Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

Y'know, if Ken, C0ckney and Molly just talked to each other, I bet they could have a number of interesting, non-repetitive discussions about a number of fascinating historical subjects, beyond "was one of the most beloved monarchs in English history actually a sadistic psychopath?"

Neither Elizabeth I nor her half-sister were sadistic psychopaths. There's some anecdotal evidence that Edward VI may have been on his way to developing a sadistic personality, but happily his early death from tuberculosis and medical attention prevented us from ever finding out.

[molly bloom]

Yes, Antonia Fraser who's published books assuaging folks that Cromwell was a perfectly pleasant chap. I'm sure you found her books palatable.

.

Oh, another historian whose books you haven't read ?

Lady Antonia was educated at the Catholic convent and Oxford (Lady Margaret Hall, BA 1953). She converted to Catholicism in her teens, following her parents' lead, and at the age of 23 she married Sir Hugh Fraser, a handsome Catholic, Scots nobleman and war hero with the SAS (Special Air Services). He was 15 years her senior.

http://www.answers.com/topic/lady-antonia-fraser

Moreover, a convert to Roman Catholicism, educated in a convent.

Sorry, she's not Catholic ENOUGH for you, is that it ? She wrote a book about a famous non-Catholic Englishman, is that it ? You are a waste of skin.

Which is why you persistantly exhibit prejudice towards Catholicism here.

Erm, reading a book by a Catholic convert on Cromwell predisposes me to be biased against Roman Catholicism ? If it were badly written propaganda (like your posts) if it were blatantly biased (like your posts) if it ignored facts not to the author's liking (like your posts) and if it listed no primary or secondary sources (like your posts) then I might dislike the book or the author.

I am not especially prejudiced towards Catholicism- towards a corrupt Vatican hierarchy, towards various policies of the Vatican as publicly espoused on the world stage which directly affect the health of millions across the globe, yes. I treat all superstitions with the same degree of bemused contempt.


It just so happens that Catholicism is the cult I was inducted into at an early age- so it's the one I know the best.

So why reject Duffy?

I haven't. You clearly haven't read his book.

This is from another review of Duffy's book :

Within those limitations Duffy might have written a more readable book except for one unavoidable hurdle: the execution by burning of more than 280 Englishmen and Englishwomen whose consciences did not allow them to profess Mary's and Pole's Roman Catholicism. Modern readers are not likely to see much good in Mary's reign were an author to sweep those executions under a rug. And Duffy does not. Page after page he recounts the hunts for heretics, the trials, the efforts to persuade dissidents to come back to Roman and Royal obedience and the final moments of the Protestant martyrs. A dozen of those anti-Protestant processes and executions are shown in color.

Duffy can never get away from those burnings. Their honest narrative takes up a sizeable portion of his text. He tries to show religious persecutions and executions for heresy as not uncommon in other countries at the same time -- though the methods of killing varied.

http://www.patrickkillough.com/books/duffy_marytudor.html

You've constantly castigated the Church for whitewashing.

Which they did. And ?

[molly bloom]

I provided a citation from the Tablet underscoring his extensive anti-Catholicism.

You're a persistent liar and a fantasist and someone desperately in need of a good dictionary.

1. To quote as an authority or example.

2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.

3.
a. To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.

b. To honor formally.

4. To summon before a court of law.

1. to quote or refer to (a passage, book, or author) in substantiation as an authority, proof, or example

2. (Military) to mention or commend (a soldier, etc.) for outstanding bravery or meritorious action

3. (Law) to summon to appear before a court of law

4. to enumerate he cited the king's virtues
[from Old French citer to summon, from Latin citāre to rouse, from citus quick, from ciēre to excite]

In Chadwick's case, like some frightened old maid horrified by a mouse, you scurried off to search his name on the internet, found a review of John Cornwell's book on Eugenio Pacelli and then CONFUSED the reviewer with the author.

All you placed in your post was the address of the review.

You did not at any time indicate which of Chadwick's comments on Cornwell's book were supposedly anti-Catholic.


YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Your original post in its full glorious crass stupidity:

Chadwick's a reverend from the COE and here's what he has to say about Pius XII

Interesting.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/6758

Oh, look. Here's a Tablet article.

Yeah, this man is totally a neutral source on Catholicism. One down.

I have pointed out this huge error on your part more than once now. You persist in perpetuating it, which indicates illiteracy, contempt for the truth, and some form of learning difficulty.


You should not be teaching vulnerable people.

[molly bloom]

Right, which can be well perceived by someone from a grammar school education.

.

The deficits in your laughably self-promoted 'historical' learning could be appreciated by a blind lobotomised alien with no knowledge of Earth history, during a total eclipse of the sun.

They've been outlined and detailed here many, many times. It might be fun if I had a free day, just to trawl thorugh this thread and list your copious errors and how many times, despite being corrected, you blithely repeated them.

You have hated Catholicism from day one. Everyone sees it Molly!

Really ? You've carried out a survey then ? Or is this more of Gypsy Sister Bendy, rubbing crystal balls ? I think we should be told.

And when challenged to provide the figure for Elizabeth which is right in front of you, you declined.

Where ? It shouldn't be difficult for you to reproduce exactly what I said- I do it with your posts. Is it easier for you to use your own misleading paraphrases rather than actually quote what people say ?


