- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
FooManChoo
| Favorite team: | Georgia  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 46696 |
| Registered on: | 12/1/2012 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/19/26 at 12:08 am to Bsltee
quote:Amen!
Nope. Church founded by Christ, not Peter. And who is to say that Jesus was referring to Peter when he used rock
Jesus is the Rock my foundation is based on, not a man called Peter
The rock that the Church is founded upon is Peter's confession in Christ as the Son of God, not Peter, himself. Or in other words, Jesus is the rock, not Peter.
We find this re-affirmed elsewhere in the Scriptures, like in Ephesians 2:20, where Paul writes that the Church is" built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone". Here Paul speaks to all the apostles and prophets together as the foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone. Peter is not singled out here.
Likewise in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, Paul says again that "...like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." He's speaking of Christ as the foundation, not Peter.
Peter affirms this, himself, when he refers to the church as living stones with Christ as the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8). Peter didn't call himself the cornerstone or the sole foundation by which the Church is built upon.
2
re: Here is What Donald Trump Just Told the World
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/19/26 at 12:00 am to AlterEd
Trump doesn't act like a Christian. It's embarrassing. He needs to "kiss the Son" as Psalm 2 says, and honor Him with obedience.
re: As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 11:57 pm to crotiger0307
I appreciate your position, but it does go against the RCC's teaching about the Pope.
It really fascinates me how Catholics speak of unity over and against Protestants when there is so much disunity of belief and practice from lay Catholic to lay Catholic.
It really fascinates me how Catholics speak of unity over and against Protestants when there is so much disunity of belief and practice from lay Catholic to lay Catholic.
re: Is this really Trump’s WH faith advisor or a fake? Hopefully it’s AI.
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 11:52 pm to Champagne
quote:It certainly isn't done out of loving kindness. You do it to mock me a discredit me, so others know that I'm some sort of fringe kook that should not be listened to, even through I've told you time and time again that such an argument is logically fallacious. You keep doing it anyway.
I'm not hating on your denomination when I point out that it has only about 8,000 followers in the whole USA.
quote:1. Predestination is part of the gospel discussion, but it isn't the gospel in and of itself. You can disagree with how God saves by faith alone while still believing that He saves by faith alone.
It's not hate when I point out that your small denomination of Covenant Presbyterians preach a False Gospel of Double Predestination and Eternal Security. If somebody believes that all of their sins, past present and future, are already forgiven and that their place in Heaven is secure no matter what sins they commit in life, they are in great danger of going to Hell, because they learned a False Gospel.
2. I don't actually believe that anyone can do whatever they want and sin however they want and believe that they are secure in their salvation. I believe that those who are truly saved will exhibit fruits of that salvation, and that if a person sins without remorse and repentance, then they should not assume that they are saved. If they are repentant, they can have assurance that Christ died for sinners like that. That is the essence of the gospel, and if you disagree, you believe in a gospel that isn't really "good news".
quote:See? You're doing it again. You're making passive-aggressive statements about the legitimacy of my denomination by saying that it's size means that it's not true. You are also attacking my denomination for beliefs that are not unique to it. From what I gather, a majority of Protestants--especially Evangelicals--hold to a young earth view, and that was the common view held by the RCC until relatively recently. So, you mocking me and my denomination for holding that view makes you look ignorant, not to mention the anti-biblical nature of your position.
And I won't even get into the fact that your denomination, which has only ONE church in your entire home state of Georgia (the whole state has only one congregation!), teaches that there were Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark and that the Universe is roughly 6,000 years old. Your denomination also teaches that the US Constitution is a Sinful document and form of Government.
quote:You aren't just stating "facts", but facts that are selective for the sake of labeling me as fringe and someone who shouldn't be listened to.
That's not hate, those are facts.
I hope you've been paying attention to all the anti-Pope stuff being discussed recently, including by your own brothers in Catholicism, even through that level of disrespect goes against your own church's teachings. You should be careful of throwing stones.
quote:You haven't engaged with these arguments from a biblical perspective, so of course you feel this way. Your entire worldview as a Catholic is based on extra-biblical authorities defining how the Bible ought to be interpreted, from the Magisterium to a consensus of atheistic scientists, you look to other authorities to tell you what to think abut the Bible and it leads you to false conclusions. Your argumentation is consistently fallacious, so it's no wonder you think these positions are "unsound" and "dangerous". You don't know what you're talking about, because you can't defend your own positions; you simply link people out to Catholic Answers.
