When a teen, I stopped reading and returned to the Freemason who had lent me it, Origin of the Species after reading and noting the context of the page where I considered he had made a fault in logic. It is the fault called "de minore ad majus". However, here I stop hearing the video when I hear one or possibly even two lies, at 4:46 of a video more than one hour in length.
- Questions For Catholics (Jacob Prasch)
Veruka psalm40verse2 | added 6th of March 2018
- 2:32 Here is what wikipedians have had to say about Pope Vigilius:
"Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict and was called to Constantinople by Justinian, in order to settle the matter there with a synod. According to the Liber pontificalis on 20 November, 545, while the pope was celebrating the Feast of St. Cecilia in the Church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, and before the service was fully ended, he was ordered by the imperial official Anthimus to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in the Tiber in order to be carried to the eastern capital while a part of the populace cursed the pope and threw stones at the ship. Rome was now besieged by the Goths under Totila and the inhabitants fell into the greatest misery. Vigilius sent ships with grain to Rome, but these were captured by the enemy. If the story related by the Liber pontificalis is essentially correct, the pope probably left Rome on 22 November 545. He remained for a long time in Sicily and reached Constantinople about the end of 546 or in January 547."
"After his transfer to Constantinople, Vigilius wrote/said to his captors: "Do with me what you wish. This is the just punishment for what I have done." and "You may keep me in captivity, but the blessed Apostle Peter will never be your captive.""
"While in captivity, Vigilius sought to persuade the emperor to send aid to the inhabitants of Rome and Italy who were so hard pressed by the Goths. Justinian's chief interest, however, was in the matter of the Three Chapters, and as Vigilius was not ready to make concessions of this point and wavered frequently in his measures, he had much to suffer. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. The change in his position is to be explained by the fact that the condemnation of the writings mentioned was essentially justifiable, yet appeared inopportune and would lead to disastrous controversies with Western Europe. Finally, Vigilius acknowledged in a letter of 8 December 553 to the Patriarch Eutychius the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople and declared his judgment in detail in a Constitution of 26 February 554. Thus at the end of a sorrowful residence of eight years at Constantinople the pope was able, after coming to an understanding with the emperor, to start on his return to Rome in the spring of 555."
- 2:47 Third Council of Constantinople, Honorius.
Roman Catholic canon law says a vote on a council is not sufficient unless there is a signature from Pope or Papal Legate.
This means, Pope St Leo II confirmed the posthumous blame on Honorius in as far as Honorius was guilty of inaction indirectly supporting Monotheletism and of urging others to such inaction (notably St Sophronius who did not obey), but he did not confirm Honorius as guilty of Monotheletism. In other words, Honorius was a bad Pope, not a heretic.
2:56 Honorius was not kicked out of office, since he was already dead by the time of the decision.
Third Council of Constantinople
Accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics
Pope Honorius I
Pope Honorius I (died 12 October 638) was Pope from 27 October 625 to his death in 638.
More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"
However, Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council interprets the council as intending to criticize Honorius not for error of belief, but rather for "imprudent economy of silence". Leo's letter states: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." Persons such as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine have challenged accusations that Pope Honorius I taught heresy.
... Historian Jaroslav Pelikan notes: "It is evident, as Maximus noted in exoneration of Honorius, that his opposition to the idea of 'two wills' was based on the interpretation of 'two wills' as 'two contrary wills.' He did not mean that Christ was an incomplete human being, devoid of a human will, but that as a human being he did not have any action in his body nor any will in his soul that could be contrary to the action and will of God, that is, to the action and will of his own divine nature."
3:07 Honorius was not proclaiming Monotheletism.
3:16 Honorius was not sacked, he was already dead.
Michel Colin claimed to have received in 1950 a revelation saying God had sacked Pius XII and he took the name Clement XV.
- By the way, I could introduce myself. You hail from two backgrounds, Jewish and Catholic. I hail from four of them, or five : Agnostic, Atheist, Lutheran-Church-Hopping, Jewish and Catholic. My name is Hans-Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl.
