The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

the 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 1 vote the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 31851
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

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.
Pennington

Con

I agree to my opponents stipulation that in this debate, counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church" is invalid. I will show that the Roman Catholic Church has contradicted itself in the last two-thousand years.

A. Denials of Biblical teachings or tradition

(A1)- Pope denies the teachings of the Apostle Peter (Acts 15:11; 1 Peter. 2:5)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #552, "Because of the faith he confessed, Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church."[1]

Peter himself writes, "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ... " (1 Peter 2:6-8)

1 Corinthians 10:4, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Catholic historian and theologian, Peter DeRosa admits:

"It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Matt.16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is staggering to Catholics...The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter" (Vicars of Christ, DeRosa, 24).[1]

(A2)- Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8).

If Catholics were to recognize one apostle as their founder, biblically, it should be Paul whose ministry was directed to Gentiles, who wrote the epistle to the ROMANS, and who was actually in Rome.

B. Idolatry

(B1)- Catholicism is pagan idolatry where the 2nd commandment has been removed from the list of 10 commandments. (EX 20:4)



(B2)- Mary is not the 'Queen of Heaven' but rather a pagan deity. (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19, 25)

491-

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:[2]

"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

Mary was a sinner who needed a Savior (Luke 1:47.) Mary was an unclean sinner who needed purification (Luke 2:22.)

500

Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.[2]

Mary gave birth to at least SIX children after the birth of Christ who are all listed by name in Mark 6:3. Jesus corrects and rebukes mariolotry in Luke 11:27-28. Jesus never refers to Mary as "mother" one time in the Scriptures. He either calls her "woman" (John 2:4; 19:26) or nothing at all.

(B3)- Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylons) proved back in 1916 that the whole Catholic set up from Madonna's to "confessionals" and cardinals (and from popes and crosses to beads and candles) was of heathen origin, stemming from the worship of Nimrod, Tammuz, and Semiramis (Astarte, Ishtar, et al.).

C. Modern Contradictions

(C1) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible and tradition as interpreted by the Church are the final seat of authority in religion. Jesus condemned tradition as a rule for religious authority and exalted the Word of God:[4]

"The Pharisees and Scribes asked him, ‘Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients...?’ But answering he said to them, ‘...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. For letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast the tradition of men.... Well do you nullify the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.... You make void the commandment of God by your tradition’" (Mk. 7:5-13).

(C2) Pope Pius XII, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The Pope declared:

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

John Paul said:

"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later "as an effectively proven fact." [5]

I await my opponents response.

Sources:

[1]

http://www.cuttingedge.org...

[2]

http://www.scborromeo.org...

[3]

http://www.entrewave.com...

[4]

http://www.vatican.va...

[5]

http://law2.umkc.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

for the first argument.
yes Jesus is the main rock, no one would disagree. but even Jesus named Simon... Cephas, Peter, Rock.
current popes agree with Peter in all this stuff.
this is mostly semantics, poorly applied anticatholic arguments probably from a anticatholic website or something. bad judgment to use such a weak argument.

most of your other arguments are arguments that the catholic church is wrong... not that it ie popes specifically contradicted itself.
but i will address them anyways.
mary could be immaculately conceived and still require a savior, like someone stopping you from falling into mud, instead of pulling you out of mud, still a savior. "all have sinned" is too generic to be taken so literally. even Jesus didn't sin so we know it's not applicable there.
your point is too obscure per the Jesus, mother, siblings stuff. "brothers" in the bible often means simpy7 cousins, so it doesnt mean he had brothers etc... and no one has ever allaged Mary wasnt Jesus's mom, and if you are, you are far away unorthodox here.

Jesus did not say Tradition was wrong... he said making tradition over doctrines of God is wrong. You haen't show how they've done that. also, the bible says to hold fast to what is taught, both in the bible and from tradition.
in the end much of the bible needs an interpreter, and if it is truely God church, that settles the interpretation debate.

as to the evolution stuff (actual contradictions are being alleged, which i give props for, instead of jsut disagreements over interpretations etc)..

This seems more so linguistic confusion then anything else. Pius XII rejected evolutionary theory which attempts to usurp God's role as Creator. He did not reject an evolutionary theory which recognizes the hand of a Creator.

