The Catholic Church is infallible
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
The ultimate goal of this debate is to advance the pursuit of truth. Regardless of who wins or loses, the real victor is the one who gains new knowledge. This debate will examine the basis for the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility.
Opponents of the dogma are the Reformers, who in rejecting the hierarchy also rejected the authoritative teaching-function of the Church; and the Modernists, who deny the Divine institution of the Church and therefore also set aside her infallibility.
Definitions:
Infallible - The impossibility of falling into error. In this context, the term refers to the Church's infallibility in the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals.
Rules:
1. Both parties accept the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative.
2. For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture.
3. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced.
4. Failure to comply with rule #3 will result in an automatic forfeiture.
God does promise to be present with the church, but this is a promise he makes to all believers, not just church authorities (Matthew 18:20). ... Jesus promises [the Holy Spirit] to all those who ask for it (Luke 11:13). It’s also not a guarantee of infallibility, since the early church ... fell into error (Galatians 2), while the later church split apart due to differences in doctrine.
It's true that the apostles were generally given authority to teach and were meant to communicate the words of God. But this does not mean that every statement made by the apostles all the time was automatically doctrinally accurate
In context, Paul is writing here about how church authorities ought to behave, not how they do behave all the time (1 Timothy 3). He writes that bishops "must be above reproach," not that they are. He writes that deacons "must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience," not that they are guaranteed to always hold properly to the faith or guaranteed not to fall into error.
While several early Church Fathers did in fact value a clear line of succession, what we don't see in these citations is a specific claim of infallibility, much less mentions of ex cathedra statements or church councils being particularly infallible
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, but not even those with the Holy Spirit are granted infallibility. ... St. Ignatius himself wrote, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man." He also leaves open the possibility of church leaders falling into error, referring to "those who are involved in many errors" and "misunderstood what Paul has spoken." ... Clearly, truth does not depend on the office of bishop or any other office—authorities can fall into error despite outwardly appearing important.Hence, this was not given as a guarantee that church successors would never err or a reason to believe that Catholic successors are infallible in particular. ... Being a descendant of the apostles does not guarantee immunity from error.
The standard of universal agreement doesn't apply to the Catholic Church's claims of infallibility. Orthodox, Lutheran, and other groups disagree on some or all of these points. Church councils were called to resolve widespread disagreement and often led to schisms ... . To claim that their teachings are universal, the ... Catholic Church holds that their authority makes them infallible, even though ... the authority given to leaders in other denominations doesn't imply infallibility. It's a big stretch to say that special infallibility is given to some leaders but not others, since all believers are promised the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13).
Many authorities or chosen leaders are selected in the Bible to carry out God's commands, yet all of them were flawed and none of them infallible the way that Jesus was. If an authority gives an opinion or a declaration about doctrine, we should take into account not just their authority but how reliable they have been in the past, the likelihood of corruption, and their justification for said belief. Likewise, when the Church and its leaders are said to be authoritative, this does not imply infallibility.
Much like modern ecumenical councils, a council composed of fallible individuals is not guaranteed to suddenly become infallible.
Pro does not dispute my R1 statement that “infallibility implies that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to make an error—if it’s possible for the Catholic Church to be wrong on this issue or others, they aren’t infallible.”
in the absence of strong evidence for infallibility, the evidence is against any individual contradictory claim. Since many denominations make claims that contradict each other ... the odds are against any individual claim being the right one in the absence of evidence ... If I guess from a dozen options on a multiple choice test, I’ll probably be wrong. ... without strong evidence for Catholic infallibility, the most likely case is that the Catholic Church is not infallible.
Pro does not dispute that Jesus promises the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Spirit of Truth), to all those who ask for it in Luke 11:13. ... If everyone with the spirit of truth is infallible, then all Christians are infallible ... . So having the spirit of truth or the presence of God ≠ infallibility.
“Christ singles them out for a special teaching role: "Whoever listens to you listens to me," (Luke 10:16). This promise connects directly to their commission to teach "all nations" (Matthew 28:19-20).”Jesus says this to Judas too, right before he says “one of you will betray me” (John 13:21). Clearly Judas was not infallible. This promise is about cases where the apostles correctly repeat the doctrine Jesus told them, ... Peter even warns of false prophets who “deny the master who brought them” (2 Peter 2), implying that authorities can fall into error. ... [this promise is] made to people who are clearly capable of error. Since bishops can fall into heresy and give false teaching outside of ecumenical councils, why should we assume that they are infallible during [ecunemical] councils?
