Yes I have no problem with any of that. The issue comes in when I use words colloquially that also have a definition in the church so if I have been confusing I apologize. I usually try to capitalize words when I am referring to something official

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

The death penalty is clearly and frequently mentioned in scripture, it is also warned against in scripture by God the Father, and God the Son himself intervenes where it would have occurred had he not done so.

If you are trying to make a case that the Church itself does not rely on scripture alone but rather on the Magesterium of the Church then yes I agree with you. The Church is the living body of Christ. It exists to teach, and as new moral questions come up (such as fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, global warming, the death penalty) it will provide guidance on them which may be different than in previous centuries.

Pope St.John Paul II, in Envagelium Vitae noted that the societal risks from murderers escaping were no longer the threat they were in the past due to improvements in the penal system, and as such the Death Penalty would only be needed in extreme cases. Since that time as the risk of escape has proved less and less likely, the penalty has been seen as less and less necessary.

---

Respectfully, you've not painstakingly picked anything apart or shown incorrect.

What I hand waved is talk of nuclear proliferation or fossil fuels. That is you attempting to make a parallel argument that is not relevant.

What is clear is that Rome has claimed a council to be Ecumenical that condemned a person who disagreed with them to be burned at the stake. What's clear is a Pope said in very official language that he confirmed Constance was correct and he "could not condemn That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

What's also clear is that Rome can't even keep straight what are the infallible declarations. I believe it was Trent Horn who admitted they you have a fallible definition of infallible statements. Or said differently, Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures.

But as I said at the beginning, nothing here is particularly surprising. We didn't need to have this back and forth since we knew where it would end.

Ok I'm watching football and baseball and don't want to have to think anyway

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

It is even more comical given the fall out with the East regarding the two Ex Cathedra statements that were made.

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

I thought that the overall trend is that more Catholics are converting to Protestantism than vice versa?

Jabin said:

---

I thought that the overall trend is that more Catholics are converting to Protestantism than vice versa?

---

Many self-professed heterodox Catholics are leaving the Church for atheism or Protestantism as our world slouches to Gomorrah, however there is a huge influx of former Protestant/Anglican pastors/clergy into the Apostolic Churches.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

---

Are you really going to pretend you don't know who Trent Horn, of Catholic Answers is?

Dies Irae said:

---

Jabin said:

---

I thought that the overall trend is that more Catholics are converting to Protestantism than vice versa?

---

Many self-professed heterodox Catholics are leaving the Church for atheism or Protestantism as our world slouches to Gomorrah, however there is a huge influx of former Protestant/Anglican pastors/clergy into the Apostolic Churches.

---

Ah, That's the problem. If they leave the Rome, they are heterodox and headed for Gomorrah.

If they go to Rome, they are living saints...

And it's all anecdotal.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

---

Are you really going to pretend you don't know who Trent Horn, of Catholic Answers is?

---

Yes, I've never heard of him. However, if I had I would assume he is not infallible, and is able to make mistakes. As I mentioned above, if he said what you have relayed, he is mistaken.

The Popes have issued two ex Cathedra statements in their entirety. They both concern the Blessed Virgin Mary, and both were issued to remove confusion. The statements put a further rift between Catholicism and the Orthodox due to the differing points of view of the nature of Original Sin, so your "the church doesn't make infallible statements so it doesn't risk being wrong" comment was laughable.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Jabin said:

---

I thought that the overall trend is that more Catholics are converting to Protestantism than vice versa?

---

Many self-professed heterodox Catholics are leaving the Church for atheism or Protestantism as our world slouches to Gomorrah, however there is a huge influx of former Protestant/Anglican pastors/clergy into the Apostolic Churches.

---

Ah, That's the problem. If they leave the Rome, they are heterodox and headed for Gomorrah.

If they go to Rome, they are living saints...

And it's all anecdotal.

---

What's anecdotal? The fact that multiple Anglican Bishops and Protestant pastors have become Catholic recently? I can prove all those if you like. Do you have any info regarding Catholic pastors becoming Protestant? You can find some becoming Orthodox, but not Protestant.

