How Ratzinger Led to My Resignation As a Protestant Pastor w/ Dr. Scott Hahn
19th March 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzt_D8XociQ
Two comments near the beginning:
- I
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 1:51 "we can't just make the syllogism 'if it's Roman, it's wrong' " ...
You can't do that with anything. There can be, if you like "antipapacies" like pseudo-papal reigns, like that of the antipope from Barcelona in the Middle Ages (barcinonicum schisma in Malachy's prophecy), but there cannot be anything that is simply an "Antipapacy" as in opposite of the papacy.
You also can't make it like "if it's in Greek myth, it didn't happen" or "if it is in Norse Myth it didn't happen".
There are a lot of things this is done to, where it shouldn't. Protestantism taking the Papacy as an Antipapacy is however pretty emblematic of the attitude.
- PM LM
- "you can't do that with anything," but people do in fact do that as a way to dismiss Catholicism. Fact.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @PM LM I meant "can't" not about physical inability, but about obligation to good sense to do otherwise.
- Satyan Nair
- It's a lot like modern atheism. An atheist, traditionally, is expected to be a-theistic, or non-theistic, but today it's all about being anti-theistic, or anti-religion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Satyan Nair True too.
One more reason to count Atheism as a Protestant sect.
- II
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 2:37 "Introduction to Christianity"
Nicknamed by some : introduction to apostasy ... I guess Scott Hahn's previous stance was fairly liberal.
But I'll admit, I haven't read the work, I only find the nickname credible because non-cardinal Ratzinger under Antipope Wojtyla in early nineties changed Catholic (or what passes for such) exegesis in basically banning the Fundamentalist approach.
A thing which had not happened back in 1984 - 1988 when I was converting. Perhaps because Siri was still alive, perhaps because Pope Michael was not yet elected ...
I'll admit I had gone somewhat hyper-ecumenical and was not myself reacting properly against the apostatic acts of Wojtyla in 1986. Hence I converted in a Novus Ordo parish, though a fairly conservative one.
- Prasanth Thomas
- Alright...shut up Sedevacantist
- Israel Siqueira
- "But I'll admit, I haven't read the work" LMAO
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas Does sedevacantism have bad press in Goa or Pondichéry?
In fact, I adher to Pope Michael, so I am not really sede per se.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Israel Siqueira Did you get it I had read other things about Ratzinger, from later on, when he was supposed to be less modernist?
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I am from neither God nor Pondicherry(Puducherry now)- I am from Kerala.
Dude, you are calling "Pope" a random lunatic Priest- one David Badwin- who is neither ordained Bishop nor is known by a single Cardinal
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Heretic
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas I did not say Puducherry exclusively, I took Puducherry and Mumbai with Goa as examples.
He was ordained bishop in 2011, on Gaudete Sunday.
Being acquainted with cardinals and being bishop before papal election or conclave is not a requirement.
Being Catholic is.
Which brings me to what you are calling heresy in this context. What?
Besides, "lunatic" is a claim very convenient to make for some who want to stifle criticism against the Vatican II Sect.
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "being....not a requirement"
Says who? You?
He lacks Apostolic Succession
"Being Catholic is"
For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant- as Protestant as the Anglican "Church"
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas Apostolic succession is from when one is consecrated bishop. He was that.
However, the Dominican position is, a bishop elect not yet consecreated, immediately has jurisdiction over the see.
Only sacramental acts have to wait till he's ontologically a bishop. They did from 1990 to 2011.
Here is a little list of Popes who were not bishops when elected:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Popes elected while not yet bishops :
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/08/popes-elected-while-not-yet-bishops.html
@Prasanth Thomas "For all Practical purposes- he's a Protestant"
He would have been if he had tried sacramental acts before ordination and consecration, which happened in 2011.
He isn't.
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, he repelled against the Church and set up his own
That makes him a Protestant
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas When "John Paul II" had visited a synagogue and prayed along with Muslims, Jews, Amerindians and Hindoos for peace, 4 years earlier, said "John Paul II" cannot be considered to have at that point represented the Church.
Opposing him was not rebelling against the Church.
Furthermore, all Protestantisms are united by further characteristics over and above rebelling against the Church, such as denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass, denial of seven sacraments (with some modification on this point by Anglicans, later on shared by Lutherans too), denial of necessity of Confession after falling into mortal sin (though Angllicans and Lutherans offer it).
This is not comparable to someone simply disobeying correct authorities of the Church, if "John Paul II" had been such.
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Popes can commit sins- that doesn't take away their status
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas Sin is one thing, sin against the faith (especially if never corrected) another.
A saint cannot be one who committed a huge sin and never repented.
This makes at least canonisation of "John Paul II" invalid and at least "Pope Francis" a non-Pope.
A man accessing papacy without being a Catholic is not accessing papacy. A pope falling into heresy (supposing that possible) immediately ceases to be Pope, but it is more probable he never was in the first place.
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl We cannot simply judge it that way. And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs. And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name. So, there is no excuse.
And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas " And he prayed with them, not to any God of theirs."
That is still making himself culpable of prayers to their false gods, since he was approving of their prayers.
"And, a man cannot be canonized without a miracle- and he did get miracles in his name."
Two. One with partial reversals, one which was not sudden. Miracles of healing have to be sudden without reversals.
"And, there is no way to remove a Pope, even for doing serious evil acts."
Heard of the synod of Sutri?
- Prasanth Thomas
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl He had several miracles in his name. One healing from Coma- here near my place.
And, Sutri was never considered a legitimate Ecumenical Council by the Church- heard of Robber synods?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Prasanth Thomas Yes, but Sutri was also not considered a robber synod either.
It's result was upheld.
Now, when we come to robber synods, why not consider Vatican II.
"One healing from Coma"
How suddenly? What type of damage caused it?
Either way, miracles are not enough if the doctrine is not apostolic.
No comments:
Post a Comment