From Humani Generis, paragraph 36:

Quote
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
Pennington

Con

We never determined what the word 'contradiction' actually means so I will offer it here:


Contradiction:


1 : act or an instance of contradicting


2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something


b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other contradiction in terms>



3 a: logical incongruity


b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.[1]


We see that contradiction implies that two parts have inconsistencies with one another and all my contentions show as much about the doctrine of the RCC and The Bible. Unless my opponents wants to say that the RCC doesn't strictly use Biblical doctrine. If the RCC is wrong about Biblical doctrine and also claim they are not then that is a contradiction. If they simply teach anything that is unBiblical then that is a contradiction also.


A. Denials of Biblical teachings or tradition


(A1)- Pope denies the teachings of the Apostle Peter (Acts 15:11; 1 Peter. 2:5)


My opponent takes the usual stance here but there is a problem. In the original Scriptures on Matthew 16:18, Jesus uses two words for "Rock" in the original language. This difference in words reveals that Jesus is NOT basing His church on Peter, but on (Jesus Himself).


"He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am? Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Then Jesus answered him, Blessed, happy, fortunate, and to be envied are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades, the powers of the infernal region shall not overpower it, or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it." [



Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]


As you can see, Jesus plainly stated which "Rock" upon which He was building His church. His use of two distinctly different words for "Rock" clearly prohibits any person from ever believing, or teaching, that Peter was the "Rock".[2] But for thousands of years the Catholic Church have been teaching that this verse implies that Peter is the Rock that is refered here.


(A2)- Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8).


My opponent never even addresses this part of the contention. This shows that the RCC views Peter as their apostle when it was Paul who was ordered to teach the Gentiles nations. They deny scripture by not recognizing Paul as their given apostle.


B. Idolatry


(B1)- Catholicism is pagan idolatry where the 2nd commandment has been removed from the list of 10 commandments. (EX 20:4)


This part was ignored. It is a fact that the RCC has a different Ten Commandments then the priginal Biblical Commandments. My opponent offered no reason why.


(B2)- Mary is not the 'Queen of Heaven' but rather a pagan deity.


I showed last round that Mary is viewed by the RCC as being without sin but the Bible says in multiple places she is sinful. He also denies that Mary has children beyond Jesus and claims they are cousins. It says:


"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."(Mark 6:3)


Here we are told Jesus' has four brothers who are born of Mary and at least 2 sisters. My opponent must justify this account because it clearly says that Jesus has siblings.


(B3)- Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylon's)


My opponent never attempts to rebuttal this also. This author gives a detailed account of how RCC traditions did not come from Biblical origin but Babylonian origins.


NOTE - If the RCC contradicts the Bible then that is enough for contradiction of the RCC because they base their doctrine from the Word of God.


C. Modern Contradictions


(C1) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible and tradition as interpreted by the Church are the final seat of authority in religion.


It is true that these people were teaching tradition against Biblical doctrine and so does the RCC. The above and below are examples of that.


"Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 767).


Christ commanded the apostle John, "Write therefore the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are to come hereafter." (Rev. 1:19).


"The Apostles are never reported to have circulated a single volume of the Holy Scripture, but 'they going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord co-operating with them.' (Mark xvi. 20)." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 66).


"From all of which it must be abundantly clear that the Bible alone is not a safe and competent guide because it is not now and has never been accessible to all..." (The Faith of Millions, pp. 154-155).


He chose to give us His writings by means of those whom He commissioned as His ambassadors. He gave them the same words which He received from the Father (John 17:8). He did not leave them as ordinary men subject to the frailties and fallacies of human nature, nor did He leave them to their own memories to recall His deeds and teaching; rather, He gave them the Holy Spirit who guided them into all truth (John 16:13), and brought to their remembrance all that He had said to them (John 14:26). The written words of the New Testament were not the product of mere chance, but were divinely purposed and planned.[3]


(C2) Pope's directly addressed the issue of evolution


I showed two versions of the RCC's views on evolution. Both contradicted each other in every way. If man evolved from lesser animals and this was directed by God then should not the Church be able to recognize that before accepting it? Why does the RCC have to wait for science before they know what is right or wrong?


Conclusion:


My opponent should address all my issues next round. I understand it is on myself for the BOP and I have given enough burden to give RCC a look of contradiction. I await my opponent.


Sources:


[1]



http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[2]



http://www.cuttingedge.org...


[3]



http://www.bible.ca...

