>Dear John
>
>I happily accept Papal Bulls as primary source material giving the church's
>view on events at that time and as accuate statements of how the curch
>wished its position to be perceived. Furthermore, they are reinforced by the
>documentary record as to how, what and when the church followed them up by
>other actions.
Good. The reference I cited cites in turn the papal bull approving
the Knights of Christ in Portugal.
>Now, there is a vast wide yawning chasm of vaildity and credibility between
>documents ofthat nauture and modern publications by the church attemting to
>whitewash its well recorded actions in history and minimise their
>imposrtance or impact.
Is there? Does the reference I cited accurately reflect that papal bull,
or not? You assume with no evidence that it doesn't.
If it doesn't, say how it doesn't.
>To continue to compare modern documentation which is published to sustain
>the faith, or apologise for the terrors of the past, with official staments
>of church policy in the form of Papal Bulls and Encyclicals of the Middle
>Ages is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
So I guess you've also changed your review of Dungeon, Fire, and Sword from
"quite frankly, superb" to "ludicrous".
John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>