- 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: Heretic Pope opposes Jerusalem move
Posted on 12/6/17 at 8:01 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 12/6/17 at 8:01 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't think people are upset about whether or not he is speaking ex cathedra. It's the content of his messages that many don't like.
I understand that. I just think many are unaware that every word from the Pope's mouth doesn't mean he is speaking for the Catholic Church.
1
Posted on 12/6/17 at 8:03 am to McLemore
quote:
The Pope on the other hand is infallible ex cathedra and thus subject to very little scrutiny by his subjects.
Uh, he has yet to declare anything ex cathedra and therefore everything he has said in his pontificate is up for debate and push back and there has been vigorous debate over much of what he has said. The press is not covering much of it, but there is and has been.
A little lesson in Catholicism - the Pope is not infallible across the board, only when he make official announcements of church teachings.
There are two teachings of the church (from all of her history) declared ex cathedra. Just two.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 8:26 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Uh, he has yet to declare anything ex cathedra and therefore everything he has said in his pontificate is up for debate and push back and there has been vigorous debate over much of what he has said.
That's not accurate.
quote:
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows: the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church [
The pope doesn't have to preface everything he is saying is Ex Cathedra, before he makes each statement.
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must:
quote:
Be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
Concern a doctrine of faith or morals
Bind the universal Church
Be proposed as something to hold firmly and immutably
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:13 am to BugAC
quote:He's the Pope and the head of the Catholic Church (not the head of the Church universal, as that is Christ) and therefore he speaks on its behalf.
I understand that. I just think many are unaware that every word from the Pope's mouth doesn't mean he is speaking for the Catholic Church.
The difference is not about representation but about legality from a theological perspective. When the Pope speaks from the chair, he's making statements that are binding on the lives and consciences of all RCs. When he's not speaking from the chair, his statements are not binding on the lives and consciences of all RCs.
His words carry weight whether he's speaking from a legal position or not.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:20 am to Strannix
Since when is this heresy?
Also, it's interesting that so many poli-board posters are pro-Jerusalem recognition. I didn't know we had this many evangelicals here.
Also, it's interesting that so many poli-board posters are pro-Jerusalem recognition. I didn't know we had this many evangelicals here.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:26 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
Also, it's interesting that so many poli-board posters are pro-Jerusalem recognition. I didn't know we had this many evangelicals here.
So when's the last time a rabbi was chastised for doodling with kids? May be there's reason you're seeing that pro-Jerusalem recognition.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:36 am to Homesick Tiger
#NotMyPope
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:43 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
last time a rabbi was chastised for doodling with kids
First of all, google "rabbi child molestation" and then tell me how seldom accusations happen.
Also, let's not pretend that child molestation and sexual assault accusations bear ANY weight on modern rank and file republican ideology.
So you're going to have to explain in detail:
Why does Jerusalem recognition matter so much to evangelicals (I know the answer, but I want someone to admit it)?
Why is it worth the blood that will be shed and lives that will be lost (including Americans) over it?
Why is it more important than the years of negotiations for a peaceful solution on the part of democrats and republicans?
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:49 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
Why does Jerusalem recognition matter so much to evangelicals (I know the answer, but I want someone to admit it)?
I'm all ears.
quote:
Why is it worth the blood that will be shed and lives that will be lost (including Americans) over it?
Have Israel and the U.S. stated anything about starting a war over this. Shooting people, dropping bombs, missile launches, etc. Stuff like that?
quote:
Why is it more important than the years of negotiations for a peaceful solution on the part of democrats and republicans?
Where is this peace you speak of in the ME?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:49 am to Strannix
the man speaks out too much. I am baffled that Catholics would put up with such a politically driven pope who feels the need to speak out on everything America does. Major douche
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:53 am to jdd48
quote:
Why in the hell is the Vatican so invested in international politics these days?
Because the sitting Pontiff is a Jesuit and that’s what Jesuits do. They’re the SJW’s of the Catholic Church.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:54 am to DEG
quote:
Fairly certain this is the same message the Pope is sending to Americans.
Well since he's been wrong on every other stance he has taken, he's batting 1000!
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:08 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I'm all ears.
Don't dodge the question.
quote:
Have Israel and the U.S. stated anything about starting a war over this. Shooting people, dropping bombs, missile launches, etc. Stuff like that?
Now I know you're full of shite. Every single day Israelis and Palestinians kill people over this exact issue.
More people will die because recognition and moving the embassy would unnecessarily stir up and already bloody dispute. It will put American lives abroad (especially those employed by the state department) at risk. The State Department, foreign ambassadors, and basically every other nation in the region aside from Israel is saying this will do nothing but escalate the conflict.
If you don't have an argument as to what GOOD it would do, then what's the point?
quote:
Where is this peace you speak of in the ME?
