Answering John MacArthur, III

Answering John MacArthur, I · part II · part III

POPE & PAPACY Part 3 JOHN MACARTHUR
Blaze25z | 4.XII.2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WbF-BZxu6s

I

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The "only mention of vestments in Scripture is in connexion with the priests of Baal," you said?

As you are an impatient man, maybe you did not read all the laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Aaronite priesthood had very detailed prescriptions for their vestments when in service, precisely as the Catholic priesthood has now. Especially those who are not modernist. Those who are not Bergoglio style.

"But the Aaronite priesthood" you might say, "was in the Old Testament."

The priests of Baal were also during the Old Testament's time. The prohibition against tonsure (shaven head) is also an Old Testament prescription.

Villie Stephanov

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So was JOSHUA 5:2 @ the same time, as well as Isaiah's 11:11 and Jeremiah, " For in These, I delight", says the LORD.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Four years ago, I wrote this, so I must have started seeing the series ....

II

As to Spurgeon's "only mention of vestments in Scripture is in connexion with the priests of Baal," I look up Douay Rheims.

Singular gives me one hit:

"Then Jonathan put on the holy vestment in the seventh month, in the year one hundred and threescore, at the feast day of the tabernacles: and he gathered together an army, and made a great number of arms."
[1 Machabees 10:21]

Plural:

Exodus 28:3, 4; 29:5, 21; 31:10; 35:19, 21; 39:1, 41; 40:13
Leviticus 6:11; 8:2, 30, 31; 16:4, 23, 32; 21:10
Numbers 20:28
Ezechiel 42:14; 44:19
2 Machabees 3:15

None of these mention priests of Baal ... you perhaps meant IV Kings 10:22?

And he said to them that were over the wardrobe: Bring forth garments for all the servants of Baal. And they brought them forth garments.

Oh - KJV has vestments in IV (II) Kings 10:22? Perhaps the word was chosen tendentiously by puritans, trying to smear Catholic clergy?

III

I have problems posting a comment involving Gospel of Matthew ...

Perhaps Blaze25z hates Gospel of St. Matthew as much as Spurgeon does?

EDIT after posting below : or perhaps the problem was just technical.

Let's try posting it in two halves:

1:33 "away with them, says Spurgeon"

He was against Gospel of St Matthew too?

Matthew 4:[18] And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers). [19] And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men. [20] And they immediately leaving their nets, followed him.

[21] And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them. [22] And they forthwith left their nets and father, and followed him.

5:[1] And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him.

(disciples distinguished from multitudes)

7:[28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. [29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

(people or multitude seem to have caught up with them)

9:[8] And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men. [9] And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me. And he rose up and followed him. [10] And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

10:[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

13:[34] All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables he did not speak to them. [35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

[36] Then having sent away the multitudes, he came into the house, and his disciples came to him, saying: Expound to us the parable of the cockle of the field.

(again, disciples very clearly distinguished from multitude, and considering they were in a house "his disciples" would mean the 12, not all the believers on that occasion)

And second half:

15:[36] And taking the seven loaves and the fishes, and giving thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the people. [37] And they did all eat, and had their fill. And they took up seven baskets full, of what remained of the fragments. [38] And they that did eat, were four thousand men, beside children and women. [39] And having dismissed the multitude, he went up into a boat, and came into the coasts of Magedan.

Considering the fewness of the loaves and fishes, the disciples would be the twelve, and the food was multiplied in their hands. Again, multitude dismissed and disciples can even share a boat with Him, or come after Him in a second boat: )

16:[5] And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.

(Even if they came in more than one boat, they were few enough for all of them to have forgotten bread)

[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

(Again, the "disciples" do not mean all the multitude of believers, St Peter - who "wasn't yet a saint" - was not speaking up in a huge crowd here.)

17:[1] And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: [2] And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. [3] And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. [4] And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. [5] And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.

[6] And the disciples hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid. [7] And Jesus came and touched them: and said to them, Arise, and fear not. [8] And they lifting up their eyes saw no one but only Jesus. [9] And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead. [10] And his disciples asked him, saying: Why then do the scribes say that Elias must come first?

Here we even have just three men being kind of clergy within the clergy.

18:[1] At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?

The disciples are so few they can interrupt each other with agreeing questions - or so few one can speak and it counts as them all speaking, because he knows them (that one would have been St Peter if so).

[21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.

When Jesus told St Peter this, He reserved for him the fullness of the power of absolution.

19:[10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

The disciples are so few only virginal men and men having left their wives are present to speak for them ... this is NOT all of His believers.

[27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?

St. Peter's "we" involves not all believers, but the disciples who have done so (12 at least).

20:[17] And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples apart, and said to them: [18] Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. [19] And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again. [20] Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, adoring and asking something of him.

Again, the 12 form a clergy, since Christ takes them apart.

21:[1] And when they drew nigh to Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto mount Olivet, then Jesus sent two disciples, [2] Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to me. [3] And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye, that the Lord hath need of them: and forthwith he will let them go. [4] Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: [5] Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke.

[6] And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them.

These disciples are unnamed, probably because not of the twelve, not of the high clergy.

23:[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

These are therefore distinguished.

[2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. [4] For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

Christ is saying, during the OT, one needed to obey even bad secondary clergy (Pharisees being secondary to priests), not just good clergy. This has implications for NT, when the clergy is no longer the Pharisees.

[10] Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

This is often taken as prohibiting clergy, in light of the rest, arguably it does not.

Here is what Challoner has to say on the subject:

[9] "Call none your father upon earth": Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 15) and for our masters and teachers.

I think some of the rest of what He is saying to scribes and Pharisees might involve the fact that a clergy is necessary (both testaments), and even Spurgeon was in his way a clergyman, in a way his humblest listener was not.

But I'm going on:

26:[6] And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, [7] There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. [8] And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste?

Note very well, the disciples are so few they were dining in the house of one person with Christ. NOT all of the believers.

[17] And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? [18] But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. [19] And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. [20] But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.

