"Some" does not equate to all, vlad. Therein lies your fallacy.
The very existence of Bloody Mary alone negates much of what you've so adamantly maintained.
You'er zealous, I'll grant you that much. Not much else, but there's always that.
You wrote:
“”Some” does not equate to all, vlad. Therein lies your fallacy.”
False. 1) I never said ALL. 2) You suggested it. You wrote (or have you forgotten already):
“The bishops and priests who became Church of England under Henry VIII became Catholic again under Mary, vladimir998.”
The bishops, you said. The seems to suggest ALL bishops. I never said ALL. I never suggested ALL. I remember exactly what I said. You apparently have forgotten. Those who are ignorant or deceptive often do.
“The very existence of Bloody Mary alone negates much of what you’ve so adamantly maintained.”
No, it does not. She was no more “bloody” than Henry or Elizabeth.
“You’er zealous, I’ll grant you that much. Not much else, but there’s always that.”
No, what I am is right. Just as you screwed up and forgot that YOU suggested something about ALL the bishops, and I was right both times, you have made error after error in this thread.
Remember, you claimed, “The bishops and priests who became Church of England under Henry VIII became Catholic again under Mary, vladimir998.” I showed that at least six bishops were restored or removed: Bonner, Tunstall, and Gardiner, were restored while Ridley, Coverdale, and Hooper, were removed. You were wrong. I was right.