The "opinion" part comes in where our Theological Doctrines disagree, which they do. If it seems like I'm ridiculing your belief about Dinosaurs, it seems that way because my belief is that your ideas are Unsound. Your belief that the US Constitution is a Sinful document is profoundly Unsound, and maybe even dangerous.
quote:You're one to talk about Christian Brotherly Love and Charity. You mock and ridicule me for beliefs that are entirely justified by the Bible, and you belittle me and my denomination because we are relatively small, as if the size determines truthfulness.
Now, if the OP is a Catholic who is ridiculing what Trump's Faith Healing Pentecostal Preacher does, I'd say that's a very bad tactical move around here. Tigerdroppings Hates Catholics. I get cursed out here on a daily basis for expressing my opinion and asking questions. Catholics should not pick fights here. That would be like going into the Desire Housing Project in NOLA and start to yell the "N" word - you are going to get beat up by a lot of offended people who will not treat you with Christian Brotherly Love and Charity.
But no, it's not a bad move to proclaim the truth, even if it is unpopular.
quote:That's where we all should be going back to the Bible to prove our positions. It's one thing to say "it's straight out of the Bible", but it's another thing to show that's what the Scriptures actually teach. That's why we are to teach and reprove one another from the Scriptures by rightly dividing the word.
Oh and by the way, in this very thread, I see some hateful comments from Protestants about the fellow Protestant Paula White. It's fine to disagree with her of course. She is doing what Pentecostals do. Speaking in tongues? They will tell you it's straight out of the Bible. Healing with a touch of her garment? They will tell you it's straight out of the Bible.
No reason to hate on a Pastor who says she's doing things that are straight out of the Bible.
Paula is getting flak because what she says and does goes against much more clearer teachings of the Bible than speaking in tongues. I believe those spiritual gifts have ceased as a common work of God's Spirit, but what isn't up for debate is her prosperity gospel that teaches that if you donate money to her, you can have salvation. That's straight up Simony, and more akin to the Roman Catholic teachins on indulgences that Martin Luther railed against.
quote:You should try looking for an OPC, PCA or other NAPARC congregation, then. They are all over the country, including in the states you mentioned. If you are truly interested in one where you live, let me know a city and I'll see if I can find one for you. Unlike Rome, my denomination doesn't teach that we are the singular, true church of Jesus Christ, and we believe there are many faithful churches Christians can attend. You constantly calling out that there are no RPCNA churches in certain states doesn't cut as deeply as you think it does for this reason. Hopefully you'll see that one day.
By the way, Foo. I'm still looking for a congregation church of your particular Covenant Presbyterianism here in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi. I can't find one, because your church's website's information states that there aren't any.
quote:It is, and yet you frequently criticize it since what I'm doing isn't primarily political on this political board. You keep wanting that shut down. That's weird, since you're also saying it's a blessing.
Your preaching here on Tigerdroppings is reaching people way beyond the confines of your one church in Georgia. And Tigerdroppings lets you do that for free and for no charge to you. I'd call that a Blessing.
re: Gun to your head have to choose to follow one: Trump or Leo?
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 11:26 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:I said, "in like manner". What I mean is that Moses was given direct revelation and proof of it through miracles. Trump neither claims to have had such revelation (to my knowledge), nor has a miraculous claim to support such a prophetic claim.
I don't know what authority you have to make this statement. I happen to think it is quite possible that the opposite is true.
quote:All were flawed, but all were also held out as examples of faithfulness to the one, true God. They were also repentant for their sins, which is an evidence of someone indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Do you have a problem with Trump not being a perfect man? I don't know of any great leader from Scripture that was any different in stature than Trump. All were quite flawed in character.