[Pro's citation] doesn’t actually establish (or even imply) that ecumenical councils are infallible. A council making a good decision at some point ... does not mean that councils can never err. King David made the correct decision to defeat Goliath (1 Samuel 17) ... The Sanhedrin was put together by Moses (Numbers 11) ... yet they were not infallible ... accepting this teaching from the apostles as accurate and permanent contradicts Catholic teaching, as the apostles say “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials.” The Catholic Church imposes additional burdens on its members, such as telling them they must observe the Eucharistic fast.
Peter swore that he had never met Jesus (Matthew 26), …Peter’s error in Galatians comes very close to erroneous teaching ... Peter either explicitly or implicitly communicated wrong behavior to the others. Pro cedes this as a mistake on Peter’s part but states that “personal sin does not negate doctrinal infallibility.” ... Pro and the Catholic Church want us to read these verses and assume that bishops are infallible during ecumenical councils specifically, when none of the verses is implying infallibility or attributing special authority to councils.
For scripture to support Catholic claims to infallibility, it would have to say that authorities are perfectly guarded from error specifically when the pope speaks ex cathedra, during ecumenical councils, and in cases when all bishops around the world agree on a teaching. Scripture doesn’t say that
Paul calls the church the “pillar of truth” ... This does not mean the church can never err. The library is a “bulwark of truth” even if some library books contain incorrect information ... Paul’s analogy here is a general metaphor about the church receiving Jesus’ message, not a guarantee of infallibility. Jesus promises to guide the church toward truth with the Holy Spirit and the gospel, but this does not mean that fallible humans will never err or make mistakes
Pro includes citations from the Church Fathers as evidence for infallibility. Before investigating these citations, we should note that the Church Fathers themselves were not infallible. Origen, for example, had a number of beliefs that are widely considered erroneous today, even by the Catholic Church.
The “certain truth” refers to the Holy Spirit itself, not what is taught by someone with the Holy Spirit. ... [Pro] claims that “the Spirit guarantees that the Church's definitive teachings on faith and morals ... are preserved from error.” Iraneus’ writing does not support that claim
Tertullian says that it is very unlikely for all churches to err in the same way, not impossible ... If he’s appealing to probability here and not a guarantee of infallibility, that’s already contrary to the Catholic teaching on ecumenical councils. ... Even during the Council of Nicea, different churches were saying different things, and some of them were wrong.
Since one of [the Apostles'] successors isn’t comfortable issuing commands (a show of authority), this is a good reason we shouldn’t assume all church leaders to have the same amount of authority as the apostles.
We could also say that Israel is from God, or that Adam and Eve are from God, or that the Sanhedrin is from God. Yet Israel, Adam, Eve, and the Sanhedrin all fell into error at various points, as did some of the apostles. Saul and David were God’s anointed kings, but they each abused their authority many times. Despite Christ guiding the apostles into truth, not everything said by the apostles was true.
Thomas Aquinas was writing in the 1200s, a millennium after the early church and well after the Catholic/Orthodox split in 1054. ... Aquinas’ writings don’t tell us what the early church believed. And even if we accepted this writing, the “church universal” has not accepted Catholic infallibility
Lutheran bishops and Orthodox bishops can both claim unbroken sacramental succession. The third requirement (“continuity of doctrine”) makes infallibility circular. ... in order for successors to be infallible (i.e. correct), they have to teach the same doctrine taught to the apostles (i.e. correct doctrine). In order for a council to be infallible, the authorities at the council can’t be heretics. Pro simply claims that “the church is infallible.” But which church, and what singles that church out from the others
Thank you for your thoughtful clarification! I appreciate your engagement with these points and the chance to address your concerns. Regarding your critique that the Holy Spirit isn’t the one “leading the Catholic Church” but that it’s “human beings teaching other human beings,” I believe this may misunderstand my argument. My position wasn’t that human teachers are infallible by themselves, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensures the infallibility of *specific teachings on faith and morals* despite human fallibility. It’s not the individuals themselves who are error-free, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guarantees the correctness of those particular teachings. Wouldn’t this address the idea that the teaching itself is “incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrongdoing”?
