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

the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 31857
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




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.


Belief and enforcement of the Geocentric Model

"However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from the Catholic Church and its reluctance to accept a theory not placing God's creation at the center of the universe, but also from those who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory."[2]

Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received[3]

Abuse of the Sale of Indulgences

Martin Luther's commentary on the subject. 95 Thesis.[1]

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift[4]

Pope says sorry for sins of church[5]
"John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders."..."Yesterday's apology was by far the most sweeping and an unprecedented act for the leader of a major religion. One of the highlights of this year's jubilee, or holy year, it was the result of four years' research by a panel of 28 theologians and scholars. ... Disquiet that the apology was a beautiful gesture but a theological mistake bubbled to the surface last week."

Debate Round No. 1


the geocentril link merely off hand refers to the catholic church. it was a prominent figure in those days so there was much opposition. but it wasnt official teaching, popes and councils, as was the criteria in the first post by me. this only proves they are human, like all christians. the earth seemed flat, evolution seems too counter intuitive... at first.

regretting treatment of galileo only shows that he was sorry for the acts of former catholics. same arguments go for your point about apologizing for past sins. impeccability does not mean infallibility. they aren't pervect, jsut like the apostles weren't perfect. peter even denied jesus three times, etc. yet we stil read teh bible etc. do as said, not as done. official teaching again is the criteria.

indulgences are said to be part of the churches ability to forgive sins, "Jesus breatehd on them and gave them the holy spirit, saying whose sins ye forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins ye retain are retained". they say this is forgiving the temperal punishment due to sin. you can disagree with this all you want, but it's not a contradiction. sale might be a bad act, but it's due to the sinful nature of men, not a teaching of the church.

the pope didn' t reverse stance on condom use. even in that article, it merely says he's recognizing that it's a lesser evil than spreading disease, liek from a male prostitute. but that doesn't mean it's okay, and he says tehre that it's still immoral. nothign changed. in fact the articles at the bottom of that one address the "confusion" with the popes words that were created, spread about by that article and folks like you. taken all out of context.


Points have been made regarding changes in the teachings and policies in the Catholic church.

I now shift direction: the Catholic church believes in the bible, and the bible has contradictions.

Most famous of which is salvation through faith alone[1] vs salvation through faith and works. [2]

[1] Ephesians 2:8-9
[2] James 2:14-26
Debate Round No. 2


first i note that con seems to be ignroing the last points in debate and moving on.

the bible is too full of interpretation to say the the RCChurch has contradicted itself.
faith is the bottomline of what saves... but all agree works must be necessary. protestants say works result from salvation, catholics say it's part of salvation. the bible verses don't spell out which is correct. it's most ly just academic "what ifs" anyway.
faith alone doesn't save, said James in that chapter.... works being necessary. yet we wee in romans that Abraham was saved by faioth. it's just a amtter of how you reconcile all thse verses. too mucn interpretation. it's not a contradiction issue.


The story of Abraham was in the Old Testament, and faith was not used to describe Abraham, neither was salvation in the Christian sense.

The bible needs an interpreter, as my opponent pointed out. It cannot all be true. It is not all true.

James in James 2, and Paul in Ephesians 2, are contradictory.

This is born out in the conversation between Paul and Peter in the book of Acts.[1]

If James and Paul had a conversation about the topic, they would NOT be in agreement, they would be yelling.

Please read the three passages in question. In all seriousness, please recognize the obvious contradictions, take into account the context, and vote Con.

[1] Acts 15
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.