I'm not saying Trump or any leader must be perfectly sinless, because that's an impossible standard for mere humans to reach. However, leaders are set to a higher standard, and they are called to be godly in their character and conduct. Trump is not that. It's not a matter of if he messes up from time to time, but is he characterized by godliness, and any serious Christian would be hard-pressed to say that he's characterized by godliness.
quote:I'm interacting with the comparison to Moses. The men you cited here were also godly, through not sinless, and they honored the Lord. Trump doesn't care about such a thing, at least from his words and actions. He's a pragmatist who follows his own compass, not God's.
Neither was Noah, nor Abraham, nor Jacob, nor David, nor Peter, as well as many others. All were flawed, sinful men that God chose to use for his own purposes. They were also audacious, strong, violent men who defied God often. Many followers of these men were seriously punished for defying these men.
quote:No, but I'm not speaking to that. God also used Pharaoh just as much as He used Moses in exhibiting His power and glory in setting the people of Israel free from bondage.
Are you so sure you know God's will and plan to be able to say that he hasn't chosen Donald Trump for just this moment in time to accomplish His will on Earth?
God is free to use anyone He pleases to accomplish His purposes, but the secret things (God's eternal decree and "secret will") belong to Him. I'm speaking to God's revealed will (from the Scriptures).
quote:I don't have to speak for God. He speaks for Himself in the Scriptures. I'm simply attempting to draw out the truth of the Scriptures and apply them to this topic.
We must all be very careful when we assume to speak for God
re: Gun to your head have to choose to follow one: Trump or Leo?
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 11:15 pm to Azkiger
quote:I'm a Christian. I can't claim to do something in a hypothetical which betrays my commitment to Christ, even for the sake of a mental exercise.
I'd use telekinesis to disarm the questioner and become the world's first X-Men since I'm not bright enough to operate within hypotheticals.
re: Gun to your head have to choose to follow one: Trump or Leo?
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 9:00 am to Tigerinthewoods
quote:Moses anticipated push back when he went to the people of Israel saying he was to be the mouthpiece of God to them, and God gave Moses signs to prove his claim to the people. Trump was not sent by God in like manner.
If you were in ancient Egypt and you had to choose who you would follow, would it be Moses or Pharoah? I kind of think we are in a similar situation.
Trump is not a prophet of God. He is merely a sinner who needs to repent of his sins and turn to Christ by faith, trusting in Him for deliverance rather than himself. I hope he does, and I hope he has, but no, I would not follow Trump unquestionably just as I would not follow the Pope.
re: Catholic Cardinal declares the Pope is perfect like Jesus
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 8:48 am to bbvdd
Only Jesus Christ is perfect. Only His word is infallible.
Woe to those who set themselves up as another Jesus, taking glory for themselves that rightly belongs to the true Head of the Church.
Woe to those who set themselves up as another Jesus, taking glory for themselves that rightly belongs to the true Head of the Church.
re: Gun to your head have to choose to follow one: Trump or Leo?
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 8:03 am to RanchoLaPuerto
Neither; I’d follow Jesus Christ.
If the gun to my head went off from that answer, at least I’d be in glory with my Savior.
If the gun to my head went off from that answer, at least I’d be in glory with my Savior.
re: Is this really Trump’s WH faith advisor or a fake? Hopefully it’s AI.
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 7:54 am to Champagne
quote:You hate on my denomination regularly when we have discourse. Does that make my denomination right automatically? Obviously not.
Catholicism MUST be the Truth, judging by how much Satan motivates all of the anti Catholic hate on Tigerdroppings.
For my part, I criticize Catholicism because I believe the RCC teaches a false gospel that cannot save, and therefore she leads many to perdition. I want to dissuade people from joining or remaining a part of such an organization.
I also don’t mind calling sin for what it is in other Protestant denominations, such as Paula White’s prosperity gospel madness. However, most Protestants don’t teach or believe in a false gospel, so I’m more quick to keep my disagreements quiet on a site like this one.
For instance, I disagree that the mode of baptism must be immersion, or that the Eucharist is only a memorial, however I don’t see these as gospel issues so I avoid “correcting” my brothers and sisters in this point here.
re: We see the results of our revolving door of “justice” every day. Meanwhile…
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/18/26 at 7:37 am to 4cubbies
quote:Mandatory minimums.
