• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ex Cathedra

From the perspective of a Catholic, taking care of the poor is a secular issue?

No but infallibility has to do With statements that are official papal statements on dogma and morals.

So taking care of the poor is a religious issue, but if the pope says something on how they should, that's his opinion, not dogma or morals.
 
Same here...the whole "Transubstantiation" routine. I went to Catholic school from K-12, and, to this day I have friends that believe that some sort of supernatural event occurs at mass and we are eating the body of christ.

No..it is symbolism, just rites, nothing special happens. Priests are not better people than you, nor are cardinals or popes.
It is a political organization that rewards the best practitioners of group think and politicking.





Absolutely, you have hit the nail on the head.

The Catholic Church has done a lot of good things, it has also done just as many, or more, bad things.

I won't waste everyone's time by going through the list of all of the things that the Catholic Church is on the wrong side of for most Americans.
 
If it's all the same to you, I'm going to wait for one of the more scholarly practicing Catholics who post here to explain all this.

`
What a totally obtuse and useless thing to say, but coming from you, absolutely predictable. I'm actually waiting for a Catholic schooled in theology to critique my explanation. I'd be interested in knowing if I had any ecclesiastical flaws in my summation.

It's pretty much correct. Although I would note that John Paul II invoked infallibility in his declaration that women could not be ordained. Also, the Church as a whole is infallible, thus those doctrines which have been taught universally by the Church, are incapable of being in error,

Also, when the Pope is exercising his teaching authority (such as in an encyclical), Catholics are to adhere to the teachings, even though they are not strictly infallible.
 
It's all made up. Or rather, there's no basis for other than someone in the desert saying he heard god.

The Book of Mormon gives insight on "what is bound on earth is bound in heaven": https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/10?lang=eng The LDS believe there was a total apostasy after the NT apostles are killed and that there was no transfer of authority from Peter to a line of popes. That this authority was restored to the earth to the prophet Joseph Smith, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restoration of the New Testament church.
 
No but infallibility has to do With statements that are official papal statements on dogma and morals.

So taking care of the poor is a religious issue, but if the pope says something on how they should, that's his opinion, not dogma or morals.

Ok, that is different that what she said, but it is more self-consistent. Thank you for your answer.
 
AH, I was referring to an earlier chapter in Matthew - Matthew 16:18-20


8 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I was referring to Matthew 18:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18
 
Same here...the whole "Transubstantiation" routine. I went to Catholic school from K-12, and, to this day I have friends that believe that some sort of supernatural event occurs at mass and we are eating the body of christ.
No..it is symbolism, just rites, nothing special happens. Priests are not better people than you, nor are cardinals or popes. It is a political organization that rewards the best practitioners of group think and politicking.
`
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic
 
Ok so Peter was given grace and lost it so have all of us.
 
`
You would be quoting protestantism which believes in "Sola Scritpura" or by scripture alone does one gain something called eternal salvation. They rely mainly on the old testament. The catholics use "Sacread Tradition" and rely on the new testament. As both are wrong, in my estimation, it doesn't matter what you believe in. However, that does stop each group from claiming they are right and everyone else is wrong...even if they have to kill innocent people to prove it.

Ummmm... I don't know if this has already been pointed out but that is not the rule or even an exception. Both use old and new testaments equally. I was raised a Catholic and was Baptist as well as 7 day Adventist so... The differences is the Pope can add or subtract biblical laws and protestants don't and take them directly from the bible without additions or change.

PS I am no expert on Catholicism. But again I saw no real difference as far as OT, NT use in teaching outside of the changes made by the Catholic churches decrees.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm... I don't know if this has already been pointed out but that is not the rule or even an exception. Both use old and new testaments equally. I was raised a Catholic and was Baptist as well as 7 day Adventist so... 1) The differences is the Pope can add or subtract biblical laws and protestants don't and take them directly from the bible without additions or change. 2) PS I am no expert on Catholicism. But again I saw no real difference as far as OT, NT use in teaching outside of the changes made by the Catholic churches decrees.
`
1) Not without the complete approval of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A pope cant change a thing by his own authority.

2) The Catholic theology depends on "Sacred tradition" which is solely based on the NT.

PS - I'm no catholic or theologian. I only know what I have learned.

`
 
`
1) Not without the complete approval of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A pope cant change a thing by his own authority.

2) The Catholic theology depends on "Sacred tradition" which is solely based on the NT.

PS - I'm no catholic or theologian. I only know what I have learned.

`

1. That is correct but kind of Irrelevant. They are able to make changes, the approval has nothing to do with my point?

2. True. But it is not the sum of what they teach which is what I am referring to.

PS: I know the Bible well... When it comes to different religions I am sort of a jack of all trades and master of none, lol!
 
`
1. That is correct but kind of Irrelevant. They are able to make changes, the approval has nothing to do with my point?
2. True. But it is not the sum of what they teach which is what I am referring to. PS: I know the Bible well... When it comes to different religions I am sort of a jack of all trades and master of none, lol!

`
1) I'm sorry you don't like facts. No Pope can add or subtract biblical laws nor make any ecclesiastical changes by himself without following Catholic procedure.

2) How would I know? Like I said, I'm not a theologian. I just know the procedures.
 
`1) I'm sorry you don't like facts. No Pope can add or subtract biblical laws nor make any ecclesiastical changes by himself without following Catholic procedure.


I am sorry you don't like reading what I said and getting all self righteous for something that was in no way an attack or insult. That is irrelevant to my point. My point is it can be done. Is that simple enough for you to understand now?

2) How would I know? Like I said, I'm not a theologian. I just know the procedures.

Go back and read my post without the chip on your shoulder. Then you might actually see what I said and understand it. :doh
 
I am sorry you don't like reading what I said and getting all self righteous for something that was in no way an attack or insult. That is irrelevant to my point. My point is it can be done. Is that simple enough for you to understand now?Go back and read my post without the chip on your shoulder. Then you might actually see what I said and understand it. :doh
`
When you learn to ask a question, using proper English, in a clear and concise manner, maybe I will not need to be so sarcastic.
 
`
When you learn to ask a question, using proper English, in a clear and concise manner, maybe I will not need to be so sarcastic.

So intellectually dishonest as well. I did not ask you a question.
 
Back
Top Bottom