Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pope"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
There's absolutely nothing wrong with anyone here writing their own version of papal infallibility, or any other article in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:27, 12 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. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :This is truth, but articles should be neutral. Not a collection of arguments. For that last thing there is a talk page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:46, May 12, 2007
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)
- 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)
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 arguments. For that last thing there is a talk page.
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)