Catholic Answers is show about apologetics. If that is your sole source, that's unfortunate. Well meaning, but last I checked, were not part of the Magisterium.

+++

This comment about papal infallibility is another example of folks "googling" a topic instead of authentic research. The echo chambers pay to have their content bubble up to the top so it takes more effort to discover the truth. This is why I try to stay in my wheel house. I'm still reading Aquinas, have been for years. I'm still working my way through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, documents on Vatican II, and a few other topics about my faith.

Where do y'all find the time to master your faith walk and throw stones at mine? I don't get it.

I'm not going to resolve the particular conflicts that I see in history, in theological debates, in source material, or between/among heavily credentialed experts that share submission to this or that Christian "ism". Catholic Answers seems to give it a good faith try wherever they can, but I've seen plenty of bad faith anti-Catholics do a pretty good job of picking apart their answers too. All that to say, they are serving a needed role in a world where gobs of very specific information has more or less suddenly become available at the fingertips of people that are trying to reconcile it all to the paradigm that the RCC has established.

The folks behind CA seem informed my prior post in this thread. They seem highly sympathetic to the TLM and also extremely frustrated by the doctrinal confusion that Francis' pontificate has brought around all the headline issues of modernity that they literally built an apostolate to address.

Not from CA, but on point with what the folks at CA have to deal with regarding doctrine and the Church:

Quote:

---

Pope Francis oversees a curia where the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality claims the Church's teaching about homosexual acts is "false," where the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life endorses a book that calls for a complete reversal of the Church's teaching on contraception, and where the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith espouses an openness to blessings for same-sex couplesto name just a few recent examples of churchmen flatly opposing the authentic development espoused by the Holy Father. Meanwhile, Francis gives the Germans freedom to push heretical positions. And yet somehow, he brands as "backwards" the Catholics who dislike it when high-ranking Vatican prelates bandy about serious errors.

---

Why Does the Pope Dislike Me? | Jayd Henricks | First Things

So, the informed laity in the American church engages in the faith as best it can to be a resource to a sick culture looking for a way through the muck via tradition and scripture, and the Pope says "shut up and be synodal". It seems to me very pre-VII, just "stop thinking things through, do what Rome tells you, and stop asking questions, much less answering them."

I've said here before, I'm a very poorly Roman Roman Catholic. I didn't grow up in the RCC, I have no familial roots in it, but the ancient faith of the Apostles and the genuine search for continuity with that church that Christ set up in this world that I have seen within the RCC is compelling.

The naked appeal to authority of the Pope and the internet debate about the nature, extent, historicity, application and invocation of that authority is, well, less compelling, whoever is actually correct.

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

I think this is the same as "the Bible has eleventy billion differences through the history of it being copied" only to find out that it's just different spellings of words and no important facts were effected.

Just because scholars can't agree if this statement or that statement was infallible doesn't mean they don't agree on the majority of them. In addition, they would all agree the actual amount of papal statements is going to pale in comparison to infallible teachings through councils and tradition. It's nitpicking in practice. Take the death penalty. As I said earlier, the church has reversed course on the prudence in using the death penalty, not the morality of it. So what you see as a reversal is basically the same as changing the marriage status of or years, as Dies has pointed out.

And I think trent horn is great, but everyone can make Mistakes. He's posited he's open to the argument the death penalty is inherently evil, or at least he said so years ago. This is insanely stupid as it means God commanded evil. Just because he often does a great job doesn't mean he bats 1.000.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

---

Are you really going to pretend you don't know who Trent Horn, of Catholic Answers is?

---

Yes, I've never heard of him. However, if I had I would assume he is not infallible, and is able to make mistakes. As I mentioned above, if he said what you have relayed, he is mistaken.

The Popes have issued two ex Cathedra statements in their entirety. They both concern the Blessed Virgin Mary, and both were issued to remove confusion. The statements put a further rift between Catholicism and the Orthodox due to the differing points of view of the nature of Original Sin, so your "the church doesn't make infallible statements so it doesn't risk being wrong" comment was laughable.

