- 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: Trump rips Pope Leo a new one
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:56 am to TulsaSooner78
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:56 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican
Does that mean Trump rigged it?
1
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:12 am to AUCom96
quote:Lots of neo-converts on this board.
the MAGA voters who are honest with themselves and not becoming born-again neo-cons
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:12 am to onepiecemayne
quote:
Does that mean Trump rigged it?
No. This is what Trump said:
quote:
He was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:16 am to SloaneRanger
The pope is a just a man with bad political takes
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:16 am to KiwiHead
quote:No. It most certainly would not be disingenuous. If Leo opens his trap about politics, he should damn well be ready to get it slapped shut.
But it would be disingenuous to say that Leo shouldn't comment.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:18 am to TheDeathValley
quote:
Pope Francis and Pope Leo were very close.
So he’s a full on commie?
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Clerics need to stand clear of politics
Says who?
quote:
I do not want to hear a word out of a religious service about Trump, pro or con.
I've heard a lot of priests talk about the evil people in our government pushing abortion. It's a good reminder of who we're fighting against and I hope it continues.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:24 am to METAL
quote:
Christ gives Peter a unique role, the keys, the authority to bind and loose, and the task of strengthening the brethren.
Protestants believe that the rock, referred to in the scripture, was the confession itself, not Peter. If he had meant Peter, he would have said "Upon YOU I will build my church." He didn't say that, though, did he? Also, Paul calling Peter out for his hypocrisy and refusing to eat with Gentiles throws water on the notion that Peter had some special role, like what you give your Pope, and certainly blows the concept of papal infallibility out of the water. Actually, one could argue that Paul ultimately had greater influence than Peter. Also, the idea that one Pope can issue a statement on an issue and a later Pope might go in different direction again, shoots down the notion of papal infallibility.
quote:
Second, saying the papacy isn’t biblical doesn’t really hold up. Christ gives Peter a unique role...
The papacy isn't Biblical, because nowhere in the Bible is this role mentioned. In contrast, the Bible mentions elders and deacons. Those roles are defined.
Finally, in addition to all the above, Pope Urban II completely destroys your argument. What "moral teaching" did he apply when he pushed the first Crusade, when 100,000 died? In fact, his words sound like something an Islamic mullah would say today, minus the seventy-two virgins:
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."
This is wrong on so may levels. But just for starters, multiple passages in the Bible teach that only God can forgive sins. Yet here is the Pope claiming to have that power.
Eugene III did the same thing with the Second Crusade...offering indulgences to those who fought.
The notion of a Pope is utterly antithetical to Biblical teaching. To claim otherwise, if you are honest with yourself, you have to square your beliefs with Urban II's words and actions. Because remember...you believe he was infallible. He not only sent people off to die in war to control the Holy Lands, he also promised them forgiveness of sins if they did. There is nothing even remotely Biblical about that.
The fact that those events happened a thousand years ago makes them no less relevant. If Urban and Eugene were not Biblical in these practices, the entire concept of a papacy now and forever is not Biblical as well.
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 9:30 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:27 am to NC_Tigah
Exactly! Play with the big boys, be ready for the consequences and don't hide behind the religious garb!
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:27 am to NC_Tigah
So it comes down to that you saw it as an attack on your lord and savior, Donald J. Trump?
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:31 am to Sp0728
It might help you to remember that 'the church' is not one that everyone here worships in.
It's an institution whose head has decided to play in the geopolitical arena. Well then, prepare for the rotten eggs and tomatoes to be thrown and be a big boy not a whining fool.
It's an institution whose head has decided to play in the geopolitical arena. Well then, prepare for the rotten eggs and tomatoes to be thrown and be a big boy not a whining fool.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:43 am to TulsaSooner78
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:49 am to BamaGradinTn
This notion of Papal infalliabilty spouted by non Catholics about all things a Pope says shows your utter ignorance about the infalliability issue. It becomes a closed matter when the Pope speaks ex cathedra or "from the Chair" and the Pope has done that only 2 X.
You do realize that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
So by your own words the Bible does provide for him, in fact, you could say that in reality, the first Pope was James in Jerusalem since all things flowed through him in the beginning. Paul doesn't go to see Peter, primarily, he goes to see and speak with James. There's always been a notion of hierarchy in the Church.
No one says the institution is infalliable. If it is populated by man, it is imperfect. History has shown Urban to have been wrong as well as Eugene along with other Popes. But, then history has shown that other institutions have flaws populated by flawed men, whether thar be the Roman Senate, British Parliament or our own Congress.
Popes merely have the recognized authority as understood by the Cardinals that elected him to speak on matters in a definitive but not infallible sense. That authority is recognized by those below down to a Brother teaching at a college in Minnesota
You do realize that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
So by your own words the Bible does provide for him, in fact, you could say that in reality, the first Pope was James in Jerusalem since all things flowed through him in the beginning. Paul doesn't go to see Peter, primarily, he goes to see and speak with James. There's always been a notion of hierarchy in the Church.
No one says the institution is infalliable. If it is populated by man, it is imperfect. History has shown Urban to have been wrong as well as Eugene along with other Popes. But, then history has shown that other institutions have flaws populated by flawed men, whether thar be the Roman Senate, British Parliament or our own Congress.
Popes merely have the recognized authority as understood by the Cardinals that elected him to speak on matters in a definitive but not infallible sense. That authority is recognized by those below down to a Brother teaching at a college in Minnesota
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:49 am to blueboxer1119
That assumes the Pope’s job is to publicly comment on every allegation or scandal involving every politician, which just isn’t realistic or even wise. The Church teaches moral principles consistently, and those principles apply to everyone, whether or not a specific name is mentioned in a headline.
