Catholics Reject Their Own Religious Doctrine - DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Catholics Reject Their Own Religious Doctrine

Opening Argument

ImbsterImbster 96 Pts
edited August 2017 in Religion
Hello there, I'm back.

I would like to discuss how there is a burden for a catholic to follow the supreme community, the church, especially with the recent controversial things the Pope has done and said. While some have interpreted what he said wrongly and made clickbait all over the internet, there are instances where the pure translations of what the Pope mentions are what it simply is.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity

I'll just take this general reference since many sources also cite the same idea. I was wrong with a few arguments before now knowing the difference. 

With this, Catholics are to follow the teachings of the church, Bible, Jesus and the Pope whereas general christians do or may not recognise the special authority of the Pope and have free will to accept or reject individual teachings of the Bible.

So now I ask, why do catholics lie to children? Do they underestimate children cannot handle true church doctrine? That they won't go to hell after stealing candy? That they'll go to heaven by doing over 9000 morally upright acts?

Why does a priest talk about things not according to doctrine? Is that what it means for him to be "the one who Jesus speaks through during mass"? That would then mean Jesus speaks against doctrine and wishes to change it but we all know a priest still speaks with his own mind and knowledge and therefore ridiculously comes up with teachings not accordingly to Catholic doctrine.

I may be a Sunday assistant atheist teacher but I keep the teacher's class according to the doctrine of their religion so they can go home and tell their mom and dad "you're lying" though I still cherrypick verses cause I wouldn't wanna talk about David and foreskins.

Catholic doctrine is easily searchable so to all catholics here maybe start following that and avoid severe mandela effect where everyone else says the Bible says this but actually the Bible says another. You'll live that your whole life.
joecavalry


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • What is this debate about and what side are you arguing for?
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Yeah, I'm just as confused as joecavalry here. Are you arguing against a specific Catholic teaching, or are you just not really happy with Catholics in general? If it's the latter, I don't think there is much we can debate about.
  • ImbsterImbster 96 Pts
    edited August 2017
    @joecavalry and @DavidDebates I guess there is a must for a specific topic which I recently encountered this morning. It is very noticeable that most Catholics do not follow or have no knowledge of two doctrines, namely, Salvation doctrine and Catholic Mass decorum. Not that I'm sexist that I demand a proper dress code inside the church but the religion, the community/the church demands such.

    Compare it to other religions their practices are strict, an example are the adventists who don't eat pork.

    The Mass decorum only demands a Eucharistic Fast that you must not eat nor drink one hour before the mass excluding the aged yet people do eat during mass. Punctuality is also a problem. A whole church having a 1,000 seat capacity fills after the Homily knowing that subdivision has a population of at least 2,000 registered catholics reading from the documents I've seen at a parish office.

    It is demanded of a Catholic to be Catholic and not a Christian, to obey the teachings of both the church and the Bible and orders of the Pope. I am not stepping on religious beliefs but perhaps personal beliefs because this is the belief of the specific religion that specific personal beliefs of one reject.

    It's not forcing someone to believe if it is expected of the person under the organisation. So if you'd like to argue there's a piece of catholic document that states Catholics can reject Biblical teaching I think that's inside a teapot orbiting Mars.
  • More importantly, Christians in general disobey levitican law. They claim that Jesus did away with the old testament rules, but Jesus himself says the opposite in the bible.
  • @Edril Well, no. Jesus did away with the sacrificial law. If the sacrificial system were to continue to be implemented, then that negates the point of his being the Passover Lamb (or, in other words, Messiah--though, the nature of his being the Messiah is highly contested by Jews, but that's a different discussion.) 

    So, I suppose I'll elaborate to demonstrate what I mean. I assume the verses you're referring to are Matthew 5:17-18, where Jesus states he did not come to abolish the Law. This is true: He came to correct what was heard (by the Pharisees, etc.) If you continue (as this was on the Sermon on the Mount), you'll come across Matthew 5:21, which states: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

    Along this same line, you'd have to understand the point of the two systems of law. There is the Law and there is the sacrificial system implemented for atonement (and this aspect is critical to the nature of Jesus as the Messiah.) For example, in Leviticus (one of the primary books that outlines the works done for atonement, such as sacrificing animals and not wearing the same fabrics. These were done because they had to sacrifice to demonstrate obedience and they had to sacrifice animals because Leviticus says the life is in the blood. Jesus came to be that animal sacrifice (thus his name as the Passover Lamb) and for his death to be the final work they'd have to do for salvation. He came to do away with the sacrificial rules and spoke the same moral laws and corrected what the Jews had, for a long time, heard. He also did this by showing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. 

