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.