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

the catholic church, from an official capacity, 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 40526
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". i have reasons not to list here for excluding them.

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

also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to.

also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc


First of all, the catholic church obviously endorses the bible, which is filled to the brim with contradictions left and right. That is in and of itself a contradiction. In the 1300's and around that time the catholic church believed the earth to be 6,000 years old. Nowadays it has accepted a version of the big bang theory because it somewhat fits in with what the bible says. If they were all knowing don't you think they'd be able to make up their mind? When Galileo was proposing his idea that the earth revolved around the sun the church refuted this idea and arrested Galileo. They have now accepted this rudimentary idea, and therefore contradicted themselves. When the catholic church waged wars or hung innocents they were not following the basic laws of the bible that they preached from, therefore contradicting themselves from every time they preached the bible. There are even more that I could list but even one of these contradictions would prove the axiom of the catholic church having never contradicted itself completely false. Good day to you all.
Debate Round No. 1


i said i didn't want to debate biblical contradictions, and the fact the bible is said to be contradictory and the CC endorses it, is close enough to the bible debate stuff that i do not care to touch.

earth six thousand years revolves around the sun. this goes along with the idea that the earth is flat that i mentioned. people believed it, and the CC is full of people. it didn't officially teach these ideas. you haven't and can't show the citations or qutoes saying so.

the inquisition and killing lots of people wasn't a teaching of the catholic church. the church was full of sinners. even the apostles sinned yet we take the bible as the end all be all.


Dude you cant just take out all of the things that the church has contradicted themselves by and say "Now that I have specifically removed all of the contradictions now let's debate." The things that they said were official things. The bible was held in an official capacity. Just surrender to the truth already
Debate Round No. 2


Some say its debatable if the Bible is full of error. I see a lot of merit to that and choose not to get into it. As for the other stuff you haven't shown quotes because you can't. What does it really prove of informally those things like earth she were taught. Even Jesus could have thought the earth was flat but he didn't teach it. Officiated teaching. OS what matters. But u haven't shown anything


The bible was thought to be true by the catholic church, and that's all that's all that matters in this debate. Many historians have shown the facts that Galileo was arrested and it was shown in catholic scriptures. The only way we know about the church preaching that the earth was 6,000 years old is from there own writings, and if that's not true and they lied about it then that is a contradiction in and of itself.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Very poor debate by both parties. Neither used sources and the arguments made by Con were, although they may be true, were not supported and ineffectively presented. Pro made no arguments, instead trying put all the burden of proof upon his opponent, this debate was obviously skewed toward on side. Conduct goes to Con due to Pro's harsh regulations and criminalization of any possible contradiction.