Brian Holdsworth and Myself on Protestants (part I : what Catholics on his view shouldn't say of Protestants)

Brian Holdsworth and Myself on Protestants: part I : what Catholics on his view shouldn't say of Protestants · part II : what Protestants Shouldn't Say to Catholics

Stupid Things Catholics Say About Protestants
Brian Holdsworth | 14 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC8jSnI5D0w

2:59 Yes, but the Catholic understanding of the faith is the actual Christian faith.

To classify Protestants as fully Christian is like classifying Valentinians or Ebionites or Arians that way. Protestants are in many ways closer than these, some may individually be presumed to be trying to believe the Christian faith as best as they can, but the failure to be Catholic is a failure to be Christian, as with the other examples.

A Trifle

Arguing against a recent publication of a catechism (previous comment) fully validated by Catholic clerics would make you a material heretic. Like plain old fact of it. I am going to be charitable and call you fully Christian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A Trifle That is is validated by "Catholic clerics" is certainly way out doubtful.

3:58 Magisterium:

Pope Pius IX stated: “He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ” (Quartus supra of January 6 1873, n. 8).

In the Syllabus of Modern Errors, the proposition that Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion was specifically condemned (Pius IX, n.18).

Leo XIII makes it plain that separated members cannot belong to the same body: “So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” (Encyclical Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896).

So, one can presume this or that individual Protestant whom ones knows to be ignorant to make an attempt to be Christian, but one should acknowledge the attempt is failed.

Credits for quotes : Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians, Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

4:12 We have a difference on whether CCC is a Catholic Catechism.

5:13 The quote just given (Unitatis Redintegratio) actually doesn't say all baptised are Christians.

It says that all who are justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ's body.

Let's presume that Ted Bundy was indeed justified when he was a very small child. And let's not prematurely consider what he did afterwards.

The text is not saying that Ted Bundy remained justified as he grew up in the Methodist theology of his maternal grandfather.

Now it is perhaps time to consider his deeds after all - could they be rooted in Methodist theology? At the time, Methodists were in favour of eugenics, that is of "responsibly" not making babies if one has hereditary diseases, notably of mind (a category into which he might have been placing his mother and himself, due to his grandpa thinking so), and were also saying, as I think they still do, aborted babies despite dying unbaptised, go to Heaven, not Limbo. When this is mentioned, take into account that many of his victims were raped (without condoms) before the killing.

I have my idea, he did not remain justified when he accepted such parts of Methodist theology. So, when he became a Protestant, more specifically Methodist, he ceased to be a member of Christ's body.

5:58 How many Protestants are obstinately denying that Mass is a sacrifice?
How many of them are doing so publically, by going to communion services that are not deemed sacrifices?

6:02 You have to be morally culpable. [to be a heretic]

Yes, sure. Some have not come across gruesome parts of Protestant theologies, like the back then Methodist endorsement for eugenics.
And some have not thought through what denying Mass as a sacrifice means for Church history.

But on the other hand, some have - so while you may hope for innocence on some individual cases, known to be untouched by modernist "responsibility" ideologies, known to be ignorant of history, you cannot presume this about Protestants as a whole group.

If no one in the Anglican communion denied that Mass is a sacrifice, identic in essence to the Calvary sacrifice, in which therefore Christ redeems us, why are there still Anglicans?

And if no one who was denying it were responsable for it, one must presume all of them ignorant or all of them idiots.

6:32 When it comes to Protestants, and whether they are (generally speaking) Christians, one of us, dear Brian, is materially in error.

When it comes to trusting CCC as a document of the Church, that one seems to involve so many into Evolutionism, which is clearly incompatible with certain Catholic teachings that are either de fide definita or at least very close to the faith (fidei proxima). That CCC was not a document of the Church involves "Saint John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope Francis" not being popes, which is basically only possible if they are heretics. The one fault in their elections would have been a non-Catholic not being eligible. At least for Wojtyla, since for the other two, there is possible different fault, the see not being vacant, but occupied by Pope Michael. One cannot be elected Pope if a Pope is already alive and not resigned. Even Pope Michael could not have been Pope if "John Paul II" was so, in other words, if "John Paul II" was not heretic, at least as to public statements.

