Contra Lofton Misdefining Luther to Blacken Trad Catholics with Him

Contra Lofton Misdefining Luther to Blacken Trad Catholics with Him · Contra Calvin

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-i-am-a-catholic

"Now that the world is not going Puritan but pagan, it is the Church that is everywhere protesting against a pagan laxity in dress or manners. It is doing what the Puritans wanted done when it is really wanted. In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will survive only in Catholicism, and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are pagans."

How You Might Be A Protestant Without Knowing It!
Reason & Theology, 17.IX.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZhcYOp5fT8

3:02 I note, Donum Veritatis came just a few months before the election of Pope Michael - one man who did not stand for saying "JP-II is Pope" and at the same time judging him.

His solution was "JP-II is an antipope, that's why we need a new Pope after Pius XII" ...

4:34 How come saints approved by the Magisterium have not historically held this, but instead held that persons otherwise prone to be accepted as part of the Magisterium would need to be judged as not being such, ipso facto for deviating from the Deposit of the Faith?

4:46 "in conflict with the magisterium"

You gloss over the distinction "with the magisterium as it stands right now" or "with the magisterium as it stood and still stands" or to put it in the words of Trent:

"quem tenuit et tenet ecclesia, cuius est iudicare"

In other words, for Trent, the position of the magisterium of the past is paramount for whether the present purported magisterium can really be such.

Pour cause. In Protestant country after Protestant country, at least where Anglicanism and Lutheranism were concerned, the new heretics were stepping into the shoes of former titles of the Catholic magisterium, like "archbishop of Uppsala" or "archbishop of Canterbury" ... A Catholic was obliged to resist the apparent magisterium of Cranmer or Parker or of Laurentius Petri Nericius and his son in law Laurentius Petri Gothus.

6:36 Note here the rejection of past popes, and of past councils. In Luther, that is.

7:46 "This Pope contradicts this Pope, this council contradicts this council"

Sorry, but that was a Trad, not Luther.

"so unless you can convince me that this is Biblical"

That however was Luther if you add "Biblical or reasonable" ...

There is a big difference in rejecting the magisterium of the past, because one already knows one's opinion goes against too many centuries of it, and appealing to the magisterium of the past, because one knows an intruder by the discrepancy in tone with predecessors.

8:30 Again, a huge difference between "I'm gonna ignore what the [current] Pope is teaching here" and "I'm gonna ignore what Popes have been teaching over centuries" ...

Not saying either is OK. But there is a difference between being trapped by wrongful acceptance of "Pope Francis" into chosing between him and those whom one supposes "his predecessors" and rejecting out of hand current and preceding Popes.

9:20 "they're assuming their interpretation of this council is the accurate one"

Oooops ... Trent is not exactly a document from the Near East from a culture steeped in pre-Christian traditions we are partly fortunate in knowing little about unless we are specialists.

Trent is within Christendom and after the Renaissance set in, so, the likelyhood of misinterpreting Trent is much slimmer than of misinterpreting the Bible.

One can very frankly say Luther misinterpreted Romans 3, because Jewish Kashrut were not paramount in his mind.

Would you mind telling me, as an apologist for "Donum Veritatis" being magisterium, which I dispute, what I am missing about Trent Session IV saying "tenuit atque tenet" rather than just simply "tenet" ?

Note, by disputing Donum Veritatis being magisterium, I am also disputing Ratzinger back then being successor of Ghislieri back then and Wojtyla then being successor of Pius IV back then. I am also disputing Ratzinger later became a successor of Pope Pius V, which Ghislieri became, probably already being a saint.

9:33 You'd agree that if "John Paul II" was genuinely Pope and "Cardinal" Ratzinger genuinely prefect of the dicasterium of faith, CCC would be genuinely an act of the magisterium, along with its constituent paragraphs, including obviously §283?

I mean, no one can excuse that pretended papacy by saying this was an airplane interview or on par with it?

10:04 No, it's not.

He was forced to ditch pope after pope of the past because he was not just disagreeing with the then pope or a very recently starting line of popes with a common agenda different from previous ones ...

10:19 Calvin and Zwingli were also not pulling the gambit of "magisterium of the past" since they were also aware of how it condemned them.

10:58 At the core of how Trent condemned Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc, there is this distinction which you keep missing.

They were not just getting against the then popes, they were definitely not appealing to the magisterium of the past.

And Trent was definitely not saying they needed to back down to something which was only the magisterium of the present, if it disagreed with the past.

13:03 You know what I concluded about some very anti-Catholic Protestants? I am not even speaking mainly of Luther, it's more like Hislop ...

They are treating papacy as an anti-papacy - not as a sequence of anti-popes, but as a sequence of sth which is anti-infallible, presumably in-rectible ...

Instead of looking at the Bible to see whether this or that doctrine ends up on the Catholic side or not, they treat the existence of the Catholic side as proof this is not the Biblical side.

You have done the same gambit. Instead of treating Popes (including those who condemned Protestantism) as your directive, you are treating Luther as your anti-directive. Something you have a duty to disagree with on every level or as many levels as conceivably possible.

The problem with this is ... all errors will overlap with truth. Some errors will not overlap with each other, but all will overlap with truth.

This means that whenever you set out to avoid all overlap between yourself and a certain known error, you are likely to end up outside the truth and in the opposite error.

So distance from Luther is very much less of a criterium for Catholicism than adherence to Trent or to Pius V ...

13:03 bis Your title ... "How You Might Be A Protestant Without Knowing It!"

It's so Jack Chick or Hislop to Catholics, telling them "How You Might Be A Pagan Without Knowing It!"