catholic church has not contradicted itself

catholic church has not contradicted itself

if the catholic church CC is true, you'd think there'd be a contradiction in its teaching.

the teaching has to be from the pope.

you cannot include the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, no salvation outside controversy for this debate as i feel i am aware of the ramifications of this debate. i tend to think it has contradicted itself, but want some other proof.
http://www.justforcatholics.org...

The Catholic Church is a contradiction in and of itself. Keep in mind I am making these statements under the Catholic premise that the Pope is infallible. The Pope, as head of the Church, is the person who ultimately decides what is wrong and what is right within Catholicism. Because of this I need only point out ONE retraction of Papal Edict to prove the Catholic Church is an institution rooted in contradiction.

For instance- the claim that only Catholics will be saved because they posess the "keys to heaven". According to Catholicism, certain acts must be performed, prayers said, etc. in order for you to be forgiven and saved. YET at the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965) it was decided that this belief was incorrect, and it is now accepted within Catholicism that non-Catholics can be saved.

Not only is the reversal of this belief a contradiction to the belief, it is a contradiction to the infallibility of the Pope and of the Church. Furthermore, if non-Catholics can be saved then nothing Catholic is essential, and nothing in Catholic theology is infallible. None of the rituals performed by priests, rights of passage, baptisms, etc. are essential if non-Catholics can be saved, and if these doctrines are not essential- again, the Church and the Pope are not infallible- this is the ultimate Catholic contradiction.

As you noted in the comment section, this contradiction was not to be included.

But,
The main arguments that have been used by the catholic church to respond to this point are.... while the text appears rigorous, the subtext was that the popes were talking to people who knew about the CC and yet refused to be catholic. this means, not all are damned bc not catholic, but only those who refuse.... and so those who don't know any better are not necessarily damned.
This is how vatican II and other newer councils explain the apparent discrepency.
the argument is augmented to the fact most of the rigorous statemetns from the middle ages were in response to the French and others who were trying to get out of the church, or wondering if htere were legit alternative ways to get to heaven.
There is a lot more academic stuff I'm not going to bring up, but that's the essence of hte argument.
I don't buy the argument, but i am not so dull as to think it's not possible that they're wrong. not everything must mean what it appears to say if it's not explined extensively. still though, saying things like "absolutely necessary" to be catholic, is pretty strong. not necessarily conclusive depending on hteir context, but.

so anyway, we can argue about this if you want, but it does't appear there's much to debate. if you can find another contradiction, i'm all ears.

Dairygirl,

I forfeit this debate. I don't see myself getting any headway- after reading comments from Catholics and your own rebuttals in past debates- with the Catholic contradiction issue. There are things that are plain, simple, and logical to non-Catholics that Catholics will always find an excuse for, and rather than get into a heated debate over it I will just let it go. I have nothing against Catholics or the Catholic Church, and I respect Catholic loyalty to their church.

I would implore you to really investigate the contradictions within the Catholic Church. For instance it's adaptation of pagan beliefs, while Christianity teaches against it. I know you will provide Catholic rebuttals to accusations of idolatry, the adaptation of the cult of Dagon, doctrines like the "virgin birth", "immaculate conception", etc. that are rooted in Babylonian religion and Zoroastrianism, as well as the position of Sumo Pontifice whic is also a pagan adaptation not rooted in Christianity or Judaism (the root religion of Christianity). Your faith prevents you from having an objective debate about the obvious, and for that I am sorry. I do not wish to spend time researching your sources, rebutting, etc. because I am already convinced of my position, and you of yours. I wish you luck on future debates...