---

It's not laughable. In the Mary thread, not that long ago, Rome defenders were trying to hand wave away this very difference.

I do enjoy when you have to argue with your own scholars though.

PabloSerna said:

---

Catholic Answers is show about apologetics. If that is your sole source, that's unfortunate. Well meaning, but last I checked, were not part of the Magisterium.

+++

This comment about papal infallibility is another example of folks "googling" a topic instead of authentic research. The echo chambers pay to have their content bubble up to the top so it takes more effort to discover the truth. This is why I try to stay in my wheel house. I'm still reading Aquinas, have been for years. I'm still working my way through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, documents on Vatican II, and a few other topics about my faith.

Where do y'all find the time to master your faith walk and throw stones at mine? I don't get it.

---

First, where did I say that Catholic Answers was my only source? It was used as an example. I do find it interesting how often apologists that are supposedly defenders of the faith seem to be getting it wrong. Almost Rome isn't such a continuous church, but instead one that changes with the times.

----------------
As for your last comment, if you don't like discussion Christianity and the historical claims of various groups, why are you on this forum or this thread? It seems you desire to reside in a Roman Catholic echo chamber where your simply affirmed for what you believe.

That doesn't seem to fit with Peter saying we need to be prepared to make a defense (apology) of our faith.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

---

Are you really going to pretend you don't know who Trent Horn, of Catholic Answers is?

---

Yes, I've never heard of him. However, if I had I would assume he is not infallible, and is able to make mistakes. As I mentioned above, if he said what you have relayed, he is mistaken.

The Popes have issued two ex Cathedra statements in their entirety. They both concern the Blessed Virgin Mary, and both were issued to remove confusion. The statements put a further rift between Catholicism and the Orthodox due to the differing points of view of the nature of Original Sin, so your "the church doesn't make infallible statements so it doesn't risk being wrong" comment was laughable.

---

It's not laughable. In the Mary thread, not that long ago, Rome defenders were trying to hand wave away this very difference.

I do enjoy when you have to argue with your own scholars though.

---

Is "this other Mary thread, not that long ago" the R&P equivalent of "I have a girlfriend but she goes to a different school"?

What is it about the Catholic Church that you think talking heads can't be mistaken? Do you know nothing of Church history? 90% of the bishops can fall under the siren song of Arianism but one Trent Horn can't misspeak on a podcast?

---

I'm sorry? It's on this forum, probably on the first page or 2....Sorry you're afraid to find it?


Correction..it's 15 posts down from the top...Real tough to find.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

I think this is the same as "the Bible has eleventy billion differences through the history of it being copied" only to find out that it's just different spellings of words and no important facts were effected.

Just because scholars can't agree if this statement or that statement was infallible doesn't mean they don't agree on the majority of them. In addition, they would all agree the actual amount of papal statements is going to pale in comparison to infallible teachings through councils and tradition. It's nitpicking in practice. Take the death penalty. As I said earlier, the church has reversed course on the prudence in using the death penalty, not the morality of it. So what you see as a reversal is basically the same as changing the marriage status of or years, as Dies has pointed out.

And I think trent horn is great, but everyone can make Mistakes. He's posited he's open to the argument the death penalty is inherently evil, or at least he said so years ago. This is insanely stupid as it means God commanded evil. Just because he often does a great job doesn't mean he bats 1.000.

---

These are infallible statements that, if I'm not mistaken, must be believed to be part of the "one true church." To take the position you proposed is even more concerning because it would throw all things into doubt. The supposed infallible magisterium should easily be able to confirm exactly what is from God and what's opinion. Seems odd for there to even be a considered debate.

But here's the problem, and what started all of this.

Rome calls a council that put a man to death an Ecumenical Council. Exsurge Domine confirmed this view was the correct view of it.

So when Dies Irae said that Rome is against the death penalty, that flies against most of Rome's own history (Ed Feser gives a lengthy history below).

And it's not just Trent Horn

Ed Feser a decent theologian? He makes the explicit case, that the death penalty had been infallibly defined and that looking at the timeline, it fits the definition of infallibility.

