- 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: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 9:50 am to The Baker
Posted on 4/12/26 at 9:50 am to The Baker
I lived in Madison Ms. for 8 years right out of college and you would have thought I was the devil himself when my coworkers found out I was Catholic. I went to a Christian book store in Jackson and asked the lady working there where I could find a Catholic Bible, and she said,”sweet heart this is a Christian bookstore.”
0
Posted on 4/12/26 at 10:03 am to FooManChoo
You’re conflating enforcement with existence. The Church does enforce, just not in the same way a state does. There are spiritual consequences, loss of communion, and in some cases formal penalties. But even if enforcement were weak, that wouldn’t erase the standard. Truth doesn’t stop being true because people ignore it.
Unity also isn’t measured by polling the laity. It’s measured by whether there is one authoritative teaching. In Catholicism, there is. You can point to it clearly. In Protestantism, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter, so the standard itself fragments, not just people’s adherence to it.
And the results are not the same. When Catholics disagree, they are disagreeing with a known, fixed teaching. When Protestants disagree, they often arrive at entirely different conclusions about what the Bible teaches with no mechanism to settle it definitively. That’s a fundamentally different kind of disunity.
So the Magisterium’s value isn’t that every individual will agree, it’s that there is a final, authoritative interpretation that preserves doctrinal continuity. Without that, authority shifts to the individual, even if unintentionally.
Unity also isn’t measured by polling the laity. It’s measured by whether there is one authoritative teaching. In Catholicism, there is. You can point to it clearly. In Protestantism, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter, so the standard itself fragments, not just people’s adherence to it.
And the results are not the same. When Catholics disagree, they are disagreeing with a known, fixed teaching. When Protestants disagree, they often arrive at entirely different conclusions about what the Bible teaches with no mechanism to settle it definitively. That’s a fundamentally different kind of disunity.
So the Magisterium’s value isn’t that every individual will agree, it’s that there is a final, authoritative interpretation that preserves doctrinal continuity. Without that, authority shifts to the individual, even if unintentionally.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 10:09 am to METAL
quote:
In Protestantism, disagreement produces competing doctrines with no final arbiter, so the standard itself fragments, not just people’s adherence to it.
In the mindset of Protestants, the arbitrator is Christ.
We will face final judgement, and it He and He alone who will determine our faithfulness.
We Protestants put our souls and the souls of our families on the line, in faith, based on the Word of God.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 10:27 am to Narax
I feel as if you’ve missed the point.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 10:32 am to The Baker
All of a sudden??? You mean there was a time they weren't turned on "rosary rattlers"
Posted on 4/12/26 at 11:28 am to METAL
quote:
I feel as if you’ve missed the point.
My point though is that you and the Protestants you are talking to, are talking past each other.
They see the words they are saying as having a different meaning than you are receiving and visa versa.
What you mean by unity is different than what they mean.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 11:57 am to Narax
Saying “Christ is the arbiter” doesn’t actually solve the issue, because the disagreement is over what Christ has taught. Everyone appeals to Christ. The question is who has the authority to interpret His teaching in a binding way here and now. If two sincere believers read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions, appealing to Christ doesn’t resolve it, it just restates the disagreement.
Final judgment also doesn’t function as a practical authority in the present. Christ judging at the end doesn’t tell the Church today which interpretation is correct when there’s a dispute. That’s why in Scripture you see real, visible authority exercised in time, like in Acts 15, where a binding decision is made for the Church.
And I agree that part of the issue is definitions. When I say unity, I mean a visible, doctrinal unity with an identifiable teaching authority. When you say unity, you seem to mean shared faith in Christ despite doctrinal differences. Those are two very different concepts, which is why this keeps talking past each other.
Final judgment also doesn’t function as a practical authority in the present. Christ judging at the end doesn’t tell the Church today which interpretation is correct when there’s a dispute. That’s why in Scripture you see real, visible authority exercised in time, like in Acts 15, where a binding decision is made for the Church.
