- 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: As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch
Posted on 4/19/26 at 9:49 pm to MemphisGuy
Posted on 4/19/26 at 9:49 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Baptism is NOT required. It is an outward sign of your transformation, but is NOT required. Were it required, as you say, then the thief on the cross is just out of luck, isn't he? The one Jesus said would see him in heaven.
As I pointed out in a previous response, the use of the "thief on the cross" rebuttal is a sign of complete ignorance because...
a. the thief lived and died under the old law, before the Church was established in Acts 2. Just as the countless numbers of people who lived and died under the law of David got into Heaven, so did he. Christianity and the Church had not yet been established, and
b. Christ clearly had the power to forgive sins.
These points are so obvious that it takes willful dishonesty to ignore them.
From I Peter 3...
"20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism THAT NOW SAVES YOU also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. IT SAVES YOU by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."
That's not once, but twice, in one verse that Peter says that the symbolic death and burial of our old life, and the resurrection to live a new life that happens at baptism is what saves us. It. Saves. You.
You are clearly a person of some intelligence. Therefore, you must be willfully dishonest, likely because what an admission of what Scripture clearly teaches on this subject would no doubt challenge everything else that you have been taught to believe. I Peter 3:20-21 couldn't possibly be any clearer.
Just because we have to be obedient to God's commands to be saved doesn't lessen the fact that we are saved by the power of God's grace. Even after we fulfill all of the commands God gives us, we still don't deserve salvation and never will.
This post was edited on 4/19/26 at 9:53 pm
0
Posted on 4/19/26 at 9:56 pm to crotiger0307
It all boils down to the golden rule.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 6:51 am to Timeoday
quote:
You can bet your very last dollar this Christian will not ever break bread with a catholic or anyone who believes Peter is the guy!!
Good
Me neither! Because he’s not. Jesus is, was, and forever will be.
Peter was the first guy that Jesus tapped with leading his apostles in their evangelical efforts after his resurrection. He’s also the guy who in the Acts of the Apostles went about proclaiming Jesus as the Christ, the way the truth and the life, the one who suffered and died to give us who believe forgiveness of sins and everlasting life
Not sure exactly what you’re so hung up on brother in Christ but I pray you get over your anger
Posted on 4/20/26 at 7:29 am to crotiger0307
quote:
As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch, Little more than a ceremonial position awarded by man to fulfill the human need for a hierarchal structure
Posted on 4/20/26 at 7:40 am to METAL
quote:Not at all. I’m explaining that the verse is one of the few verses that Catholics hang their system on and it is not even saying what they claim to say. Neither the Scriptures nor early history describe the type of authority and supremacy over the Church that Rome claims Peter and his successors had
You’re setting up a false either/or that the Bible doesn’t actually force.
quote:This claim right here is much more modest than what Catholicism teaches, though. Protestants agree that Christ built His Church using men. That isn’t in dispute. What is in dispute is that Peter is the head of that Church rather than Christ, and that he had a supremacy of authority over all the apostles that he alone could bind and loose.
Yes, Christ is the ultimate foundation. Catholics fully agree with that, but that doesn’t mean He can’t build His Church on people under Him. Scripture shows that pattern all over the place. Even the verses you quoted prove that.
quote:Even that passage of Matthew 16 where Peter is given the keys doesn’t teach that the authority was to him alone. Matthew 18 has Jesus repeating the authority of the keys in binding and loosing, but this time says that all the apostles had that authority, not just Peter.
So when Jesus says “on this rock I will build my Church,” it’s not competing with “Christ is the rock.” It’s the same pattern: Christ is the ultimate foundation, and He chooses to build through specific people. In that moment, He singles Peter out, renames him, and gives him authority right after. Again, every time God renamed someone in the Bible something monumental followed.
Peter was important to the Church, but he had no supremacy over the other apostles that gave him a higher authority.
In Acts 15, it was James, not Peter that expressed the final decision that the Council agreed with. And Paul confronted Peter to his face to correct him. Peter, himself, told the elders to shepherd the flock of God, so he wasn’t the only shepherd of the Church.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 7:49 am to crotiger0307
quote:ummmm Jesus is the rock....not the catlick church.
