Pope sends direct message to Ben

[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]

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]

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]

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]

EDIT: Molly, you too.

Have you ever read Robert Silverberg's 'Good News From The Vatican' ? There's a passage in it which is quite apposite.

Dejectedly, but not responding at all to the interruption,
Bishop FitzPatrick continues,

"Let me illustrate by giving you some
figures I obtained yesterday afternoon. I read in the newspaper Oggi
that during the last five years, according to a spokesman for the
Missiones Catholic, the Church has increased its membership in
Yugoslavia from 19,381,403 to 23,501,062. But the government census
taken last year gives the total population of Yugo slavia at
23,575,194. That leaves only 74,132 for the other religious and
irreligious bodies. Aware of the large Moslem population of
Yugoslavia, I suspected an inaccuracy in the published statistics and
consulted the computer in St. Peter's, which informed me"

- the bishop,
pausing, produces a lengthy printout and unfolds it across much of the
table-

"that the last count of the Faithful in Yugoslavia, made a year
and a half ago, places our numbers at 14,206,198. Therefore an
overstatement of 9,294,864 has been made. Which is absurd. And
perpetuated. Which is damnable."

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

[Alexander's Horse]

They aren't even believing you Ben

[kentonio]

I claimed it was due to her executing priests and laypeople. You know - exactly what the excommunication says.

So list the names and dates.

You posted a wikipedia article that you likely edited yourself.

So you think I edited the dates of the Revolt of the Northern Earls or the excommunication of Elizabeth I? Despite these being verifiable at a hundred other locations and despite all wiki edits being visible on the Edit tab of each wiki page?

Let's see. Moby, Kentonio, Molly, rah, ming, cockney, elok, Imran, that's 7 right there.

When everyone is against you, it's generally a sign that you're consistently wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's see. Moby, Kentonio, Molly, rah, ming, cockney, elok, Imran, that's 7 right there.

[Ben Kenobi]

You claimed that The excommunication was in response to mass executions.

I claimed it was due to her executing priests and laypeople. You know - exactly what the excommunication says.

I've shown a clear timeline showing that claim was bull****.

You posted a wikipedia article that you likely edited yourself.

[kentonio]

I love all the irrelevant disclaimer that you're using to salvage your ****ty argument. Here's a hint. If you have to have five disclaimers - you've lost the argument.

Your disclaimers:

1. 'Significant'. Presumably so that you can dismiss evidence you don't like.
2. '1569'. Who cares? The date is irrelevant.
3. Catholics. Because presumably other dissenters don't count.
4. 'heresy'. Because you can label any execution as 'not heresy'.
5. 'elizabeth's reign'. Because Henry doesn't doesn't count.

You claimed that The excommunication was in response to mass executions. I've shown a clear timeline showing that claim was bull****. You now claim 'The date is irrelevant'.

I've been keeping up this tiresome argument because I wanted a clear admission from you that history doesn't matter to you, only religion. You've just provided that, thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok - most discussion occurs through disagreement, not agreement. Your own dialectic works that way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good idea

[Elok]

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?"

[Ben Kenobi]

You couldn't even admit that you mixed up ken and molly on the "Wikipedia citation"

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

[rah]

You couldn't even admit that you mixed up ken and molly on the "Wikipedia citation"