When Protestants Misread Catholic Documents

The Protestant site Reformation dot org has given an extended extract (with résumés of lacking parts) of Dominus ac Redemptor Noster. Link:

http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-suppression-bull.html

The intro says:

This Brief or Papal Bull is a damning indictment of the Papacy....The Pope acknowledges how utterly corrupt the Jesuits are, yet his suppression came AFTER their expulsion was a fait accompli by the kings of France, Portugal and Spain.

Then comes a line, with the actual text below it (résumés of omitted portions in [square brackets] and I don't know if italics are from the bull or from the site citing the bill).

And, in this text below the line, I do not find any indication the Jesuits had been utterly corrupt. Meddling in wordly affairs, certainly, but I suspect that the canonic admonotions cited against this from previous popes had been dispensed with by other previous popes.

And that in itself is not utterly corrupt.

However, the salient point is, the order had been occasion for quarrel.

The Pope Clement XIV was not even saying the quarrel was the fault of the Jesuits. He was saying it was occasioned by their presence, which is a somewhat different story.

And the site where the document is partially cited is then resuming the content with "the Pope acknowledges how utterly corrupt the Jesuits are". Eisegesis, anyone?/HGL

King Arthur or Anabaptists, What's Easier to Prove for 6th Century?

This link suggests that proving King Arthur is if not yet totally done, at least vaguely possible:

Exciting New Evidence Proves King Arthur Is A True Story After All
By Meagan Nantwich, Dec 5, 2018
http://www.noteabley.com/culture/king-arthur-evidence-tb/

It's far less easy to show up anything beyond obvious misunderstandings and names with no documents prior to Reformation in order to substantiate some kind of Anabaptist Christianity on the lines of Baptists or Mennonites, even roughly, for that time.

I said "beyond obvious misunderstandings" - since you obviously can misunderstand Culdees as sth different than basically Catholic monks (no more or not much more different from Catholics than Russian Orthodox are) and you can misunderstand the canons Germanos of Constantinople gave for baptism as not just written mainly for adult baptism, but as therefore positively excluding child baptism.

And I said "beyond names with no documents prior to Reformation", as when for 8th C. I saw one fairly made up story about two "Anabaptist" or "Non-Papist" martyrs Clement of Scotland and Albert of Gaul, in Martyrs' Mirror.

King Arthur is documented prior to that./HGL