Talk:Popery

message: This article contains wrong information.
Roman Catholics should always be referred to as 'Roman' Catholics.
Anglican Catholics (the ones who didn't 'protest' against the Catholic faith, but against the Pope) are also included in the 'Catholics' generalisation.
Wrong information?  Yes.  Henry the 8th was not a Protestant. He objected, as the King of England, to the Pope being the head of the Church and, in affect, over him. 
Protestants followed Luther and included breakaways from the Anglican Catholic Church of England.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.129.132 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic? - Roman or Anglican?

message: Should there be a mention that some Catholics are using the word to speak of themselves?
For example, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/ (the Cardinal Ratzinger fan club... yes, really!) sells hats and shirts with "Papist" on it in big letters... Cheyinka 06:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common for groups to use an offensive word for themselves intentionally as a way of essentially saying, "It doesn't matter what you call me, I'm still proud of it," like when homosexuals call themselves queers. Ratzinger is from Germany, where only a third of the population is Catholic, and a fifth don't believe in God at all. Catholicism is probably widely disparaged because of the sexually libertine trend in modern German society. Bostoner (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the word to refer to oneself 

message: Please ensure that edits to this article do not represent a biased point of view in favor of the Roman Catholic Church. I deleted the "scare quotes" around "Roman Catholic", cleaned up the grammar a bit, and clarified the issue of loyalty to the Pontiff as the core meaning of the word "Papist". 
I have seen a tendency toward pro-Roman Catholic, anti-Anglican POV in articles documenting the Roman Catholic Church, and I urge my fellow users to strive for NPOV in these articles.
====User:Mamalujo and PPOV-pushing====
:You are quite right.  The anti-Protestant bias of this article has been indeed ridiculous.  After reading the suggestions here, I have returned it to a NPOV:  183310784.  By examining that, it is clear that it incorporates all prior edits,  It also maintains a neutral tone, and NPOV, whereas Mama Lu Jo's version is inflammatory, emotional, poorly cited, badly written, and unusually brief.
:Mama Lu Jo's version does not meet the minimum standards of Wikipedia.
:Please note that this page is notice to User:Mamalujo to cease reverting the article to his personal, biased, poorly written version.  
:Since this user advertises his strong biases (POV) on his user pages, he is also advised to cease editing the page.  Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing one's sectarian beliefs or for proselytising on behalf of religious sects.  Adminster (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV 

message: :You are quite right.  The anti-Protestant bias of this article has been indeed ridiculous.  After reading the suggestions here, I have returned it to a NPOV:  183310784.  By examining that, it is clear that it incorporates all prior edits,  It also maintains a neutral tone, and NPOV, whereas Mama Lu Jo's version is inflammatory, emotional, poorly cited, badly written, and unusually brief.
:Mama Lu Jo's version does not meet the minimum standards of Wikipedia.
:Please note that this page is notice to User:Mamalujo to cease reverting the article to his personal, biased, poorly written version.  
:Since this user advertises his strong biases (POV) on his user pages, he is also advised to cease editing the page.  Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing one's sectarian beliefs or for proselytising on behalf of religious sects.  Adminster (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Mamalujo]] and PPOV-pushing

message: You've really got to be kidding that this is a slur like c-, f-, p-, and whatever.
This is a historical term.
You are making Catholics look really, really bad by trying to censor this.  We are not nasty sticks in the mud, for Pete's sake.
I have made this a nice, neutral article using existing edits to explain what the term means.  If you are confident in your faith, keep it.
Is there something I should know about Jesuits?
If you are so wavering in your faith, you need to make a big confession to your parish priest.  Do you even attend church?
Whether there is something weird about Jesuits or not, please don't make Catholics look like creeps and jerks by censoring everything here. AM IhS Adminster (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To [[User:Mamalujo|Mama Lu Jo]]

