The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

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 5 votes the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 34966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

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.
-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
2-D

Con

I apologize, I've bee tied up at work and thought I had another day to post my argment.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so you didn't know your argument yet? whatever it is, it'd seem you'd be able to post something about it. but okay post when you get to it.
2-D

Con


Thanks again for letting me delay my post. I have a few items to add to your list of banned arguments:


Slavery


The Catholic Church once allowed slavery with a few weak caveats but now they universally condemn the behavior. At one point they said that slavery was not contrary to Natural/Devine Law and later corrected saying that it dishonored the Creator and was a poison to society [2]. This is a clear contradiction:


“In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law… Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.”


“In 1866 the Holy Office issued an Instruction (signed by Pope Pius IX) in reply to questions from a vicar apostolic of the Galla tribe in Ethiopia: ". . . slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.”


“In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo Apostolatus in which he condemned slavery, with particular reference to New World colonial slavery and the slave trade, calling it "inhumanum illud commercium."


“In 1965 the Second Vatican Council declared without qualification that slavery was an "infamy" that dishonored the Creator and was a poison in society.”


“Paul II repeated the condemnation of "infamies", including slavery, issued by the Second Vatican Council: "Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience.”


List of Prohibited Books


The Index Librorum Prohibitorum has changed removing books from the list reflecting a change in teaching. First Catholics are instructed not to read these books since they are immoral or heretical and later are instructed that it is permitted or even encouraged. Johannes Kepler's Epitome astronomiae Copernicianae, was on the list for more than a hundred years from 1621 to 1758.



Galileo’s works were also once banned as heretical but in 1741 Pope Benedict XIV endorsed the publication of his complete scientific works. Writings from Mary Kowalska were once forbidden even though she is now considered a Saint [3].


The Heliocentric view is heretical/incorrect


For his contributions to physics Galileo was tried for heresy and sentenced to a life under house arrest. As I mentioned his written works were placed on the Catholic list of banned books. A commission of theologians issued a unanimous report: the idea that the sun is stationary is, "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Catholic teaching was clearly that Galileo’s ideas were dangerous, incorrect and should be suppressed [4].


In 1758 the church lifted the ban on Galileo’s works along with all the other works supporting the heliocentric view and even promoted the publication of his writing. “All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.”


This is a clear reversal for the church. From Pope John Paul II, “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”


Friday Brisket


The Church has reversed its position on eating meat on Fridays twice first allowing the eating of meat in 1984 and then forbidding the practice again in 2011. [1]


Papal Bulls are official statements issued buy the pope with the seal of Saint Peter and Paul on one side and the pope’s signature on the other. They are as official as you get:


Knights of Templar


In 1139 bullOmne Datum Optimum’ endorsed the Knights of Templar. In 1307 ‘Pastoralis praeminentiæ’ ordered the arrest and confiscated the possessions of the knights of Templar. In 1312 ‘Nuper in concilio’ gave the Templar their possessions back reaffirming the right to their property [5].


Independence of the University of Paris


In 1219 the bullSuper speculam’ closed all law schools in Paris and forbid the study of civil law. In 1231 ‘Parens scientiarum’ guaranteed the independence of the University of Paris including the study of civil law [6]


Treatment of Jews


In 1233 the bullEtsi Judaeorum’ demanded that Jews be treated the same as Christians expected to be treated in heathen lands. In 1235 ‘Cum hora undecima’ authorized friars to preach in pagan lands but ‘Turbato corde’ in 1267 legally bared Christians from converting to Judaism. In 1593 ‘Caeca et Obdurata’ expelled Jews from the Papal states.


Banning the Society of Jesus


In 1773 bull ‘Dominus ac Redemptor Noster’ banned and suppressed the Society of Jesus which was reestablished in 1814 by ‘Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum.’ All rights were restored to the Society of Jesus in 1880 officially revoking the bull ‘Dominus ac Redemptor Noster’ with ‘Dolemus inter alia.’




I’ll admit, I had a lot of ideas but the Catholic Church rarely admits a mistake unlike institutions that are willing to learn such as the scientific community. I had a difficult time pinning them down on the various inquisitions, witch trials, the burning of heretics, various instances of anti-Semitism including the support of Nazism, condemning condom use in Aids ridden areas, prejudice of women/homosexuals and the massive overhaul of the canon law in the first Vatican council. The list goes on and on.


The Catholic Church rarely admits to being wrong or corrects past mistakes; I am now thoroughly convinced but these instances I mention are clear contradictions.



[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...


[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[6] http://books.google.com... pg 283-285


Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

canon law isn't necessarily papal teaching. i dont see where the pope taught anything there. the instruction where he said slavery was okay was merely an instruction, a letter, to a local religious person. not a teaching to the church.

eating pork or not on friday is more like a practice than a doctrine, more like whether the mass is said in latin, than something like Jesus is the Son of God, doctrine. /// the knights templar is also just a practice in the church, nothing related to doctrine.

the forbidden book index is not offial teaching. what is included in it comes and goes, doesn't mean there's contraiction in doctrine.

i dont see where youve cited that the pope taught heliocentric views. they condemned galileo, put those types of books as forbidden, wrote letters to certain people with wrong views, but as far as i see never taught it as doctrine.

law schools open or closed is a practice, something more political than a matter of faith and morals.

the banning of jews in certain areas is debateably faith and or morals, but it seems like like a political move, more like a practice, than a teaching to the church. how the popes reign politically dont necessarily have to do with doctrine.

i still dont see that youve 'pinned' them down. but there's some close calls, and debateable calls, i will grant you that.
2-D

Con


I’ll keep my comments to brief clarifications since you do not have the chance for a rebuttal:


Canon law is the official law of the Catholic Church enforced by the Church's hierarchical authorities. A letter from a pope condoning Slavery in Ethiopia was clearly a moral teaching and had a large impact on all of those enslaved in Ethiopia.