I didn't say peace in the middle east. I said there have been years of negotiations by American officials across the political spectrum seeking a PEACEFUL SOLUTION.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:16 am to Strannix
It is absolutely crazy how Christians have allowed themselves to be led by these humanists.
Not just Catholics, obviously applies to mainline protestants as well.
Not just Catholics, obviously applies to mainline protestants as well.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:19 am to BugAC
quote:
That being said, many of this Pope's off the record statements do not align 100% with the Catholic Church. But, as long as he's not making an official decree from the Church, he can make statements such as those he made.
I addressed this above re ex cathedra. It's still all bullshite.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:26 am to TrueTiger
If anyone has a claim it's the Ottoman Turks, then the Latin Crusaders, then the Eastern Romans (Byzantines).
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:48 am to Guava Jelly
I can only speak for myself as a Conservative Christian (Reformed, not Evangelical as the term has come to mean) and a registered Republican.
I disagree with the theology and the eschatology.
I support Israel from a practical standpoint and out of respect for their stance in regards to their geographical and geopolitical position in the region. They have the testicular fortitude to do what they need to do to protect themselves and their people in spite of calls of "tolerance" and political correction that actually threaten their security. I wish our own country acted in such a way.
There's a practical aspect to them being our ally in that we've got a good foothold in the Middle East with a friendly country (to us). It's good for us to have a presence there or at least a safe space.
Is it worth it to have our people killed for that alone? I don't think so, but I think part of the issue has to do with the nature of our enemies rather than the nature of our friends.
quote:Republican ideology is just that, an ideology. The character or actions of a politician do not reflect one way or the other on the validity of the ideology. I recognize that many good people support bad ideology and many bad people support good ideology. The arguments should speak for themselves, not be supported or destroyed based on the quality of the person making those arguments. That's called an ad hominem fallacy.
Also, let's not pretend that child molestation and sexual assault accusations bear ANY weight on modern rank and file republican ideology
quote:For many if not most Evangelicals, it has to do with their Eschatology. They are primarily pre-millennial dispensationalists who believe that Christ's return has to do with bringing the nation of Israel back into the fold of the Church. This is based on the idea that Israel is the firstborn of God (as a nation/people) and thus God still loves her and wants to bring her back. This makes the blood Jews (nation of Israel) brothers with Christians.
Why does Jerusalem recognition matter so much to evangelicals (I know the answer, but I want someone to admit it)?
I disagree with the theology and the eschatology.
I support Israel from a practical standpoint and out of respect for their stance in regards to their geographical and geopolitical position in the region. They have the testicular fortitude to do what they need to do to protect themselves and their people in spite of calls of "tolerance" and political correction that actually threaten their security. I wish our own country acted in such a way.
quote:Israel is an ally to the U.S. and we've traditionally fought for and died beside our allies in conflicts. The argument isn't about fighting for or with an ally, but why they should be our ally in the first place.
Why is it worth the blood that will be shed and lives that will be lost (including Americans) over it?
There's a practical aspect to them being our ally in that we've got a good foothold in the Middle East with a friendly country (to us). It's good for us to have a presence there or at least a safe space.
Is it worth it to have our people killed for that alone? I don't think so, but I think part of the issue has to do with the nature of our enemies rather than the nature of our friends.
quote:I don't know the exact motive behind it, but I would suggest that it has to do with the thought that there's not going to be a peaceful solution without one side or the other giving up something they aren't willing to give up.
Why is it more important than the years of negotiations for a peaceful solution on the part of democrats and republicans?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:38 am to BugAC
quote:
That's not accurate.
What oh wise one has he declared as a formal teaching, ex cathedra? Please inform me as I am about to embark on my annual Ignatian Spiritual exercises and can spend my silent time reflecting on these new teachings.
There have been exactly 2 dogmatic, ex cathedra teachings by any pope. Both having to do with Mary.
quote:
The pope doesn't have to preface everything he is saying is Ex Cathedra, before he makes each statement.
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must:
A teaching of the church /= ex cathedra. Teachings are more or less practices of the church and can change.
Truths of the church (even those not ex cathedra) cannot change. For example, the Church teaches Christ is divine. There has never been an ex cathedra statement about His divinity, but it is an unchangeable teaching.
Only men can be priests - again a Pope has never declared so ex cathedra, but each and every priest (including Francis) has said that only men can be ordained priests.
There has been nothing this Pope has done that is infallibly presented either ex cathedra or as a new teaching.
I am much, much more of a Benedict XVI catholic than a Francis, but he gets a much worse rap than deserved.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:02 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
First of all, google "rabbit child molestation"
Guess i'm not taking my kids rabbit hunting anytime soon.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:03 pm to Strannix
quote:you know when you talk like this you literally sound like Hitler.
he usually always bows to his international Jew handlers,
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News