Jesus was pretty clear in stating that Peter was the rock upon whom the Church was founded
Posted on 4/20/26 at 7:55 am to crotiger0307
quote:
As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch
I bet you only go to church for Christmas and Easter too...
Posted on 4/20/26 at 8:08 am to the808bass
quote:
It seems difficult to stretch the hypothetical person in Hebrews 6 to a person who “didn’t really believe.” The passage seems to take great pains to describe exactly what a believer would be like.
If you look at it in the context of eternal security I think you can argue that it is saying that if a true born again person did/could fall away to the extent that he is lost again that there is no way to bring them back because Christ would have to die again and since that is not happening it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. Again, it could be viewed as a hypothetical situation. So basically if someone believes they can lose their salvation they also have to believe that once it's gone it's gone and they can never be re-saved. That is why I believe this is a strong defense of eternal security. The writer is saying since this can't happen then press on to maturity.
There are several views of this passage, but given the context of the entire new testament, it's clear salvation can't be lost, so we have to view it through that lens. It's impossible to lay again the foundation of repentance so if someone fell away they have no way back.
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 8:25 am
Posted on 4/20/26 at 8:30 am to crotiger0307
Would Jesus take the people's money from the tax collector? No, but today's Bishops do take government money. These morral men are choosing what they like and do not like in society and making it fit their interpretation of the Catholic faith.
By taking the govt money, they have opened themselves up to be beholden the the government and politicians, not always beholden to God's teachings.
The bishops are choosing which govt laws are right for them based on the money the govt gives them. Catholic charities takes the taxpayers money and gives it to the illegals immigrants for food, shelter, and living expense, while those who are not illegal immigrants and have needs are qualified for the same treatment.
By taking the govt money, they have opened themselves up to be beholden the the government and politicians, not always beholden to God's teachings.
The bishops are choosing which govt laws are right for them based on the money the govt gives them. Catholic charities takes the taxpayers money and gives it to the illegals immigrants for food, shelter, and living expense, while those who are not illegal immigrants and have needs are qualified for the same treatment.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 9:00 am to crotiger0307
FACT - Jorge Mario Bergoglio was an unmigitaged disaster as Pope Francis. FACT - his idea of leasurely reading was thumbing through a copy of a Communist periodical.
Not known as a particularly inspiring intellectual, Papa Bergoglio gave the Catholic Church his crowning achievement - Seamless Garment Synodality. Which he borrowed from the Anglican Church. A collection of odd, confusing, unnecessarily complicated, and blatantly anti-Catholic Gobbledygook.
Papa Bergoglio replaced the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Renamed through the Praedicate evangelium constitution (March 2022), it restructured the former "Congregation" into a "Dicastery," separating it into two distinct sections—doctrinal and disciplinary—while shifting focus toward pastoral theology over solely censuring. Then he went looking for orthodox traditionalist Bishops.
He removed the censure on Ted McCarrick imposed by Pope Benedict and made him his representative in negotiations with the ChiComs. In exchange for annual $ 2 billion dollars in ChiCom subsidies, Bergoglio withdrew his support for the underground Catholic Church in China, with devestating results. All this while singing the praises of ChiCom Communism. Then the ChiComs went looking for underground Catholic Priest - after leveling their Churches. Incidently, it was the ChiComs who gave us the Covid 19 Pandemic. Ted McCarrick was eventually defrocked.
Papa Bergoglio hosted a Vatican Symposium on Climate Change - Global Warming and invited pro-abortion activist. Seems these abortion activist answer to dealing with Climate Change is killing off carbon signature humans. He created a prayer space in the Vatican library for Muslims. He let the pro-gay priest James Martin gain entry into the Vatican. Then approved the scandalous blessing of that gay couple. Apparently that policy remains in force.
Papa Bergoglio was not only a bad Catholic he was a raging radical socialist (aka communist). Papa Bergoglio passed through established proven Biblical Truth and Catholic doctrine like a bull in a china shop.