["You" = speaker, Jacob Prasch, not video owner, not Veruka psalm40verse2]
- 3:41 Note, Popes have erred, we agree.
When saying, not when proclaiming ex cathedra.
Honorius erred in taking Monotheletism as innocuous in wording (by the way, the last Monothelites who were so became the Uniate Maronites and accept the Third Council of Constantinople). His words were disciplinary, like "do not preach against Monotheletism".
Paschal IIJohn XXII erred in accepting a then popular among Eastern Schismatics doctrine of Soul Sleep. He was opposed by people threatening to withdraw obedience - that is, presumably, declare him a non-Pope. Since he withdrew his error, it is clear he cannot have made a kind of "final statement".
"Pope John XXII inadvertently caused the beatific vision controversy (1331–34) by suggesting that the saved do not attain the Beatific Vision, or "see God" until Judgment Day (in Italian: Visione beatifica differita, "deferred beatific vision"), which was a view possibly consistent with soul sleep. The Sacred College of Cardinals held a consistory on the problem in January 1334, and Pope John conceded to the more orthodox understanding. His successor, in that same year, Pope Benedict XII, declared it ex cathedra doctrine that the righteous do see Heaven prior to the final judgement."
So, he erred. Obviously, his cardinals did not.
- 4:04 “Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the Pope.”
God gave an inspiration for when you said that. 4:04 suggests "error 404" or page missing.
Here is a discussion of that quote:
This quote appears in chapter 7 of Dave Hunt’s “A Woman Rides the Beast” and is quoted on many anti-Catholic websites. I have searched in vain for a source document.
If you claim you have found the quote in "Rome Has Spoken", where do they give their attribution for the source?
Could Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben by some chance have given credence to fake quotes?
Did you say they were nuns?
Linda Rabben's page on Amazon doesn't say so.
"Linda Rabben is an anthropologist, human rights advocate and author or editor of eight books on human rights-related subjects. She has worked for organizations such as Amnesty International, the Rainforest Foundation, the International Center for Transitional Justice, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. She did ethnographic fieldwork in Brixton, South London, UK, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where she acquired proficiency in the samba. Her work as a writer, editor, researcher and public speaker has taken her to Mozambique, France, Mexico, the Netherlands and other countries. She has also traveled much in Iowa. After spending more than 25 years focusing on Brazil, she became interested in refugee, asylum and immigration issues in the mid-1990s. Her most recent book, "Sanctuary and Asylum: A Social and Political History," grew out of that involvement. She writes accessible, straightforward prose and speaks to a diverse, "crossover" audience of students, engaged scholars, activists, policymakers, lawyers, refugees, immigrants and lovers of social history. "
Maureen E. Fiedler has no author page. Her other work on Amazon seems to be about feminist theology of some sort:
Even if she is a nun, she need not be considered as faithful to the magisterium and as having no anti-Catholic (usual historic sense) bias.
Also, the quote could have been included due to Linda Rabben.
- 4:46 Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Be, not is.
It is not necessary for your salvation to believe a Pagan is subject to the Pope, it is necessary for your and for the Pagan's salvation to be Catholic Christians subject to the Pope.
At 4:40 there is a misquote "that every human being
issubject to the Roman Pontiff"
This is not what the Bull says.
- If Jacob Prasch hails from partly Jewish background, he might have a somewhat better grasp on language than misquoting "be" as "is", with an indicative (statement of fact) for subjunctive (statement of necessity by condition, here).
Is Jacob Prasch a liar, or has he quoted from a book by liars?
J 74 070 04
. 78 140 12
P 80 220 12
R 82 300 14
A 65 360 19
S 83 440 22
C 67 500 29
H 72 570 31 601 (JA. PRASCH instead of J. PRASCH would give 666)
Yeah, I checked at 1:22 Jacob Prasch said "written by two Academic Roman Catholic nuns"
Can he document either is so?