Here we see that "the disciples" was often used as a shorthand for "the twelve disciples" - which were not all of the believers.

Note, this means that the 12 were the ones to whom Christ said the words of institution, which, as we know from other Gospels or St Paul were followed up by "do this in remembrance of me" authorising them to the same celebration.

From this moment on, the Eucharist can be celebrated:

• by the 12
• by anyone the 12 made bishop, like themselves
• by anyone the 12 made priest
• by anyone a bishop other than the 12 made bishop
• by anyone a bishop other than the 12 made priest.

C L E R G Y.

We are called "priests" because we can receive the Eucharist, not because we have each and all power to celebrate it as a sacrifice or as the miracle of Real Presence, which the clergy do.

As dividing the comment into two removed the problem, I'll add an edit into a comment above the difficulty could have been technical.

Though usually, when a comment is too long, it stops and says so, it doesn't roll on and on with no effect.

IV

other dialogue

dweezel theyounger

Thank God for men like John MacArthur.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Say that when the heretic he is converts to Catholicism ...

V

and more

ReformedLou

Christians are supposed to kiss the Pope's ring, and he kisses the Quran? I think not! "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him." Psalm 2:12

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A man who has kissed the Quran is not Pope.

VI

3:12 Spurgeon certainly has the exact same enmity against Catholicism I have always been against, even before becoming Catholic, and he was preserving what Luther and Calvin had preached, but some Lutherans and Anglicans, perhaps even Calvinists even then were forgetting.

If this hatred of Rome is evil, not only Spurgeon is evil, but also the Reformation, based on a hatred of Rome similar to his.

3:22 "she hates the true Church and we can only say the hatred is reciprocated"

Spurgeon on Rome.

I'd consider that truer of the Reformation.

Wonder when you'll fight the Lord's battles against the real errors of the Reformation.

VII

4:18 "Are we going to betray the martyrs?"

What martyrs? Are you referring to those on Martyrs' Mirror, like Clemens Scotus and Albertus Gallus, supposed 8th C. martyrs for opposing Boniface and his papism?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Can We Have Medieval References for Clemens Scotus and Albertus Gallus?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/can-we-have-medieval-references-for.html

It's too funny all references to them (not featuring saints actually honoured by the Catholics) are from after Reformation. Even if Thieleman J. van Braght was honest who had been brought up in a Protestant environment, I don't think his reference Sebastian Franck was, and he's not clearly giving any older ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Franck

"Are we going to betray the history of our faith?"

What history?

The forgeries of Wylie?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : History Forger James Aitken Wylie
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/history-forger-james-aitken-wylie.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : To give you an idea of Wylie's proceedings ...
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/to-give-you-idea-of-wylies-proceedings.html

Or those of Martyrs' Mirror in which a Germanos of Constantinople is coopted Anabaptist, bc his list of requirements for adult baptism is formulated in a way which doesn't take into account that babies were baptised too?

4:33 "Are we gonna betray the Tyndales, the Luthers and the Calvins?"

At least you are heading for right era : one and a half millennia after Christ.

VIII

5:41 You are referring to news stories ... as if journalism were what it's boosted as.

It takes for Popes and Catholicism people who are not Catholic and it also takes every allegation of abuse as solid fact and often homosexual hebephilia for child abuse, when not such.

6:54 For instance, a man kissing a Quran is not a practising Catholic.

7:01 And a man never saying to anyone known that Dalai Lama needs to become Christian and he is at least sometimes on and off telling him so, is also hardly Catholic if shown so often beside Dalai Lama.

I'm lazy about telling Pearlman he should quit the synagogue and become Christian, but I did once or twice say sth like that or at least indirectly implying it.

IX

7:11 "Abandoning sound doctrine"

Protestantism did so 500 years ago, and Evangelicalism hasn't quite recovered it.

7:34 With Antipope Wojtyla, it's very optimistic to suppose he even made it to Purgatory.

P R O T E S T A N T I S M came up with the idea the dead don't need our prayers and the Church doesn't need infallibly sound doctrine, adding up to people being more and more heretic getting more and more of an assurance on earth of being in heaven after they died ... even in cases where Hell was likelier than Purgatory.

8:07 You get justified by the works of Christ, but you stay justified by doing good works.

Among the works of Christ that justify you are baptism and penance, among your own ones is persistence in prayer, to which the rosary is a good means.

And you get to Heaven by being justified when you die.

No, salvation is not by faith alone.

That is why the Catholic Church condemned the doctrine and the recalcitrant person of Luther.

X

Romans 3:[20] Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

St Paul is speaking of the Mosaic law. And arguably, as Tyndale's inquisitor observed, about initial justification.

Romans 3:26 Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ.

If He is just in His works, He makes those believing in Him just in their works.

Correct reading of verse 28 : For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

As to THE law, we are dealing with Mosaic law, or, as Tyndale's Inquisitor James Latomus put it, with the initial fact of becoming justified. This is why infant baptism is possible, provided someone can be baptised in the faith of another.

Romans 3, with Catholic comment:
http://drbo.org/chapter/52003.htm

Answering John MacArthur, II

Answering John MacArthur, I · part II · part III

POPE & PAPACY Part 2 JOHN MACARTHUR
Blaze25z | 4.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5RMFu-JHGs

I

0:12 "and all the people said "amen", it was the Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the Pontifical throne"

What "all the people"?

Are you quoting from a Protestant history book?

It should be more precise on who these "all the people" were.

If you meant "all the people" who had gathered to hear this conclusion from Luther after it was already advertised, very possible.

If you meant "all the people" who had been Catholics up to Luther's time, no way. Not in Germany, see Eck, and most definitely not elsewhere, see how Henry VIII earned the title "defensor fidei" from a Pope.

II

0:16 - 0:22 "this new idea which derived greater strength through the prophetic descriptions"

And these were strong, precisely because Catholicism had kept inculcating these prophecies.

"launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries"

Nice to note you note they were new ideas and whom they were launched by.