And I agree that part of the issue is definitions. When I say unity, I mean a visible, doctrinal unity with an identifiable teaching authority. When you say unity, you seem to mean shared faith in Christ despite doctrinal differences. Those are two very different concepts, which is why this keeps talking past each other.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 12:03 pm to Narax
I don’t think we are talking past each other. We just reject the definitions and priorities from each other. We understand what he means when he says “unity.” We just don’t see the value to it that he does.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 12:07 pm to dgnx6
quote:
I was behind someone who had my grandkid goes to Dominican sticker and It got me thinking. Without the Spanish forcing Catholicism over here, there wouldn't be as much of it
Just lol.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 12:15 pm to the808bass
That actually proves the point. If unity in doctrine doesn’t matter, then contradictory beliefs can all be treated as equally acceptable, which means truth becomes secondary to individual interpretation… But in Scripture, unity isn’t optional or just “nice to have.” Christ prays that His followers be one, and Paul repeatedly emphasizes one faith, one body, one teaching. That’s not just spiritual sentiment, that’s doctrinal unity.
So it’s not about preferring a definition of unity, it’s about whether Christ intended His Church to have a visible, unified teaching or a loose agreement centered only on broad essentials. If doctrine doesn’t need to be unified, then there’s no real way to distinguish truth from error beyond personal judgment.
So it’s not about preferring a definition of unity, it’s about whether Christ intended His Church to have a visible, unified teaching or a loose agreement centered only on broad essentials. If doctrine doesn’t need to be unified, then there’s no real way to distinguish truth from error beyond personal judgment.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 12:59 pm to METAL
quote:
Saying “Christ is the arbiter” doesn’t actually solve the issue, because the disagreement is over what Christ has taught. Everyone appeals to Christ. The question is who has the authority to interpret His teaching in a binding way here and now. If two sincere believers read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions, appealing to Christ doesn’t resolve it, it just restates the disagreement.
I do agree, but this comes down to de facto vs de jure.
There is at least one well known Liberal here who is very pro LGB, sends her children to homosexuals homes, and brags about teaching catechism, not to mention refers to Old Testament References as the Old Testament God.
For Protestants, their de jure is very small, anything outside their small denomination is outside of their arbitration. But their de facto is often very strong, the ones with weak de facto often fall into heresy, United Methodists are a perfect example of this, and now heretics rule de jure, and Christians exist as some cases of de facto.
quote:
Final judgment also doesn’t function as a practical authority in the present. Christ judging at the end doesn’t tell the Church today which interpretation is correct when there’s a dispute. That’s why in Scripture you see real, visible authority exercised in time, like in Acts 15, where a binding decision is made for the Church.
I do agree that we don't have ecumenical councils, I wish the Church would.
quote:
The Church of the East accepts as ecumenical the first two councils.
Oriental Orthodox Churches accept the first three, while some also accept the fourth one, the Second Council of Ephesus.
Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes in whole or in part seven councils held between the 4th to the 9th centuries as ecumenical. Some Eastern Orthodox also accept one later council as ecumenical.
The Catholic Church recognizes in whole or in part seven councils held between the 4th to the 9th centuries as ecumenica. The Catholic Church has continued to hold general councils of the bishops in full communion with the Pope, and recognizes a total of twenty-one councils as ecumenical.
Some Lutheran Churches, Anglican Communion and Reformed Churches recognize The first three councils and the Council of Chalcedon —though they are "considered subordinate to Scripture".
The Lutheran World Federation recognizes as "exercises of apostolic authority" the same seven Ecumenical Councils that both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church accept in whole or in part, and recognizes their decisions as authoritative; while member churches are not required to accept all theological statements produced by the Federation, but only to subscribe to the most basic Lutheran historical confessional documents, most do follow this recommendation.
The Anglican Communion "acknowledge the authoritative place of the Ecumenical Councils in the life of the Church." The Anglican Communion has further affirmed the following: The Anglican Communion has not expressly, or officially, defined, in its historic formularies or Canons, an exact number of those councils which it receives as Ecumenical, although there is a broad consensus in favour of the first four councils, and a respect for six and sometimes even seven.
The various Baptists, Calvary Chapels, Assemblies of God, Methodists etc... typically adhere to the first 4 councils and reject the 7th.
The point being that I do wish there was a combined voice of Christianity, but everyone, including the Catholics have gone their own way.
You may believe that Vatican II holds the same weight as The Apostolic decision and Peter's direct vision in Acts 15, but then when modern popes (Or medieval Popes) are found to be false, it really shakens the whole theory, why for example should Lateran IV in 1213, the one that set badges on Jews and Muslims, mandated confession, established transubstantiation, be on par with Peter's divine vision on gentiles.
Or Lyon II in 1272 that established purgatory.
Or Constance in 1418 that (Rightly) declared popes are subordinate to an ecumenical council.
This though to point out that Catholics are indeed going their own way.
