Changes

::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.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 03:17, 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.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk: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.<br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>''An article that is only a [[half-truth]] of [[Propaganda|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 [[Deceit|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. <br>"''your Biblical criticism of the pope''" - The Biblical criticism here supports the papacy. Read it 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 [[Pope#Continuous, unbroken witness in history|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. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:51, 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.<br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>"''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. <br>''An article that is only a [[half-truth]] of [[Propaganda|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 [[Deceit|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. <br>"''your Biblical criticism of the pope''" - The Biblical criticism here supports the papacy. Read it 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 [[Pope#Continuous, unbroken witness in history|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. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (EST)