Pope sends direct message to Ben

[The Mad Monk]

His wildest dreams, not yours.

[rah]

Sure just like there's no pocket rockets in Hold 'em. And 'rah rules' don't exist!

Yep, when you just can't admit you were a bit obscure just start posting more things that don't make any sense. Always a good strategy when you want to deflect from the truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

His wildest dreams, not yours.

He needs to set his goals higher.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep, when you just can't admit you were a bit obscure just start posting more things that don't make any sense. Always a good strategy when you want to deflect from the truth.

I don't believe anyone here had difficulty understanding the post. If you're going to whack me with a stick, can you get a stick that I actually care about next time, rah?

[-Jrabbit]

I understood your initial "trump" post perfectly -- a little fractured context, but your point was obvious enough.

It was when you started claiming it was a Rook reference that I knew you were back to being a lying b1tch.

Seriously, wouldn't it be easier to just admit to a meaningless error than to practically invent a whole mythology attempting to justify it?

[giblets]

Ben has a reputation to uphold...

[molly bloom]

I'm sorry Molly. They were all revolutionaries.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Should I remind you, sorry, tell you, of the difference between the punishment for rebellion and the punishment for heresy in England, since you clearly don't know ?

In London, the dreadful consequences of the rebellion were soon all too evident.

On 14 February, 45 rebels were hanged; more suffered at Southwark the next day. Soon afterwards 30 more were marched to Kent to be dispatched there as an example to the people, although some were pardoned before they arrived. In all, more than 100 people were executed.

The Queen gave orders that their bodies were to be displayed on gibbets at every street corner, and before long the Londoners were averting their eyes from the ghastly spectacles and holding their breath to avoid the stench of rotting corpses. Above the city gates severed heads and dismembered limbs hung gruesomely.

from 'Much Suspected Of Me' in Alison Weir's 'The Children Of England'.

The Queen and rebellion in question ? Roman Catholic Mary Tudor and Wyatt's Rebellion.


The punishment for rebellion, which was seen as treason and a sin against god as well as an offence against the state and monarch, was meant to be deliberately humiliating- the humiliation being mostly aimed at those who were not nobles of course. Hanging, drawing and quartering, with the genitals also being cut off in some cases. There was a certain delicacy displayed in the cases of women found to be rebels or traitors- public decency would not permit their breasts or 'privy parts' to be shown, so they were usually burned.

[molly bloom]

Which explains the Act of Supremacy outlawing the Olde Mass - his execution of priests, the dissolution of the monasteries and the fact that England went without a Catholic bishop for nearly 300 years?
'.

You said, and I quote

Perhaps if Henry hadn't tried to execute all the Catholics -

Exactly how does all the guff you listed 'prove' that Henry VIII tried to 'execute all Catholics' ?

Oh that's right, it doesn't. Which Babylonish dialect are you using, 'cos it sure ain't Standard Modern English ?

Are you suggesting you were taught just as much about Edward as Henry?

No.

You've boasted about your tolerant open-mindedness.

Where was that ? I've simply listed places of worship of different faiths that I've visited- thankfully I had an ecumenically minded Roman Catholic infant-junior school- we attended a mosque, a gurdwara, a synagogue and a Hindu temple, and a Methodist church, now that I come to think of it.

Have you taken your turn in a parish of Our Lady of Walsingham?

Is there some pressing reason for me to do so ? I've been to the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and Westminster Cathedral. They're both buildings associated with the Roman Catholic faith in case you weren't aware.

Have you dropped something in the collection bin?

What's it to you ? My donations to charity and my labour for charities are usually my own affair and not something I feel the need to air in public. I thought that was the whole point of real charity- you give what you can, when you can.

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living

That's from Mark, by the way.

I noticed a conspicuous absence in your most enlightened universality.

Absence of what ? Since I was brought up a Roman Catholic and have made no secret of this, I hardly need to mention visiting Roman Catholic churches or cathedrals. That's a given.

It has become the collective fantasy of this age that one can hate Catholicism, but not any other religion and call themselves 'diverse'.

Blah blah blah. More pompous sh!tstains on your degree.

[molly bloom]

From your pal here, CSL. Odd that, he's arguing the same thing I am. Henry stressed continuity.

Oh gosh, Wiki doesn't say anything about him - but it has his wife.

Socialist, Trotskyite. Was too red for Labor!

Yet another widely unbiased source on Catholicism, indeed.

So instead of addressing his writing, his sources, or any of the facts listed, you think it MUST be biased because of his WIFE'S political views ?

What a sad pathetic loser you are.

[molly bloom]

He's a reverend of the COE.

And ?

