- 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 4/13/26 at 8:22 am to METAL
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:22 am to METAL
quote:
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.
Agreed
We both agree he left behind his word, which is living and active, sharper than any sword, penetrating soul and spirit, joints and marrow.
0
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:56 am to METAL
quote:That's what Protestants say about the Scriptures.
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.
The reason I'm focusing so much on enforcement is to point out that the end result of no enforcement is that you functionally have a system that looks no different from Protestantism, and it undermines your claim that you have an infallible teaching authority that creates unity.
quote:Again, in Protestantism, the Scriptures are the final arbiter, which is why all Christians are to study them to understand what they teach.
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.
Also, if you stop comparing a singular structure (Catholicism) to a host of structures (Protestantism) and pick one denomination to compare to, you actually have a lot of similarity between them in terms of authority. Catholics claim a teaching authority, and so does my denomination. You claim unity in your one standard, but so does my denomination. You church has people who nominally align with the organization while disagreeing with official teaching, and so does mine. So, at the end of the day, you can argue that Catholicism is better than "Protestantism" using unity and authority, but you can't use that argumentation against my denomination. The same can be said of pretty much every other denomination or independent congregation.
quote:It's not, for a couple of reasons. First, you are comparing apples to oranges by comparing a singular structure in Rome to multiple structures in Protestantism, and second, it's not fundamentally different in terms of the results, because a known, fixed teaching that doesn't provide unified clarity to the point of universal or near-universal agreement is functionally not sufficient for that desired unity. We have the Bible, and you have your Magisterium. Protestants look to the Bible and come to different conclusions. Catholics look to the Magisterium and come to different conclusions. The end result is the same: nominal adherence to Christianity without a singular, unified set of beliefs from individual to individual.
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.
quote:Again, if the end result in Catholicism is that the lay Catholic can believe whatever they want to believe, even in opposition to the Magisterium, then the Magisterium is no better for producing unity of doctrinal belief than the Bible is. The functional benefit of having an infallible Magisterium is to produce unity of belief, not to merely have a standard to look at and say it's infallible; Protestants already have that with the Bible.
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 4/13/26 at 12:53 pm to David_DJS
quote:Correct! I believe that sin causes disunity, and since we are all sinners, there will always be disunity. It's precisely why we need to always be reforming our beliefs according to the Scriptures. Semper reformanda (always reforming) is still in effect today.
Then there's not a single faith that's unified, by that definition. Zero.
quote:This is not a unique claim, though. My denomination is also monolithic in its doctrine/teaching. My congregation has had a huge influx of people joining in the past year, as well. The difference is that while Rome claims she is the only true expression of Christianity, my denomination doesn't teach that; we are just one branch of the larger true Church of Christ.
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:That's not so crazy when you throw disagreement in the face of Protestants while touting your own unity. You guys continually say things like we disagree on whether or not abortion is acceptable while having 1/3rd of your own members thinking it's acceptable. If you are going to criticize us--who are not a singular organization--for diverse beliefs and practices, you--who are part of a singular organization with expected singular beliefs--need to own up to your own diverse beliefs and practices.
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:That's great! I'm glad the Archbishop of San Francisco did that. However, she then went to Rome and got a blessing from the Pope, himself.
...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
On June 29, 2022, five days after this decision, Pelosi visited the Vatican. She met with Pope Francis, prior to him holding Mass at St Peter's Basilica, and received a blessing from him. In defiance of Cordileone's ban, she received communion at this Mass, according to the Associated Press, without renouncing her opinion on abortion. In fact, she harshly criticized the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, calling it "outrageous and heart-wrenching.
Fact Check: Yes, Pelosi Once Took Communion at Vatican Despite SF Archbishop Denying Her Sacrament
It's hard to say this is being enforced when someone like Pelosi can just go to the Pope and be able to partake of the Eucharist.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 12:56 pm to aubie101
I have seen an up tick in it as well. Across many sites. Catholics are the new whipping post for some reason. I always the squabbling between Christian denominations ended a while back. I guess I was wrong.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 12:57 pm to Man4others
quote:Jesus' flesh is in Heaven right now.
But do you really when you don’t eat His flesh?
When Jesus said, "For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me” (John 12:8), He was talking about His physical body being present with His people.
So no, we do not have to eat Jesus' physical body and drink His physical blood to have eternal life. We must believe in Him by faith.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 1:05 pm to Louisianalabguy
quote:Weren't there a whole bunch of Crusades led by the Pope against the Muslims to regain the Holy Land? Doesn't the Dome of the Rock reside where Herod's temple sat before it was destroyed in 70 AD?
Catholics can't comprehend how the followers of Christ can support his killers in such a fanatical way. The term Christian zionist makes absolutely no sense to us.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:13 pm to CorchJay
quote:
“this rock”… what rock is Jesus referring to? Any person with a brain would understand the “rock” referred to is Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. That’s the rock in this passage.
Some might say anyone with half a brain would understand that Jesus was a complete myth and not a historical man on Earth.