Seems to be the case.

alleged use of Wikipedia

Unlike you, if I have need of a website, I'll credit it. I note you still haven't acknowledged your use of the Royal Navy Museum's website- it was fairly obvious to me you'd used it, since you paraphrased the small section on Henry VII and left out the longer section on Henry VIII's greater achievements.

So typically craven and dishonest of you.

I was aware of the claim before the citation. I did some examination and found the claim listed as under this book by Eamon Duffy.

I was clearly talking about confusing Chadwick with Cornwell.

I did some examination and found the claim listed as under this book by Eamon Duffy.

You read a passage in a review of Duffy's book which seemed to indicate that Henry VIII had killed a lot of people. You felt no need to find out if Duffy had used that figure, to read Duffy's book, or to consider whether that figure was even reasonable given the population of England at the time.

You wanted to confirm your prejudice and did so.

So far all it's done is make you hysterical.

That's so funny. No, all I've done so far is make you repeat lies and mistakes you made earlier. Now you're expanding on them.

You can take a dimwit to school, but you can't make him think.

[molly bloom]

It's a citation demonstrating that the claim has been made by Eamon Duffy.

No it isn't. Learn some English and learn how to comprehend that when a reviewer is quoting from a book or an author, they (if they're any good, that is) will in good faith indicate when and where they are doing so.

You're simply making excuses for making yet another of your mistakes.

I believe he had 75k executed because Eamon Duffy, whom I regard as a reliable historian and professor at Cambridge believes that this occurred.

So you still haven't read the book, just a review of the book. Figures. Still making excuses for your pathetic lack of knowledge.

[molly bloom]

FRAUD.

Oh dear. I really did feel the occasional twinge of pity for you- but latterly, if you were on fire I wouldn't let my cat piss on you.

And you don't even understand how I know this to be so!

Quite possibly, since I don't believe in the existence of telepathy or second sight or divination by checking goats' livers. There's a lot of pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo I don't believe in.

[molly bloom]

Oh, lookee that. Wikipedia citation after you claimed not to consult the wikipedia. Gosh. What else is Molly lying about?

Excuse me ? I haven't consulted or quoted Wikipedia. You're a lying sack of sh!t. Correction- that would have a use, either in fertilising fields or removing fibres from leather.

You might just have a use as a draught excluder if you kept your mouth shut.

[molly bloom]

Thank you. No further questions, Molly.

Yeah, sorry Sister Bendy of the eye and brain deficit, but kentonio and I are two distinctly separate and different people and posters. Not even our politics agree.


Stay off the communion wine, o.k. ?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AH

[molly bloom]

So not only does this put your statement to lie that such numbers were 'impossible', this is primary source evidence defending the figures.

No, it isn't, you moron.

Thanks to Harrison giving his sources, we see that, via astrologer Girolamo Cardano,the source is actually the Bishop of Lisieux.

Ho hum.

But if I also told you also that the claim by this bishop is often given as being 72,000 Catholics, and not “thieves and rogues”, you might get a sense of the bias bound up in this myth. Note also an Irish Republican who states that the figure has been “computed” in order to lend it extra weight.

From the same post, from the same source.


Liar, liar.... And I should point out I'd already provided evidence that this figure was simply unbelievable, in an earlier post- from a book by a writer specializing in the history of capital punishment and its effect on society.


Oh dear, perhaps you were confusing me with kentonio then. Or you found out the author was insufficiently Roman Catholic for your tastes.

Who cares....

[molly bloom]

Right, because we all know that an athiest has no bias towards Roman Catholicism.

(Suppresses massive yawn)

[molly bloom]

Molly's moved from arguing, "it's impossible" to, "not all of them were Catholic martyrs". .

I've done nothing of the sort. I've distinguished, using an example from Mary Tudor's reign, of the difference between the punishment for treason and the punishment for heresy.

I've listed in detail who was killed where- using separate sources. You simply plucked a number out of your arse and said 'it must be so' and gave no sources to back this up.

How very like you.

Some folks have a permanent hate-on.

You certainly do for facts and historical accuracy.


By the way, this is yet another example of you being unable to admit a mistake.

Molly admitted the Pilgrimage of Grace wasn't taught.

No I didn't. You're a liar.

I asserted that it wasn't taught. Ergo, I do have an understanding of the curriculum over there.

Deluded and wrong. You have no understanding of the current teaching of history in English schools, still less of how history was taught at my grammar school.

You are a fantasist.

[QUOTE] [I wouldn't expect schools to differ radically.../QUOTE]

Then you're a stupid ignorant fantasist to boot.

I would guess, based on what I know of the curriculum

Which is zilch.

[molly bloom]

Yeah, one of me, 17 of you. It happens when I go back and go through the posts.

I would have thought that a supposedly rabid anti-Catholic ex-grammar school blatant homosexual like me was fairly distinct by now.

Or is that how you view everyone who doesn't queue up to kiss the Pope's ringpiece ?

[Elok]

Sorry, but if find his errors, lies and misrepresentations so blatant and reprehensible I can't let them slip by.

Why? He'll just trot out new lies (or recycle the old ones with a thin coat of paint), and it's not like anybody here believes any of them. You might as well scream at the crickets to stop chirping.

[SlowwHand]

So now crickets are bad?

[Elok]

Well, we can't flip a switch to make them inaudible while still letting us hear everything else, so they're arguably a bigger deal than BK.