That makes him a ridiculously hostile source on this issue.

What issue ? Reviewing a book on a Catholic Pope, the Reformation, or the reign of Mary Tudor ? Be specific.

Find a reliable secondary source.

Show, rather than assume, that he is unreliable. His primary sources include Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Tudor State papers, the sessions of the Council Of Trent and secondary sources include a study of the Capuchins by Father Cuthbert, of the Jesuits by H. Boehmer, the history of the early Jesuits by J Brodrick et cetera.

Your primary or secondary sources ?


Your arse.

He wins.

Are you going to permit citations of Catholic priest martyrologies as neutral?

Give proof you know the meaning of 'to cite' . It doesn't mean simply repeating the title of one of the Acts of Supremacy all the while being unaware of the existence of 2 separate Acts of Supremacy, one in Henry VIII's reign, one in Elizabeth I's reign.

English books? I'm surprised you weren't reading Old Latin.

Gotta love your inadvertently self-harming attempts at put-downs.

You're the one after all who confuses 'rulers' with its singular form 'ruler' and then confuses that with 'royal'. A royal may be a ruler, but is unlikely to be rulers, even with a multiple personality. A ruler does not have to be royal.

Oh and then there's the term 'heir apparent' which you consistently showed you did not understand. Two words, so perhaps that was added difficulty.

Good luck with that English for Beginners course. Get someone like Colon or Oncle Boris to help you.

[molly bloom]

Seriously, wouldn't it be easier to just admit to a meaningless error than to practically invent a whole mythology attempting to justify it?

Oh please. He said William III Orange was 'king of the Dutch'. He wasn't- he was a Prince (of Orange, which is in France) until he was crowned King of England. The Dutch were still a Republic.

Poor Sister Bendy then blamed Dutch history, the Dutch, and a supposed unwillingness to be a 'real' republic for his repeated errors and lack of knowledge of Dutch history.

In the supposed 'facts' he listed to support his argument, he simply increased his quota of errors.

It was great fun.

[molly bloom]

What facts? Both were educated at Oxford - an Anglican institution, and both were reverends.

Dash it all but you're dim. Chadwick was educated at St. John's College CAMBRIDGE.

However, they are extremely hostile sources to Catholicism in general.

'They' who ?

History professors ?

Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge ?

People who know more about history than you do ?

Anglicans ?

Ex-Anglicans ?

I couldn't rely on them for any factual statements because of persistant and concrete bias.

Translated: I didn't find time to read them while driving the pizza van.

Are you willing to permit Catholic martyrologies as neutral sources?

Just as soon as show, and don't assume, bias on the part of the writers I've quoted. Since you couldn't distinguish one from the author of the book he was reviewing, I may be in for a long wait.

[Ben Kenobi]

What issue ? Reviewing a book on a Catholic Pope, the Reformation, or the reign of Mary Tudor ? Be specific.

All of the three. Would you consider a Catholic priest to be a 'neutral source'? No. Find one.

Show, rather than assume, that he is unreliable.

Again - you'd never accept a book written on this topic by a Catholic priest as reliable. So why should I accept a book written by a reverend? Ain't gonna happen. Find a reliable source without massive bias.

don't assume, bias on the part of the writers I've quoted

Coming from you who can't type out the word Catholic church without inserting some reference to pedophilia, this is a laugh!

Your primary or secondary sources ?

Well, then I'm sure you can find someone who isn't a reverend to preach this screed!

Give proof you know the meaning of 'to cite'

AHAHAHAHA.

So - no, you'd never accept evidence from the Catholic church. Checkmate. I ain't accepting anything from a reverend, unless you're willing to accept documentation from the Catholic church.

It doesn't mean simply repeating the title of one of the Acts of Supremacy all the while being unaware of the existence of 2 separate Acts of Supremacy, one in Henry VIII's reign, one in Elizabeth I's reign.

Yawn. Why do you always presuppose that after you finally checked wikipedia that I'm unaware of my own arguments?

Gotta love your inadvertently self-harming attempts at put-downs.

Right. Nobody associates pretentiousness with you.

Oh and then there's the term 'heir apparent' which you consistently showed you did not understand.

Right. So you're conceding the point that Mary Queen of Scots was Heir apparent to the English throne?

[Ben Kenobi]

So instead of addressing his writing, his sources, or any of the facts listed, you think it MUST be biased because of his WIFE'S political views ?

Proof positive that Molly doesn't read.

What a sad pathetic loser you are.

I know now that you were and are a fraud.

[kentonio]

How many times does Molly need to hand your ass to you before you just burn your cereal packet 'history degree' and stop making yourself look like a tit Ben?