- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Man urinates on the altar in St. Peter's Basilica
Posted on 10/14/25 at 7:15 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 10/14/25 at 7:15 am to Freauxzen
quote:It isn’t disrespectful to accurately describe what the RCC teaches as true and what all Christians must believe (that is the type of faith that must be had for dogmas).
Look, I'm not going to try and describe your faith, dont do that for Catholics. At least show that respect.
I wouldn’t think it disrespectful if you started rattling off sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith, even though I don’t believe the WCF has the same authority as Scripture.
If I get something wrong, I’m open to correction to make sure I accurately state what is taught and believed.
quote:I don’t think I’m getting Papal Infallibility wrong. I know well enough that he is only supposedly infallible when he makes a dogmatic statement on faith or morals (speaking from the chair of Peter). I didn’t describe what PI was in my previous statement, only that it must be believed by Catholics. Vatican I taught this as dogma.
You get papal infalibity wrong...again, with this inference that it is some big deal. You miss the purpose and the application and act like this is some big wrong of the church.
In the 2000 years of the church PI has been used a handful of times. It is not some ongoing belief that everything the pope says "infallible" or that the pope is without sin or that he has some special knowledge. It's none of those things
What it also teaches is that the Pope’s teaching is authoritative and must be submitted to, even in his ordinary teaching, though that teaching is not infallible. It is why I don’t understand when Catholics bash him when there is disagreement. It’s almost as if they don’t believe their own church’s teaching about the supreme pontiff and holy father, vicar of Christ and defender of the faith.
2
Posted on 10/14/25 at 7:31 am to Napoleon
quote:That’s the claim. The Eastern Orthodox church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and I think even the Anglicans would disagree with you and claim she alone has a succession of bishops that go back to the Apostles. The EOC teaches that Rome splintered a thousand years ago with the great schism, breaking the line. I also find it interesting that for about 40 years in the 1300s and 1400s, Rome had three Popes at the same time who all claimed authority and succession from Peter.
The catholic church traces all the way back though. It was not splintered by a founder like every other denomination. Not saying any are less than the other but something has to be said for that. It's the descedant of the church of the apostles.
All that aside, just as Jesus told John in the vision in Revelation 2 that if the church of Ephesus did not repent that He would remove its lampstand (a symbol of the Spirit), I believe that has happened with the RCC.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:11 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That’s the claim
lol no. That’s a fact verified by multiply reputable sources such as the world almanac and any reputable historian.
quote:
The Eastern Orthodox church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and I think even the Anglicans would disagree with you and claim she alone has a succession of bishops that go back to the Apostles.
Correct. They have succession also but that doesn’t invalidate the Catholic succession. In fact in most of those cases the CC recognizes the holy orders in order to not deny the sacraments to the millions of people under those churches.
You and your church have no such claim.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:13 am to Froman
quote:
you pull your pants all the way down to pee.
This is a very Euro thing. Not uncommon to see when you visit the toilets over there.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:28 am to FooManChoo
quote:
don’t think I’m getting Papal Infallibility wrong. I
quote:
. It is why I don’t understand when Catholics bash him when there is disagreement. It’s almost as if they don’t believe their own church’s teaching about the supreme pontiff and holy father, vicar of Christ and defender of the faith
Because you seem incapable of understanding the difference between the two different ways we submit to the Pope.
So let me explain it to you again….
1. When the pope speaks from the chair in unison with the bishops only in matters of faith and morals are we bound to follow his directive.
2. Everything else is NOT binding. It is disrespectful and subversive to disagree with him but to a much lesser extent.
3. When he speaks falsehood or error that contradicts Church teaching we are not bound by either of the previous points.
4. When he is not a valid pope we are not bound by either.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 8:30 am
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:33 am to FooManChoo
Folks, you don't need to listen to the ravings of Foo.
Everything you'd like to know about Catholicism is at this website
Catholic Answers
LINK
Foo has been on Political Talk for decades and he never talks about politics. He didn't even vote in the POTUS election. He's here to preach against Catholicism. Problem is that Foo uses distortions and lies as he makes his accusations.
Everything you'd like to know about Catholicism is at this website
Catholic Answers
LINK
Foo has been on Political Talk for decades and he never talks about politics. He didn't even vote in the POTUS election. He's here to preach against Catholicism. Problem is that Foo uses distortions and lies as he makes his accusations.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I would do none of those things. I pray that he would repent and leave Catholicism and that the Lord would draw many out of Babylon, but I don’t believe personal vengeance is what Christians are called to, even for their enemies. God will judge that wicked organization that leads so many astray.
You mentioned in another post you spend a lot of time reading Catholic Answers and have read most of the Catechism.
If your particular sect of Christianity is founded in truth, as you would have us believe, you wouldn't feel the need to explore Catholicism. Because, on the surface, it appears you spend more time debunking the Church and not promoting your own.
Are your drawn to the Catholic church and are fighting the pull towards her?
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:39 am to BluegrassCardinal
quote:
Are your drawn to the Catholic church and are fighting the pull towards her?
He is a former Catholic.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:56 am to Guntoter1
Fair. However if his denomination is truly giving him peace and grace, he wouldn't feel the need to relentlessly attack the Church.
Maybe it's time for him to move on.
Maybe it's time for him to move on.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 8:57 am
Posted on 10/14/25 at 8:57 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Prayer in the Bible and in every religious context is an act of worship.
