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

the pope is not infallible

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 547 times Debate No: 79498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




some points:

1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved.

2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err.

3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop.

4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter.

5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.


This debate is not if the Pope was not infallible prior to being pope. It is also not if the Pope will be infallible after being Pope.

In actual fact this debate is very curious indeed... It is not even if the Pope could be infallible at this very moment because by the time we determine his fallibility, it will be too late to say he still is fallible.

To be infallible is not to have never made error, it is to be incapable of making error at present. Since by the time the Pope makes any mistake he will then be capable of once again becoming infallible we can never truly say that he is not infallible.

The Bible indeed doesn't say the Pope is infallible but does it specify that the Pope is fallible? Not at all, even if it did it would be too late as the Bible's 'is' is our 'was' now.

Additionally, who is Pro to say if the Pope is or is not infallible if they too are infallible and incapable of, without being fallible and able to conclude wrong, conclude incorrectly that the Pope is not infallible?

We must truly ask ourselves who is truly fallible? The answer is that by the time you have said they are infallible, the 'is' is a 'was' and you must once again determine it.

Et voila.
Debate Round No. 1


that was one of the most convoluted arguments i've ever seen. the question is simple: is the pope infallible on faith and moral teachings or not.

all that is and was non sense doesn't mean much. even if we can only determine the past, we can still look at past popes to see if they taught error or were contradictory. that gives a strong indication about whether a pope is currently infallible. if the system can go two thousand years without an contradiction, it gives strong evidence of its infallible nature. of course, i showed some contradictions.

con hasn't made it clear if he thinks the pope is capable of being infallible or not. he's just on some rant about is and was and such.


Pro is attempting to alter the resolution.

The resolution reads 'The Pope is not infallible', not 'the Pope is not incapable of being infallible'. Pro has to prove that the Pope is, at the very moment of observing the Pope and deducing this, not infallible. Unfortunately, by the time you do this, the Pope WAS infallible but no longer IS infallible.

Next time, don't make such a one-sided resolution, Pro because sometimes it's not as one-sided in favor of your side as you think but rather the opposing one.
Debate Round No. 2


con obviously sorely misunderstands the debate. and i guess is just trying to win on some convoluted technical points?


Pro tried to make an unlosable truism of a resolution and instead was thwarted through the even more sinister power of semantics.

Et voila.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
This is a truism lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 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's resolution in present tense because "Is" occurs in the resolution. In order to win, Pro must have proven that the pope is *not* infallible in todays society, she failed to do this and Con points this out. She then tries to change the resolution to past tense. S&G goes to Con because Pro never capitalized at the begging of sentences & didn't capitalize "I".