A bit sadly ironic that Antipope Bergoglio so celebrates Luther.

"inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome"

So "terrible" that Pope Leo X noted Luther was involved in some other "monk brawl" ... in other words, nice rhetoric, but not born up by the facts of the time they refer to.

Oh, the Pope would hang Peter and crucify Christ again ... now, neither St. Peter nor Our Lord were walking on earth and with counterfactuals you have a nice playground for fancy.

1:33 I'd like to know what Calvin's argument for Papacy being the Antichrist of II Thessalonians was ....

I'm not guessing. Here is from his commentary:

"Here, however, the subject treated of is not the name of God himself, but his majesty and worship, and, in general, everything that he claims for himself. “True religion is that by which the true God alone is worshipped; that, the son of perdition will transfer to himself.” Now, every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on the other hand, observe what the Pope claims for himself — though he were but a boy of ten years of age — will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist."

Except, this is not true. The Pope does simply not demand to be worshipped as God. Calvin was simply lying.

1:40 "because they had some special insight"

From where? A man claiming special insight in a prophetic way would need to be exmined by the Church (to which Luther and Calvin did not submit, exalting themselves over the piety, if not over God's Person, as they recognised it, and therein in a conflict with each other, since Luther's disciple Melanchthon rejected Bucer and therefore also later Calvin).

A man claiming it from his studies, which is possible, would need even in absence of a way to get tested by the Church to give credible arguments, which Calvin and Luther didn't.

"that in fact the final Antichrist was actually to be a Pope?"

Ah, you are admitting they hadn't.

"No"

"Because the Pope personified everything that the Scripture described the Antichrist to be"

Except, not.

2:10 "Thomas Cranmer, one of the great martyrs in England"

One of the few who could be described as martyrs, from a Protestant point of view and who were Reformers.

The Coventry martyrs were not Reformers, but Lollards of a very vague tradition. Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Calvin and Knox were not martyrs, and neither was Melanchthon, nor the Petri brothers, nor Agricola ...

But if I were to name Reformers that were "martyred" there are basically two, Cranmer and Tyndale. [Make it four, see below]

However, martyred or other Reformers, you are appealing to them like a Catholic would appeal to Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas ... but they are not in the same martyrology and you are not accepting the martyrology in which Church Fathers and Scholastics are well represented.

2:41 Noted that Westminster Confession contradicts the Catechism of the council of Trent as well as the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X as well as Baltimore Catechisms 1 to 4.

I could resume this : you are appealing to something old, the Reformers, I am appealing to something older, the Church which was there before they came on the scene.

III

I looked up Westminster Confession of Faith, with Biblical proof texts.

There are two propositions about the Papacy, one indirect and one direct:

"6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n"

The proof text is:

n. Col. 1:18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Eph. 1:22. … and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.

This does not dispose with the question whether there is a visible head.

"Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o"

The proof text is:

o. Matt. 23:8–10. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 1 Pet. 5:2–4. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

The first seems to be somewhat relative in relation to other NT texts, like St Paul saying:

"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."
[1 Corinthians 4:15]

The second very clearly by calling Christ the "chief Shepherd, St Peter is also saying there are secondary Shepherds under Christ. To which the Pope would belong.

IV

2:59 Cotton Mather - as unwary of demons as to use spectral evidence in witchcraft trials, according to this:

[Wiki : ]
"In 1689, Mather published Memorable Providences detailing the supposed afflictions of several children in the Goodwin family in Boston. Catholic washerwoman Goody Glover was convicted of witchcraft and executed in this case.[9] Mather had a prominent role in this case. Besides praying for the children, which also included fasting and meditation, he would also observe and record their activities. The children were subject to hysterical fits, which he detailed in Memorable Providences.[10] In his book, Mather argued that since there are witches and devils, there are "immortal souls." He also claimed that witches appear spectrally as themselves.[11] He opposed any natural explanations for the fits, he believed that people who confessed to using witchcraft were sane, he warned against performing magic due to its connection with the devil and he argued that spectral evidence should not be used as evidence for witchcraft.[12] Robert Calef was a contemporary of Mather and critical of him, and he considered this book responsible for laying the groundwork for the Salem witch trials three years later:"

[quoting Robert Calef:]
"Mr Cotton Mather, was the most active and forward of any Minister in the Country in those matters, taking home one of the Children, and managing such Intreagues with that Child, and after printing such an account of the whole, in his Memorable Providences, as conduced much to the kindling of those Flames, that in Sir Williams time threatened the devouring of this Country.[13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Mather#Pre-trials

V

3:41 "great Reform leaders through the ages"

Luther, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, Cotton Mather, Spurgeon.

Luther started out in about 1520 (since the deed in 1517 was before he became really Protestant). Spurgeon died 1892.

1892
1517
=375

In Catholic parlance, "through the ages" is not limited to 375 years.

VI

4:01 "puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement"

Raving of Spurgeon.

Christ's atonement is available through the sacraments. Each of the 7 is shown in some place in the NT.

When a sacrament is efficacious and when it is not is about as useful a question as "was I really saved, or wasn't I". Except, generally it can be solved and in cases of doubt measures to ensure one valid sacrament of salvation in two acts (rebaptism sub conditione valid when the previous baptism wasn't for instance, and no offense to God if it was).

4:02 "and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour"

Oh, Spurgeon denied Real Presence and contradicted Our Lord in John 6?

4:06 "and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit"

Actually, John 3 Christ mentioned "water and spirit". They go together.

4:10 "and a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth"

Popes are conscious that they are fallible in their personal capacity. That doesn't cancel the vicarship.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also fallible men like ourselves, at times - but that doesn't cancel they wrote the Gospels and Acts inspired by the Holy Ghost and inerrantly.

If Spurgeon attacks papacy, why not hagiographers? If God can make exceptions for special occasions, like when hagiographers writing Gospels, why not for Popes when defining what the Gospels mean?

This attack is illogic and senseless.

