... on Misrepresenting Origins of Catholic Church · ... in Reply to Lizzie · ... in Reply to Joe's Reply to Lizzie
This series of comments might seem a bit disconnected if not compared to the video I am answering to, as often is the case with the video comment videos. Watch it along with my comment./HGL
10 Lies Protestants Believe About Catholicism! (From a Protestant)
From one convert about another.
Have you checked out Stephan Borgehammar? His father was a Lutheran clergyman. He is now a Catholic, but I think he wrote this book while still a Lutheran:
How the Holy Cross was found : from event to medieval legend : with an appendix of texts
Responsibility : Stephen Borgehammar.
5:05 What was Martin Luther's motive?
Well, II Maccabees endorses sacrifice for the dead, and Martin Luther was attacking Masses said for the dead.
6:55 When it comes to relics = bones, check out 4th Book Of Kings (2 Kings) : chapter 13.
9:31 Actually, council of Nicaea was not yet establishing what books were Scripture.
You find local councils doing that a bit later, and disagreeing (Laodicaea council has no Maccabees - but also no Apocalypse!). Canon of Trent agrees (or is meant to agree, some dispute the success) with the canons of councils of Rome and Carthage.
11:29 Actually, Jesus did give the basic training on certain things to do and on hiererarchy, He did make choices like "72, 12, Peter". Only hierarchic choice not explicitly attributed to Jesus was the deacons, Acts, seven deacons in Jerusalem.
BUT a lot of the things we see the Apostles doing must have been directly mentioned by Jesus, or they would not have dared to come up with it. That is what Haydock comment says about Extreme Unction mentioned in James.
Or said, I think the comment has changed, or I misrecalled where it was:
ST. JAMES - Chapter 5
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
Epistle Of Saint James : Chapter 5
Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
12:47 What is awful about the Crusades?
I don't mean this that or other war crime under crusades, but crusades as such : was it awful to deliver Mossul from ISIS? It cost some killing.
12:55 Thirty Years War was a war in which Protestants were one belligerent party. Including Gustavus Adolphus, king or better usurper of Sweden, who was executing two converts to Catholicism as traitors. Georg Bäär or Georgius Ursinus, and the mayor of Södertelge, Zacharias Anthelius.
Unlike some, Lutherans and Anglicans never made pacifism a test of their religion, and of those who did, some had just a generation earlier been violent and revolutionary. Hussites like Ziska were basically the back then version of Commies, at least comparable to Bela Kun and Rosa Luxemburg.
14:42 "together with us they adore the one merciful God"
Well, not all Catholics agree with that, some, including me, consider these words as an act of apostasy.
If it had been like
// like we, they believe there is one God //
that would have been OK, as Muslims have a philosophically correct concept of God.
But saying they are together with us adoring God would mean they are adressing their prayers to the right God. A generally correct philosophical description of God is not sufficient for a right identifification of Him.
Check out this catechism:
CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X
BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3
From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore(1891 Version)
15:27 And there are some of us Catholics who believe the world is six or seven thousand years old, and who are geocentrics.
No, all creationists and even global manmade warming deniers are not Protestants, I am among the Catholic ones.
15:40 What exact statement are you speaking about and which Pope?
Certainly not Pope St Pius X!
16:00 Truth cannot contradict truth, sure.
Can you say even one YEC who would deny that?
A YEC by definition does not think millions of years is true. And a falsehood (like millions of years) can contradict truth (like Genesis).
16:16 First trial of Galileo in 1616 about his book and about Foscarini's letter:
In 1616 Bellarmine became involved in the Copernican controversy, which was brought to a head by the publication of Paolo Antonio Foscarini's book defending the Copernican system from the charge that it clashed with the Scriptures. It was he who administered the controversial admonition to Galileo not to hold or defend the Copernican theory.
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621)
The Galileo Project > Christianity > Robert Cardinal Bellarmine
The thing is, Bellarmine was not judging Galileo's personality, but the science and theology. And St Robert has remained the better scientist to this very day.
16:27 He made a dialogue in which the character Simplicio reflects the cardinal Barberini whom he had talked to as a personal friend before Barberini became Pope. Galileo did not mention the Pope by name, only his (the Pope's) private friends would have known how close he was to Simplicio.
Plus, making fun of the Pope is NOT a matter for lifelong house arrest or abjuration under threat of otherwise being burned as a heretic.
It most certainly WAS about Heliocentrism : Earth turning around Sun and also around itself in a daily motion were the two only things Galileo had to abjure.
The dialogue was put on the index because it argued for Heliocentrism.
Arguing otherwise, saying Galileo was punished for "an attitude problem" is as Satanic as boot camps, if you accept this.