    To demonstrate that the sacrificial system was no longer necessary is Hebrews 10:1-18, and the declaration that faith is only what is necessary for grace (therefore not sacrifices--Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:20,28, and Galatians 2:16.) 

    I apologise for this length. :) 
    MajoMILSdlGMGV
  • @Imbster ;

    Ah, well, I'd first have to say that not all Catholics agree with the Pope. The Pope is able to have his personal opinions. The only point in time that Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible is when he is sitting ex cathedra. Or, rather, on the chair of Peter. This has only happened about roughly 2-3 times in the history of the Catholic Church. Everything that is need-to-know on the Catholic faith (yes, they do consider themselves Christians; however, they do not consider themselves Protestants) is in the catechism. The catechism is considered to be based off the Bible and oral teachings, which concern tradition. 

    As for Catholics not doing as they should... that's a human problem and not necessarily representative of all Catholics or their belief system, either. 
  • EdrilEdril 65 Pts
    @Alaires

    You haven't shown where Jesus states that he is doing away with the old law or the sacrificial system. Jesus states, very specifically, that it is to remain unchanged until the end of all things. 

    The other passages you mentioned are Pauline teachings, not christian. The epistles contradicted the teachings of Christ.
  • Edril said:
    @Alaires

    You haven't shown where Jesus states that he is doing away with the old law or the sacrificial system. Jesus states, very specifically, that it is to remain unchanged until the end of all things. 

    The other passages you mentioned are Pauline teachings, not christian. The epistles contradicted the teachings of Christ.
    I am a Catholic and I am very interested in trying to answer some of these questions. I agree, the Bible says that Jesus is doing away with the old law, but also consider this, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. Under the old law, people were blocked from God and could only see him briefly in the arc of the covenant. Second, the ten commandments were strictly enforced and the laws of the Pharisees were followed with all way. However, with the coming of Jesus, he does away with all the rules and laws that blocked people from seing God. Because the people were only focused on the rules, Jesus shows that he is the one true God and all Scripture points to him, therefore, he gives 2 commandments that summarize the 10 that truly help a person GET TO GOD. After this, we see the formation of the church and the spread of God's teachings to get to him eternally in heaven. 

    I will try to answer some more questions later, but main point, Jesus does not come to do away with the law, he comes to fulfill it.
  • I was raised Catholic in the US midwest and I think the answer is Catholicism is more of a cultural identification than a religion to its members.  It is a large group of people who have shared similar customs and a core reference point of beliefs and they keep coming back to that even if they disagree with some of the dogma of the church itself.

    I know three kinds of Catholics:

    The by births - meaning they'll tell you they were raised Catholic, but they don't really go to anything unless it's a Christmas or Easter mass with the restof their family.

    The nice Catholics - meaning they participate because they believe it made them nice people.

    And the Pope knows best - meaning the church is indeed the word of god and whatever they say must be right.

    The share of Catholics in the USA who are in the Pope knows best category is the smallest piece of that pie and they're primarily the older generations.

    @Imbster
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 157 Pts
    edited January 16
    Grenache said:
    I was raised Catholic in the US midwest and I think the answer is Catholicism is more of a cultural identification than a religion to its members.  It is a large group of people who have shared similar customs and a core reference point of beliefs and they keep coming back to that even if they disagree with some of the dogma of the church itself.

    I know three kinds of Catholics:

    The by births - meaning they'll tell you they were raised Catholic, but they don't really go to anything unless it's a Christmas or Easter mass with the restof their family.

    The nice Catholics - meaning they participate because they believe it made them nice people.

    And the Pope knows best - meaning the church is indeed the word of god and whatever they say must be right.

    The share of Catholics in the USA who are in the Pope knows best category is the smallest piece of that pie and they're primarily the older generations.