In the end Christ will judge the motives and faithfulness of our actions.
quote:
And I agree that part of the issue is definitions. When I say unity, I mean a visible, doctrinal unity with an identifiable teaching authority. When you say unity, you seem to mean shared faith in Christ despite doctrinal differences. Those are two very different concepts, which is why this keeps talking past each other.
I do agree that Catholics do that better, but I do warn that the liberal Catholics have learned from the Methodist Drama, and are moving to strike at the very basis of power.
By the way, very much appreciate your well spoken insight into Catholic views and mindset.
This post was edited on 4/12/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
My question here is so what?
What’s the practical difference for one’s faith if one believes transubstantiation or consubstantiation or symbolic?
Metaphysically and Philosophically, those are really great questions! I'm not sure how to answer.
We know that in the past vast armies would kill each other over these questions.
TODAY, however: you'll raise your daughter to be "Brand X" of Christianty, THEN she falls in love with an marries a good young dude from "Brand Y" Christianity. She converts and Dad must struggle against the feeling that he's failed somehow. Doesn't this support your point and the notion that the questions you posed are not really terribly important questions.
Just so long as our daughters don't marry General Field Marshal Cinque, we should be content.
This post was edited on 4/12/26 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:40 pm to Champagne
quote:
She converts and Dad must struggle against the feeling that he's failed somehow.
She didn’t convert. She believes in believers baptism more strongly than I do.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:41 pm to METAL
quote:
If unity in doctrine doesn’t matter, then contradictory beliefs can all be treated as equally acceptable, which means truth becomes secondary to individual interpretation
Only if you’re retarded.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 3:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We're talking about different things when we talk about unity. You are focusing on official teachings rather than disparate beliefs.
Then there's not a single faith that's unified, by that definition. Zero.
quote:
If 0% of Catholics actually believed the official teachings of the RCC, and all Catholics actually believed a host of different things on each doctrine and dogma, would you still say you have unity? Boy, I would hope not!
I would say the Church is unified, yes. The Catholic Church is monolithic in its doctrine/teaching. It's one of the reasons the Church is seeing an upswing in practicing adults - because many view it as actually standing for something rather than being soft/squishy on doctrine. This may be temporary because culture is all about soft and squishy, but it's noteworthy nonetheless.
quote:
From that standpoint, I would say that you need to have probably 100% agreement for the unity that you are claiming, because what Catholics keep claiming is that you have an infallible Magisterium that takes all the guesswork out of understanding the Bible (an argument against sola scriptura, or at least the perspicuity of the Scriptures).
There needs to be 100% agreement amongst 1.5 billion people on every aspect of Catholic doctrine, or there is no unity in the Church? That's crazy.
quote:
For Catholicism, if you claim to have a standard of rejection of abortion and then you allow politicians who publicly support, promote, and vote to extend abortion in this country to receive the Eucharist and not be disciplined, then you can't claim to be unified behind that standard. It's absolutely nonsensical. You might as well not have the standard at all if you don't enforce it. If someone in my congregation was openly supporting abortion or bragged about having one, they would be disciplined by our elders. That's what it means to have a standard.
NOTIFICATION
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress Nancy Pelosi
The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on the Church in the Modem World, Gaudium et spes, reiterated the Church's ancient and consistent teaching that “from the first moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (n. 51). Christians have, indeed, always upheld the dignity of human life in every stage, especially the most vulnerable, beginning with life in the womb. His Holiness, Pope Francis, in keeping with his predecessors, has likewise been quite clear and emphatic in teaching on the dignity of human life in the womb.
This fundamental moral truth has consequences for Catholics in how they live their lives, especially those entrusted with promoting and protecting the public good of society. Pope St. John Paul II was also quite consistent in upholding this constant teaching of the Church, and frequently reminded us that “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them” (cf. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24, 2002], n. 4, §1). A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons “are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (Code of Canon Law, can. 915).
With regard to the application of these principles to Catholics in political life, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to the U.S. bishops in 2004 explaining the approach to be taken:
“... when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect ... ,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.’”
In striving to follow this direction, I am grateful to you for the time you have given me in the past to speak about these matters. Unfortunately, I have not received such an accommodation to my many requests to speak with you again since you vowed to codify the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in federal law following upon passage of Texas Senate Bill 8 last September. That is why I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion “rights” or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion, that time has now come. Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be “concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publicly repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance
Please know that I stand ready to continue our conversation at any time, and will continue to offer up prayer and fasting for you.
