From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Impeccable? Do you mean infallible? Kolbe 04:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please include a reference or link for Dictatus Papae. Thanks! Maryanntherese 07:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I took care of that. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (EST)

General comments

This article is a disgrace! It should go into the nature and history of the papacy before presuming to pass judgement on it. And it should bear in mind that far more Christians world-wide are Roman Catholic than are Protestant fundamentalists! Any volunteers? --Petrus 06:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of mentioning the unmentionable, Wikipedia has an excellent page on Papal Infallibility [1]. Conservapedia could do much worse than import it wholesale! stallthedigger 11:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

While technically, we could indeed do worse, breach of copyright is bad enough. Tsumetai 11:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I was under the impression that Wikipedia was open source, hence no copyright issue?

Too much negative critics.

--Joaquín Martínez 10:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with anyone here writing their own version of papal infallibility, or any other article in this website. Karajou 07:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

This is truth, but articles should be neutral. Not a collection of negative arguments. For that last thing there is a talk page.
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok i am gonna fix this thing up.--Will N. 12:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm Catholic, but I have to say that the new Pope doesn't photograph very well. He always comes off reminding me of the Emperor from Star Wars.Jnl001 12:04, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Ya same. John Paul II photographed great! Ya this Pope I have to agree does not photograph well.--Will N. 12:16, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Are anti-popes on the list because I don't think they should be added. --Will N. 10:16, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Concerning the Tiara

I was under the impression that the papacy has abandoned the tiara as it historically symbolized the Pope's position as a secular political ruler alongside all his other duties, and such a notion has, if not officially then in practice, been abandoned for quite some time...?Jros83 22:26, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Not everyone is a catholic

Most if not all protestants would dispute a lot of the claims made by the first paragraph. maybe there should be something like "according to catholic doctrine" or something. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 19:35, 17 January 2008 (EST)


! Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 04:35, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I would recommend going to the Vaticans news site for info on the Catholic Church.

Badly Needed Updates

I'm not Catholic, so I probably would not be the best person to do it but I noticed that this and other pages relating to the papacy are badly out of date. At the very least I think this page should contain the proper biographical information for the current Pope. Fnarrow 17:27, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Repairs, Upgrades, Improvements, Corrections, History

I finally finished revising this article, without first looking at this talk page. Used my own informed judgment for balance and fuller treatment. See Diff.

I just now looked here at what others had to say, and I believe all the comments here are relevant to the condition of the article as I first found it. Objections are fairly representative of a spectrum of opinions and informed objections and protests. I hope this current revision passes muster as a balanced, informed treatment of the topic. Will check back for review of the new material. God bless you all. Pax vobis. Semper Fi! --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2017 (EST)

"I hope this current revision passes muster as a balanced, informed treatment of the topic" You must be kidding: It is hard to imagine a Catholic who would not feel insulted by this article, which attacks the position of the pope in the very first section ""Father" Matthew 23:9 exegesis"!
The introduction should be about the pope in Rome, and not include small schismatic churches like Palmyra - like done inPope#The Supreme Pontiff, which belongs to the very beginning of the article! You make valid points in your Biblical criticism of the pope, but these belong on the very end of the article - or even in a separate essay! --AugustO (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2017 (EST)
A suggestion only, but as a matter of clarification, the article should be about the office of the pope, rather than about any one man; detail what the job of a pope entails. Criticisms can come in a separate subtopic or separate article. Karajou (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2017 (EST)
"feel insulted" - I am myself a devout Catholic, and an informed and experienced historian and biblical exegete. I revised the original article because I was offended at its tone, lack of accuracy re scripture, and historical distortions and omissions. It is now no longer offensive to me as a conservative informed Catholic.
"which attacks" - The etymological and exegetical section Pope#"Father" Matthew 23:9 exegesis defends the title "Father" = pope and patriarch. It doesn't attack it! That's why I researched and wrote the section. It sets forth the criticism and then demolishes it with fully substantiated, verifiable linguistic and historical facts. Read it again.
"and not include" - The word "pope" is part of the official title of four heads of churches, and is not the exclusive designate of the Holy Father of the Catholic Church. I made that fact clear at the beginning. Most people are ignorant of this fact. Read it again.
"your Biblical criticism of the pope" - The Biblical criticism here supports the papacy. Read it again.
"separate essay" - Unjust criticisms have been raised against the office of the papacy, and against individual popes. That is part of the history of the office of the papacy, and the controversy surrounding it. A man dedicated to truthfulness cannot deny that there have been corrupt popes. They are included as documented facts of history, not as lies of polemical propaganda. An overview of the whole picture, the good and the bad, is presented here in the revision of this article.
"office of the pope" - The article details the authority of the office of pope, appointing cardinals and bishops, defending and defining doctrine, ex cathedra, supreme pastor, and his other duties. Read it again.
"any one man" - The article is not about any one man, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, or any other single individual alone. Read it again.
"Criticisms can come in a separate subtopic or separate article" - I do not agree. An article that is only a half-truth of propagandic whitewash is offensive in the extreme to Christians dedicated to truth and accuracy, and is only a scandal to every seeker of truth who is entertaining the possibility of coming into the Church and receiving the fullness of the truth of God from her doctrines and sacraments. Studied and deliberate omissions of significant factual history present only an impression of willingness to deceive, to cover-up, which is exactly one of the false charges leveled against Catholicism as being a "false religion of lies and fabrications and cover-ups". I had been raised Protestant and became a fundamentalist in my youth, and the glaring defect of selective historical omission in too many Catholic articles was a major obstacle to my willingness to enter the Church when I began to consider it from the standpoint of history and scripture—John 14:16; 16:13; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 John 2:18-19; Revelation 22:19—these five passages were especially key in informing my study of the history of Christianity as a Bible-based Fundamentalist Christian. When I became more fully informed, and found the same defect of historical selectivity, especially the use of fabricated "facts", in fundamentalist articles, I was able to accurately evaluate such idiocy, and dismiss both of these kinds of articles and books on either side of the controversy. I know the real history and the real teachings of the Church because I've done my research. I have discovered an infallible principle that "if it makes the Catholic Church look bad, it is either a misinterpretation, a misrepresentation, or an outright falsehood or deliberate lie." History keeps proving the truth of this insight, over and over and over again.
I was most offended at the way the article as I found it originally ended on a dangling negative historical note, which was obviously intended to clinch a disparaging picture of the papacy and leave the reader with a distorted view prejudiced against it. The concluding section I wrote at the end of the article counters this prejudicial distortion and defends the integrity of the teaching office of the pope, and the certainty of the truth of Catholic doctrine and dogma, with solid, unimpeachable, irrefutable historical fact. Read it again. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (EST)

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your writing. I'm not a native speaker and the chapter Pope#"Father" Matthew 23:9 exegesis is quite difficult to understand. It really belongs at the end of the article. --AugustO (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2017 (EST)

Revision of beginning of section: "Father" Matthew 23:9 exegesis

I have responded to objection by AugustO re (apparent) "attack". After further careful review and evaluation of the sequential presentation of info statements with Bible quote at the beginning of this section I recognized that my exegetical argument in support of the biblical text against its mistranslation by omission was obscured by the structural form of the introduction and I revised the order and paragraph spacing. Also added link to comparative listing of multiple translations and versions of Matthew 23:9. Thank you, AugustO. Peace be with you. --Dataclarifier (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (EST)