I need you to provide examples of this.
For example, a person convicted of possessing with intent to distribute 5 grams of methamphetamine triggers a federal mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison, regardless of circumstances.
Meanwhile, a person convicted of voluntary manslaughter, plead down from 1st or 2nd degree murder, can receive a sentence as low as 10–16 months.
Then there is the concept of parole to reduce sentencing. Jeffrey Powell was convicted of a 2013 home invasion murder. He was sentenced to prison from 16 years to life. However, he was paroled after serving only 10 years. It isn’t uncommon for people to serve a comparatively small amount of time for taking the life of another person while other non-violent crimes may carry heavier sentences.
quote:It depends on the prison, obviously, but as another poster who claimed to serve time in prison testified to, many do have air conditioning and opportunities for being entertained with books, movies, iPads, gyms, games, and other things to make it easier to pass the time.
What specifically is comfortable about prison? Prison is traumatic and dangerous. You think getting a sandwich for lunch means that it’s designed for comfort? There isn’t even air conditioning. How are you arguing that’s designed for comfort? Prison is designed for control.
I’m not saying it is “comfortable” (at least compared to being outside prison), but it is certainly more comfortable than prison was 50 years ago or earlier. That is also by design, as entertained and active inmates are less likely to fight and cause problems.
re: Fun Friday start - Trans asylum seekers in The Netherlands, find out
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/17/26 at 7:57 am to captainFid
I feel sorry for these people. They are messed up in many ways, including spiritually. They need to find their identity in Jesus Christ rather than in their appearance or how they feel about their biology.
re: Is this really Trump’s WH faith advisor or a fake? Hopefully it’s AI.
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/17/26 at 7:55 am to roadGator
Demon possession is real. Stunts like this are not.
Paula White needs to repent of her false prosperity gospel and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of her sins.
She also needs to stop teaching that false gospel to others and step down as a spiritual leader. She is not qualified on several fronts.
Paula White needs to repent of her false prosperity gospel and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of her sins.
She also needs to stop teaching that false gospel to others and step down as a spiritual leader. She is not qualified on several fronts.
re: Franklin Graham > Never Trump / leftist coalition
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/17/26 at 7:36 am to jbdawgs03
I agree with his statement. All war is due to sin, but sometimes conflict is necessary and moral for restraining evil.
re: CBS poll found that 58% of weekly Mass-attending Catholics approve of President Trump
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 1:43 pm to BarnHater
quote:He was elected and went through all the ceremonies to ordain him as the Pope. Not sure how that makes him fake, unless there is another successor to St. Peter.
The pope is fake. Trump is exposing him for the false prophet he really is.
re: Reminder to our Catholic friends
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 1:41 pm to lurking
quote:That seems to go against Vatican II, even though Vatican II seems to go against prior church history. :dunno:
I’m beginning to think we Catholics smacking around you prots again is way overdue.
re: This has not been a good week to be Catholic
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 12:26 pm to Dog Tree
quote:Yes. They basically teach that everyone is accountable to the light of nature that they have, and that if someone is faithful to the tradition they grew up and lived with (Islam, Buddhism, etc.), then there is a possibility for salvation for them even without faith in Jesus as their Savior.
Can people who aren't Catholics, make it in to Heaven? According to Catholics, can jews and Muslims make it into Heaven?
Protestants who are faithful to their traditions and also ignorant of Catholicism can also have hope of Salvation, too.
However, Protestants who have studied what the Catholic church teaches, and willfully reject it should have no hope of salvation.
That means that I--a faithful Presbyterian (conservative kind)--who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ completely for the forgiveness of my sins, serves my church, worships God consistently (two services each week) according to what I believe He commands, gives to the church at least 10% of my earnings, who gives counsel to the hurting, who shows love to those in despair, who helps the widow, the elderly, the orphan, who raises my children in the fear and instruction of the Lord, who witnesses to the lost the gospel of Jesus Christ, and who seeks to do all good works that are pleasing to the Lord according to my understanding in faith and repentance for sin, have a lesser chance at going to Heaven than the sincere Muslim, because I have spent many years studying the Roman Catholic church and reject it. The only hope I have is to become a Catholic, because I reject the "true faith".