Also, not everything you listed is equally clear, verified, or even appropriate for public commentary. There’s a difference between addressing broad moral issues that affect society and jumping into every individual accusation or controversy. Silence on a specific case doesn’t mean approval, it usually means the Church is speaking at the level of principle rather than playing media referee.
And to your last point, yes, the Pope chooses when to speak publicly on issues, just like any leader does. That doesn’t mean he’s being inconsistent, it means he’s applying judgment about when a situation requires a universal moral statement versus when the teaching already given is sufficient.
Also, not everything you listed is equally clear, verified, or even appropriate for public commentary. There’s a difference between addressing broad moral issues that affect society and jumping into every individual accusation or controversy. Silence on a specific case doesn’t mean approval, it usually means the Church is speaking at the level of principle rather than playing media referee.
And to your last point, yes, the Pope chooses when to speak publicly on issues, just like any leader does. That doesn’t mean he’s being inconsistent, it means he’s applying judgment about when a situation requires a universal moral statement versus when the teaching already given is sufficient.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:56 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
Truly a pathetic man and I hope he dies in prison
Wishing prison on someone who hasn't committed a crime simply because you disagree with him isn't unhinged at all.
You people truly are emotional toddlers. I would suggest a little self-reflection, but that would require a level of maturity and stability you don't possess.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:57 am to TulsaSooner78
That logic doesn’t really hold. If moral failure disqualifies you from speaking truth, then no individual or group could ever speak on morality, because everyone has failed in some way. The truth of a moral claim doesn’t depend on the perfection of the person making it.
Also, the Church doesn’t claim authority because its members are sinless. It claims authority based on what Christ established. The failures of Christians, even serious ones, are betrayals of that teaching, not proof that the teaching itself is false.
And on the “glass houses” point, if anything, past failures make moral teaching more necessary, not less. The answer to sin isn’t silence, it’s repentance and a clearer adherence to the truth. Otherwise you end up saying no one can call anything wrong, which collapses morality altogether.
Also, the Church doesn’t claim authority because its members are sinless. It claims authority based on what Christ established. The failures of Christians, even serious ones, are betrayals of that teaching, not proof that the teaching itself is false.
And on the “glass houses” point, if anything, past failures make moral teaching more necessary, not less. The answer to sin isn’t silence, it’s repentance and a clearer adherence to the truth. Otherwise you end up saying no one can call anything wrong, which collapses morality altogether.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 10:03 am to BamaGradinTn
You’re reading Matthew 16 too narrowly. Jesus doesn’t just praise a confession, He literally renames Simon to Peter and gives him the keys, which in Isaiah 22 is a symbol of office and authority, not just a statement of belief. And even if you say the “rock” is the confession, Peter is still the one singled out to receive the keys and the charge to strengthen the brethren. When God renames you it’s indicative of a big change not a fun play on words. Paul correcting Peter in Galatians proves Peter could sin, not that he lacked authority. Catholics don’t claim popes are impeccable, only that they are protected from formally teaching error under specific conditions.
On the papacy being “nowhere in the Bible,” the word isn’t there, but the concept is. Like many things you believe as a Christian… The early Church clearly had structured authority, and Peter is consistently prominent in Acts. Elders and deacons exist, sure, but that doesn’t exclude a primacy among the apostles any more than having officers excludes a commander.
On indulgences and Urban II, you’re conflating categories. The Church has always taught that God alone forgives sins, but Christ also gave the apostles authority to forgive in His name. Indulgences aren’t “the pope personally forgiving sins,” they’re the application of the Church’s authority to bind and loose regarding temporal consequences of sin. You can argue abuse or poor application, but abuse of something doesn’t disprove its existence or legitimacy.
And the Crusades don’t “destroy” the papacy any more than David’s sins destroy kingship or Peter’s denial destroys apostolic authority. Historical failures raise questions about prudence and judgment, not whether Christ established an office. If your standard is that any sinful or controversial action invalidates an office, then every biblical leader would fail that test too.
On the papacy being “nowhere in the Bible,” the word isn’t there, but the concept is. Like many things you believe as a Christian… The early Church clearly had structured authority, and Peter is consistently prominent in Acts. Elders and deacons exist, sure, but that doesn’t exclude a primacy among the apostles any more than having officers excludes a commander.
On indulgences and Urban II, you’re conflating categories. The Church has always taught that God alone forgives sins, but Christ also gave the apostles authority to forgive in His name. Indulgences aren’t “the pope personally forgiving sins,” they’re the application of the Church’s authority to bind and loose regarding temporal consequences of sin. You can argue abuse or poor application, but abuse of something doesn’t disprove its existence or legitimacy.
And the Crusades don’t “destroy” the papacy any more than David’s sins destroy kingship or Peter’s denial destroys apostolic authority. Historical failures raise questions about prudence and judgment, not whether Christ established an office. If your standard is that any sinful or controversial action invalidates an office, then every biblical leader would fail that test too.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 10:37 am to KiwiHead
quote:Correct. It's crazy how misunderstood this is by protestants. So much it seems intentional.
This notion of Papal infalliabilty spouted by non Catholics about all things a Pope says shows your utter ignorance about the infalliability issue. It becomes a closed matter when the Pope speaks ex cathedra or "from the Chair" and the Pope has done that only 2 X.
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 10:38 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 10:44 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
It's an institution whose head has decided to play in the geopolitical arena.
He's not the first. Popes have played the role of kingmaker for almost the entire history of the RCC.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News