Now given Pope Leo has promised to carry on Papa Bergoglio's policies we can well understand where his conflict with President Trump orginates. His decision to move the ultra-liberal Blaise Cardinal Cupich as head of the Diocese of Chicago to the Vatican is NOT a good sign. To which I say - we're watching.
Truth, what is that? Pontius Pilate
Trump / Vance 2026 - Fighting to save our traditional Judeo-Christian traditions and values - the demoniacs are fighting him.
Now rage satan.
*[cricketts]*
Not known as a particularly inspiring intellectual, Papa Bergoglio gave the Catholic Church his crowning achievement - Seamless Garment Synodality. Which he borrowed from the Anglican Church. A collection of odd, confusing, unnecessarily complicated, and blatantly anti-Catholic Gobbledygook.
Papa Bergoglio replaced the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Renamed through the Praedicate evangelium constitution (March 2022), it restructured the former "Congregation" into a "Dicastery," separating it into two distinct sections—doctrinal and disciplinary—while shifting focus toward pastoral theology over solely censuring. Then he went looking for orthodox traditionalist Bishops.
He removed the censure on Ted McCarrick imposed by Pope Benedict and made him his representative in negotiations with the ChiComs. In exchange for annual $ 2 billion dollars in ChiCom subsidies, Bergoglio withdrew his support for the underground Catholic Church in China, with devestating results. All this while singing the praises of ChiCom Communism. Then the ChiComs went looking for underground Catholic Priest - after leveling their Churches. Incidently, it was the ChiComs who gave us the Covid 19 Pandemic. Ted McCarrick was eventually defrocked.
Papa Bergoglio hosted a Vatican Symposium on Climate Change - Global Warming and invited pro-abortion activist. Seems these abortion activist answer to dealing with Climate Change is killing off carbon signature humans. He created a prayer space in the Vatican library for Muslims. He let the pro-gay priest James Martin gain entry into the Vatican. Then approved the scandalous blessing of that gay couple. Apparently that policy remains in force.
Papa Bergoglio was not only a bad Catholic he was a raging radical socialist (aka communist). Papa Bergoglio passed through established proven Biblical Truth and Catholic doctrine like a bull in a china shop.
Now given Pope Leo has promised to carry on Papa Bergoglio's policies we can well understand where his conflict with President Trump orginates. His decision to move the ultra-liberal Blaise Cardinal Cupich as head of the Diocese of Chicago to the Vatican is NOT a good sign. To which I say - we're watching.
Truth, what is that? Pontius Pilate
Trump / Vance 2026 - Fighting to save our traditional Judeo-Christian traditions and values - the demoniacs are fighting him.
Now rage satan.
*[cricketts]*
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 10:46 am
Posted on 4/20/26 at 9:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
In Acts 15, it was James, not Peter that expressed the final decision that the Council agreed with. And Paul confronted Peter to his face to correct him. Peter, himself, told the elders to shepherd the flock of God, so he wasn’t the only shepherd of the Church.
Correct! Also, if Peter was the first pope and the Catholic Church teaches the pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith or morals..... he sure missed on that one! Paul had to school Peter on grace and how grace freed us from the old testament law(which Peter was claiming Jews still needed to keep).
Posted on 4/20/26 at 12:16 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
Divinity is bestowed upon no man
No Catholic believes the Pope is divine. Catholics view the Pope as a vital spiritual leader who carries on the mission of Saint Peter, guiding the Church with authority and infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
We believe that Jesus appointed Saint Peter as the head of his disciples, and this role continues with each Pope. Matthew 16:18 states, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." The gospel makes it clear that Peter has a certain authority bestowed upon him by Christ himself.
We also believe this authority is directly given to the Church that Christ himself established through his apostles - "John 20:21 "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" No Catholic believes either that Peter is "above" Christ or that the Pope is. That is heresy. It is just a structure in place that Catholics believe Christ intended through the apostles. Jesus is and always is clearly the ultimate foundation for the Church.
quote:
No less susceptible to the temptation of corruption as any other sinner. Far from “perfect” or in any way comparable to Jesus Himself.
