- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When a Lutheran ELCA heretic pastor becomes so wrapped up in politics
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:28 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You know there are many other Protestants that also condemn what these Lutherans are doing, right?
Yes I would think so. There are moral protestants out there. But all the main line protestants have had the congregants going off the deep end. Between the Catholics and Baptists, the religion will be saved.
1
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:51 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:There is a substantial number of members of Reformed churches that are also theologically conservative and preaching against this sort of liberal, anti-Christian nonsense.
Yes I would think so. There are moral protestants out there. But all the main line protestants have had the congregants going off the deep end. Between the Catholics and Baptists, the religion will be saved.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 5:27 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
I only recognize Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox as actual religions. Everything else is glorified social clubs. So, I’m not surprised.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 5:38 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
The Lutherans are one of the largest NGOs funneling illegals into the US. Even more than Catholic orgs. They can go frick themselves on so many levels.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 6:25 pm to FooManChoo
We've had this argument before.
As I've said previously, we have a Bible passage in which Jesus Christ Himself saves a woman from being lawfully stoned to death under the Law for the crime of Adultery.
Jesus saved her life. "Let he who is without Sin cast the first stone."
A theological argument can be made that Jesus opposed the Death Penalty, since he prevented the Law from being carried out.
We've had this argument before. We aren't going there again, Foo.
As I've said previously, we have a Bible passage in which Jesus Christ Himself saves a woman from being lawfully stoned to death under the Law for the crime of Adultery.
Jesus saved her life. "Let he who is without Sin cast the first stone."
A theological argument can be made that Jesus opposed the Death Penalty, since he prevented the Law from being carried out.
We've had this argument before. We aren't going there again, Foo.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 6:31 pm to Champagne
quote:We don't have to have that argument again. I believe the whole of the Bible is sufficient to show that the death penalty is morally acceptable for the civil magistrate to perform, but that's not even what I'm pointing out at this time.
We've had this argument before.
As I've said previously, we have a Bible passage in which Jesus Christ Himself saves a woman from being lawfully stoned to death under the Law for the crime of Adultery.
Jesus saved her life. "Let he who is without Sin cast the first stone."
A theological argument can be made that Jesus opposed the Death Penalty, since he prevented the Law from being carried out.
We've had this argument before. We aren't going there again, Foo.
My contention is that the RCC, herself, allowed for and even partnered with other magistrates to use the death penalty for over a thousand years, and that the Catholic Catechism went from a morally allowable position to a morally "inadmissible" position within the last 10 years due to a change pushed by Pope Francis.
My point is that the position of the RCC on a binding doctrine changed at the behest of the Pope, which is why Catholics can't minimize the authority of the Pope and speak to the rarity of ex cathedra statements.
This post was edited on 1/3/26 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 1/3/26 at 7:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
My point is that the position of the RCC on a binding doctrine changed at the behest of the Pope, which is why Catholics can't minimize the authority of the Pope and speak to the rarity of ex cathedra statements.
Your argument fails and makes no sense because it is based on a false predicate.
No Pope can unilaterally change the Roman Catholic Catechism. No Pope has the authority to change the Catechism unilaterally. Pope has no power to do that, so, it is impossible to "minimize" his power there since his power is literally zero WRT to unilaterally changing the Catechism.
As such, your attempt to draw a nexus between the rarity of ex cathedra edicts with the catechism change for the death penalty fails.
Good try, though.
Now let's talk about the OP and stop hi-jacking this thread, shall we?
Posted on 1/3/26 at 7:46 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
Is there any mainline denomination that hasn't sold out to pop culture?
Posted on 1/3/26 at 8:34 pm to Champagne
quote:The Catholic Catechism can be changed due to several prompts, one of which is papal teaching. The changes to the Catechism in 2018 appear to be prompted by teaching by Francis in 2017, as his language was used in the update in 2018.
Your argument fails and makes no sense because it is based on a false predicate.
No Pope can unilaterally change the Roman Catholic Catechism. No Pope has the authority to change the Catechism unilaterally. Pope has no power to do that, so, it is impossible to "minimize" his power there since his power is literally zero WRT to unilaterally changing the Catechism.
As such, your attempt to draw a nexus between the rarity of ex cathedra edicts with the catechism change for the death penalty fails.
Good try, though.
The Pope also has final approval of changes to the Catechism, noting that his authority is necessary for changes but also signify how great his authority is, that changes can only be made if he signs off.
Given that the Pope's teaching about the death penalty prompted the change to the Catechism, and that the Pope approved the official change due to his magisterial authority, I can't help but continue to point to the real authority the Pope has to make formal doctrinal changes, including changing course on centuries of teaching and practice.
So my point stands: the Pope has binding authority to change doctrine, and the 2018 change to the position of the RCC on the issue of capital punishment is an example of that.
quote:You're free to do that. I was just responding to the side topic that was brought up.
Now let's talk about the OP and stop hi-jacking this thread, shall we?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News