'Vicars of Christ: A History of The Popes'
#21
(06-06-2012, 07:33 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I talked with Mithrandylan about this once before. I ordered Puritan's Empire, and upon skimming through the book and checking the back, could not find endnotes, footnotes, or citations. This disappointed me, and I like Coulombe, havig listened to him and heard some of his talks on, for example, the Syllabus and Jansenism.

A historical work, especially today, must have citations. Footnotes serve as the foundation of a work, whether a book review, paper, article, or book. Without them, readers essentially have to take what is written down on Faith. Citing sources has been drilled into me as a History major, and no one can get away with submitting or publishing a work without sources.

Coulombe should cite his sources. Considering that his works will be of a traditional Catholic bent, which is extremely contrarian amongst historians, he needs to have footnotes. A lack of sources enables any critic or non-Catholic to dismiss what he writes. This might be unfair, but it's simply how it is.

Sources would strengthen his works, just as scholasticism strengthened Catholic theology.

There's no need to defend his lack of sources. 

This
Reply
#22
(06-06-2012, 06:50 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:28 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Kinda bummed that Coulombe doesn't cite his sources.  That's a big turn-off for me, especially for a history book.

True enough, but all in all not more than a minor annoyance for me.

Writing a history book without citing sources, or relying solely on second and third hand sources, is usually a worthless endeavour.

:eyeroll:

Don't worry Vetus this wasn't intended to dislodge you from your pride induced heresy.

This is about history and how to write something meaningful that stands outside scrutiny. As it stands, Coloumbe's or anybody else's sourceless work doesn't.
Reply
#23
(06-06-2012, 06:59 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:51 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:47 PM)Cetil Wrote: Coulombe doesn't have a history degree. I do and I have to agree that publishing a book without notes and sources is appalling. I don't doubt anything that is cited here but I would stick to books written by academic historians. The history of the papacy proves again and again that Hilaire Belloc was right when he said of the Church: "An institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight."

C.

This book is one of the best histories of the papacy I've come by. It's authored by one of Britain's top academic historians, who is a Catholic, to boot:

http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Sinners-His...0300091656

I've heard of Duffy's book but have not read it yet. Some say  he fails in his analysis of Pius XII by criticizing him for his "silence" on Nazi crimes. Is that true?

C.
Reply
#24
(06-06-2012, 08:08 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:59 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:51 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:47 PM)Cetil Wrote: Coulombe doesn't have a history degree. I do and I have to agree that publishing a book without notes and sources is appalling. I don't doubt anything that is cited here but I would stick to books written by academic historians. The history of the papacy proves again and again that Hilaire Belloc was right when he said of the Church: "An institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight."

C.

This book is one of the best histories of the papacy I've come by. It's authored by one of Britain's top academic historians, who is a Catholic, to boot:

http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Sinners-His...0300091656

I've heard of Duffy's book but have not read it yet. Some say  he fails in his analysis of Pius XII by criticizing him for his "silence" on Nazi crimes. Is that true?

C.

I haven't read it, but C, check out this Amazon review.  If even one or two of the things said by this reviewer is true, doesn't sound like this is a book worth it's weight in anything

Amazon Reviewer Wrote:This coffee table history book is a more popularized version of the standard secularist account of the Papacy: Peter was not the first Pope; the Roman church didn't even have bishops until the mid 100s, let alone claim primacy over Christendom or have anyone respect that claim; by the 400s a Papacy as we now know it emerged; then, a catalogue of good and bad medieval Popes (with a predominant focus on the bad ones), followed by a dissaproving analysis of the 19th and 20th century Popes who were most opposed to Enlightenment ideals, modernist theology and the conquest of the Papal States; finally, there is the obligatory encomia for Vatican II, with a disappointed account of Humanae Vitae and the reign of Pope John Paul II. We've seen it all before. What's worse is that the author goes to great lengths to claim a status as a "practicing Catholic." I guess every aspiring author has to burn that pinch of incense to the pagan idols in order to be published by Yale University Press.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#25
(06-06-2012, 07:33 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I talked with Mithrandylan about this once before. I ordered Puritan's Empire, and upon skimming through the book and checking the back, could not find endnotes, footnotes, or citations. This disappointed me, and I like Coulombe, havig listened to him and heard some of his talks on, for example, the Syllabus and Jansenism.

A historical work, especially today, must have citations. Footnotes serve as the foundation of a work, whether a book review, paper, article, or book. Without them, readers essentially have to take what is written down on Faith. Citing sources has been drilled into me as a History major, and no one can get away with submitting or publishing a work without sources.

Coulombe should cite his sources. Considering that his works will be of a traditional Catholic bent, which is extremely contrarian amongst historians, he needs to have footnotes. A lack of sources enables any critic or non-Catholic to dismiss what he writes. This might be unfair, but it's simply how it is.

Sources would strengthen his works, just as scholasticism strengthened Catholic theology.

There's no need to defend his lack of sources. I also noticed the first post was a thinly veiled swipe against sedevacantism.

a) get over the lack of citations already

b)yeah, pretty much as it shows some of their claims i.e that a pope can't publicly pronounce heresy, enact harmful laws etc.. are false
Reply
#26
(06-06-2012, 08:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:50 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:28 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(06-06-2012, 06:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Kinda bummed that Coulombe doesn't cite his sources.  That's a big turn-off for me, especially for a history book.

True enough, but all in all not more than a minor annoyance for me.

Writing a history book without citing sources, or relying solely on second and third hand sources, is usually a worthless endeavour.

:eyeroll:

Don't worry Vetus this wasn't intended to dislodge you from your pride induced heresy.

This is about history and how to write something meaningful that stands outside scrutiny. As it stands, Coloumbe's or anybody else's sourceless work doesn't.

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

a) The work isnt sourceless it just doesn't cite its sources
b)the books pretty meaningful
Reply
#27
TrentCath:
What's your deficiency?
Reply
#28
(06-06-2012, 08:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: TrentCath:
What's your deficiency?

:LOL:

C.
Reply
#29
(06-06-2012, 08:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

a) The work isnt sourceless it just doesn't cite its sources
b)the books pretty meaningful

a) Which amounts to being sourceless.
b) Perhaps devotionally so but not historically meaningful.
Reply
#30
(06-06-2012, 08:13 PM)TrentCath Wrote: a) get over the lack of citations already

b)yeah, pretty much as it shows some of their claims i.e that a pope can't publicly pronounce heresy, enact harmful laws etc.. are false

I am "over" it. This doesn't bother me, and it's on Coulombe, not me. With regards to option b, discussion/debate of sedevacantism outside of the Cornfield is forbidden by forum rules. You just admitted you argued against sedevacantism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)