VII

4:51 "all Bibles were removed from the Churches"

With mistranslated ones, like those before the Great Bible, well done.

"all Bible printing ceased and was forbidden, became a capital crime"

Here is wiki on this one:

"Under Edward VI, the regency cast off all restrictions on translation and publication of the Bible; all the suppressed versions were republished. The order for a Great Bible in every church was renewed, and there was to be added to it a copy of Erasmus's paraphrase of the four gospels, in an English translation undertaken in part by Princess Mary, the King's Catholic sister. Nearly fifty editions of the Bible, in whole or in part, appeared in those six years. When Mary herself succeeded to the throne in 1553, she maintained her brother's policy of encouraging public reading of the Great Bible and Paraphrases; but versions with overtly Protestant notes were once again liable to be burned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations#Great_Bible

One more:

"The Great Bible was issued to meet a decree that each church should make available in some convenient place the largest possible copy of the whole Bible, where all the parishioners could have access to it and read it at their will.The version gets its name from the size of the volume. That decree dates 1538, twelve years after Tyndale's books were burned, and two years after he was burned. The installation of these great books caused tremendous excitement as crowds gathered everywhere. Bishop Bonner had six copies of the great volume located throughout St. Paul's. The Great Bible appeared in seven editions in two years, and continued in recognized power for thirty years. Much of the present English prayer-book is taken from it. But this liberty was so sudden that the people naturally abused it. King Henry VIII became vexed because the sacred words "were disputed, rimed, sung, and jangled in every ale-house". King Henry began to put restrictions on the use of the Bible. There were to be no notes or annotations in any versions, and those that existed were to be blacked out. Only the upper classes were to be allowed to possess a Bible. Finally, the year before his death, all versions were again prohibited except the Great Bible, whose cost and size precluded personal use. The decree led to another great burning of Bibles in 1546—Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew—all but the Great Bible. The leading religious reformers took flight and fled to European Protestant towns like Frankfurt and Strassburg."

Same link.

Perhaps you were confusing Mary Tudor with her father?

VIII

5:10 Whether you admire John Rogers or not, even Fox would have said there were other things he burned for than translation.

"The circumstance of Mr. Rogers having preached at Paul's cross, after Queen Mary arrived at the Tower, has been already stated. He confirmed in his sermon the true doctrine taught in King Edward's time, and exhorted the people to beware of the pestilence of popery, idolatry, and superstition. For this he was called to account, but so ably defended himself that, for that time, he was dismissed. The proclamation of the queen, however, to prohibit true preaching, gave his enemies a new handle against him."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rogers_(Bible_editor_and_martyr)

Quoting the last big section.

"Ridley and Latimer"

The guys I tend to forget with Cranmer:

"In 1555 under the Catholic Queen Mary he was burned at the stake, becoming one of the three Oxford Martyrs of Anglicanism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Latimer

"The three martyrs were the Anglican bishops Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Martyrs

Do you agree with these being martyrs?

You cited Westminster Confession of Faith on no one but Christ being head of the Church.

But these were considered as heads of the Church in Worcester, London and Canterbury with all England (under the monarch, whom they recognised as visible head of the Church of England).

If you are sincere, why do you not condemn these Anglicans as much as Catholics?

Because they were martyred?

St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen was martyred by Calvinists, like the Gorkum martyrs and like that blessed Dominican Prior of Castres, but Anglicans also martyred a lot of Catholics, like Sts Thomas More, John Fisher, and about 300 more, saints or blesseds.

IX

5:32 "Tyndale ... finally martyred for the crime of translating the Bible into English"

That is a lie. The translation was known when he was arrested by Belgian Inquisitors in ... I had thought it was 7 years before he died, but even if it was only a year before ... 1535.

It took to 1536 to get him executed, well into second half of the year by which time he had documented a heretical understanding of Romans 3 in the exchange of writings between himself and Latomus.

So, while Bible translation was occasion of his arrest, the crime was heretical understanding of the Bible.

X

6:06 "Luther didn't mince words."

No, but what he said about Popes was arguably more true about himself.

Again, Schmalkald articles, it is a far cry from Westminster, on some issues, except in condemnation of papacy and it is within the last 1/4 of the time the Church has existed.

As said, when we Catholics say "through the ages" we may refer to anyone from Apostles to Father Kolbe who died in Auschwitz. That's about 4 times as long a period as Protestantism from Luther on.

Also, his accusation is hard to substantiate directly from Catholic material: you don't find Catholics denying redemption is from Christ. You do find Catholics saying Christ uses means which Luther didn't agree with. Like papacy, bishops, seven sacraments, Holy Mass.

6:11 Luther trying to paraphrase II Thessalonians 2 ....

Ironic that Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio all enjoin Ecumenism with Lutherans - even if most of them are not all that very Lutheran in this respect.

He also overdoes the extent of how many heretics were executed, in a way sounding a bit like Foxe or James Milton Carroll.

XI

7:23 "how could the Church live if its head were dead"

We do not consider popes as the lifegiving head of the Church, that being Christ alone, but as his visible representatives.

Sth which Christ made Peter, Himself the Good Shepherd, He made St Peter Shepherd, that is, representative of His own quality as "chief Shepherd".

Similarily, the Pope is not the source of holiness in the Church, therefore a wicked pope who really is pope doesn't make the Church unholy. He just refuses to use the Church to make himself holy.

7:29 "the true head ever lives and the true Church ever lives in Him"

Actually a true word.

Hence it is shameful to except so much of Church history, most between 33 and 400 and all between 400 and 1500 from the testimony of such a living Church.

7:40 "first makes a dupe out of others and then becomes a dupe to himself"

That's how we consider authors of Schmalkald articles or Coran or Book of Mormon or Westminster Confession ... unless we are charitably inclined to reverse the process and say these were deluded before deluding others.

XII

7:53 "what the Pope really believes he is infallible and shall be greeted His Holiness, it must have taken him a good time to arrive to that eminence of self deception."

As to the second, why would the exact words of adress be so weighty as to oppress a conscience not long in the process of delusion?