You mentioned that the debate was about “the Catholic Church as a whole” and that the claim of infallibility required proving that “everything related to it” is free from error. However, the debate rules explicitly limited the scope of infallibility to “definitive teachings on faith and morals,” which is also consistent with Catholic doctrine. My argument focused on showing how these teachings are infallible, even when delivered by fallible humans, because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. The rules excluded personal failings or non-doctrinal actions from the definition of infallibility. Could you clarify why you felt the scope of the debate should include all aspects of the Church, even when the rules and doctrine explicitly narrowed it to faith and morals?
I also understand your concern about the law of non-contradiction. Catholic doctrine explicitly distinguishes between doctrinal infallibility (on faith and morals) and the fallibility of individual members in their personal actions or decisions outside of formal doctrinal definitions. These are separate categories rather than opposing claims. What did you think of my analogy "Just as a navigator ensures a ship stays on course despite individual crew errors, the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church's doctrinal integrity, fulfilling Christ's promise that it will be led into all truth."
You mentioned that my argument seemed like “a game of semantics.” I understand why this might come across that way, but my intent was to argue within the scope agreed upon in the rules: that infallibility is limited to doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. This distinction isn’t semantics; it’s the foundation of the Catholic claim itself, and I aimed to show why this claim holds. If the debate’s title seemed broader, I relied on the rules to clarify its intended scope. Would you agree that relying on the stated definitions in the rules was a fair approach? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement. Your feedback has given me valuable insights, and I hope this helps clarify where I was coming from. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this! I'll stop the questions there as I'm just looking to understand your perspective — not to argue or have a debate. If my questions sparked any realizations or anything similar I'd appreciate a revote. That being said, thank you!
I completely understand and I am fully happy to explain further as you asked.
" I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?"
So, here is the problem with that argument. Regardless if you think the Holy spirt is a real and a being incapable of error. The fact is that this being is not the one leading the catholic church. It is human beings teaching other human beings. So, that would still make the Catholic churches fallible even if the Christian God promised to guide their decisions. In fact, that argument kind of works against itself when you think about it. it goes back to my original point that if the teaching is indeed infallible, then its incapable of having error regardless if the teacher is capable of wrong doing.
The fact that members of a an organization that commit errors despite being given teachings from a being promising not to allow it from the start just makes no sense. See, there is a good rule in philosophy called the law of none-contradiction. Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. For instance, if the catholic church is infallible, then it cannot be capable of error. If you say it can in some context (such as members) but not in others (such as teachings) Then that is in violation of such law.
"Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself."
Yes, it still applies. two things cannot be true if they are indirect conflict of each other. To declare an entire organization of any kind infallible requires everything related to it to fit that same standard. To admit to even isolated cases of error is to work against your own argument. Now, if this debate had been about a specific moral teaching of the catholic church and your position was to argue how that moral teaching cannot be proven wrong, I could see some leeway. However, we are talking about an entire church. Not the moral teachings themselves.
"Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters?"
Yes, because we're about the Catholic Church as a whole. Not simply ideologies. You may have meant the debate to be focused on the infallibly of the Catholic church ideologies In which case, the debate have have been something along the lines of "The catholic church teachings are infallible." Unfortunately, the claim was the entire church, which means EVERYTHING about the church must be examined and proved on your end that is without error.
The debate essentially became a case where Pro argued that the church was incapable of error because God or Jesus promised to keep is safe from error. Con replied back that their are contradictory teachings and other issues that cast doubt on that claim. You conceded to this point, but tried to argue back that it only applied when it came to the members and not the teachings itself. For me that is when you are trying to play a game of semantics and that doesn't work as an argument. So, I found Con's argument stronger overall.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position! I appreciate the thought you’ve put into your feedback and the opportunity to engage with your reasoning further. You mentioned that my argument “only claimed” the Church’s divine protection and didn’t establish it as a fact. I understand your emphasis on logical reasoning, and I certainly tried to meet that standard. For example, I relied on biblical texts like John 16:13 (“the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth”) and Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always, to the end of the age”). Given the debate rules stating that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, I assumed these passages would establish divine protection as a fact within the debate context. Was there a different kind of evidence or reasoning you felt I needed to provide to meet this standard? I’d appreciate any clarification on this point.
