RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

Talk:Immaculate conception

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Wow, the CP article on this is surprisingly anti-Catholic.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Things I like to add but I am not exactly skillful in English, so perhaps someone can take a look[edit]

The following might be considered to be absurd for heretics:

  • If it can be done at the Mary's level, why do we not make the exception at Jesus?
  • If Jesus is required to have a mother free from the Original sin, and the Original sin is inherited, shouldn't the process be continued repeated all the way back to Eve?
  • If the exception can be conveniently be placed at Mary why would the exception not applied to the rest of us?

K61824ZOYG I edit like Ken! 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"two infallible Papal revelations"[edit]

The article claims this is one of only two infallible Papal revelations in history, but the Wikipedia page on papal infallibilityWikipedia's W.svg says there was only one case since the doctrine of papal infallibility was formulated in 1870 (on the Assumption of Mary, in 1950) while before then it lists two ex cathedra decrees that may fit the definition but suggests there were more (i.e. at least 3 in total). RW's own article Papal infallibility mentions 7 cases through history (although I doubt its accuracy). So is this a matter of debate or is this article just wrong? --Annanoon (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)