6:40 Well if you go to Anglican communion services you are both obstinately (unless you convert) and publically (by the "communion" they go to) denying that Mass is a sacifice.

7:28 Theology may certainly be splendid, but the Catholic Church traditionally claims that for all that splendour, it is possible by human means, aided by graces not opposed, to identify the Church Christ founded.

You do not have to have a PhD in theology to be responsible for not being Catholic or for being Catholic.

And you do not have to have a PhD in theology to be responsible for not admitting or for admitting that Young Earth Creationism is ultimately part of the Catholic faith.

Yes, this means Pius XII was a lazy watchdog, like Honorius insufficiently warning against Monothelism.

7:56 Yes, there are Protestants who are very unaware of Church history.

But usually there is at least some awareness. Like them celebrating the Reformation.

Now Todd Friel (or whatever the last name was) on Wretched certainly has sufficient awareness of the Bible to sooner or later come across the idea, that either there has to be a documentable Christian Church over centuries that was not the Catholic one, or this lack puts rejection of Catholicism in conflict with "all days" in Matthew 28:16-20. The same goes for his pastor John McArthur.

8:29 I'd perfectly agree that Protestants who self qualify as non-denominational and who are not one but three or four revolutions removed from the Catholic Church are less likely than others to be responsible for Protestantism. But they are a minority.

Just because Sid Roth might be a Christian doesn't mean the late Tony Palmer could be so. You know that close friend of Bergoglio.

Sure, he preached "the protest is over" but he did not take a distance from "communions" that were meant to not be sacrificial ones.

9:06 As you showcase John McArthur, yes, he is less likely than Sid Roth to have (so far) good excuses.

He did however take his distance from one Lutheran tenet in practise recently. When he told the Governor of California to repent, he lined up with St. Thomas Becket and against Luther and Cranmer.

10:21 I'd qualify that.

St. Robert Bellarmine considered that old heresies that are already communities you are born into (like Anabaptists in Transsylvania in his day) are outside the jurisdiction of the Inquisition (perhaps in their case also for doubtfully valid or invalid baptisms, but in Belloc's terms, it holds for old heretical populations even if they are validly baptised) ... this is because in any individual born into a sect like that, innocence is presumed possible. What cannot be presumed possible is innocence in all individuals or the community as a whole. Therefore it can still be called heretical.

It's a bit how you think of National Socialists or even Waffen-SS. Any particular person could well be innocent of the heresy called Gottesgläubige (like Catholics c. 1/4 of SS, with Protestants just above 1/2, 51 %) and any particular person could well be innocent of war crimes (I verified Otto Carius hadn't been even accused of that before I honoured him with an RIP on FB) - but that doesn't mean National Socialism as a whole or SS as a whole are not to be rejected.

10:50 Pope Leo XIII was definitely thinking mostly of European Calvinists and Lutherans and Anglicans.

Among other things, they were already then tending to abandon Creationism. To reduce certain truths about Adam from historical fact to idealised abstractions without direct bearing on historical facts. That's one of the reasons so many Protestant sects (I mentioned Methodists) could accept eugenics.

11:12 Here you are wagering on Vatican II being an Ecumenical council.

YAJUN YUAN

Lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN What's your amusement?

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You would be called a heretic by fellow Catholics for denying it is an Ecumenical council

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN I have a fellow Catholic hopefully in heaven or at least purgatory, and a Pope up to his death DENYING Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council.

Pope Michael died August 2nd, last year.

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Unfortunately, I don't think any of your fellow Catholics endorse Pope Michael. But I take your point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Well, Father Francis Dominic whom Pope Michael ordained does - and he's more of a fellow Catholic than at least material schismatics who follow "Pope Francis" ...

12:09 The account of Trail of Blood is not a persuasive account of history.

It's a prime example of how ignorance of history is fostered.

Other example in The Forbidden Book, Jerome is supposed to have translated the Bible into Latin so as to keep the masses locked out from it.

Latin didn't become incomprehensible to Romance speakers until 800 in Tours, where a non-Romance, far older, pronunciation of Latin, having been cultivated as a foreign language by Anglo-Saxons who were receiving it from Italy, two centuries earlier, was imposed as liturgic pronunciation. 13 years later, they drew the conclusion they had, from now on, need to translate or expose the Gospel and not just read it in Latin.