I also ask all of the faithful of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to pray for all of our legislators, especially Catholic legislators who promote procured abortion, that with the help and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they may undergo a conversion of heart in this most grave matter and human life may be protected and fostered in every stage and condition of life.
Given at San Francisco, on the nineteenth day of May, in the Year of our Lord 2022.
[Signed]
Salvatore J. Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco
This post was edited on 4/12/26 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 5:24 pm to the808bass
quote:
She didn’t convert. She believes in believers baptism more strongly than I do.
I'm talking in general. It's very common for young people to convert to other religions once they marry somebody from another faith. For example, Patty Hearst was Episcopalian. She got married to General Field Marshal Cinque then she converted to being Tania, Revolutionary Soldier for the Symbionese Liberation Army. The wedding reception was weird.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 5:25 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Then there's not a single faith that's unified, by that definition. Zero.
There is only ONE version of the Roman Catholic Catechism!
THAT is Unity.
What is so hard for some Protestants to understand about this? I think it's because none of them have anything like the Roman Catholic Catechism. They've seen nothing like it, so, they don't know the importance and the gravity of having a massive official comprehensive Theology for the whole Church.
Anyway, I doubt you'll get Foo to agree with anything. He's lost his mind and his ability to Reason.
This post was edited on 4/12/26 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 9:08 pm to Narax
I think you’re actually getting closer to the core issue than most, especially with the de facto vs de jure distinction. But that distinction is exactly why a visible, authoritative Church matters. If the de jure authority isn’t real and binding, then de facto just becomes whoever is most persuasive or influential, which is exactly how fragmentation happens.
On councils, the list you gave kind of proves my point. Different groups accepting different councils, some partially, some conditionally, shows there isn’t a consistent authority deciding these things. The question isn’t whether councils exist, it’s who has the authority to definitively say which ones are binding and what they mean. Without that, you end up with a sliding scale of authority.
On later councils and popes, you’re assuming development equals contradiction. Catholics don’t claim every action taken in history was good or perfect. Lateran IV having disciplinary laws you disagree with isn’t the same as doctrinal error, and defining something like transubstantiation or purgatory is understood as clarifying what was already believed, not inventing something new. Acts 15 itself is a development moment, the Church applying authority to a new situation.
And I agree with your concern about internal inconsistency and “liberal drift.” Catholics worry about that too. But again, the difference is there is still a fixed teaching those views can be measured against and corrected by. Without that, drift just becomes a new branch. Funny you brought up the Methodists. My best friend and a guy I consider my brother grew up Methodist and he just left because in his words “they turned gay”. He was complaining about them the other day and says he still subscribes to the Wesleyan ideology, but now goes to a nondenominational church.
At the end of the day, we both agree Christ is the judge. The disagreement is whether He left behind a living authority to guide His Church in the meantime, or whether that role is effectively carried out through fallible, decentralized interpretation. That’s really the fork in the road.
On councils, the list you gave kind of proves my point. Different groups accepting different councils, some partially, some conditionally, shows there isn’t a consistent authority deciding these things. The question isn’t whether councils exist, it’s who has the authority to definitively say which ones are binding and what they mean. Without that, you end up with a sliding scale of authority.
On later councils and popes, you’re assuming development equals contradiction. Catholics don’t claim every action taken in history was good or perfect. Lateran IV having disciplinary laws you disagree with isn’t the same as doctrinal error, and defining something like transubstantiation or purgatory is understood as clarifying what was already believed, not inventing something new. Acts 15 itself is a development moment, the Church applying authority to a new situation.
And I agree with your concern about internal inconsistency and “liberal drift.” Catholics worry about that too. But again, the difference is there is still a fixed teaching those views can be measured against and corrected by. Without that, drift just becomes a new branch. Funny you brought up the Methodists. My best friend and a guy I consider my brother grew up Methodist and he just left because in his words “they turned gay”. He was complaining about them the other day and says he still subscribes to the Wesleyan ideology, but now goes to a nondenominational church.
At the end of the day, we both agree Christ is the judge. The disagreement is whether He left behind a living authority to guide His Church in the meantime, or whether that role is effectively carried out through fallible, decentralized interpretation. That’s really the fork in the road.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 9:08 pm to The Baker
Posted on 4/12/26 at 9:20 pm to Narax
quote:
We Protestants put our souls and the souls of our families on the line, in faith, based on the Word of God.
But do you really when you don’t eat His flesh?
Page 12 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News