catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

"you did not specify the council of trent passage as requested, but ignored it, not sure why" I realized that the point I was going to build up to was not as significant overall as I first thought it was. "vague references, when you have the burden to show there's contradictions that meet the criteria i set forth, for infalliblity" First of all, I don't have the BOP. You are affirming an absolute assertion. Second of all, the criterion you set forth for infallibility is different than what the Church says is infallible. Your criteria would include things that the church considers fallible, and exclude things that the Church considers infallible. You are attempting to define terms in such a way as to give yourself in assured victory in this debate. "for example, Honorus speculated about the nature of God in a letter to another person Sergius, this does not meet the definition of infallible teaching, "teaching the church"." The incident I was referring to was him being censured by the Council for saying that Christ had two natures and one will. This is two contradictory statements issued in official capacity by the church. "Censoring someone like Galileo is not a teaching of the church, but a practice the pope did.Same goes for treatment of Joan." Joan of Arc was officially deemed a heretic and later declared a saint. The treatment of Galileo was in part due to to his contradicting the church's teaching of a geocentric model of the solar system- any the church only apologized after changing their doctrine to be heliocentric. No, it was not just "a practice", it is official church dogma that Joan of Arc was a heretic, and now she was a saint. It was official church dogma that Galileo's assertion of heliocentricism was "vehemently suspect of heresy", and that his works were officially banned by the church, and it is now official dogma that that was a mistake. "The boniface salvation of noncatholics point you brought up is a violation of the rules in this debate, no limbo talk or noncatholic salvation talk in this debate." So, you admit that in order to arrive at your conclusion "catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity", you have to exclude certain topics, which include important core beliefs of the Church. "(unless they said "they have no grain of truth in them" etc which almost surely never happened." Yes, pope Pius IX declared exactly that, in the First Vatican Council. "probalby just saying other religions are not the full truth, etc or are wrong isn't saying they have no grain of truth in them" Pope Pius IX declared that them other religions had NO truth in them, that "Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". John XXIII declared that other religions had SOME truth in them, and that "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.". These two statements are mutually exclusive. I noticed that in your entire argument, you put forth few if any statements or facts in support of your assertion that the church contradicted itself, seeming to imply that it was true unless proven otherwise. I assert, therefore, that in this debate, my opponent had the burden of proof, and failed to meet that burden.