16:33 In 1633 Galileo was not told to show Pope Urban VIII more respect, he was told to abjure what he had considered two major scientific discoveries or two aspects of one such.
"Disrespectful to the Pope" means very little in the Catholic Church. Dante and Walter von der Vogelweide had been disrespectful to Popes. Sts Bridget and Catherine of Siena had on behalf of God been disrespectful to Popes.
And Galileo had not even given clues except to very close friends of Pope Urban that Simplicio was reflecting his own acuaintance with the thitherto cardinal Barberini.
Pope Urban even was absent from the trial so his personal feelings should not interfere with the outcome.
What you are saying about the affair, and the Catholics you heard it from, is very disrespectful to his objectivity as a pastor.
16:49 "Have always interpreted Genesis 1 as an allegory"
Probably true, but more like true of Genesis 2, where creation of Eve when Adam slept is an allegory for Good Friday, Church born of the opened side of the Last Adam.
BUT "have never interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 as literally true" [not actual quote, but rendering what is often understood under the other]?
False. Check out the Church Fathers (canonised saints, not Origen or Philo Judaeus!) like St Basil, St Augustine, St John Chrysostom. They all take Genesis account as literally true, and so do the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.
You see, interpreting x as allegory does not mean interpreting x as not literally true in the first place. It is not synonymous to interpreting it as "an allegory" a literary genre only meant to give other truths through a false story. Check out Quadriga Cassiani.
Check out this reference:
[I was looking for another one, the Quadriga Cassiani which used to be an article on wikipedia]
Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture
It actually miscites:
the four-fold method of scriptural interpretation, i.e., allegory, typology, tropology, and anagogy.
Four senses are actually : Literal, Allegoric, Moral and Anagogic.
Not sure if Lubac got that, but you can (so far) look it up in Summa Theologica:
Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 1
16:39 I agree our education system is very biassed.
Anti-Catholic. Anti-Monarchist. Anti-Middle Ages. Anti-Geocentric. Anti-Young Earth Creationist. Anti-Moral. Anti-Theist. Antichristian.
17:45 There was an indulgenced alms scandal in Germany involving Dominicans not handing all alms over to building of St Peters, but part of them to a debt they had to the Fuggers.
A bit as if the gifts had been just any kind of income.
Council of Trent looked into the office of alms collectors.
19:47 "not physically but metaphysically"
Better not visibly, but in actual fact. Apart from that, congratulations, you have got apostolic succession, absolution from sins, transsubstantiation fairly right.
20:45 God has NOT given us a way to reinterpret the Bible through the years to fit the culture!
Papal infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council of 1869, interrupted in 1870. This use of it was specifically excluded.
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)
- Session 4 : 18 July 1870
- First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
- Chapter 4.
- On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
- For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
New issues that come up, that is another matter.
Yes, if an issue seems new, it may happen it really is and the pope has to come up with a new decision, but even so, it must be only a new aspect of an old decision.
Usually, the issues aren't even new, the Pope just comes up with finding what already has been decided.
24:06 Being anti-authority is not just any Protestant - it is Congregationalist.
Luther, Cranmer, Calvin all lowered authority and all changed structure but at the end of the day still had a fairly hierarchic and structured one.
Sometimes so much more oppressive than Catholicism could ever be (up to then, not counting modern deviations).
24:16 Why not check out what Jesus did about hierarchy Himself?
He made disciples. He chose 72 among the rest. He chose 12 among the 72. He chose Peter among the 12.
The 72 got privileges the others didn't have (and there were no women in the 72), the 12 privileges the rest of the 72 didn't have and Peter some the rest of the 12 didn't have (at least on Catholic understanding, some Orthodox would say "until later than he").
25:22 if it is in a good Catechism, one should not disagree with it.
Diverse points have diverse weight in the catechism. But if behind the catechism there is an infallible teaching (papal bull, decree of a council), you are bound to it.
26:09 Orthodox tend to have gone along very well with the points you mentioned from St Augustine.
Where they traditionally do disagree with him is on:
- the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son (there are other Church Fathers, including St Athanasius, THE great hero of the Arian crisis for this);
- the "Roma locuta est, causa finita est".
You seem to have come across some modernist Orthodox.
26:10 Why are you going to be on birth control?
If you don't want children, why marry?
If you marry, why avoid children?
27:08 Was Heaven closed to man or wasn't it, until Christ redeemed us?
St Thomas Aquinas and an Evangelical Swedish song both say Christ has opened the pearly gate. Are you saying it was never even closed because of Adam's sin? Are you saying Lazarus was so many million miles from the Rich Man he wasn't even down in the Netherworld?
28:09 Check out how St Clement of Rome (one of the early Popes) deals with Corinth.
A bit as if he had authority over it, right?