ETA:
I should add that even through what I said should be the logical conclusion of their various decrees, they may still hold that I can go to Heaven because the form of rejection I hold to is some form of non-culpable ignorance. I don't know how that is the case, but canon law has a lot of loopholes, apparently, even through it's supposed to be infallibly clear.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 11:54 am to METAL
quote:You keep looking at this like Protestantism is monolithic, however Protestants having a shared agreement about the Scriptures being their ultimate and only infallible standard is no different than what Rome does with having it's own standard. You claim to have your Magisterium that decides what to teach.
You’re saying “we have one standard,” but then admitting every individual and even each denomination decides what that standard actually teaches. That is multiple functional standards, whether you call it that or not.
The EOC also claims to have a standard, which is similar to the RCC but doesn't claim an infallible Magisterium. They use Councils and the consensus of the Church over time.
Likewise, each Protestant denomination has their own teaching authority (the Bible) and application of that standard.
Again, you keep looking at Protestants as one organization with multiple standards. I'm saying Protestants have a shared standard in the Scriptures like how Rome and the EOC share standards (though not entirely), even though both are treated as distinct and different organizations. Each Protestant denomination is a different branch of the one tree of Christ's church.
quote:If the EOC comes to an opposite conclusion from Rome on an issue, who decides which one is correct in a binding way?
If two sincere, Bible-affirming Christians read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions, who decides which one is correct in a binding way? Your elders? Another denomination’s elders? You personally? That’s the issue.
You keep talking like Protestants are monolithic, and we aren't. You also act as if we all need to have a binding authority between denominations, while you don't have a binding authority over the Eastern churches and they don't have one over you. I would imagine that you claim that your church is more pure than the EOC and that God will judge between you two, right? Well that's basically what happens between Protestant denominations. What we aren't doing, though, is saying that if you don't belong to our particular denomination, that you aren't really a Christian. At least, that's the historical Protestant position.
quote:God does. Same as what He does between Rome and the EOC, or Rome and the Coptics, or Rome and the various Protestant denominations.
Your Westminster standards prove the point, not solve it. They’re an interpretation of Scripture. Other Protestants have different confessions that contradict them. So which one is right, and who settles it definitively?
quote:Yes, Christ gave apostles and the apostles gave elders and the mechanism for choosing them for ruling the church. However, the "binding" and "loosing" of those elders are not infallible and always correct. Their decisions are only binding if they are in accordance with God's revealed will, meaning that their decisions should be affirming what is objectively true in Heaven, not creating decisions that Heaven has to listen to. It's why we Presbyterians teach that the elders are judicial rather than magisterial: we are ruling and governing in accordance with God's word, not creating new standards for truth that bind the consciences of Christians in addition to God's word. That's why Protestant churches can be reformed, because we don't claim infallibility that sets decisions in stone.
And on the “you’d need an infallible receiver” argument, that doesn’t follow. The question isn’t whether people can misunderstand, of course they can. The question is whether Christ provided a living authority to definitively settle disputes. In Acts 15, the Church doesn’t say “go read Scripture better.” It issues a binding decision.
With that said, the "infallible receiver" argument does follow. You claim that the Scriptures aren't sufficient because there are disagreements about what it teaches by fallible Christians. You try to solve for that by inserting an infallible interpreter between the Bible and the Christian. However, the Christian is not infallible, so if they lack understanding, don't they need another infallible interpreter between the interpreter and the Christian? On and on it goes. The receiver (the Christian) is not infallible in their understanding and may always have some confusion about some doctrine, no matter how clear the standard (whether it bet the Scriptures or the interpreters) are.
quote:You are saying that because the mechanisms are different, that the result isn't the same. We are talking past each other.
So no, it’s not “the same result.” In one system, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter. In the other, disagreement is measured against a defined teaching that can actually be pointed to and authoritatively clarified.
When I say the results are the same, I'm saying that no matter how clear the standards are, sin blinds people, and people can draw different conclusions regardless of what the standards teach. This is true for both my particular denomination as well as for the RCC.
