What do you mean by "prove?"
Proof by truth or mere half-truth?
You wrote:
“What do you mean by “prove?” Proof by truth or mere half-truth?”
Half-truth? I can’t even get a logical retort from these two.
This is what I’ve gotten so far:
1) Any Catholic who did something they don’t like is magically transformed into the Church in its entirety and teaching in her magisterium. The fact that this is illogical in the extreme and completely vapid as an approach is lost on them apparently.
2) Neither one of these two actually knows what they’re talking about. They might think the Index is medieval? For some reason they think violating the Index was punishable by death. Based on what? They say that most people were illiterate, but then later complain only nobles and priests had Bibles. Well, why would illiterate people have books?
3) They are completely unfamiliar with the ancillary sources they talk around. They say it was dangerous to talk about how Christ changed lives. That means they never read a single medieval saunt’s life, nor any sermons at all, nor any books or exhorations. They’ve read nothing at all. They knew nothing, NOTHING AT ALL, about S.R. Maitland’s works or L. Owst’s pioneering works. Nothing.
And the beat goes on...