re: Trump rips Pope Leo a new one

quote:

---

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.

---

An institution that executed, and waged war on, people for disagreeing with their teachings (heretics) has no room to lecture other institutions who do likewise.

quote:

---

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.

---

And you're talking abut my "utter ignorance"??? When have we Christians ever remotely suggested that our Congress is infallible in the eyes of God? In your utterly ignorant response, this is perhaps your dumbest point.

quote:

---

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.

---

Tell you what...show me where in the Bible it says that (a) there is a Pope, and (b) there is a "Bishop of Rome", then you can come back and engage in an intelligent conversation.

Keep in mind that Catholic tradition counts for nothing in this conversation. The Bible teaches that it is all sufficient. II Tim. 3:16..." That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

quote:

---

It becomes a closed matter when the Pope speaks ex cathedra or "from the Chair" and the Pope has done that only 2 X.

---

Again, you demonstrate the nonsense of Catholic teaching. Who, pray tell, gets to decide when the Pope gets to speak ex cathedra? Why, the Pope, of course!!

By the way...one of those two ex cathedra statements that you mentioned? The claim that Mary ascended into Heaven without dying. Again, something that is not mentioned in the Bible and that there is zero evidence for...yet when the Pope says "I'm speaking ex cathedra here, so it has to be true" all Christianty must believe him. It's pure nonsense and fantasy.

That argument just shifts the standard instead of answering it. If past sins disqualify the Church from speaking on morality, then the same standard would apply to every group, including Protestants and even individuals appealing to Scripture. You don’t actually believe that, because you still make moral claims. So the issue isn’t whether failures happened, it’s whether they invalidate the truth being taught.

You’re also collapsing important distinctions. The Church’s authority isn’t based on every action Christians have taken throughout history. It’s based on what Christ established. When Christians act wrongly, they are contradicting that teaching, not disproving it. Otherwise, Peter’s denial or David’s sins would invalidate their authority too.

And on the Crusades, reducing them to “wars over disagreement” just isn’t historically accurate. They came after centuries of Islamic expansion, conquest of Christian lands, and restricted access to holy sites, along with direct appeals from the East for help. You can debate how they were carried out, but framing them as unprovoked aggression or mere doctrinal enforcement ignores the broader context entirely.

At the end of the day, saying the Church has “no room to speak” only works if truth depends on the speaker’s perfection. It doesn’t. A sinner can still speak truth, and a hypocrite can still identify error. The real question is whether the teaching itself is true, not whether every Christian has lived it perfectly.

It's better than having yourself to interpret what the Bible scripture means which is what Evangelicals and Oentecostals effectively do. You guys decide on a whim what your dogma should be and change it regularly and allow for local independent interpretation, so if a part of scripture is inconvenient, well you just get a vote of a few elders, etc. to redefine to popular belief. You don't really have a dogma . Your theology is fragmented following varied traditions . You guys are all over the place.

Just admit that you hate the idea of a Pope and aPapacy because it's too inconvenient and you'd rather have a pastor following a 150 year old tradition that allows him and by extension , you to handle interpretation on your own. You want to be the landlord of the truth and you'll be damned if anyone tells you that you are in error for adopting that stance.

Fire away, tell me I'm stupid, it usually means I hit the mark where you live. How's that energetic music?