Link: Link

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

Yes, this is why you see everyone researching the faith and leaving the Catholic Church to join Protestantism except the opposite is happening.

When people want awesome concerts and to hear how awesome they are they become Protestant, when they want the fullness of truth they become Protestant.

I consider myself fairly Catholic and have no idea who Trent Horn is, please relay to him "you are wrong" from me.

There are two ex Cathedra statements made in all of history. If Trent horn says differently he is wrong.

This is not to say whoever Trent horn is, he's a bad guy. He's just wrong

---

Strawman arguments aren't particularly good.

I can go to Roman Catholic Churches and see the every single one of the bad aspects of Protestantism. From rock concerts to blessing gay marriages.

---

Did Trent Horn tell you this? Is he in the room with us right now?

---

Are you really going to pretend you don't know who Trent Horn, of Catholic Answers is?

---

Yes, I've never heard of him. However, if I had I would assume he is not infallible, and is able to make mistakes. As I mentioned above, if he said what you have relayed, he is mistaken.

The Popes have issued two ex Cathedra statements in their entirety. They both concern the Blessed Virgin Mary, and both were issued to remove confusion. The statements put a further rift between Catholicism and the Orthodox due to the differing points of view of the nature of Original Sin, so your "the church doesn't make infallible statements so it doesn't risk being wrong" comment was laughable.

---

It's not laughable. In the Mary thread, not that long ago, Rome defenders were trying to hand wave away this very difference.

I do enjoy when you have to argue with your own scholars though.

---

Is "this other Mary thread, not that long ago" the R&P equivalent of "I have a girlfriend but she goes to a different school"?

What is it about the Catholic Church that you think talking heads can't be mistaken? Do you know nothing of Church history? 90% of the bishops can fall under the siren song of Arianism but one Trent Horn can't misspeak on a podcast?

---

I'm sorry? It's on this forum, probably on the first page or 2....Sorry you're afraid to find it?


Correction..it's 15 posts down from the top...Real tough to find.

---

Absolutely petrified to see what's on there, I don't know if I could bear to see Catholic message board posters opining on matters of faith. What is it about the infallible nature of the Body of Christ that presupposed slavish adherence bereft of introspection?

The entire back and forth on the death penalty is a fraction of the hubbub that existed before the infallible statements on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; this situation necessitated an ex Cathedra statement, if the Death penalty question continues to stew it might rise to such a situation but likely not as it's not a core item of faith but more of an application of a core item of faith, that all life is sacred and should be preserved IF POSSIBLE.

We already know that it is not always wrong to kill people, the principe of Double Effect and Augustinian Just War theory speak to situations where it is morally permissible. The Death penalty is just an application of that principle. I'm sure Feser is a good guy, he's an Associate Prof at Pasadena City College, his article seems like he's complaining the Pope is confusing people about the Death Penalty. That may be the case but the Popes musings aren't infallible.

Just to summarize..

Rome apologists are wrong because they don't know better. You know better.

Other Roman Catholics are wrong in what they believe. You know better.

Are you the actual magisterium? Infallible?

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Just to summarize..

Rome apologists are wrong because they don't know better. You know better.

Other Roman Catholics are wrong in what they believe. You know better.

Are you the actual magisterium? Infallible?

---

I am every bit as infallible as Trent Horn and Edward Feser, as is any random Catholic twitter armchair theologian. I'm not even saying they're wrong, I'm saying they're not claiming what you're claiming. You don't understand the mechanisms of the Catholic Church or how things actually get done in Christianity.

What you did with St Jerome and the apocrypha you're now doing with random Catholic journalists and philosophers. Picking and chosing personal opinions and using them as some sort of "gotcha" against the Magesterium.

You can go through the entire History of the Church and find Holy people pontificating, insulting, lying, and philosophizing on numerous different articles and artifacts of faith. Our Saints unlike Luther didn't think their indigestion dreams gave them the authority to invent new religions.

---

I was joking.

What I pointed out with Jerome, and I'm point out here, is that history is messy and in many respects, it will not align with the modern Post Trent Roman Catholic Church.

