Rieckert Defends Prevost Wrong

Orthodox Apologist Accuses Pope Leo Of Heresy... Then This Happens
Cameron Riecker | 30 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U2t5hItxhk

[You have dogma A which 3:21 evolves into dogma B which moves into 3:23 dogma C, etc., etc. That's not what the 3:26 church teaches.]

Trent Session V. The first three canons are very relevant:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, –is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

CCC § 283

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

Note, Trent calls Adam "the first man" ... any Homo erectus, any Neanderthal and any Denisovan we find, but also anyone looking more closely like ourselves (Homo sapiens sapiens) is, descended from Adam. Unfortunately it is all too clear that CCC § 283 is not referring to studies by Ken Ham or Robert Carter (if only because they came into the game later than 1992, perhaps not totally true for Ken Ham, however, before the internet he was hardly known in Rome, Krakow or Munich).

[The teachings aren't 3:53 dynamic in so far as they change from, 3:55 well, we used to think Jesus was fully 3:57 divine, but we don't think that anymore. 3:59 Of course not. That would be absolute 4:00 heresy.]

How about, "we used to believe Mary and Jesus were prophecied in a setting literally and historically depicted in Genesis 3, before any human person other than Adam and Eve were alive, but we don't believe that anymore"?

Jimmy Akin feels this is not obligatory, an "Assumptionist" in Paris assured in his paper, before 100,000's of readers, that Adam and Eve never existed like I and you exist, as real, concrete human persons.

There is a slight shade of distinction between person, as required by Trent V, and personification, as Sébastien Antoni preferred.

4:51 Have you heard of the Jewish division of mitsvoth? Rabbis are wrong to think they apply as they did in Moses' time, but the positive mitsvoth, things to do at least once in your life, are the number (or reputed such) of bones in a body. However, negative mitzvoth are 365, because those things must be avoided every day of the year.

Eating rabbit had to be avoided every day of the year up to Golgatha. The symbolism which applies is, we cannot ourselves be like rabbits, "chewing the cud" (the Hebrew word means lifting up, doesn't specify which way) like meditating, but doing so with a "meat" (St. Paul actually uses the word for doctrine, while some doctrine is "milk") which walks on other things than fully cloven hooves (symbolising the two testaments), in this case has some kind of "fingers" clearly more than two (symbolising polytheism).

Your example of the basket ball player is about "things to do" (definitely not all of them at once). But doctrine and morals are partly about things to avoid every day, including error, so things to believe every day have to stay the same. Just like the rich man who had kept the commandments from childhood did not eat rabbit meat even once (prior to later joining the Christians, if Damien Mackey is right about his identity). It was not "oh, today I can eat rabbit, because it's pork I'm avoiding today" ...

Recall, St. Thomas states the OT mitzvoth were symbolic of our Christian duties, and the dietary rules specifically about faith and prayer life. The one animal with fully cloven hooves (two testaments) that is to be avoided is the pork that doesn't "chew the cud" (i e meditate). Good reason to pray the Rosary, but not a good reason to defend Prevost.

5:35 Humanae Vitae promotes NFP in the counterprocreative use.

However, one OT rule about sexual purity between spouses imposes the opposite monthly rhythm to that use of NFP. And St. Thomas says that if it is in the NT just a venial sin to come together in weeks forbidden in the OT (under pain of stoning), it's because NFP as contraceptive is not a guaranteed one. NFP would involve a mortal if denying the spouse intercourse in response to a previous agreement on NFP.

isoldam

@isoldam

That sounds like complete nonsense. I'll accept the Magisterium's opinion on NFP rather than some random guy on the internet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@isoldam Can you trace the position of "Paul VI" back to certainly traditional Popes or episcopates?

@isoldam Supplement to the III Part.

Q 64. Article 3. Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt? / Article 4. Whether a menstruous woman should or may lawfully pay the marriage debt to her husband if he ask for it?

These articles are omitted in the Leonine edition.