message: Can the derivation of papa as the Latin for "Pope" be substantiated?  I must admit I'm rather skeptical.L Hamm 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: As 'Popery' and Popish' redirect to this page, I have treated them together with the title subject in a group of short sections, beginning with the Marian persecutions because the etymology cited (but still unreferenced) in the article sets the date that early. The Marian section was deleted a day after being written by a user with name but no userpage, talk page or user history - a new user in that name - who made no comment here or in edit summary as to why deleted. I will therefore respond to that as (unintentional) vandalism if it is repeated, unless the editor chooses at least to make some explanation. The derivation with date 1534 is as shown in the (ed. Onions) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Vol II (OUP, 1964 reprint), saying it is from French papiste, or from 16th century latin papista, from latin papa. Hence it could be from the French word 'Pape' for Pope. It also lists Papish (1546), Papism (1550), Papistic (1545), Papistry (16th cent), and Papize (1612). These dates between 1534 and 1550 show the origin of the word in English usage as being in the time of Henry VIII of England, and therefore current in the time of Mary of England. 'Popery' is 1534, and 'Popish' (in hostile use) so early as 1528. Eebahgum (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical usages 

message: It appears that the term is also used in Eastern Orthodox polemics, although it would be best to find relevant sources on this. ADM (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs qualifies. Deusveritasest (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The term "papism" also appears in this recent "Confession of Faith against ecumenism". Cody7777777 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Orthodox polemics

message: The reference to "Roman Catholic Church" has been changed to "Catholic Church".  That is problematic in the circumstances.  Protestants are "catholic" by their own definition:  The Nicene Creed is recited every Sunday in the Church of England, affirming one "holy, catholic and apostolic church", and even the Kirk declares "The Church of Scotland is part of the Holy Catholic or Universal Church".  The Roman church does not agree, but that is again self-definition.
You can hardly talk of British Protestants opposing "the Catholic Church" when they considered themselves part of it. Indeed that might be why the word "papist" came to be used:  if everyone is claiming the word "catholic" and "Rome" would not provide a distinctive name, the word "papist" must have been useful.  It need not even be derogatory, just descriptive in the absence of a better term.
Thus we cannot use here an undifferentiated "Catholic Church" in that context, even if it upsets, erm, well, "papists".
Howard Alexander (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology problems 

message: Removed reference to Thomas Peters (blogger) in the resurgence of the term as a self-identifying label.  Just because Peters himself uses the term as a self-identifying label does not mean he is the "popularizer" of this usage.  That is bad philology.  The citation is only a link to the index page of Peters' blog, "American Papist," and looks more like self-promotion.  Peters' page is also under review for deletion, and the reference on this page may have been added only to remove the orphan status of the Peters page. I've noticed Perg1224 insists on adding the reference before we reach a consensus here so I will request full page protection if this keeps happening. Darthoutis (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that my edit, which limits itself to what can really be deduced from the source, was a way of making peace between you and Anonymous 63.27.248.69.  I am puzzled at your reverting it and replacing it with a statement whose credibility you yourself question.  Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake for misreading the change.  I've removed the page protection request.  I actually don't question the statement that in popular contemporary usage, "papist" can be a self-identifying label.  Since we only have one limited source corroborating the statement, though, I'll revert the page back to your edit.  My apologies. Darthoutis (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That was the kind of mistake that, unfortunately, I make often, probably more often than you do.  Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Peters (blogger) 

message: The former Know Nothing Party, a political party in the United States during the 19th Century, was well-know for being anti-Catholic. See the article on the Know Nothing Party.
The Know Nothing Party disappeared after the Federal election of 1856, but there have been claims of a resurgence of the Know Nothing Party since about 2001. Former President Millard Fillmore was the presidential nominee of the Know Nothing Party in 1856, though it hid under a different name, and he took about 20% of the popular vote nationwide. Fillmore had formerly been a Whig, but that party had disbanded by 1856. 
There is a curious story about the Know Nothing Party and the Washington Monument. Various countries and foreign states donated stones for the interior of the monument, and one of them was sent over by the Pope and the Vatican state. A group of Know Nothings found out about this, so one night they broke into its storage shed, and they cast the Pope's stone into the Potomac River. It has to be fished up out of the river later on.98.81.8.220 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Know Nothing Party 

message: The page for papalism shouldn't redirect to papist. While both related to the pope, they are not the same thing. Papalism tends to be used more when discussing the authority of the pope, especially in the context of the medieval papacy's claim to secular power. Papist, on the other hand, is a term (often derogatory) used to refer to Catholics, who are followers of the pope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serogers02 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially when there's an Anglican Papalist that also gets confused. NousEssayons (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papalism vs papist