You talk about picking and choosing opinions, and yet that's exactly what you do. Only you hide it behind "the magisterium."

I could go through history, as Feser did and show why he believes the death Penalty was infallible defined, or I could keep it simple and say that in an Ecumenical Council, there is absolute support of the death penalty for heretics, that was confirmed by a second Pope.

That's my entire argument.

So for Francis to now say Rome is against the death penalty is to say an Ecumenical Council got it wrong. I find that pretty interesting to consider because of the implications.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

I think this is the same as "the Bible has eleventy billion differences through the history of it being copied" only to find out that it's just different spellings of words and no important facts were effected.

Just because scholars can't agree if this statement or that statement was infallible doesn't mean they don't agree on the majority of them. In addition, they would all agree the actual amount of papal statements is going to pale in comparison to infallible teachings through councils and tradition. It's nitpicking in practice. Take the death penalty. As I said earlier, the church has reversed course on the prudence in using the death penalty, not the morality of it. So what you see as a reversal is basically the same as changing the marriage status of or years, as Dies has pointed out.

And I think trent horn is great, but everyone can make Mistakes. He's posited he's open to the argument the death penalty is inherently evil, or at least he said so years ago. This is insanely stupid as it means God commanded evil. Just because he often does a great job doesn't mean he bats 1.000.

---

These are infallible statements that, if I'm not mistaken, must be believed to be part of the "one true church." To take the position you proposed is even more concerning because it would throw all things into doubt. The supposed infallible magisterium should easily be able to confirm exactly what is from God and what's opinion. Seems odd for there to even be a considered debate.

But here's the problem, and what started all of this.

Rome calls a council that put a man to death an Ecumenical Council. Exsurge Domine confirmed this view was the correct view of it.

So when Dies Irae said that Rome is against the death penalty, that flies against most of Rome's own history (Ed Feser gives a lengthy history below).

And it's not just Trent Horn

Ed Feser a decent theologian? He makes the explicit case, that the death penalty had been infallibly defined and that looking at the timeline, it fits the definition of infallibility.

Link: Link

---

I don't think you're making the point you intend to. I don't know much about disagreement on what we infallibly teach as a church. The debate amongst Catholics you noted is on the number of ex cathedra statements. That's very different than inspecting a church teaching and determining if that was infallibly defined or not. I did word that poorly before. I do not believe there is a great debate on what is infallibly defined. I do believe there is debate on whether a certain papal statement was ex cathedral or not

I had an exchange with Dies earlier, where he stated he used the terms loosely, so I'm not going to mail him to a wall for it. I agree with faser: the church has infallibly defined the death penalty is in line with natural and divine law. When Dies says the Church is "against" the death penalty, he is saying the current prudential judgement of the Church is that we have better ways of meeting our Justice right now. The Church can easily be wrong about this discipline. I'm not worried about that. What would worry me would be the Church saying the death penalty is immoral or something that actually changes Church teaching.

Here's another example: the Church has long taught on the goodness of fasting. It still holds those same beliefs. However, the Church has relaxed MANDATORY fasting quite a bit. The church hasn't changed it teachings on fasting, just it's disciplines on fasting (which I also think is a bad idea).

---

I'm not sure your example works.

If I look at the components, you're saying fasting itself is good.
The mandatory (legalistic) aspect of it is not good

So paralleling that to the death penalty, are you saying:

The death penalty itself is good
The mandatory use of it is not good?

I don't think that's the argument Dies is making.

There's a confusion in the faith as one experiences it and how an apologist or Magisterium may define, debate, codify, enforce any one doctrine in particular. I think this dynamic drives a lot of the ability to talk past each other as Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox etc.

I've heard very good apologists make statements that I can't square and waive off arguments with obvious oversimplifications, but in totality, I know I still won't understand theology as well as they do unless I dedicate my time to that study and turn out to be a better student than I think I am capable of being.

Faith is still a mystery. While our divisions are unfortunate, they are part of God's plan. You look through history for answers as to why they happened and try to solve for who is/was right, but I think we're as likely to have our own cultural biases and direct experiences push us to a conclusion as we are anything that could win a debate.