We even see this in practice: homosexuality is clearly taught as sinful in the Scriptures. As much as some people try to fight against it, it's very clear, both in the Old and New Testaments. Both Rome and my denomination agree on this and prove in their own ways, by either appealing to Scripture or the Magisterium (or both for the Catholic). My denomination teaches that while we believe we are right on the topic of homosexuality being sinful, we could theoretically be wrong about that, and therefore we would need to be convinced by the Scriptures that we are wrong and must confirm. So far, that's been a very easy rejection, because it is so clear and has been clear for the entirety of church history.
However, just as there may be some members of our denomination who are either unclear or who even reject the teaching of our church on this topic (they would be disciplined if they taught this openly, though), there are some in Catholicism that are either ignorant of, misunderstand, or outright reject the teachings of the RCC. Just as their rejection or ignorance doesn't change Rome's standard being the standard, that same rejection or ignorance doesn't change either my denomination's standard, or the biblical teaching on it (as we see it).
What is different is that our denomination authoritatively declares what the Scriptures teach, but we do not claim an infallible authority, while Rome does.
What is the same is that we have people who reject or are ignorant of the standards that we hold up for the faithful to adhere to. Having a claimed infallible authority in Rome doesn't change that; the result is the same.
quote:You are still not understanding what I'm saying. The ability to interpret the Scriptures doesn't mean each individual is the final authority, any more than Nancy Pelosi vocalizing her personal beliefs about abortion doesn't make her the final authority on that issue for her as a Catholic. For the Protestant, the final authority is still the Bible, and the individual needs to continually refine their beliefs to fall in line with the Scriptures.
If your system ultimately lands on “we all just do our best and can be wrong,” then practically speaking, final authority is still the individual judgment. That’s the difference you keep sidestepping.
You want the infallible judge to be on earth, while Protestants believe God will ultimately judge our understanding of His word. We can all interpret the speed limit however we want, but we are still held accountable for how we interpret it. If we know that 55 means 55 and we try to convince ourselves that it is 85, or we just ignore it, the judge won't take that an an excuse for breaking the law. Likewise, God will hold each person to account for what they did with His word.
re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 9:50 am to Champagne
quote:An "admission" would require an otherwise secret affirmation. I don't affirm the Catholic inconsistency with this chapter.
Exactly!
But Foo and others can never admit this. They never will admit this.
If you read John 6 like you did the rest of the "I am" statements, you wouldn't conclude that Jesus is talking about eating His literal body and drinking His literal blood.
re: Why do people care about the Popes political views
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 9:47 am to dgnx6
quote:Correct, or sort of. He is Head of the Church and Head over all things (including the state) for the sake of the Church (Eph. 1:22). Jesus, Himself, said that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18), and He is "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (Rev. 17:14).
You believe Jesus is the king of the state.
quote:I couldn't escape Jesus' lordship no matter country I moved to :cheers:
You are in the wrong country my friend.
quote:I believe that voting is good. Voting for non-Christians (who are public in their faith and consistent with their profession) is bad.
And you shouldn't be voting either.
re: Why do people care about the Popes political views
Posted by FooManChoo on 4/16/26 at 9:43 am to StrongOffer
quote:I won't get into the ex cathedra doctrine again, as I've already spoken about that.
I'd bet he doesn't go to mass regularly if he thinks the Church is dying. A good way to think about the Pope is a father (dad). He's even called father. If my dad tells me to do something, I follow his lead because I trust that he has my best interest at heart. That doesn't mean I never disagree with him or challenge him. I can still respect him without agreeing with him. For infallibility and the Pope, we trust that the Pope has our best interest at heart, but he is a man like any of us. He sins and is wrong on things. We respect our father without having to agree with every position he takes. That is the official position of the Church. You say you know what the Church's stance on papal infallibility but want to conveniently slip it in their that we have to agree with his statement on the border or war. We don't. He isn't speaking ex cathedra.
My point was that you and others claim that the Pope is like a father that should be followed but you can disagree with, and yet what I see in practice are a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics disrespecting and dishonoring the Pope as if he's more like a mean step-father that you only have to obey in special cases, and you don't really need to even say good things about.
Popular
16