The Pope doesn't believe he is personally necessarily a saint, the words are adressed to him to remind him he needs to be one. As a Catholic, he has called others "His Holiness" before he was elected. And as to "call no man rabbi" ... St. Paul shows this is not to be taken with rigorous literal observance, since it was also said "call no one father" and St Paul tells the Corinthians he is their father.

As to infallible, Spurgeon seems to have imagined (though I would try to be careful not to practise pseudo-empathy) that Popes imagine they are infallible whenever they sneeze.

In fact, Popes take care before making the kind of decisions that require infallibility and that care usually involves consulting other collectively infallibles, like the Catholic bishops all over the world, like totality of previous popes and ecumenic councils and so on.

Here I must reject as blasphemous the contention of Westminster Confession of Faith that all visible churches are to some degree mixed with error.

This is expressly against Matthew 28:20 (as well as Matthew 16:18, and that observation does not depend on who is the rock).

XIII

8:11 Spurgeon's analysis of papacy is perhaps a better one of a Protestant ministry claiming to correctly interpret the Bible.

The ministers are surrounded by Protestants who confirm them in their being right to be supreme independent local ministers answering to no one on earth.

Answering John MacArthur, I

Answering John MacArthur, I · part II · part III

POPE AND THE PAPACY Part 1. JOHN MACARTHUR
Blaze25z | 3.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpWDUt89t2g

I

0:46 "a damning and false religion"

Well, I take Protestantism to be that.

Including Evangelicals who believe they were there from Apostles before Protestants.

• 1) Protestantism involves supposed returning to a supposed earlier Church with a supposed other definite doctrine than the ones of Catholicism.
• 2) Ruckmanites claim there was no need to return, since the Baptist Church was always there.
  
  
• 1) Matthew 28:20 says "all days", meaning the Church cannot have been lost ever.
  
  This poses the question where the Church was before Baptists came into sight in early Modern times. Or before 1517, if you count Munzer as a Baptist.
  
  Some now declare that there was very little visibility for the Church, since it was persecuted by Catholics, a supposed Anti-Church founded by Constantine.
  
  However, the first Jewish and then Roman Pagan persecution did not make Christians invisible from 33 to 313.
  
  We have persons covering most if not all decades.
  
  So .... would a Church being reduced to invisibility even be Biblical (except locally)?
  
  
• 2) Matthew 28:20 also says "teaching them" that is the nations.
  
  Two souls who cannot go to Mass may indeed have the graces of Mass by "where two or three are gathered in my name". But they are not teaching their nation, so far. They need to be visible to do that.
  
  
• 3) So, what about the more Classic Protestant solution that Catholicism was not actually directly damning, only imperfect?
  
  Well, Matthew 28:20 tells us such an imperfect Church, teaching error along with truth, is not Christ's Church, the Church to which Christ adressed the promise. See, it says to teach the nations what?
  
  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
  
  In other words, neither the Classic solution for Luther and Beza (Catholics could, perhaps still can, get saved without becoming Protestants), nor the Ruckmanite solution (Catholic persecution mostly reduced the Church to invisible) are any good.
  
  They stand condemned by Matthew 28:20.

What is left, for a Christian?

Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

You sometimes call Assyrians Nestorians - that is how Cops, Armenians, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic refer to them. You sometimes call Copts and Armenians Monophysites, that is how Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and perhaps also Nestorians are referring to them. But you cannot add Monophysites and Nestorians to the list of 5, since already included in it.

II

1:17 "a common faith and a common mission"

While some Evangelicals just might in God's eyes be Catholics with a Catholic faith, just a bit badly instructed in it, there is definitely no common mission, since the mission was given to the eleven (some Protestants have a wishful thinking it was at the occasion when 500 were there too, neither part of the 12 nor of the 72, but that is not in the Bible), and the successors of the eleven are Catholic bishops and not Evangelical pastors.

Btw, I can add that for RC these days, you can have at least three different types of communion:

• biggest is RC accepting Vatican II and Pope Francis as a real council and as a real pope. It is also very diverse in having very various shades of Modernism and Conservatism;
• you had Old Catholics whose first bishop Döllinger was excommunicated by Pope Pius IX after Vatican council in 1869-70, and they got orders from Utrecht Union, leading back to when followers of Jansenius were excommunicated by Benedict XIII as late as 1725.
• you have various shades of Trads with various shades of condemnation of Vatican II, and with no unified excommunication over us.

I'm a very traddy Trad, except Pope Michael doesn't like the term Traditionalist. Yes, there are those of us who not only say "Pope Francis" is not Pope, but someone else is.

III

1:34 "a Biblical Gospel"

Evangelicals, your "gospel" is not just not canonic, it's an extreme heretical version of Apocryphal.

A bit like "Gospel of St. Thomas".

IV

2:42 In order to be saved you have to be:

• Baptised
• Believer in Jesus and all He revealed
• Both Hearer and Doer.

This usually means practising Catholic.

V

2:52 "Whether or not we evangelise Roman Catholics."

No, whether or not we Roman Catholics continue to evangelise "Evangelicals".

Your baffledness at redeeming millions without leaving the room is about a good mirror on why some Catholics reject Vatican II.

No, we don't believe Lutherans or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists can all go to heaven by just being decent Lutherans or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists.

Perhaps a very ignorant Lutheran could. In fact, one Lutheran cobbler seems to have been martyred with a group of Catholics by the Turks and the Church considers him as being a martyr, that is, a saint. I say "seems to have been" bc I read this in a book by a German convert, and I haven't found confirmation outside that book.

I am much less confident about a very ignorant Buddhist, and one as knowledgeable as Dalai Lama, the antipopes who haven't made him a mission field are inexcusable. It's hugging him and stabbing him in the back, for political purposes.

Btw, I was happy to read that book about the Lutheran cobbler, since it involves at least some hope Cassie Bernall could be in Heaven. Despite not having converted to Catholicism before she died.

