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

there are few claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to 1000AD

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: 6/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 61244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




are there many claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to say, 1000-1300?

i see plenty that he is a "first among equals" and a highly respected leader, and perhaps even deferred to, but nothing in the way of 'inerrant'. it's said that even if that doctrine is true, it wouldn't just spring up in full force. which i understand. but then again, it wouldn't take more than a thousand years to say something about the pope being inerrant.

also, i'm trying to understand a critical point in history. 1050 ish was when the East broke from the West. early 1200 ish is when the Latern Council said the pope should be "humbly defer"ed to. (note they didn't say humbly submit) and late 1200 ish is when a fellow named Olivi (some call him the 'inventor' of infalliblity) came along and without question said the pope cannot error. in the early 1300 ish a pope John XXII decried that idea of infalliblity, at least the extent of the definition given. the pope talked about all temporal and civil power and everything being too much for the pope. it is unclear if he thought any perogative of the pope being inerrant was too much, or the extent described. it's ambiguous... but seems to indicate any inerrancy peroagative was too much. but.... and this is a big but, less than a mere decade after that pope, though, another named Terreni came along and defined infallibliity very similar to the way Vatican I defined infallibility.

so i'm wondering what connections there are between Terreni and Olivi? why did Terreni see fit to limit infallibility better? was he influenced by Olivi or did he act on his own accord? he was almost surely influence by the pope's writing against infallibility, right? and yet he still chose to write it similar to how vatican I would later do it?

that does seem to be pretty compelling in favor of the catholic church. as of now, i just don't have enough info about all the connections.

but even if this time frame was viewed most favorably to catholics, where is the proof of inerrancy pre1000-1200?
to me, that is becoming the deal breaker in becoming a full fledged catholic.


this topic is not important.
Debate Round No. 1


con forfeits


debate_freak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


debate_freak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago
i'd be happy with, say, three decent examples.

i can think of one that might fit the bill. the rest are things like deferring to the pope, he's hte last resort, he should be listened to, etc, not that he is inerrant on faith and morals.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
How many equal "few"?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Cheyennebodie, I would love to debate you on any of the subjects you raise. Feel free to send me a challenge on any of those topics.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
And the fact that you say "few" shows that you know that so Christians were saying it.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
You mean infallibility.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
i agree with the debate challenge. Where is it? There is no papal infallibility in the early church.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
What about that stupid " vows of poverty" thing that the pope backs up. You cannot find anywhere in the bible that God wants his people poor.Or what about all those statues. God says not to have graven images.And why does a person have to be dead to be a saint. The bible calls all reborn believers saints.And if popes are infallible, then why did they execute people if they translated the bible into a language the common man could read?They wanted the bible tucked away in monestaries so the folks would not question them. They could make up anything they wanted to control the folks so they would keep the money coming to a dead religion.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
So what's this a debate about?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff