This list rivals anything that is found in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Roman Catholic 'martyrs'? What were they martyred for? Allegiance to the Pope?
You RCs are sick.
The blood on your collective hands will show when you face your judgment.
Burn in hell.
Yep, let them all go to hell. Real Christian charity there. I would say, "sinner and hypocrite, repent of your wicked attitudes and accept the grace of God."
And this is only the beginning of serious persecution. Wait till we get to Elizabeth and many more martyrs all the way to 1729. That'll be presented in due course.
The question remains unanswered. What were they martyred for? Believing in Jesus Christ as sole Mediator? Bringing the Word of God to people? No, RC's, I'm afraid not. Attempting to bring England under the tyranny of Rome. And many of those sweethearts you list were responsible for martyring real Christians themselves. Beware apologists for Rome. They won't give you the truth. The devil's kingdom can't withstand the tribunal of truth.
While you're quoting Wikipedia quote this on your blessed Thomas More:
"As Lord Chancellor, More had six Lutherans burned at the stake and imprisoned as many as forty others. His chief concern in this matter was to wipe out collaborators of William Tyndale, the exiled Lutheran who in 1525 had published a Protestant translation of the Bible in English which was circulating clandestinely in England."
The only thing wrong in that paragraph was calling Tyndale a Lutheran. That's like calling Zwingli a Calvinist. But I digress.
Follower of Jesus,
You misread this article, those names listed are PROTESTANTS which Catholics had put to death...after all, there is no such thing as a Catholic martyr, and we all know Protestants would NEVER do such a thing to Catholics.
Who knows what many of those nuns and monks were plotting in their rooms all day, I imagine it must have been the most exquisite conspiracy ever devised to win England.
p.s. Fox's book of martyrs is a JOKE, basically he went through history and concluded that anyone who was "martyred" MUST have been a solid Christian defending the Gospel. The fact is many of those "martyrs" in Fox's book held views that most Protestants in the 1500s would deem worthy of persecution/condemnation.
You're so bold for Christian truth that you are scared to even give your own name. Imagine you being martyred . . .
Nothing like the history of Protestant persecution of Catholics, though, to bring out ire and prejudice. It's truly amazing.
My position has been consistent my entire Christian life: I utterly condemn all persecution of Christians or those of any religious group, solely for having some religious belief. I condemn Catholic persecution as wholeheartedly as Protestant.
But I do try to understand the historical background and worldview as to why these things took place.
Remember, in England, the grounds for torture and execution was refusal to acknowledge the King or Queen as head of the Church in England (and later all priests were banned from the country on pain of death). In that sense it was like the martyrdoms in ancient Rome: one didn't accept the emperor as a god, and so was murdered. You don't think Elizabeth is a great Christian woman and leader of the so-called "Church of England"? Then you are dead, too . . . you'll be imprisoned for months or years, subjected to a sham "trial", racked, dragged through the streets, hanged, emasculated, disembowelled, your heart will be cut out, and your head cut off. Then your body will be cut into four quarters and sent around the country.
And this is supposedly a higher, more sublime brand of Christianity than Catholicism: kill all your most "dangerous" opponents, steal all the churches and monasteries, deprive Catholics of all rights and go preach the gospel of salvation and love!
Otherwise, Protestantism would never have gotten off the ground in England. It had to be promulgated by murder and repressive decrees and theft, much like Lenin's Communist revolution in Russia in 1917. No reputable historian alive today would deny that this was how Anglicanism began, and continental Protestantism bolstered up (as to the English "Reformation"). Calvin, Bucer, Melanchthon, Luther, and other continental "reformers" were enamored with the spectacular success of Protestantism in England, through wicked means.
Hi Follower of Jesus Christ,
Dave's apologetics website is one of the few places on the net that truly ascribes to the "marketplace of ideas" concept of blogging. However, you might wish to read these entries about how to best bring your opinions and ideas to the table:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...nstructive.html and http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ely-
purely.html
It is one thing to be assertive in presenting your opinions. It is quite another to be aggressive in doing so. One is Christian, the other is not.
(This old dog can learn a new trick)
Anti-Catholics can say whatever nonsense they want here. I recommend interacting with them a few times to see if they will talk normally. If they don't, ignore them. Unless he gets vulgar or attacks me personally three times in a row with no other substance in his post but that, he is free to speak. He has done neither, yet, though his posts are repulsive and ridiculous.
BTW Dave, while you brought up the subject on the accuracy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, I read in Philip Hughes, "A Popular History of the Reformation" on page 214, that while the Book of Martyrs gives a wonderful account of Cromwell's execution, the real story was that Cromwell's actual last words were that he died a "Catholic".
Nick brought up Foxe, but I agree totally. It is a joke and propaganda piece, and yes, Thomas Cromwell died (amazingly enough) as a Catholic, as any legitimate historical account of the period today would note. This is what fear of hell and death (he was petrified of being executed) can do to one. Whatever it takes . . .
The Word of God had a little something to do with Protestantism bringing the light and liberty of the Gospel to England. The very thing Roman Catholics were desperately trying to keep out of England.
The things you have to say and believe when you hold to an untenable position. Wake up, RCs. You've been disabused of your satanic beliefs by God's elect. You have no excuse. Wake up now or just enjoy your eternity in burning alienation from God. Enjoy it. You seem to want it, so I suppose you will enjoy it.
Obviously there was a typo in the above. It should read, rather:
"The Word of God had little to do with Protestants' denying liberty to the vast majority of Englishmen and forcing Protestantism on England."
There's no better satire than to list Thomas More as a victim of Protestants. Excuse me, there's no better self-satire.
Is this nut our friend "ct" / "Alexander", etc., folks? It sure sounds a lot like her . . .
Who's that trip-trapping over Follower's bridge?
FOJC, If you were a student of history, you would know that More, as Chancellor of England had a legal obligation to enforce the laws of England, which included at the time, the crime of heresy. The men that were burned at the stake were all men who relapsed into the Protestant faith after recanting the first time they were arrested on the charge of heresy. The punishment of death was mandatory for a second offense.
In contrast, More was convicted for violating an unjust law on perjured testimony in a trial that any objective person would have deemed unjust. Even Martin Luther, who had battled with More in a number of treatises and who had little to say about nice about Zwingli and Oecolampdius, fellow reformers, after they died, lamented More's execution.
BTW, your example here is not satire, but one of irony and even that is not a good example. The men who were burnt at the stake were twice convicted of heresy. More showed them leniency after the first conviction. He could not after the second one. On the other hand, More was tried and convicted of treason for refusing to recognize Henry VIII as the sovereign head of the Church of England.
A better example of irony would be the fact that Cromwell after killing so many Catholics, died one himself.
The satire reference was to Dave's previous comment changing the wording of mine.
Again, what were the Roman Catholics being martyred for? Believing in Jesus Christ as their sole Mediator? Bringing the Word of God to people? No, Protestants believed and did that.
When Protestants were tied to a stake it was because they feared God. The Roman Catholic queen, your charmingly named Bloody Mary, burned Protestants because they were Bible-believing and professing Christians.
That these ABCs even have to be recited demonstrates you can't be a Romanist without being ignorant to the degree of a soul in bondage to the devil and his kingdom itself.
But you're not really ignorant are you? You know the truth, and that is what will convict you when you face your judgment. The blood of martyrs of Jesus Christ is on your hands as long as you give your allegiance to the beast system that killed those martyrs.
Dave, it has to be her. I can smell the stench of sulphur from a mile off.
FOJC, while I could go into an extensive debate with you about "Bloody Mary", I have better things to do. I will end our discourse with this and you can have the last word. Whatever role Mary had in the execution of some 200-300 of her subjects, she learned well from her father who had a hand in killing many more (not just for religious reasons) and a sister who had no problem emulating her. The hands of the Tudors are bloody indeed. Perhaps your kind words will provide solace to the thousands of mentally and emotionally handicapped and spiritually troubled folk who were burnt at the stake in England during the reigns of Elizabeth and James for being witches mainly in Calvinist Scotland.
Oh, this has just got to be our old mentally disturbed friend, "ct." Poor woman needs an exorcism or something.
Again, what were the Roman Catholics being martyred for?
For holding fast to the faith of Jesus Christ.
Believing in Jesus Christ as their sole Mediator?
Sort of. They refused to believe the heresy that Henry Tudor was the head of the Body of Christ in England. But Jesus is the head of the Church, not the King of England, and the Bishop of Rome is His vicar or prime minister, not the King of England.
Bringing the Word of God to people?
Yes, they were martyred for bringing the Word of God to people. The Word of God teaches that Jesus is the Head of the Church, not the King of England. For bringing that Word of God to the English people, they were martyred.
When Protestants were tied to a stake it was because they feared God.
Most of them were probably sincere in their heretical beliefs, but they weren't put to death because of their fear of God, but because they had been convicted of heresy, which in those days, most regrettably, was a capital crime.
Anyway, the long roll of the Catholic martyrs of England reveals just how the English people came to "embrace" Protestantism -- through fear and brute force, through repressive actions of the State. The myth is that the glorious light of the Protestant Gospel liberated them, and they shook off their Catholic chains. The reality is that government thugs came in with swords and rack and rope, looting churches, pillaging monasteries, raping nuns, burning sacred books, and then forcing the people to go only to the government's churches.
Come out of her, "ct," and be not partaker of her sins.
For some perspective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...burned_heretics
Hi PP, Your list only includes people that were burnt at the stake for heresy. The problem is that in the 16th and 17th centuries, the line was blurred between heresy and some of the other capital crimes. Since religion was a matter of state, the crime of heresy was also treated as a crime of treason or sedition which was often punished in a far more gruesome fashion-being starved to death, exposed to the elements by chains, drawn and quartered where the male victims had their genitalia cut off before their eyes prior to being hung and then diced up, having molten metals poured into one's orifices, etc. Most people then, victims included, thought that being burnt at the stake or beheading was a form of clemency over some of the other forms of execution used in the day.
Your list does not include the Anabaptists who were drowned by Calvinist executioners instead of being burned at the stake as a sort of perverse parody of the sacrament of baptism or the thousands of peasants who were slaughtered by the proto-Lutheran nobility in the 1520's not to mention those who were killed by Henry VIII or for that matter in the brief uprising after Edward's death when Mary and Lady Jane Grey were vying for succession.
Only in the Pope's kingdom can burning a person alive be justified as an act of mercy.
Interesting that the Inquisition tortured its victims in their horrific dungeons prior to giving them the mercy of being burned alive on a stake.
Only in the Pope's kingdom can burning a person alive be justified as an act of mercy.
Who was justifying anything, "ct"? We're just talking about what actually happened back then.
FOJC, Actually, that was a punishment imposed by secular authorities, not an ecclesiatical one.
As for your inquisition comment, you need to read the history behind the various inquisitions as opposed to a Jack Chick tract. There were both Catholic and Protestant ones. Please be specific as to which one you are talking about so someone could respond to it as opposed to an off-the-cuff no-thought-put-into-it remark.
And communist tyranny and genocide of the 20th century wasn't what it 'seemed' either. Thanks. Nice to know the Roman Catholic mind is still in chains and darkness.
No unfortunatly, and you might never see it, it is your mind that remains in chains. Beholding to a history that never happened and a rule of faith that never was.
My mind is saturated in the living and saving Word of God. Something made possible by the heroic sacrifices of the men and women of God in Reformation times. God bless them, and I give thanks to my Saviour for them. You should too seeing you have the Word of God as well as the result of their sacrifice.
I know little history so I'll ask. Would not a Lutheran have been executed by Queen Elizabeth if he had refused to join the Church of England? Or, again, was the Church of England a friend of Protesntatism or a secular power grab?
My point being that the secular powers seemed quiet happy to kill anyone they didn't like with very little justification.
Hi Martin, To my knowledge, Elizabeth's religion tended towards Lutheranism. She tolerated Calvinists as long as they stayed in Scotland. She had no problem persecuting Puritans and had some imprisoned or banished because they, like Catholics, refused to acknowledge her as the head of the Church of England. However, they tended to stay under the radar, so to speak, as they did not yet have any political clout at the time.
Lutherans and Calvinists did not have a real problem recognizing Elizabeth as the head of the English Church because their brand of religion at the time advocated the secular authority having control over the Church as opposed to an ecclesiastical authority such as a pope or patriarch.
Thus, the executions of Catholics had political overtones as opposition to her having power over the Church also undermined her authority as queen. To her, heresy meant treason as well.
Something made possible by the heroic sacrifices of the men and women of God in Reformation times.
As we have seen, oftentimes these "sacrifices" of which you speak were acts of human sacrifice, the martyrdom of Catholics who refused to accept their version of the "Word of God."
God bless them, and I give thanks to my Saviour for them. You should too seeing you have the Word of God as well as the result of their sacrifice.
No, "ct," we had the Word of God before Protestantism came along, and we'd have had it even if there'd never been a Protestant Reformation.
By the way, what is your opinion of William Tyndale and his denial of the immortality of the soul?
Calvinists separated the church from the state. In Geneva Calvin's main wars with the political leaders was over this. He was banished from Geneva for it. Lutherans on the other hand tended toward state churches.
Yes, you are filled with pop-history and propaganda regarding Calvin and Geneva and Calvinism.
The Puritans were Calvinists.
The 39 Articles which Elizabeth I approved of were Calvinist to the core.
Elizabeth was a brilliant leader who had to navigate a way through dangerous seas with hazards on all sides, and often, especially early, from a position of relative weakness. She succeeded, and England, a Protestant nation, became the light of the world.
Anglicanism described itself as a golden mean between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in this sense. Yet it was obviously Protestant. Elizabeth I was a Protestant. She confessed and gave witness to the Word of God.
There is an ongoing canard in this thread that English monarchs wanted their subjects to see them as Jesus. No, it was about national sovereignty. It wasn't King/Queen or Jesus. It was King/Queen or Pope.
The Puritans caused friction for Elizabeth because they wanted more radical purifying of the Church of England, i.e. less Romanist hangover. Ideally no Romanist hangover.
The Puritans influence - Calvinism's influence rather - was deep and widespread beyond the surface historical frictions and events. That influence spread to the New World. God bless the heroic Reformers.
After darkness, light. Amen.
>By the way, what is your opinion of William Tyndale and his denial of the immortality of the soul?
1 Tim. 6:16
Acts 17:28
This and subject matter surrounding the so-called intermediate state, along with historical debates concerning Romanism's reliance on pagan philosophy over the Word of God, is the cauldron your statement exists in. Let your fellow Roman Catholics believe what they want, understanding requires both the Spirit as well as some individual effort.
Google conditional immortality.
On what happens to souls upon the death of the physical body, this gets into the nature of time and our limited perception of time. Tyndale boldly denounced unbiblical Romanist doctrines such as purgatory. As any bible-believing Christian he believed in the conditional immortality of the soul.
A side note: Romanists want to pretend that Protestants have infallible teachers other than the Word of God. We don't. You can learn from that.
Calvinists separated the church from the state.
When did they do that? Certainly not in the 1500s, 1600s, or 1700s.
In Geneva Calvin's main wars with the political leaders was over this. He was banished from Geneva for it. Lutherans on the other hand tended toward state churches.
You shouldn't talk about things of which you are obviously completely ignorant. Calvin's Geneva had no separation of Church and State, but was in fact a totalitarian theocracy. Calvin was banished because the people of Geneva got tired of living under such repressive, stifling, unnatural strictures as Calvin and his party had introduced.
Yes, you are filled with pop-history and propaganda regarding Calvin and Geneva and Calvinism.
Funny, that's exactly what is true of you, "ct."
The Puritans were Calvinists.
Yes. As in Oliver Cromwell. No separation of church and state during Cromwell's dictatorship.
The 39 Articles which Elizabeth I approved of were Calvinist to the core.
And you're saying that church and state were separated during the reign of Elizabeth Boleyn?
She succeeded, and England, a Protestant nation, became the light of the world.
What Anglo-centric imperialist/nationalist drivel. . . .
Google conditional immortality.
I don't need to do that, as I used to believe in conditional immortality and soul sleep when I was a heretic like you. I even own Edward Fudge's well-argued but ultimately flawed and erroneous "The Fire That Consumes."
Tyndale boldly denounced unbiblical Romanist doctrines such as purgatory.
True, but irrelevant to the point at hand -- his denial of the immortality of the soul.
As any bible-believing Christian he believed in the conditional immortality of the soul.
Sorry, "ct," most Christians who call themselves Bible-believing do not believe in conditional immortality, nor in "soul sleep." And Tyndale didn't just believe in conditional immortality, but claimed that the dead are unconscious. But neither Samuel nor Jeremiah nor Onias nor Moses and Elijah nor the souls of the martyrs and saints in Revelation are depicted as snoozing. Perhaps God jostled them awake just for the purposes of those visions and apparitions and then let them go back to sleep?
I also note that Jesus didn't tell the Good Thief, "Today you will be taking a long nap with Me in Paradise."
Romanists want to pretend that Protestants have infallible teachers other than the Word of God.
Um, no we don't. We rather make a point of the fact that your teachers are not only fallible, but fatally so.
understanding requires both the Spirit as well as some individual effort.
Yes, that is apparently your biggest problem.
Our immortality is conditional on God's immortality. I don't want to get into a who is more intellectual and stuff argument, but you're writing arrogantly and missing alot.
On Calvinism's relation to the state read Calvin's fourth book, 20th chapter of the Institutes. I mean, some effort is necessary at some point. Avoid Roman Catholic sources, especially internet ones.
This is worth reading:
"PROTESTANTISM ON CHURCH AND STATE
The birth of Protestantism coincided with the beginning of the end of Christendom - the great medieval vision of the essential unity of church and state, with individual monarchs ruling their territories, all presided over by the pope. From the outset, Protestantism was bound to cause political ripples. Perhaps it should be no cause for surprise that the first mainline Protestant reformers adopted models for understanding the relation of church and state that were adapted to the political realities of their regions.
Luther's doctrine of the "two kingdoms" gave the state (especially "the godly prince") a major say in the running of the church. Zwingli adopted an approach to authority and government within the church that bore a remarkable resemblance to the civic authority structures at Zurich in the 1520s. Calvin's strong republican convictions may have been connected to the fact that the city of Geneva, where he ministered from 1536, had declared itself a republic in 1535. English Protestantism gladly recognized the monarch as the "head of the church," until a theologically prudent Elizabeth I changed the terminology as a matter of theological diplomacy. She and her successors would be the "supreme governors" of the national church." - Alister McGrath, Christianity's Dangerous Idea
And, you need to read a good, basic history of Calvin's Geneva, or just a good, basic bio of Calvin.
As for soul-sleep, John Calvin wrote an entire book against such doctrine. Nevertheless, Anabaptists and whoever else held to it were hardly heretics for holding to it. The Bible is not clear, and hence intentionally not clear, on exactly what occurs to elect and reprobate at death regarding matters of time. From God's perception of time Jesus' statement to the thief and other biblical passages that seem to say something else are reconciled. The Word of God doesn't contradict itself. It does leave some things in the realm of mystery, though, Deut. 29:29. The so-called 'intermediate state' is in this category. Personally I see it as Calvin did.
How many times have you read the Bible, FOJC? What other books do you like to read?
I read the Bible many different ways, complete readings being one. Six or so complete.
Other books?
In my life I've shied away from no book and no category of knowledge nor level of influence.
When you fear only God you're not constrained by others' opinions and so on. You engage anything and everything.
Discernment comes from the Spirit.
Follower of [the reformers],
After darkness, light. Amen.
You call this light?
“[I]n the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, I excommunicate all idolaters, blasphemers, despisers of God, heretics, and all who form sects apart to break the unity of the Church…” --- John Calvin., The Manner of Celebrating the Lord’s Supper, Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 2, p. 120. http://books.google.com/books?
id...griFUJS_f83gEOQ
“[We] deny the title of Successors of the Apostles to those who have abandoned their
faith and doctrine…” -- Tracts relating to the reformation, John Calvin, Henry Beveridge, vol. 3, p. 265. http://www.archive.org/details/
t...matio03calvuoft
“by the authority of Jesus Christ…”?
“we deny…? “we deny…”?
Where in the Bible does it say an ordinary believers have the right to make such statements?
And then there is this little gem from Martin Bucer:
“Even Christ and the apostles had recourse to lies of necessity.” (299)
Footnote 299 reads:
“It is the sense of the words written by Bucer July 8, 1540, to the Landgrave [Philip of Hesse], that not only the Fathers of the Old Testament, but Christ and the Apostles as well had ‘held up false delusions and visions’ to their enemies to save the people. ‘Thus should we also not only withhold from our enemies the truth by which they could injure us, but we should divert them from it by adverse delusion (i.e. deception and lying).” -- Luther and Lutherdom by Heinrich Denifle, note 299, p.130.