At least that's where I have found myself lately. It's a squishy, unsatisfying middle way that may just be justifying itself via my own biases. I am certainly not immune.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"... Rome has no idea what's infallible because they aren't going to risk being wrong. It's a part of the challenge when you rely on man and not the Scriptures."

+++

I used to think you were just uninformed, but now I think you are seriously uninformed.

---

Unfortunately, I'm not uninformed and that's the problem. It becomes near impossible to hold to the claims of Rome today when you know history.

I think Newman got it backwards and the reality is, to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic."

As I said, it was Trent Horn in his debate with Gavin Ortlund, who acknowledged that theologians debate how many instances of papal infalliblity have been defined.

His exact words are there "there is no fixed number of sacred traditions or infallible papal pronouncements that everyone agrees upon..."

---

I think this is the same as "the Bible has eleventy billion differences through the history of it being copied" only to find out that it's just different spellings of words and no important facts were effected.

Just because scholars can't agree if this statement or that statement was infallible doesn't mean they don't agree on the majority of them. In addition, they would all agree the actual amount of papal statements is going to pale in comparison to infallible teachings through councils and tradition. It's nitpicking in practice. Take the death penalty. As I said earlier, the church has reversed course on the prudence in using the death penalty, not the morality of it. So what you see as a reversal is basically the same as changing the marriage status of or years, as Dies has pointed out.

And I think trent horn is great, but everyone can make Mistakes. He's posited he's open to the argument the death penalty is inherently evil, or at least he said so years ago. This is insanely stupid as it means God commanded evil. Just because he often does a great job doesn't mean he bats 1.000.

---

These are infallible statements that, if I'm not mistaken, must be believed to be part of the "one true church." To take the position you proposed is even more concerning because it would throw all things into doubt. The supposed infallible magisterium should easily be able to confirm exactly what is from God and what's opinion. Seems odd for there to even be a considered debate.

But here's the problem, and what started all of this.

Rome calls a council that put a man to death an Ecumenical Council. Exsurge Domine confirmed this view was the correct view of it.

So when Dies Irae said that Rome is against the death penalty, that flies against most of Rome's own history (Ed Feser gives a lengthy history below).

And it's not just Trent Horn

Ed Feser a decent theologian? He makes the explicit case, that the death penalty had been infallibly defined and that looking at the timeline, it fits the definition of infallibility.

Link: Link

---

I don't think you're making the point you intend to. I don't know much about disagreement on what we infallibly teach as a church. The debate amongst Catholics you noted is on the number of ex cathedra statements. That's very different than inspecting a church teaching and determining if that was infallibly defined or not. I did word that poorly before. I do not believe there is a great debate on what is infallibly defined. I do believe there is debate on whether a certain papal statement was ex cathedral or not

I had an exchange with Dies earlier, where he stated he used the terms loosely, so I'm not going to mail him to a wall for it. I agree with faser: the church has infallibly defined the death penalty is in line with natural and divine law. When Dies says the Church is "against" the death penalty, he is saying the current prudential judgement of the Church is that we have better ways of meeting our Justice right now. The Church can easily be wrong about this discipline. I'm not worried about that. What would worry me would be the Church saying the death penalty is immoral or something that actually changes Church teaching.

Here's another example: the Church has long taught on the goodness of fasting. It still holds those same beliefs. However, the Church has relaxed MANDATORY fasting quite a bit. The church hasn't changed it teachings on fasting, just it's disciplines on fasting (which I also think is a bad idea).

---

I'm not sure your example works.

If I look at the components, you're saying fasting itself is good.
The mandatory (legalistic) aspect of it is not good

So paralleling that to the death penalty, are you saying:

The death penalty itself is good
The mandatory use of it is not good?

I don't think that's the argument Dies is making.

---

p

I'm simply trying to address your claim that because this pope (and the prior two) are "against" the death penalty that they are saying the ecumenical council was wrong. I'm as close to 100% certain as I can be that Pope Francis would LOVE to change the teaching on the death penalty and say it's evil. The important part is that he can't. He knows he's bound by past teachings, which is why he came up with this "inadmissible" stuff. It's the best he can do and he knows it. The teaching that death penalty is a licit penalty still remains.