I understand your point about the potential contradiction in saying teachings are infallible but teachers are fallible. You said, "you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive." I appreciate this observation, but I believe it misrepresents my argument. My position was that the Holy Spirit, as an infallible being, ensures the correctness of specific teachings on faith and morals, even when delivered by fallible individuals. For example, in R1, I focused on establishing the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding these decisions. Would you say that the final decisions reached by these fallible individuals would still be fallible if God explicitly promised to guide those decisions "into all the truth" (John 16:13)?
You said, “If something is infallible, then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No exceptions.” Do you believe this would still apply if an infallible being oversaw this "something" only in specific cases and not universally across "everything related to it"? For example, Catholic doctrine explicitly limits infallibility to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every act or statement of Church members. I framed my arguments within this scope because it aligns with the debate rules and the doctrine itself. Was there a reason you felt the scope needed to include “everything related to it,” even beyond the agreed parameters? Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement and for taking the time to evaluate this debate so thoroughly. Thank you again for taking the time to clarify your position and for your thoughtful feedback. I hope my response didn’t come across as too forceful — I’m just deeply invested in this debate and wanted to ensure my arguments were fully understood. I imagine you’d do the same in my position, and I truly respect the effort you’ve put into evaluating this discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to vote!
Hello, it has been a while. Your debate rules might state that the bible is divinely inspired and therefore its contents taken as true in the context of the debate. However, that doesn't establish the claim that the principle of divine protection means the church is protected from error. In order to argue that something is infallible, you have to establish that its logic and reasoning cannot be challenged. Key example of this would be the statement: Socrates was Greek, all Greeks are mortal, therefore Socrates was a moral Greek. The statement is infallible because it's supported by both logic and fact.
Your claim about the Catholic church works the same way. If it cannot be established that the church is in fact protected by some divine force that prohibits it from making mistakes, which you did not establish, only claimed, then you cannot effectively argue that the Catholic Church is free from error.
"You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members"
Yes, you may have tried to argue that the infallibility applied only to the teaching of faith and morals. However, that argument is a contradiction. As I explained in my reasoning, you cannot claim a teaching is infallible, but then argue that the person teaching you is the reason for errors that could be attributed to the education you receive. That's like saying history is completely infallible and then when a student finds wrong or conflicting information from the curriculum you say its the teacher and not the material in the wrong. The fallacy in such an argument is very obvious. If the teaching is true and error free, then the teacher themselves are irrelevant in the context of infallibility within the context of the teaching.
" Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide"
This is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. The title of the debate claims that the Catholic Church is infallible. You, as pro, must demonstrate that the Catholic Church (which include its members and teachings a like) are therefore incapable of error. You cannot enter the debate supporting the idea that the catholic church 's assertion of infallibility is true, and then try to claim it is only half true or dependent on the context. The same would be true if the title said "Human history is infallible" and I, the pro then argued that only the teachings of human history is infallible, not the historians in charge of teaching it. That's simply not how reality works. If something is infallible then it and everything related to it must be free of error. No excerptions.
I hope that clarified my position. You guys had an awesome debate regardless. keep up the good work!
Thank you for your feedback. I have a couple of questions and points of clarification: You mentioned that I “never established” the principle of divine protection as a fact. However, the debate rules state that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative, meaning its contents are taken as true. I cited promises made by Jesus (from the Bible) regarding the Church’s protection from error. Given the rules, could you clarify what additional evidence you would have needed to consider these promises as established facts?
You stated that for me to win, I would need to show the Church was never wrong at any point in history. However, in Round 1, I explicitly defined infallibility as applying strictly to definitive teachings on faith and morals, not to every action or statement by Church members. The debate rules also supported this limited scope. Could you explain why you felt I needed to demonstrate that no one in the Church ever erred historically, rather than just its official doctrinal definitions — when this was never my position in the debate? I appreciate any clarification you can provide. I understand that infallibility can be a complex concept, and I’d like to ensure that I’m presenting and defending it clearly and in line with the debate’s agreed definitions. I also want to make sure that my position was fully understood, as I feel it may not have been clear enough in some areas."
Thanks! This was a fun one.
Thank you for your kind feedback! We've both put a lot of work into this so I'm glad there you enjoying the results of our efforts. No pressure to vote, but I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have a moment.
