[JCBreckenridge]

There is zero evidence that Mary Ann Collins (or whatever she’s calling herself now), was ever a Catholic nun.

[NKP_Vet]

If she were a nun she’s just another disgruntled nun who left the church because she couldn’t become ordained.

[count-your-change]

Who cares who this Collins is? Is the article factual or not? If not then in what statement? If so it doesn’t matter who said it.

Is the article factual?

[BlueDragon]

But what does "Mary Ann Collins"have to do with the posted article, concerning the multiple fruadulent "historical documents" which some aspects of RC attitude, practice, and belief were much affected by? Is the information contained within the article wrong, for reason of her having apparently made some discussion of those things herself?

Each and every item of discussion found in this article, relies upon other scholarship from elsewhere. But thanks for the typical "papist" response, in the first "reply" to the OP. Slash and slander aimed at the messenger, much like the Jews of old whom far too habitually slew the prophets which the Lord raised up among them, or sent to them from elsewhere. They didn't get 'em all, though. Thank God for that...

Aquinas himself, I am lead to believe, did not himself notice there were documents handed him which contained erroneous information, fake quotes and the like, when he used even those things in his own theology. Has the effect of those frauds been rooted out from RC canon law and catechism? I think not, for otherwise that "church" would need to admit to there being some past "whoopsie, there were mistakes made", and we all know that having RCC theolgians confess to past errors among their own ilk, is like pulling teeth in difficulty, what with the patient always biting down on the dentist, and also rhetorically kicking the guy in the huevos.