which took the form of a treaty with the Vatican -not just the pope-, this treaty, as you no doubt are aware, gave the order, again by the Vatican, That The Furher's birthday should be celebrated by every Roman Catholic Church in Germany in exchange that the Third Reich excuse The Church of any anti-catholic propaganda (If the audience wishes to check this fact, see:

Now that I've finished with you and your contemptable Church, I'd like to compliment you on how cute your futile argument was. It's up to the audience now, to decide if they are the person who takes into account evidence, or feeling.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by rogerb 5 years ago
very clearly hate to give it away, but Mary Magdelaine for centuries was taught to be a prostitute but recently this was refuted by the church
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
I think this is a personal favorite of yours. I mean, you have debated the topic about 10 times consecutively and have nearly lost everyone of them even with the unreasonable limitations. Yet, here you are still persisting to debate the topic beyond mere redundancy, but to the point of lunacy.

Why I ask?
Posted by TheSlenderMan 5 years ago
She's pretty much a troll..check her history...I just did a debate with her about the same thing. Hey, go vote for me! :)
Posted by Alchemind 5 years ago
So we cant use the actions of the members of the Church who represent what you're defending, cant use scripts from the Bible, basically what Catholicism revolves and teachers around and we cant use the 'assumptions', only doctrine, by which goes completely against the thesis of your debate. Great.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Pennington 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should retire. Con kept the impression that the RCC has contradictions. Pro never properly addressed Cons claims.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 was able to maintain his point very well. Bad grammar and no capitalization on the part of pro. Dairygirl why do you keep making this debate?