About the rock specifically… you must know that Kepha is Petros/petra is rock. You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church. But Jesus allegedly spoke Aramaic (he didn’t exist, but let’s assume he did exist for a second). In Aramaic it would have been You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. The same exact word used twice. The most straightforward reading is that Peter is the rock. His nickname Peter literally means rock. But you think Jesus was not saying Peter was the rock, even though he called him “Rock”.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:16 pm to Squirrelmeister
Well stated. Although Jesus was and is very real. Plenty of great literature on it if you care to dive in out of interest.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:20 pm to FooManChoo
I don’t know why I’m engaging with you again considering all you do is talk in circles and platitudes… maybe it’s because you’re at least cordial unlike many on here. Regardless I’ll try one more time.
You’re still measuring the wrong thing. The Magisterium isn’t meant to guarantee that every individual agrees or obeys, it guarantees that there is a fixed, authoritative teaching that doesn’t change. Disagreement doesn’t erase that, it just shows people can reject it. That’s very different from a system where the standard itself is debated.
Saying “the end result looks the same” ignores that distinction. In Protestantism, disagreement produces new doctrines because there’s no final arbiter. In Catholicism, disagreement happens against a defined teaching that you can actually point to. One system fragments the standard, the other preserves it even when people dissent from it… And comparing one denomination to Catholicism doesn’t really solve the issue, it just shrinks the scale. The question is still where final authority rests. If your denomination can be wrong, then you’re back to the individual deciding when it is. That’s exactly the shift to private judgment that the Magisterium is meant to prevent, even if people don’t always submit to it.
You’re still measuring the wrong thing. The Magisterium isn’t meant to guarantee that every individual agrees or obeys, it guarantees that there is a fixed, authoritative teaching that doesn’t change. Disagreement doesn’t erase that, it just shows people can reject it. That’s very different from a system where the standard itself is debated.
Saying “the end result looks the same” ignores that distinction. In Protestantism, disagreement produces new doctrines because there’s no final arbiter. In Catholicism, disagreement happens against a defined teaching that you can actually point to. One system fragments the standard, the other preserves it even when people dissent from it… And comparing one denomination to Catholicism doesn’t really solve the issue, it just shrinks the scale. The question is still where final authority rests. If your denomination can be wrong, then you’re back to the individual deciding when it is. That’s exactly the shift to private judgment that the Magisterium is meant to prevent, even if people don’t always submit to it.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:21 pm to Narax
100% for real. Please take the time to do a deep dive on John 6. The Eucharist is of utmost importance.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:23 pm to The Baker
Catholics and the Church of England martyred 50 million forefathers of modern day Baptist for 1500 years. Anyone who studies church history honestly would have to admit that. Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
So forgive us for our disdain for Catholicsm.
So forgive us for our disdain for Catholicsm.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:27 pm to METAL
quote:
Well stated.
Thanks
quote:
Although Jesus was and is very real.
We will have to agree to disagree, but that wasn’t the point of my post.
quote:
Plenty of great literature on it if you care to dive in out of interest.
You must not be aware of me or my history on this site. One of my pastimes is studying early Christian literature.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
Nice. Had no idea.
You don’t see evidence of Christ or God in your studies. Given your interest in the subject I’m sure you’ve thought/read a bit about objective moralism, metaphysics, etc.
Have to ask though… why the interest of its all a bunch of bologna?
You don’t see evidence of Christ or God in your studies. Given your interest in the subject I’m sure you’ve thought/read a bit about objective moralism, metaphysics, etc.
Have to ask though… why the interest of its all a bunch of bologna?
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:30 pm to High C
quote:
have no problem with Catholics or their beliefs, but this Pope needs to snap out of it.
Pope is gonna be around long after Trump…
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:31 pm to Bayoubred
That claim just doesn’t hold up historically. The “50 million” number from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is not taken seriously by modern historians, including Protestant ones. It’s a polemical work, not a reliable demographic record. There were real persecutions on all sides, and they were wrong, but inflating numbers like that doesn’t help the argument.
Also, the idea that modern Baptists existed in a continuous line for 1500 years isn’t supported by the historical record. Groups like the Waldensians or others had some overlapping beliefs, but they were not the same as modern Baptist theology. That connection gets asserted, not demonstrated.
Every side in Christian history has blood on its hands at some point. If that’s the standard, then no tradition stands. The issue isn’t who sinned, it’s where the fullness of the faith and authority Christ gave His Church actually resides.
Also, the idea that modern Baptists existed in a continuous line for 1500 years isn’t supported by the historical record. Groups like the Waldensians or others had some overlapping beliefs, but they were not the same as modern Baptist theology. That connection gets asserted, not demonstrated.
Every side in Christian history has blood on its hands at some point. If that’s the standard, then no tradition stands. The issue isn’t who sinned, it’s where the fullness of the faith and authority Christ gave His Church actually resides.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:37 pm to Bayoubred
quote:
Catholics and the Church of England martyred 50 million forefathers of modern day Baptist for 1500 years
quote:
Foxe's Book of Martyrs
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:44 pm to METAL
quote:
Also, the idea that modern Baptists existed in a continuous line for 1500 years isn’t supported by the historical record.
That’s never changed. Every other week there’s a new offshoot.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:45 pm to aubie101
Couldn’t imagine why Protestants might dislike Catholics.
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News