Of course I agree with you on this 100%. He's a sinner like the rest of us, fully susceptible to corruption, error in prudential judgment, and personal failings. No serious Catholic equates him with Jesus
quote:
Statements like “God doesn’t bless those who raise the sword”… (see David, Constantine, etc.) show him to be nothing but a political hack who contributes to the pussification of not only the Catholic Church (alignment with the Democrat liberal ideology) but the entirety of western civilization.
Bit of an overstep here. Do you expect the Pope (or any Catholic or Christian for that matter) to be with a war where no imminent threat posed itself and blood is being needlessly shed? Just war doctrine is based on self defense, not offensive wars. Catholic just war doctrine has always distinguished defensive war, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and discrimination between combatants/non-combatants. David fought defensive and commanded wars under God's direct orders in the Old Testament; the New Covenant raises the bar but doesn't forbid all force.
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 4/20/26 at 12:23 pm to tigerfan24736
Do Catholics believe in the sufficiency of Jesus and his sacrifice. That's what it boils down to. It's got nothing to do with Peter or anyone else. What do you do with Jesus? Who is he to you?
Posted on 4/20/26 at 12:26 pm to Canon951
quote:
Do Catholics believe in the sufficiency of Jesus and his sacrifice. That's what it boils down to. It's got nothing to do with Peter or anyone else. What do you do with Jesus? Who is he to you?
Obviously yes and the answer is yes. He is the redeemer of the Universe and through his sacrifice we are saved. And this is what it all boils down to do which is why I resent the divide between Catholics and Protestants because we all believe in Christ and are brothers in Christ. We should focus more on that belief alone.
Posted on 4/20/26 at 12:38 pm to tigerfan24736
so how do you reconcile Christ's sacrifice with purgatory, Mary's intercession, venial/mortal sins, sacraments, etc? I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm genuinely curious if Christ's sacrifice is sufficient, then where does all of this and other Catholic teachings fit into the equation?
Posted on 4/20/26 at 12:52 pm to crotiger0307
Jesus was pretty clear in stating that Peter was the rock upon whom the Church was founded
why do you still follow that cult ????
why do you still follow that cult ????
Posted on 4/20/26 at 1:01 pm to Canon951
quote:
so how do you reconcile Christ's sacrifice with purgatory, Mary's intercession, venial/mortal sins, sacraments, etc? I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm genuinely curious if Christ's sacrifice is sufficient, then where does all of this and other Catholic teachings fit into the equation?
We believe the sacraments are Christs gifts to us and were instituted by Christ. They are meant to aid us and build up our faith in Jesus more; they are not meant to be rigid rules we have to adhere to, but supposed to be viewed as gifts to make us stronger in faith. I cannot give you a full rundown of every sacrament lol but I can tell you seem genuinely curious so I would encourage you to look into because I certainly do not know why we do all that we do either.
Mary is revered as the mother of Christ and like any other saint, or any soul in heaven, we believe can intercede for us and pray on our behalf - that is pray to God directly for our behalf. Think of it as the same way we ask people here on Earth to pray for us. Catholics don't believe Mary is a source of salvation , Christ alone is that. However, we do recognize and revere the importance of her role as the mother of Christ.
To answer ur question more directly: We believe Christ’s sacrifice is completely sufficient, nothing needs to be added to it. The sacraments, Mary’s intercession, etc., are not “extras” we add to make up for what Jesus didn’t finish. They are simply the ways Christ chose to apply the full power of His one sacrifice to our lives. The Cross won everything; the Church and the sacraments are the channels He set up to deliver that victory to us personally. It’s not “Jesus + these things." It’s Jesus working through these things by His own design.
This all being said man, I do not purport to hold all the answers, and I could be wrong on some of this. I would encourage looking into this further independently, the catechism of the Catholic Church is a better source than me. I also personally believe as long as you believe in Christ none of these doctrinal disagreements matter and that you are saved. God bless you brother.
This post was edited on 4/20/26 at 1:11 pm
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News