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"NOTE - If the RCC contradicts the Bible then that is enough for contradiction of the RCC because they base their doctrine from the Word of God."

you could make the argument. but the problem is it's clear from my opening statement I am loking for papal and counciliar statements. and getting into what the bible means is too open to interptretation to mean much.
but i will continue to humor your points.

simon's name was simon... until Jesus changed it to Peter. peter means rock, this is well established. there may be some interplays for which Rock Jesus was referring to when he said "on this rock", but in any case this is semantics and squabbling over very little in substance. as far as contradictions are concerend.
not to mention so many protestants who say the rock was peter's confession of faith, not peter himself or Jesus per se.

as for the ten commandments point, the catholic church just groups them differently... don't think they "took one out", the bible has a list and catholics and protestestants group them differently.

as for mary being queen of heaven... that's not contradictory to anytyhing. it may have took root out of pagan deity ideas but that dont mean she's not queen of heaven. it's also not unbliblical to think she is. and it's not even an official teaching of the church... just a pius notion by many catholics.

you can say that the bioble says mary was a sinner, but that doesnt mean its true. by your logic given "all hae sinned", jesus must have sinned too. you are being too literal here.

you can insist the bible says he had brothers but that doesn't mean that it has to maen it the way we understand it. you can't get around that the bible uses the same word for both brother and copuisin./

at least give them the benefit of the doubt and use a better arguemnt. that goes for all your points, they are all very weak.

the catholic church didn't say that the things the apostles wrote was wrong, they are just pointing out that generaly the only biblical command Jesus gave, was to teach. the bible itself says to follow the bible aAND tradition.
plus the encyclopeida isn't an authoritative papal document per measuring infalliblity, as far as Jesus actually requesting John to write.
Pennington

Con

My opponent made the claim that the RCC had no contradictions in its entire history. It was upon myself to show these contradictions and my opponent must depose of them. I think my opponent has failed to do that.


NOTE: All I need is one contradiction to win this debate.


Let's recap the entire debate:


My opponent said that I must show Papal statements, RCC council documented errors or contradiction. This is difficult to do without any source to go by, so, I have entered the Holy Bible as that source. The RCC have many contradictions when compared to the Bible and I offered just a few.


A. Denials of Biblical teachings or tradition


I offered the contradiction that RCC recognizes Peter as the Rock on which the church of Christ was to be built shown in Catechism of the Catholic Church, #552. I offered a verse from Peter and also Jesus himself to show that Peter is not the rock of the Church but instead Jesus Christ is. This is a huge error of scripture and can have many negative effects with doctrine if one were to view Peter as the 'rock' of the Church instead of Christ. My opponent offered us no clear-cut explanation for this.


I further offered the contention that the RCC refuses that Paul was ordained to teach the Gentiles. Though the RCC chooses to take Peter as their teacher. There was no rebuttal for this.


B. Idolatry


I showed that in EX. 20:4 the Bible tells us not to worship idols or anything other than God. I showed how the RCC has changed these specific verses on Idolatry for convenience. My opponent make claims that the RCC merely arranges them differently but ignores that they take the 2nd out completely and use the 10th as nine and ten. She even mentions she only thinks they did not exclude one but she must have not checked or she would see that the RCC's and Bible are very different.


I showed that Mary is considered in RCC writings as without 'sin.' I gave scripture saying the very opposite. My opponent suggested twice that Jesus was without sin and the Bible said everyone has sin. Well she just made my point by that statement and also made a statement that appears to say that the Bible is untrue. To rebut my opponent on that statement I will say that Jesus is God and therefore is not considered as everyone else or humans.


I went further and showed that Jesus had siblings which the RCC says He does not. I gave a actual verse that says Mary had children other than Christ and it says that they are Christ's brothers and sisters by Mary. She never gives us any adequate explanation for this. My opponent says my argument is weak but not one of them are answered with any substance but left to doubt just off assumption because the RCC says so.


C. Modern Contradictions


I showed that Jesus himself said that traditions that are not by scripture have no authority from God. All the evidences above and many more show the non-scripture tradition of the RCC. I also showed that even Popes have different points of view that contradict each other.


Conclusion:


My opponent has failed to argue her case properly. She basically ignored most of my contentions and shrugged them off as assumptions. I showed the actual Catechism of the RCC and how it contradicts actual Biblical doctrine. Please vote for Con.


Thanks to my opponent!

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
dairygirl4u2cPenningtonTied
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 actually used sources and good arguments. Pro... didn't address her opponents contentions well and made a smokescreen to hide behind