VI

4:43 Yes, the "centuries if not millennia of martyrdom" - a very interesting point.

When some Donatists lacked bishops after all Donatist bishops had given up, when then these Donatists became Circumcellions, and plundered the landscape, were they martyrs because Roman Emperors executed them?

When Albigensians denied the Old Testament and the Resurrection of the Body, were they martyrs, the few of them who preferred burning after Inquisition trial to converting and submitting to Inquisitors?

And between Circumcellions and Priscillianists on the one hand and Albigensians on the other, how many martyrdoms were there?

By what criterium do you judge true from false history in Fox' Book of Martyrs?

4:50 Roman Catholicism in a war on truth ... it would have seemed a pretty funny one to quite a lot of Roman Catholics, including the highest placed over the ages.

You know, CMI promotes Steno as founder of Geology and as Young Earth Creationist, indeed Flood Geologist ... what they mention less is, he exhausted himself in Denmark and North Germany to bring sacraments to very diasporical Catholics up there and he died as a Catholic bishop engaged on that venture. As he wasn't the least deceptive about being Catholic, and as he was among Protestants, you can imagine he was often ill received and this shortened his life.

Or some also - correctly - promote St. Thomas Aquinas as standing for natural knowledge that God exists (Romans 1 says so too, but he brings the arguments out) or for natural law, a law which condemns us as sinners, but also allows us to find somewhat our way in civic concerns ... he exhaused himself in arguing against this and that and sundry, an Albigensian argument here, an Averroist argument there (Sorbonne Averroist, mind you), and seeking to bring back Greeks to Union there. He died before 50, since he was hit in the head by a branch when travelling.

Or St Francis, dying at 44 in Assisi after exhausting himself in calling Catholics to practise Catholicism. Or St Dominic of Guzmán, dying at 50, after spending nights in prayer for the conversion of sinners or one of them in a whole night debate with an Albigensian inn keeper.

But you can of course pretend all of them were dupes, the Popes were abusing their credulity ... Innocent II ...

"Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians."

...

"On 22 July 1139, at Galluccio, Roger II's son Roger III, Duke of Apulia, ambushed the papal troops with a thousand knights and captured Innocent. On 25 July 1139, Innocent was forced to acknowledge the kingship and possessions of Roger with the Treaty of Mignano. In 1143, Innocent refused to recognise the Treaty of Mignano with Roger of Sicily, who sent Robert of Selby to march on papal Benevento. The terms agreed upon at Mignano were then recognised. Innocent II died on 24 September 1143 and was succeeded by Pope Celestine II."

"The doctrinal questions which he was called on to decide were those that condemned the opinions of Pierre Abélard and of Arnold of Brescia."

"In 1143, as the Pope lay dying, the Commune of Rome, to resist papal power, began deliberations that officially reinstated the Roman Senate the following year. The Pope was interred in a porphyry sarcophagus that contemporary tradition asserted had been the Emperor Hadrian's."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_II

Another tidbit, this was not the first time he suffered persecution:

"Pope Paschal II made him a cardinal deacon. In this capacity, he accompanied Pope Gelasius II when he was driven into France"

N I C E ... here is Pope Gelasius II for you:

"Pope Gelasius II (c. 1060/1064 – 29 January 1119), born Giovanni Caetani or Giovanni da Gaeta (also called Coniulo),[1] was Pope from 24 January 1118 to his death in 1119. A monk of Monte Cassino and chancellor of Pope Paschal II, Caetani was unanimously elected to succeed him. In doing so he also succeeded to the conflicts with Emperor Henry V over investiture. Gelasius spent a good part of his brief papacy in exile"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gelasius_II

In case you don't know what Investiture is, I suppose Anglicans and Lutherans would love lay investiture. King decides who gets to be bishop. Perhaps, as Evangelicals, you are a bit more sceptic of that ...

VII

4:54 "it is an apostate ... Christianity"

At what date?

When I say Lutheranism is apostasy, I can point to Luther going from Jansenist to making fairly clearly Protestant pronouncements between 1517 and 1522.

When I say the Vatican II sect is apostate, I can point to the years 1962-65, for the fake council, and to the year 1969 for Novus Ordo. I can suspect Pius XII prepared this apostasy, since some of his pronouncements in 1943, 1950 and 1951 are less than perfectly clear Orthodoxy. He also had same confessor as the successor or Antipope "John XXIII".

So, when you claim Roman Catholicism is apostate, I naturally ask "what year?"

5:02 "the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always understood this"

Would you mind providing a doctrinal statement to this effect from each century as long as they have coexisted?

For Catholics regarding Protestantism as an Apostate sect, one can definitely cite each century.

1543-1565 - Council of Trent, one of the Sessions condemns diverse Protestant tenets.

Pope St Pius V (same century) condemns the claims of Elisabeth to England, citing that she is illegitimate but above all heretic.

Next century:

"During the Civil War (1642–49) in England and Ireland, Innocent X strongly supported the independent Confederate Ireland, over the objections of Mazarin and the former English Queen and at that time Queen Mother, Henrietta Maria, exiled in Paris."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_X#English_Civil_War

[and see more towards the end of VII, sth got displaced]

"Clement X, on 24 November 1673, beatified nineteen Martyrs of Gorkum, who had been taken prisoner at Gorcum, the Netherlands, and put to death in Brielle on 9 July 1572, in hatred of the Catholic faith, of the primacy of the Pope, and of the Roman Church. Of the nineteen Gorcum martyrs, Peter Ascanius and Cornelius Vican were laymen; eleven were Franciscan priests; one a Dominican, two Premonstratensians, one a regular canon of Saint Augustine, and four were secular priests."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_X

"Clement XI extended the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the Universal Church of the Roman Rite in 1716."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XI

"In ecclesiastic affairs he issued In eminenti apostolatus, the first papal decree against the Freemasons on 28 April 1738. He canonized Saint Vincent de Paul and proceeded with vigour against the French Jansenists. He campaigned for the reunion of the Roman and Orthodox churches, received the Patriarch of the Coptic Church and persuaded the Armenian Patriarch to remove the anathema against the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo I (440–461)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XII

Why did he not campaign for reunion of Anglicans and Lutherans, well, they were definitely heretical, closer to masonry and lacked valid orders.

"The Apostolic Constitution Sacramentorum Poenitentiae of 1741 assigned to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition the responsibility of safeguarding the sanctity of the sacrament of penance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XIV

"Clement XIII backed plans to reunite the Catholic Church, with Old Catholic branches that split from Rome in 1724 over the issue of Papal authority, as well as with Protestants. This made little progress since Clement refused to compromise on doctrine with Protestants or on Papal authority with Old Catholics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XIII#Ecumenism

In other words, he continued to condemn what previous popes had condemned.

"On August 17, 1775, Pope Pius VI, promulgated with a Papal Decree the authenticity of Our Lady of Šiluva."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VI#Other_Activities

"On 3 June 1816, Pius VII condemned the works of Melkite bishop Germanos Adam. Adam's writings supported conciliarism, the view that the authority of ecumenical councils was greater than that of the papacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VII#Condemnation_of_heresy

"As Pope Pius VIII, he initiated some reforms in the Papal States. On May 24, 1829 he issued an encyclical, Traditi humilitati. Regarding religious pluralism, he condemned the "foul contrivance of the sophists of this age" that would place Catholicism on par with any other religion."

His words on Bible translations of a certain type:

"We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to ensure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VIII#Modernism_and_Biblical_translations

"Mirari Vos, on liberalism and religious indifferentism (issued on 15 August 1832);"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XVI

One of the proof texts against Vatican II.

"Pius decisively acted on the century-old disagreement between Dominicans and Franciscans regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary, deciding in favour of the Franciscan view.[77] However, this decision, which he formulated as an infallible dogma, raised a question: Can a pope make such decisions without the bishops? This foreshadowed one topic of the First Vatican Council, which he later convened for 1869.[77] The Pope did consult the bishops beforehand with his encyclical Ubi primum (see below), but insisted on having this issue clarified nevertheless. The council was to deal with papal infallibility, enhancing the role of the papacy and decreasing the role of the bishops.[77] The role of the bishops was to be dealt with at the council, but it was disbanded because of the imminent attack by Italy against the Papal States. Thus, the major achievements of Pius IX are his Mariology and the First Vatican Council.[77]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX#First_Vatican_Council

The next one is not on wiki, but Leo XIII said Anglican episcopal and therefore also sacerdotal consecrations and ordinations are invalid, due to lack of intention to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass, here is for his years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIII

This act of his does show how he felt about non-Catholic clergy in Scotland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Scottish_Catholic_hierarchy

As this act by Pius IX about non-Catholic clergy in England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalis_Ecclesiae

"During his pontificate, many famed Marian images were granted a canonical coronation, namely the Our Lady of Aparecida, Our Lady of the Pillar, Our Lady of the Cape, Our Lady of Chiquinquira of Colombia, Our Lady of the Lake of Mexico, Our Lady of La Naval de Manila, Virgin of Help of Venezuela, Our Lady of Carmel of New York, and the Immaculate Conception within the Chapel of the Choir inside Saint Peter's Basilica were granted its prestigious honors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_X

Here is a symptom that his supposed successors "John Paul II" and "Benedict XVI" are perhaps not his successors:

"Asked in 2003 whether the almost 100-year-old Catechism of Saint Pius X was still valid, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said: "The faith as such is always the same. Hence the Catechism of Saint Pius X always preserves its value. Whereas ways of transmitting the contents of the faith can change instead. And hence one may wonder whether the Catechism of Saint Pius X can in that sense still be considered valid today.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_X#Catechism_of_Saint_Pius_X

[Continued from earlier in VII:]

Confederate Ireland was of course supported because Catholic, while Charles I was an Anglican. His rationale was, a heretic cannot have an inherent right to rule a Catholic population. As the Irish were.

Also : "The conversion of Queen Christina of Sweden (1632–1654) occurred during Alexander VII's reign. After her abdication the queen came to reside in Rome, where she was confirmed in her baptism by the Pope, in whom she found a generous friend and benefactor, on Christmas Day, 1655."

In other words, he was not sure the Lutheran cleric in Sweden had baptised her validly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VII#Sweden

Last bit was removed down on the notepad, without my noticing.

5:06 - 5:16 "and even through the Dark Ages from 400 to 1500 prior to the Reformation, genuine Christian believers set themselves apart from that system and were brutally punished and executed"

Would you mind providing one example per century?

Vth to XVth, that would be 11 centuries, i e 11 examples.

I gave more than one example per century of Catholic Church setting itself aside from Protestantism, since Reformation.

Note, not just any 11 examples, but at least 11 since at least one per century.

VIII

6:07 "illegitimate authority of Magisterium"

Except NT definitely supports the existence of such a thing.

"idolatry by the worship of saints and the veneration of angels"

If "worship" means latreia, that would indeed be idolatry. We do not worship saints with latreia. Douleia, yes, that is normally translated as veneration, as with angels.

Now, veneration of either being forbidden, do you pretend to have Biblical reference for that?

IX

6:13 "exaltation of Mary above Christ"

Reference from Catholic documents or devotionals approved by Magisterium, if you have any?

We agree that would be horrific. Except the one God did Himself by becoming Her Son and by ordering all (including Himself) to honour Father and Mother.

X

6:23 "by which Jesus is sacrificed again and again"

Have you checked that accusation with Catholic sources?

Here are QQ 8 to 12 on Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Catechism of Pope St Pius X:

8 Q. Is not the Sacrifice of the Cross the one only Sacrifice of the New Law?
A. The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

9 Q. For what ends then is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered?
A. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory.

10 Q. Who is it that offers to God the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?
A. The first and principal Offeror of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is Jesus Christ, while the priest is the minister who in the Name of Jesus Christ offers the same Sacrifice to the Eternal Father.

11 Q. Who instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?
A. Jesus Christ Himself instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass when He instituted the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist and said that this should be done in memory of His passion.

12 Q. To whom is the Holy Mass offered?
A. The Holy Mass is offered to God alone.

Source and you need to scroll down a bit:

EWTN : Catechism of St Pius X : Sacraments
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM#Sacraments

XI

6:28 "it offers false forgiveness through the confessional"

John 20:21-23.

The Apostles were given power to give true forgiveness, when do you pretend this ceased?

"the uselessness of infant baptism"

Not according to John 3.

Also not according to the 5 confessions that have some realistic claim to being around since Apostolic times. (Evangelical claim is not realistic).

6:40 "motivated by money"

Somewhat difficult to substantiate as an accusation ... btw, how much does your ministry receive in donations?

XII

6:40 "it has invented Purgatory"

Except it was already there in Second Temple Judaism, before Christ. See II Maccabees 12 for historic reference.

It does not matter if you think Maccabees are uncanonical, the fact as such suffices to prove the idea was current among at least some Jews before Christ came - and He did not explicitly condemn it.

St Paul in that context seems to even directly endorse it in this place:

"If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
[1 Corinthians 3:15]

7:00 "when you die you don't go to Hell, you go there and get things sorted out"

So, Evangelicals think Purgatory is too cheap because it offers salvation to imperfect believers?

Lutherans think it is too heavy, because it involves suffering for saved believers after death.

A single unforgiven mortal sin is sufficient to miss Purgatory and go to Hell. Not necessarily against the faith, even it is possible to be a Catholic and go to Hell as a suicide or through invalid marriage not repented nor validated.

8:08 "prayers for the dead"

Again, in the Old Testament, a Cohanic sacrifice was one type of prayer and II Maccabees 12 shows this.

Rabbinic Judaism, while false on many other items, also has prayers for the dead.

Calvin pretended this was introduced by Rabbi Akiva or in his time, but this is contradicted historically by II Maccabees 12. This is so, even if Maccabees were just history and not Bible canon.

XIII

7:11 "you can never know you're saved"

Unless God choses to reveal it to you.

Normally, we don't need to know we are getting to Heaven, we need a reasonable hope we can get there, if we avoid or repent our next sin and have repented each remembered sin of the past and all unremembered sins too, if mortal.

You cannot motivate real Christians having fiducial "faith" in being saved even before they die. You don't find that before Luther. You don't find that in Donatists or Albigensians.

And it contradicts this thing here:

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation."
[Philippians 2:12]

7:28 "guilt-ridden, fear ridden, no knowledge of whether or not they're going to get into the kingdom"

The Catholics know we are in the kingdom, here on earth, by being Catholics.

You don't have any more knowledge than I do you are getting on to it in eternity. If you do, God knew it from eternity, but you didn't.

7:34 "the threat of a mortal sin which throws you back out again"

Which is why we engage in fighting against mortal sins.

You seem to think committing a mortal sin is fine, God has already forgiven you ... unless it's the mortal sin that shows you were never saved in the first place.

7:44 "it's another chance after death"

No, it is not, one unrepented mortal sin when you die, and you are in Hell.

"I can't buy into this"

That's your misguided empathy with us.

I call such misguided empathy "pseudo-empathy" - empathising with a suffering which is not there.

It makes you feel good and holy, perhaps (I'm not overindulging in it) but it definitely is irritating for the one confronted with it.

Imagine a faggot wanted to feel sorry for you because you haven't dared out yourself as a homosexual yet, and goes on and on about how repressed you are ... even a display of your family doesn't help, he goes on and on and on and empathises with you over your feeling obliged to be heterosexual. Would that not be irritating in the end?

That is about what you are doing to us Catholics!

XIV

7:56 "selling forgiveness for money"

Did not happen. Indulgences are sth else. They are remissions of purgatorial time in God and the Church and therefore also God recognising certain good deeds.

They included gifts of money to good purposes. Like, but not limited to, rebuilding of St Peter's in Rome, which was the occasion for the Tetzel-Luther brawl.

XV

8:01 "you participate in your salvation"

St James the Brother of God says so:

[19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

Pretty clear, justification does involve works. It's from chapter 2, btw.

XVI

8:07 "abomination of idols and relics"

Second degree relics are here in the Bible:

"So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them."
[Acts Of Apostles 19:12]

First degree relics are here:

[20] And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. [21] And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.
IV Kings 13:20-21

[Our I and II Kings are by Protestants called I and II Samuel]

XVII

8:12 "the perversion of forced celibacy"

Forced on those who have already chosen it by a definite vow.

XVIII

8:32 "usurped the headship of Christ over his Church"

I think that headship of Christ is expressed in Christ as Shepherd. In John 21, He made Peter shepherd.

I think that headship is expressed in CHurch hearing Christ.

Now, Christ said to His apostles:

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16]

This was to the seventy two apostles, a less restrictive group than the 12.

But it shows Christ was willing to share His headship.

Between 72 and Peter, you have the 12 or at one time 11. Matthew 28:16-20.

8:37 "The Reformers have always understood this, with unashamed boldness they understood this"

Or pretended to understand sth which was not there to understand in the first place, since not true.

8:43 "and they faced death for it"

Most Reformers didn't die. At least through execution, since all in fact did die before now.

"Martin Luther 1483 to 1546"

About 1 and a 1/2 millennium after Christ, and more than a millennium from your inception of "Dark Ages"

8:50 "Luther proved by the revelations of Daniel and John"
8:54 "by the epistles of Paul, Peter and Jude"
8:56 "says the historian Davinier, that"
8:59 "the reign of Antichrist predict[ed]"

Except, papacy has lasted well beyond 3 and 1/2 years.

Even for Antipope Bergoglio - proving he did not immediately become that predicted ruler at his supposed "election" (but he's arguably the false prophet instead).

I could not find historian Davinier on English wiki. Or on French.