Bild i.e. image, of Denifle, from the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bil...ild:
Denifle.jpg
These are but two instances in which the reformers, deluded and blinded by pride and arrogance as they were, likened themselves to, and believed themselves to be, acting with the SAME AUTHORITY as St Peter and St. Paul, or the OT Patriarchs or even Christ himself!
Surely you would agree it is a pathetic and blasphemous thing to for anyone to ape those HOLY and DIVINELY APPOINTED Apostles and Patriarchs?
And surely you would also agree that the COUNTLESS CRUELTIES INFLICTED ON INNOCENT souls as a consequence of the reformers indomitable pride can only but serve to compound their guilt?
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” St. Paul’s letter to the universally renowned Catholic Church at Rome, 1:22.
It seems that each new revelation of a long suppressed fact about the so-called “reformation” brings with it an increased awareness of the fact that Protestantism, like Liberalism, simply has no bottom. Tragic.
But thankfully, there is indeed, after darkness, light. Amen
Liberalism? Who is keeping Teddy Kennedy in office all these years?
After having engaged in endless quote wars with some other liberals going by the name Federal Vision I am a bit weary when I see your run of them. It's pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to making legitimate arguments.
Of course you hate the reformers. They exposed you back then, and they continue to expose you today. What self-respecting denizen of the Kingdom of Satan likes being exposed to the light?
Six times reading the Bible pretty much proves that this is our old friend "ct" and so I have banned her again, according to the blog policy that we determined by vote way back when, pertaining to fanatical nuts like her. She's a special case, I think most here would agree, who are familiar with her history. I've banned exceedingly few people on this blog in four years. ct simply abuses free speech. She is utterly unable to engage in true discussion.
Here are some pages from Denifle.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/96bq0qVB.jpg pp 126-127
http://thumbsnap.com/v/E7Kp8cBr.jpg pp 128-129
http://thumbsnap.com/v/J0bHGXzd.jpg pp 130-131
This is just the tip the iceberg. And FOJC thanks God for these people?!!
FOJC,
If you're out there, I hope you’ll take a little time to look at the article and books below. If nothing else, at least read the article. It’s short but informative.
So much history has been distorted and or just simply covered-up, that it’s a wonder that any of us have a proper view of things. Dave has a ton of articles which I’m sure would clear up many misconceptions, if only you would take the time to look at them. For my little part, I offer some additional resources.
The first, The Popes and Science by James Joseph Walsh, you can browse online here. http://books.google.com/books?hl...-
kdvVJ2RwygsIlY
The second, The World’s Debt to the Catholic Church, also by Walsh, while not online, should be available through inter-library loan. Or you could just purchase a copy. I added a table of contents here ( just happen to own an old copy). http://worldcat.org/oclc/2745229...229?
tab=details
And of course, the little article I mentioned above:
How Much of what we know of Dark Ages, or Today, is True? by Harold Raley, professor of Spanish at the University of Houston. Houston Post article, 9-29-92.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Mtbu1JXO.jpg
I truly believe that, if you’ll just take a little time to do some basic historical investigation, you’ll be astonished at the truths - the wonderful truths - you’ll discover. And I’m sure you would agree that the truth, and only the truth, can make us free.
Finally, I leave you with the words of German historian Ludwig von Pastor in the hopes they might kindle in you a desire to learn more about the true story of the Church. (my emphasis)
“The Council of Trent, as well as the Pope, did not altogether approve of the strictness of the Inquisition. In a letter to Rome, the legates of the Council openly expressed their opinion that the conditions of the time called for a procedure marked by gentleness and charity, so that those who had strayed might be brought to understand that what was desired was theirreturn to a good life and to ecclesiastical unity, and that the Church, like a kind and loving mother, was holding out her arms to them. “ – History of the Popes, vol. 16, p. 317.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lud..._Volumes_Online
Six times reading the Bible pretty much proves that this is our old friend "ct"
Plus, she never complained when I referred to her several times as "ct."
Commenting by HaloScan