It'll be the same with gay marriage. I have no doubt plenty in the church would love to change the teaching, but they can't. They'll get as close as they can to changing it to signal to people that it's ok, but the teaching itself is locked in. Same with contraception, divorce and remarriage, etc. Put out some vague words that give people the feeling that they can do it, while the teaching remains. It's wrong and it's leading people astray, but the teaching itself is intact. I know this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the Catholic Church as it makes devout Catholics have to work a lot harder to find true teaching, but the true teaching is there. And going to a Protestant church that just flat out teaches these things are ok isn't going to help any.

My point in using the fasting part was to show the same. We still teach fasting is good, just as we always have. The modern church is just choosing not to emphasize that teaching and essentially bury it, but it's still there.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Just to summarize..

Rome apologists are wrong because they don't know better. You know better.

Other Roman Catholics are wrong in what they believe. You know better.

Are you the actual magisterium? Infallible?

---

I am every bit as infallible as Trent Horn and Edward Feser, as is any random Catholic twitter armchair theologian. I'm not even saying they're wrong, I'm saying they're not claiming what you're claiming. You don't understand the mechanisms of the Catholic Church or how things actually get done in Christianity.

What you did with St Jerome and the apocrypha you're now doing with random Catholic journalists and philosophers. Picking and chosing personal opinions and using them as some sort of "gotcha" against the Magesterium.

You can go through the entire History of the Church and find Holy people pontificating, insulting, lying, and philosophizing on numerous different articles and artifacts of faith. Our Saints unlike Luther didn't think their indigestion dreams gave them the authority to invent new religions.

---

I was joking.

What I pointed out with Jerome, and I'm point out here, is that history is messy and in many respects, it will not align with the modern Post Trent Roman Catholic Church.

You talk about picking and choosing opinions, and yet that's exactly what you do. Only you hide it behind "the magisterium."

I could go through history, as Feser did and show why he believes the death Penalty was infallible defined, or I could keep it simple and say that in an Ecumenical Council, there is absolute support of the death penalty for heretics, that was confirmed by a second Pope.

That's my entire argument.

So for Francis to now say Rome is against the death penalty is to say an Ecumenical Council got it wrong. I find that pretty interesting to consider because of the implications.

---

I will reframe what I think Pope Francis is saying as "insofar as we know that all life is precious and at present there seems little risk to human life of allowing murderers to spend life behind bars, the death penalty cannot morally be allowed AT PRESENT". Another example would be the Diocesan Bishops lifting the Sunday mandate to attend mass during Covid. This was not the Church saying "Catholics no longer have to go to Mass on Sundays", this was saying "At Present given the current state of pandemic we are dispensing the weekly obligation". I'm not saying I agree with them; I'm saying there was no break in them doing so.

" Faith is still a mystery. While our divisions are unfortunate, they are part of God's plan."

+++

Yes and no. One of the last prayers Jesus said was that "they be one" - he was talking about us.

lobopride said:

---

The death penalty isn't because of the Old Testament. It was instituted as an eternal covenant between God and man. A covenant that has not and will never be canceled.

---

I think people misapply what God said about the death penalty with what we think of in the U.S. The only way God approves of a death penalty is if someone was 100% guilty. Unfortunately our system can never guarantee this. So if someone is put to death who was actually innocent, their blood is on the hands of all that support the death penalty.

But I do get that your comment was more about eternal life.

Pope Francis, just last week, discussed the death penalty when he talked about a reactionary, "backwards" ideology replacing the faith. I would read his interview as a whole because many so-called news outlets have only cited certain parts of that 30+ minute interview.

He definitely wanted to highlight how doctrine can progress over time,

"Doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria,"

He cited the Death Penalty right off the bat and slavery. In 2013, he stated that capital punishment is an offense "against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God's plan for man and society" and "does not render justice to the victims, but rather fosters vengeance".

He is on record and saying the Death Penalty is "inadmissible".