One of the best debates I've seen here, I'll try to get a vote up by the end of the voting period. Well done to both participants.
No guarantees but I'll try to read through and vote soon.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
Throughout the debate, I was curious what another perspective would think on the arguments presented. Thank you for your time, I know this was certainly a long debate. Thank you for being a committed voter.
The debate was super close! It was fascinating to see how you both approached the issue. I first got into this debate after seeing Savant’s vote in another debate that I also voted on. That made me check out his account and see that he’s also participating in a debate that’s still in the voting stage. If you have any questions about how I weighed my vote, feel free to ask me here and I’ll be happy to explain!
Two excellent, undefeated debaters on this site? I will definitely vote on it.
This topic seems very interesting. Though it seems to be a topic that covers a lot of ground, so I’m curious to see how you’ve all tackled something like this.
I’m fairly new to this website, so if I make any mistakes or do something wrong in my critique, please let me know and I’ll do my best to fix it. I’ll try to be as fair as possible in my judgment.
Plz vote on this if you get the chance!
Plz vote if you get the chance!
You’ll definitely have to remind me, but I’ll aim to get to this.
Plz vote when you get the chance! I know it's long, but there are only two weeks, so I'd like to get some committed voters to read this early.
Thx, got it.
Yes, for instance, if I respond to one of your arguments, you can refute it with a new argument. However, you cannot create a new argument that is unrelated to the previous discussions.
Per Rule 3, I am not allowed to make new arguments that haven't been discussed. But am I allowed to make new responses (i.e. links and counterargument) that I didn't make in R2, so long as they pertain to the arguments we've been discussing? I'm assuming yes, but just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Both parties agree the bible is infallible
God is infallible
The holy spirit is infallible
Man is fallible
If its a tie, both of their records get broken.
Somebody's record is about to be broken.
Got it, thx
You are allowed to address and respond to any arguments or objections raised earlier in the debate. However, you are not permitted to introduce new arguments that haven’t already been discussed or that don’t directly relate to the objections raised.
Just to clarify, when Rule 3 talks about counterarguments in the final round, am I allowed to respond to points you make in R3, or just points made in R1 and R2?
Thanks for accepting the debate. I know you'll be a formidable opponent!
I've been itching to debate, so I'll take this one.
I think it's probably fine, actually. To my knowledge, arguments for church authority don't tend to involve the Old Testament canon much anyway. (Also with papal infallibility, there might be some confusion because Catholics don't believe the pope is infallible all the time, just in some cases.)
Its your choice. I am just saying there are no many Christians on this site, and even less who would take Con on this topic. Maybe someone will accept, but as it stands now, the topic greatly favors Pro, because by default debate starts with Church being equally valid authority as any other group, so you just need to prove Church as tiny bit more valid as authority to win debate. Con basically has to argue some other group is at least equal to Church in authority, which is completely unsupported by Bible. Bible, at the very least, strongly implies that Church has more authority, and never implies that some other person has equal authority. Of course, Con could argue "what if entire Catholic Church goes insane", but voters dont really accept such extremely imaginary scenarios well.
Maybe I should narrow down the focus of this debate to Papal Infallibility instead. What do you think?
"debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise"
I guess, but you wont find many people agreeing that Bible is true and divine. This debate is basically just for Christians who dont think Church gets the final say, but Bible says it actually does, so the premise agreed upon already assumes the topic to be true, making this a truism which cannot even be argued against unless some severe mental gymnastics are used.
I may be interested, but right now I am in 2 other debates that I have to focus on
Not sure how relevant this is to the topic, but with agreement on the NRSV as canon, you may be limited to Orthodox and Protestants who accept the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, both Maccabees, etc.)
Debating the truth of the Bible itself would shift the focus entirely and undermine this specific discussion. By assuming the Bible is true, the debate remains focused on whether the Church’s interpretation and claim to infallibility are valid, based on that shared premise.
"Both parties accept the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative"
Yeah, this alone makes the debate about the Bible and not about the Church itself.
Basically, opponent has to agree that everything Bible says is true.
I think it'll be a good debate. I would love for my arguments to be so compelling that my opponent is left with no choice but to nitpick semantics — and maybe even invent a new grammar rule just to keep up.
Could be a good debate. Might fall into a battle over semantics, but we'll see.