AND, yes, there are LOTS of Protestants who really are sufficiently ignorant of history, both ecclesiastic and linguistic, to think I got this from a fanatic Catholic apologist who wasn't honest. I got it from pretty good linguists and historians, and I am the one who am applying it to Catholic apologetics.

Ignorance of history is a real phenomenon. A parallel Church persecuted for 1260 years by the Inquisition which killed millions, who alone gave the Bible in vernacular, while for all of the 1260 years Latin was incomprehensible for common man, and this intriduced by people like St. Gregory the Great who wanted to make business in relics not very unlike the business in indulgences they attribute to Leo X and Trent - all of this is very ignorant, except perhaps for a few with which it is deliberately dishonest.

So, one of the more common excuses for those who are not personally culpable of heresy is believing a faked history, which can only survive by ignorance of real history.

12:25 Yes, there are certainly Protestant academics who have a much better grasp of history than what I just mentioned.

In return, them staying Protestant is much more likely to be involved in small and nearly peevish distinctions.

Do you recall "I believe in Purgatory, but not the Romish doctrine of Purgatory" by CSL (quoted from memory, I'll have to ask William O'Flaherty about the exact quote)? How could he come up with thinking the painful devotional cards are dogmatised above Dante's account, if he hadn't had some kind of peevishness in rejecting Catholicism? Let's hope it didn't amount to full blown responsability, otherwise a certain other book by O'Flaherty than "The Misquotable C. S. Lewis" might have a painfully apt title ...

I can mention I have a debt to Caesarius Cavallin on Mariology and Synergism ... but Caesarius Cavallin has since then converted.

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl because purgatory (purification) happens after the resurrection and its painless and near instantaneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Purgatory happens between particular judgement and soul getting to Heaven, usually both prior to Resurrection.

Your individual eschatology is not that of the Church that Christ founded.

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You should watch "What is Biblical purgatory vs Roman Catholic Purgatory flamed torture for expiation of sins in Hades" to see why Protestants and Orthodox deny purgatory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Orthodox don't uniformly deny Purgatory. Russians tend to believe in airy toll houses and Mark of Ephesus considered prayers for the dead worked by God applying them backwards to the deceased person's dying moments.

Dante's view, which C. S. Lewis endorsed, was as much as any devotion cards precisely about expiating remaining venial sins or temporal penalties for repented mortal ones after death.

I may or may not watch a video of that title, but I certainly know that II Maccabees 12 indicates we should pray for the dead, and as this was a common Jewish practise since then, it is not even material that you deny canonicity of Maccabees, Jesus would have known about the practise and He did not oppose it. That equals an endorsement from Him, and we have St. Paul praying for the soul of Onesimus.

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl In regards to prayer for the dead, the Orthodox do it in the hope that borderline cases will be saved. They aren't praying to get the dead out of purgatory. So prayers for the dead would not be endorsement for purgatory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN As I said, this depends.

What you said basically holds of Mark of Ephesus, but not of all Russian Orthodox.

These have, instead of purgatory, basically a 40 days intermediate state before judgement, if I get them right. Souls passing up to God must pass through a harrassment of demons trying to hold them back, by their earthly attachments, and for this the souls often need prayers.

When one prays for the dead, there are different things one could be praying for. Getting damned souls out of damnation is obviously a no no as both Catholics and Orthodox agree. But in the practise, both Catholics and Orthodox do pray for the dead. So do if I get it right, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians (Monophysites and Nestorians).

@YAJUN YUAN Here is a quote from Ethiopian Orthodox, that is non-Chalcedonians, Copts:

"The Coptic Orthodox Church rejects the notion of purgatory. This doctrine, which was first formulated in the 12th century by Roman Catholic theologians, is an attempt to explain the residual debt caused by sin prior to the Second Coming. This purgatory is supposed to make the dead clean before the Judgement Seat"

This is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.

"and satisfied before entering the Kingdom of Heaven."

More like clean before entering Heaven.

"This theology is in opposition to the Orthodox doctrine of salvation, which is a process-oriented view."

Sounds like they could believe in some kind of purgatory after all.

"In addition, Orthodox theology does not believe in quantifiable sin or grace and does not consider any “satisfaction” for sin."