The Catholic Church has taught that it is morally correct to abstain from meat on Friday and then contradicted itself.


The Church forbid anyone from teaching the heliocentric view, they taught that it was wrong to support the view and then changed their mind.


It would certainly have been considered immoral to read the banned books at the time.


Papal Bulls are in themselves moral teachings. It is wrong to violate a Papal Bull and you risk being tried as a heretic when violating them and there have been several contradictions.


Civil Law enforces a minimal morality on the people, don’t murder etc. Also they condemned the teaching of civil law as wrong.


The banning of Jews and dictating that Christians cannot can accept another Faith are clearly moral issues and contradictions.


The contradictions I have brought up are clear and there are many more.


Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
I agree with Roy that Doctrine was a weak point in my argument which you could have exploited. I would love to go again on this issue but only if you agree to build a strong rebuttal. I have read a few of your other debates and your rebuttals are fairly weak.

Remember many of us are not familiar at all with catholic dogma. Another thought, loosen up your set up a little bit to allow for an actual debate. If I set up a pro position for 2+2=4 does that sound anything like a debate?
Posted by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
I'm curious about the same thing voxprojectus said. What are three examples of what you would consider "official" enough?
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
You should definitely google confirmation bias and don't stop reading until you pass out. Seriously, I was a fundie until I was 22 and you can convince yourself of anything. There are clear contradictions.

Face it it's clear your organization is not perfect but life is just as great anyway. Political/administrative and virtually all acts have moral consequences and at no point in any decision should willingly shut off your moral compass.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
thinking about it more, the Jew thing could be more adminsitative/political. like if a Pope were president, and decided to Gerrymander against republicans, adding that they are greedy bastards, or something. this isn't a teaching to the church, main argument. it's an administrative/political act, with some dicta commentary.

there are all kinds of things that could be considered infallible. almost all the catholic councils, and almost all the papal encyclicals etc.
humanae vitae by JPII, Deus Caritas Est by Benedict, all the teachings of the council of Trent. to name three, of many many councils.

that there are so many things that could be considered infallible highlights that it shouldnt be too hard to find the countradictions.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
By the way I didn't mean to bash too hard on Catholics. Every association that has been around a while has committed a fair amount of atrocities and rarely own up to it. This includes virtually every faith/non faith and country.
Posted by voxprojectus 3 years ago
voxprojectus
Dairygirl4u2c I've now read all of the many debates you instigated on this subject, and they leave me with one question for you:

What, if anything, do you feel that the Catholic church has asserted which fulfills the criteria you consider to be contradictable?

It seems like most of your arguments boil down to simply not counting what is put forth as a valid assertion the church has made, yet the sheer scope of the many things people have put down doesn't leave room for much else.

Can you, for instance, give let's say, THREE things the church has asserted in an official capacity? I'm just curious what meets your guidelines, and I'd REALLY like specific examples, not just the guidelines you consider valid.

thank you.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Yep, and clearly you have seen that the church has contradicted itself in other areas and that your debate 'tactics' are not accepted as legitimate on this site... or anywhere else in reality that I am aware of.

Why not concede that the Catholic church has made some mistakes and move onto another issue? Have you debated that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world? It may be eye opening and I think this cuts to the heart of your position.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i could see voting against me in this debate, it was better by far than most past debates.
and the treatment of Jews thing is pretty compelling.
no while folks like massive dump have some basis in voting against me, this time.... usually he and most others are without basis.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Great, thank you I have a few ideas but had not done alot of research. I will post tomorrow thanks again for giving me an 'extension.'
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
I'm betting I can find several. I was once very familiar with church history so this is a chance to brush up. Here's to a good debate!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
dairygirl4u2c2-DTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually used sources, and reliable ones at that. Pro's rebuttals consisted mainly of "nuh uh" rather than a cogent argument. Pro's spelling and grammar is also quite atrocious.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
dairygirl4u2c2-DTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses the uncaps lock key, so spelling/grammar goes to Con. Con cites sources, so reliable sources goes to Con. Con brought up many contradictions that fit Pro's narrow definition of what an official contradiction is, so convincing arguments goes to Con. Pro was kind, however, and let Con post a day late. I respect that; conduct goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
dairygirl4u2c2-DTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a counter to the obvious vote bomb by MassiveDump. The vote bomb aside, Con didn't appreciate the differences among practice, Church rules, and doctrine. I think Pro was clear in making the interpretation that doctrine was narrowly defined, so Con should have made a more thorough argument as to what constitutes "doctrine." I'd give arguments to Pro, and S&G, obviously, to Con, for Pro's lack of capitalization.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
dairygirl4u2c2-DTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: All that was required to successfully challenge the premise of this debate was to present one example of the Catholic Church changing it's mind. This was done easily, underscoring the danger of sweeping generalizations in debate. I also awarded S&G to Con.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
dairygirl4u2c2-DTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro used zero. Spelling: Nigga must've stole yo shift key. Arguments: As always, Pro rebutted everything with "NOPE DOESN'T COUNT." Conduct: Spite. *JUSTIFIED VOTEBOMB!* yay :D