Folks, note that I have explained to foo that "I pray you, good sir" is the same as asking for something from someone. Foo insists on sticking to his lie that "to pray to someone for something" is an Act of Worship. No amount of good evidence or logic will cause him to consider any conclusion other than his own.
From Psalm 101:
"The man of proud looks and haughty heart I will never endure."
This guy is not worth your time.
If you'd like to learn about what Catholics Worship, check out the website Catholic Answers.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 9:32 am
Posted on 10/14/25 at 10:42 am to Champagne
quote:
Folks, you don't need to listen to the ravings of Foo.
yeah no shite huh?
quote:
Foo has been on Political Talk for decades and he never talks about politics.
i asked hjm before why he is even here. clown should be on SEC rant or a UGA board.
quote:
He didn't even vote in the POTUS election.
because he is a CUCK and a COWARD. He basically voted dem by not voting trump. he lives in georgia which biden stole last time which makes him not voting even more egregious.
quote:
Problem is that Foo uses distortions and lies as he makes his accusations.
he doesn't know jack. he is a lying hack. I have proven it many times here. not many on this board i would like to meet at sonic. first tarzana then VOR but this foomanblew jackass i would love to run into one day at a sonic of his choice. next time i am in georgia i can meet up with him.
This post was edited on 10/14/25 at 11:03 am
Posted on 10/14/25 at 10:46 am to Guntoter1
quote:
He is a former Catholic.
who? FOOCUCKCHOO?
doubtful.
i was a former prod. went through catechism one on one with my parish priest and got confirmed in 1998. Call me a mean, nasty, bad catholic, that is fine. but i abhor clowns like foocuckchoo. i will constantly call out CUCKS like him and his ilk.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 10:49 am to SirWinston
quote:
The urinator looked more like a white liberal than a Moslem
Whatever. Basically the same thing
Posted on 10/14/25 at 10:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If you are encouraged to call out to the saints for help, and the way you do so is through prayer, how can you not be encouraged to "pray to the saints and Mary"?
What else would you say that it is?
If I ask you to pray for me, I'm not praying to you.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:06 am to TrueTiger
Religious or not, it's disrespectful.
These alters hold the bones of Saints, and in this case, the bones of its namesake.
These alters hold the bones of Saints, and in this case, the bones of its namesake.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 12:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't condone such behavior, but I understand it. The place is a monument to idolatry, and iconoclasm has a long history.
That's because you are not a good person. In fact you seem like a complete piece of shite.
Toxic hatred comes from the Devil, not Jesus. Is that the master you serve?
Posted on 10/14/25 at 12:18 pm to TrueTiger
This is as disrespectful as it comes.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:15 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Nope, that's the claim. There was no Pope in the first few centuries. There was no single, supreme bishop and singular head of the church during that time. The post-Vatican I RCC's view of the Pope doesn't look like what the early church had. That was an accretion that developed over centuries.
lol no. That’s a fact verified by multiply reputable sources such as the world almanac and any reputable historian.
quote:It's interesting that the EOC is divided on its view of the Pope and Catholicism, since both the RCC and EOC excommunicated either other a thousand years ago, and many in the EOC still consider Rome as heretical. The views of the Pope's authority and jurisdiction are denied by the EOC, as well. They teach that the bishop of Rome had/has a primacy of honor, not authoritative jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Correct. They have succession also but that doesn’t invalidate the Catholic succession. In fact in most of those cases the CC recognizes the holy orders in order to not deny the sacraments to the millions of people under those churches.
quote:The Reformed claim is based on Scripture, where the apostolic deposit wasn't a singular Pope, but the Scriptures. The elders of churches carry on the leadership of the Apostles, though they are not claimed to be infallible.
You and your church have no such claim.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:30 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Your own catechism teaches that due honor is to be given to the Pope even in the ordinary magisterium, and even in disagreement.
Because you seem incapable of understanding the difference between the two different ways we submit to the Pope.
So let me explain it to you again….
1. When the pope speaks from the chair in unison with the bishops only in matters of faith and morals are we bound to follow his directive.
2. Everything else is NOT binding. It is disrespectful and subversive to disagree with him but to a much lesser extent.
3. When he speaks falsehood or error that contradicts Church teaching we are not bound by either of the previous points.
4. When he is not a valid pope we are not bound by either.
Catholic Answers even speaks to how to disagree with the Pope, and how they recommend you disagree looks nothing like what the disagreement looks like on this board, insulting the Pope and acting like you can just dismiss him outright. That article even says that if you find yourself disagreeing all the time (like many were under Francis), then you might have a problem with trusting yourself too much and trusting God and the Church too little. The implication is that there needs to be a trust in the Pope and the Church even in intellectual disagreement, since the Church requires implicit faith.
Posted on 10/14/25 at 11:32 pm to Champagne
quote:And if you want to have an actual discussion about whether or not what the Catholic church teaches, this is a place to have it. I'm always happy to discuss.
Folks, you don't need to listen to the ravings of Foo.
Everything you'd like to know about Catholicism is at this website
Catholic Answers
LINK
quote:Why are you misleading people about me? I used to talk almost nothing but politics on this particular subforum, and I still make comments from time to time on political issues. It doesn't even matter what I choose to comment on, since this is an open forum and all I'm doing is responding to topics that others create, just as you are.
Foo has been on Political Talk for decades and he never talks about politics. He didn't even vote in the POTUS election. He's here to preach against Catholicism. Problem is that Foo uses distortions and lies as he makes his accusations.
Also, I did vote in the election. I've corrected you on this before but you continue to tell falsehoods about me.
Page 9 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News