    @Imbster
    Okay, so I have a couple objections Grenache, I agree with 50% of this, but I think that there are better ways to go about categorizing, as Catholics, categories can determine our level of faith, but should not be used to make assumptions on certain people regarding the pope and feelings. I'll explain this a little later. You state that Catholics are "It is a large group of people who have shared similar customs and a core reference point of beliefs and they keep coming back to that even if they disagree with some of the dogma of the church itself." 

    Here is my first point of disagreement, as Catholics, we don't deny the dogma of our church. I would like your definition of dogma so I can see what you mean when you say, we keep coming back even if we disagree with the dogma. 

    The dogma of the church implies that "abortion is wrong" as proven by Pope John Paul II, or that "Mary is the mother of God", as decided by the Council of Trent, or that the Nicene Creed represents our core beliefs, as decided by the Council of Nicene. This is all dogma, what I think you refer to is that Catholics come back to church even if we disagree with the pope or the church's leaders. This would be an acceptable point, I disagree with Pope Francis on his beliefs at times, yet I come back, but I am NEVER going to say, I'm going to keep coming to church even if I don't believe in the Eucharist. The moment this happens, that you don't believe in the core dogma, you really aren't a Catholic, perhaps a Catholic by name. It is fine to disagree with church leaders, but not the core beliefs of the faith.

    You bring up a list of three categories of which I will reference their correctness or incorrectness in determining certain people.

    "The by births - meaning they'll tell you they were raised Catholic, but they don't really go to anything unless it's a Christmas or Easter mass with the rest of their family."

    This is the category I agree with, a better word choice might be Catholic by name.

    "The nice Catholics - meaning they participate because they believe it made them nice people."

    Here, feelings do not belong in determining types of Catholics. I see no category on here that states, Catholics that actively go to church and participate in their faith, or "Catholic by Faith." I am not a nice person at times, and going to church does not always make me a nicer person, but it does allow me to experience God in the Sacraments whereas not going to church takes this aspect away. I am a Catholic by Faith, I am writing this with 15 minutes before I leave to church, I actively discuss religious freedom, same sex attractions, and abortion at my school and assert the church's teachings as well as my own beliefs. This is what makes me a Catholic by Faith, I do not acquiesce my views about the church, yet I keep an open mind to the beliefs of others so that I can lead them down the right path to God.

     "And the Pope knows best - meaning the church is indeed the word of god and whatever they say must be right."

    This one is iffy. While there are these types of people, that does not mean that the pope shows favoritism toward them or that old people fit this category. Distributions must apply for all categories, and while the first aspect is correct, it is good to disagree with the church at times. While I disagree with the beliefs of Protestants, I think the original reason they separated from the church was correct, the church was getting paid for people to get into heaven, which some people took offense and found moral wrong in. If you simply believe off of the church leaders, you can lose some of your faith as a follower using your own reasoning, yet you should still, as above, follow the church's overarching dogma regarding the faith.

    Hope this helped, if you have any questions, let me know!
  • EdrilEdril 65 Pts

    @WilliamSchulz

    Trust me, I well aware of what the modern "Christian" view on this topic is.

    What I'm saying is that it is not backed up by the biblical teachings of Christ. It's more of a Pauline / papal belief system than a Christian one.
    And the epistles contradict the gospels.

  • He didn’t abolish it. He fulfilled it as the verse states. This is applying what he did to what he said he would do. Many verses in the New Testament even state they aren’t under that system because of what Jesus did. The moral law, the unchanging law, is still there as Christ’s law (because it is God’s law.) Sacrifical was rendered unnecessary because Jesus became the Passover lamb. @Edril
  • Edril said:

    @WilliamSchulz

    Trust me, I well aware of what the modern "Christian" view on this topic is.

    What I'm saying is that it is not backed up by the biblical teachings of Christ. It's more of a Pauline / papal belief system than a Christian one.
    And the epistles contradict the gospels.

    Okay, but in a Christian centered argument, it would not be appropriate to use a papal belief system, rather, we should focus on what the Bible actually teaches in order to discern what Jesus and other writers imply through their teachings. Point in hand, where do the epistles contradict the Gospels? If the epistles were written by Paul, who had a vision from God himself on the road to Demascus, where do you believe he went wrong. I can try to help if need be.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch