Two Comments on an Excellent Catholic Apologetics Video

And the latter led to some debate.

Why the word "Catholic" IS NOT in the Bible!!! Does it prove Protestantism? 🤔
26th of August 2021 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgOvRg8Huc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:51 Have you also heard Protestants claiming Councils of Orange match "grace not works"?

It actually says, you cannot GET justified by doing certain things, but once grace justifies you, you start doing some of them (obviously not all do monastic vows, specifically mentioned in C of O, specifically impugned by Luther and Reformers).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:36 "heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God"

Are you sure you have the right Pope?

Bergoglio, whom you presumably call "Pope Francis" stated things in 2014 about "magic wand" that seem very close to denying the actual omnipotence of God and are somewhat pointless if that wasn't the case.

I have come across "Catholic priests" (well, one at least, "Assumptionist Father" Antoni) who denies Adam and Eve were literally individual people who lived like you and I do. Check Council of Trent, and I don't mean just session IV with Biblical inerrancy, I mean more specifically session V, decree on original sin, canons 1, 2 and 3.

Julie Elizabeth

Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is a change in doctrine, and certainly not from any priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julie Elizabeth What comes out of a pope's or a priest's mouth should NEVER be an actual CHANGE in doctrine.

Definitions that are infallible are not the only occasion that a Pope and a simple priest need to agree with already defined doctrine, need to be NOT heretical.

The "magic wand" quote is prima facie in contradiction with previously defined dogma about God's omnipotence. That these do not contain an actual "magic wand" doesn't mean his words cannot fall under their condemnation, as "magic wand" was obviously a rhetorical flourish on the theme of being able to do exactly ANYTHING He wanted to do and without having to wait.

Evolutionism is very widely accepted among Bergoglio's "Catholics" and the priest who contradicted session V of the Council of Trent was a shocker on what lengths this could go to.

Accepting an evolutionary timeline for man contradicts one way or the other the doctrines about Adam.

1) You pose him 40 000 or 90 000 BP - no chance of Genesis 3 being accurately accepted history, not to mention Genesis 4 making him a farmer;
2) You pose him along Biblical timeline or not too far earlier back than that, you get a problem how he could be ancestral to Amerindian and Australian aborigine populations.

It is implied in dogma that Genesis 3 is correctly transmitted, both Session V of Trent and Marian dogma (1854, for instance), and the idea of men coming from non-Adamite ancestry (remotely possible exception - via Adam) is condemned both when Popes defined Amerindians are real men (somewhat hard to believe for some Conquistadors after watching Aztek human sacrifice) and when they condemned a book by Isaac de la Peyrère, whose idea on pre-Adamites is hailed as a precursor of Darwin. Therefore, whenever you pose Adam, you get a contradiction with Catholic dogma, unless you pose the beginning of the Universe and Earth at the same time, meaning you accept creation science.

When Pius XII said he did not want to condemn the idea of Adam having not quite human but anatomically close ancestors, he had no idea of carbon dating, which is involved in Cro-Magnon skeleta and Neanderthal skeleta from same Europe back in carbon dated 45 000 to 40 000 BP, living together for what carbon wise appears to be 5000 years. He could have imagined the modern "science" would be content to use geological datings and to prove Neanderthals way earlier, and then to accept a couple of non-human, purely animal Neanderthal or even Cro-Magnon progenitors (despite Cro-Magnon) giving rise to a child who by God's miracle was raised to become a man. And that this man lived c. 5000 or not much more than 10 000 BC and that he was ancestral to all populations.

It is bad enough that he envisaged Cro-Magnon and that he envisaged Neanderthals as non-human, but with carbon dates for advent of Cro-Magnon to different parts of the world, he would eventually (if he hadn't already been very old) have had to face the conundrum I outlined.

Note well, his words have been abused as being a definition that Evolution is acceptable theology, in fact it isn't. It includes a provision for a debate between Evolutionists and Creationists provided they are both versed in sciences and in theology. This debate was shortcut by the moral theologians concluding that if Pius XII didn't forbid Evolutionists to debate, he must have meant Evolutionism could not be condemned. On the contrary : since he mentions Biblical experts on both teams, one part of the debate would have had to be whether Evolutionism was theologically acceptable or whether there were sound Biblical arguments for condemning it which he had not foreseen.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Illogical argumentation. Will you reject Jesus because of Judas? You can win a sin argument only if you are sinless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink It's not a sin argument, it's a heresy argument.

And to win a heresy argument, I only need to be orthodox, not sinless.

Luther had a sin argument about Alexander VI, I suppose, but no heresy argument.

I have a heresy argument about Antipope Bergoglio, not a sin argument apart from that (for the moment, or as sufficient for my rejection).

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your arguments reflects mere lack of knowledge. Charism of Infallibility is applicable only when Pope teaches excathedra for the whole Church on faith and morals. It seems that you are a Sedevacantist. Sedevacantism is a heresy too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink 1) Sedevacantism has never been defined as a heresy;
2) it is under certain circumstances the position of St. Robert Belarmine;
3) both he and I hold, the circumstances in which a Pope is required to be orthodox, non-heretical, are not JUST infallible statements.

Sure, a pope could make a slip outside these, but in that case he would correct himself or accept fraternal correction from an inferior. If a "pope" on occasion after occasion promotes a heresy, whether "infallibly" or NOT infallibly, he cannot be reputed a Catholic and his "papacy" cannot be reputed as a papacy.

Bringing in "ex cathedra" into the mix is a red herring. Your doing so shows either dishonesty or the "mere lack of knowledge" being on your side.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant. You wrote “ Pope promotes heresy , infallibly or not infallibly”! Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?.How is it even possible? So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith. For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises. Lack of faith in Jesus’ promise is the root of all heresies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant."

It's not, unless you can pretend he's outside the Church.

"Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?"

Canonisation of JP-2 would figure, but not ex cathedra would definitely do as well, as per Bellarmine.

And if you excommunicate Bellarmine, you have suddenly made Pope Pius XI a non-Pope, since canonising St. Robert definitely was an ex cathedra statement by him you see.

"So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith."

Where so?

"For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises."

He has also promised that His Church have the sign of Orthodoxy (Matthew 28:16-20) through its pastors.

Something which excludes Bergoglio from being one, especially the highest one, and therefore the one whose heresy cannot be suspended as deposition or invalidation ground until judged by a superior.

I have neither said the Gates of Hell have prevailed, nor anything that implies it. 1400 and 2000 are years having in common that there were more than one man claiming to be Pope and having followers accepting his claim. The former occasion was resolved in 1429, the latter is not yet resolved.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply. But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast. Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply."

Nice try to obfuscate you don't have one!

"But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast."

But I am not a sedevacantist, I am a conclavist.

"Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism."

It's not lacking under Pope Michael. Btw, the other two versions of Conclavism have now disappeared, Linus II having stepped back and Pius XIII having died. Both of them were also later in the field.

Palmarians (of which once I was one) are mysticalists, to me the alleged revelation discredited itself by the words "the Antichrist views the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth" - not sharing basic Geocentric cosmology with the Bible. Or with Pope Michael. Or with me while accepting them and prior to accepting Pope Michael.