The Role of the Papacy

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted: as an evangelical,i had always thought that the claim of papal infallibility was a power grab on the partof the pope. it would give any pope the power fashion things just to his liking. what i came to see,however,isthat the truth could not be more opposite. infallibility is an entirerely conservative doctrine. it means that no present or future pope can change ( contradict) any dogma that have been accepted by the church throughout her history. the teaching regarding the infallibility of the popes in faith and morals really give the most power to the first pope, where it belongs. each succeding pope has a slightly less latittude than his inmediate predecessor. in an era when people have come to desire change for its own sake, this teaching assures us that the original dogma of the church will be protected through the ages." thank you mr david currie. god bless you all

 

[Myhrr]

Antonio B:

Myhrr:

continued to Antonio B

And what are you defending here then if you allow no attack? What you want this place to be is some cosy nursery where you can attack other beliefs and Churches with impunity by a mutual exchange of ammunition, but without any testing from real life! Huh?? try taking your apologetics to an Orthodox board and see how long you survive…

One thing that is characteristic of me is not to attack other people’s faiths. You see, for the last 18 years I’ve been teaching World Religions and although I do not believe what many religious regard as truth, I do not attack those belief systems. Why attack? Why not have a pleasant but forceful excange of ideas without “attacking?” BTW, I would never go into an Orthodox board and attack what they believe. I consider that at least “tacky,” at most, “disrespectful.”

"We’re not Protestants without foundation…

If your apologetics fail against us it’s not our fault."

Did I say at any moment that Protestantism has no foundation? Did I at any time fault anyone for anything?

“Nevertheless, here I concede defeat, it’s your thread to do with as you want, but I hope you keep in mind that others have an interest in the qualities of your next Pope. I wish you well.”

“Defeat,” “attack” why do you use such terms? If you want to inititiate a dialogue with fellow Christians who view Christianity very different from yours perspective, is it wise to antagonize with such words? How are such words conducive to an intelligent dialogue from which two people can learn and enhance their knowledge?

“God be with you always and His love a place of safety and peace, of refuge in all confusion”

Thank you

Antonio

How is what you would or would not do relevant here?

I used the word ‘attack’ because you used the word ‘defense’ to explain what apologetics meant and I’m saying this is the apologetics board where controversial discussion is allowed. Taking that out of context and twisting it into a personal attack on me rather than addressing the points made is not what I’d call intelligent discussion.

Thank you for allowing me to speak here, but I’ve nothing more to say on this subject and have no interest in turning this into an argument between us personally.

God be with you

 

[Therese_Martin]

**Notice:

As the charity level has deteriorated, the thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.**