Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pope"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:29, 16 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? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | At the risk of mentioning the unmentionable, Wikipedia has an excellent page on Papal Infallibility [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility]. Conservapedia could do much worse than import it wholesale! [[User:Stallthedigger|stallthedigger]] 11:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:03, March 23, 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)