"Unlike Catholic doctrine, the Orthodox Church has never quantified the length of time a soul spends in purgatory. By contrast, Catholic indulgences were precise, allowing people to earn quarantine (forty days), one year, or forty years in Purgatory."

It starts to look like their rejection is about secondary things.

So is the following:

"Catholic sources also describe the purgatory experience as material fire, a notion that contradicts Orthodox teaching."

I would like to know their view on the fire of the damned ... St. Augustine insists that it is material. Worms are metaphors, but fire material. Of the two errors, taking worms materially is less bad than taking fire metaphorically.

Either way, yes, you find a material fire in sources like Pope St. Gregory, in his dialogues, and in St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don't think that was defined.

12:25 Revisited.

I had said: In return, them staying Protestant is much more likely to be involved in small and nearly peevish distinctions.

I mentioned CSL's view of Purgatory.

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, chapter 20, para. 7-10, pp. 108-109.
"I believe in purgatory.
Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on 'the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become...
The right view returns magnificently in Newman's 'Dream'. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer, 'With its darkness to affront that light.' Religion has reclaimed Purgatory.
Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' -- 'Even so, sir.'"

Credits to Larry Kuening for spotting the full quote. EDIT : Chuck Erikson

Now, it is pretty obvious to me, CSL was nine tenths Catholic but stayed outside the Church for a one tenth Protestant view which was hardly that of the Reformers.

Truth Amazing

Hi stupid catholics. How on earth is Mary a perpetual virgin after Joseph consummated their marriage and she had many children after Jesus?

Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 13:55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Truth Amazing "Not until" is also translated as "not before."

It doesn't say he did "know her" afterwards.

Mt 13 doesn't state that "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas" were sons of Mary. They were sons of St. Joseph from a previous marriage. All of them were older than Our Lord, and if James is mentioned first, he was actually second youngest, but is mentioned first because he behaved as a brother when Joseph died. Hence he's called "brother of God" (theadelphos).

Truth Amazing

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Lol. Please go back to kindergarten. Your interpretation of scripture is exactly the opposite of what is read.

If Joseph did not consummate the marriage they were not officially married, which would make the Bible false. They did not become one flesh thus not really married

Can you show proof from scripture that Mary was the second wife? Only idiots talk without proof.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Truth Amazing A marriage can be officially valid simply because it is "ratum" even if it is not "ratum et consummatum" - basic RC answer on this one.

"Can you show proof from scripture that Mary was the second wife? Only idiots talk without proof."

Only Protestants require truth to be from Scripture alone. Proto-Gospel of St. James.

Now other things only idiots do, this time, is using heavily different weights and measures (ok, crooks too, but that's just for others). Why would you believe one old text and disbelieve another?

If it's a question of canonicity, that begs the question how you know canon. And if the answer is, as correctly it should be "by the Church" then the same Church also holds Proto-Gospel of St. James in at least some esteem. Another school even goes as far as to say the "brothers" were His cousins.

Yes, Greek has another word for cousin and in the levirate perspective, a cousin might be a "brother" if there are no sibling brothers, even if "kinsman" is also used in that respect (Ruth). That's the opinion of St. Jerome (except the part on levirate, which is my defense of his opinion). But I think the Proto-Gospel of St. James is mentioned before St. Jerome came into the fray.

13:24 The comparison is not quite apt.

You at 7 months, that's immature, as it was for me.

The Church in the time of the Apostles was, however, the prime of its maturity. Since then the Church has not matured, but declined. This is the fairly clear doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas.

I would say he (like Gavin Ortlund at times) was making the mistake of "the Mexican in Edinburgh" ... namely presuming that what wasn't mentioned wasn't there.

It is true the Church can be expected to become narrower. Reject more previous "possible positions" as not possible. But the position retained has to be there from the start. AND if these guys were to define the case for their Church, in the light of Matthew 28:16-20, its theology had to be there from the start as well.

14:54 When you quote John Henry Newman - is it Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845)?
Because, some of what is now popular in quoting from it may directly contradict the position he gave as his own in Retractation of Anti-Catholic Statements (1845).

You see, by the time JHN converted, he already had made enemies, and those as well as some enemies of the Catholic Church were more than willing to accuse his conversion for being motivated by some dishonest motive.

He was specifically told to write a book detailing how his decision to convert looked from the perspective of an Anglican who decided "I can no longer be an Anglican, I need to convert" ... I think he even wrote the Essay prior to receiving instruction, which would make Retraction his immediate gain in knowledge by instruction.

And the idea that a tenet of the Church could be only implicitly present in the early Church and explicitly absent, not just from documents, not just from individual cases, but from everywhere, is just not true. I have just defended the traditionality of the Immaculate Conception, via the Greek Church, notably of Ukraine which long had double communion straddling the schism, or via Paris since France got a Queen from Ukraine just before the schism.

I got a comment that was deleted too:

No, not because they are recent, but because they contradict the previous.

SUPPLEMENT

I did watch the video by YAJUN YUAN.

What is Biblical purgatory vs Roman Catholic Purgatory flamed torture for expiation of sins in Hades
YAJUN YUAN, 26 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDF2-xhgqCg

And I also did comment:

Here is Baltimore Catechism:

184. Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.

The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work; if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (I Corinthians 3:13-15)

2:45 Men will always be in some ways temporal.

Men will not experience in their own existence a totum simul.

From when a soul enters either Heaven or Hell, that state will persist with a beginning and without an end, but not without succession within it.

Some enter heaven before the final judgement, even as soon as they die sometimes. Thou wilt be with me in paradise today.

Those who don't aren't in a soul sleep. This means, if you are not in Hell and not yet in Heaven, you are somewhere else.

By the way, men will never be omnipresent as God and also not placeless.

2:51 Proof it doesn't refer to the general Resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ; and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The first resurrection doesn't mean their bodies resurrect 1000 years earlier than those of other men, it means the resurrection which gives eternal life, the resurrection from a state of sin.

Even more proof the reigning with him is already ongoing, Hebrews 11 plus 12:1.

By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice exceeding that of Cain, by which he obtained a testimony that he was just, God giving testimony to his gifts; and by it he being dead yet speaketh ... And what shall I yet say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephthe, David, Samuel, and the prophets: ... Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. That's an overview of chapter 11

The concluding verses belong with verse 12:1 And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:

This means, when St. Paul is talking, the saints of the old testament are already looking down on us and already reigning with Christ.

5:35 From your description.

"Catholics make the same arguments as Protestants do, but only when they talk to a Catholic audience."

I don't know the latter limitation.

"This demonstrate that some Protestant propositions are valid and are accepted by Catholics, even if they reach different conclusions."

Catholicism has a few lists of the very few Protestant base propositions that are not valid. For instance, quite a few of those made it into "anatema sit" at Trent in the 16th C. are Classical Protestantism (others are not so, Trent is not condemning just in one direction).

Was it referring to the first sentence?

"How the Historic Enemies of the Church Prove Christianity."

Well - the argument is very valid - as long as you apply it to the correct premisses.

Here the timestamp is just where I happened to stop. It made me look for sth like a statement of faith.

6:10 At the end.

Purification of Mary was a legal ceremony. This does not mean an actual purification of any kind of moral impurity is equally painless.

The ceremony was of a legal "impurity" as it was called in the OT, "irregularity" as it is called in Catholicism. In this case one that usually involves suffering while getting impure / irregular.

On The Death of Pope Benedict XVI
Brian Holdsworth, 3 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8n-T-kdCww

3:40 If you are a kind of Ratzinger geek, can you answer this:
did he definitely consider Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism as faith going beyond its "specificity" (citing a word in his testament)?

6:08 In 2013, he resigned. In 2014 his successor held the "magic wand" speech - do you feel Ratzinger could have felt betrayed but avoided conflict, or that he was on board with that adress?

6:26 What German temperament brought the world to wars?
The Prussian or the Austrian or the Saxon or the Bavarian?

A little reminder, he was a Bavarian. I shed if not a tear at least a pint of dry stout on New years eve, if only for the Bavarian.

As a Christian I think he was a failure. Doctrinally and in the application of discipline.

9:05 If you think:
a) that Ratzinger was OK with billions of years and Adam having non-human ancestry
b) faithful to the Church Fathers in his theology
what about you going to precisely the sources. Did St. Augustine of Hippo have sth to say on how to read Genesis 5 and 11? Check specifically books 13 to 16 of City of God, and they are available online on Newadvent ...