In Response to Trent Horn

One question Protestants can’t answer
The Counsel of Trent | 20 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhh8FXx-lPQ

1:21 YEC / OEC, continuation of miracles ... neither of these are non-essentials.

Why?

Excluding Old Earth is, after carbon dating the earliest human bones or some of them, part of God's goodness - and also of Epistemology of the Revelation, notably Genesis 3 (including famously verse 15 as being fairly important for Mariology).

Continuation of miracles is part of how the Catholic Church is identified as the true one. St Martin's corpse raised three dead. No dead Calvinist or even live Calvinist did anything like that, and that includes Calvin who very tactically pretended the charisms were gone soon after the apostolic age and the stories of Catholic miracles in the contemporary world were invented by greed.

2:19 You are aware that the last three "popes" on your side are in conflict with § 3 of Dei Verbum?

3:31 If the Bible is anywhere revealing what the number of books are, it's 45 (or 46) in the OT, 73 (or 72) overall.

Because the Bible is a main source of our Faith, and two localities praised for their faith are Thessalonica and Beroea.

However, in the older measure, they are 45 miles apart, in the newer measure 73 km apart.

11:07 I actually can state it's pretty recently that Vatican ("I") overruled my view on the inspiration of hagiographers.

Of course, there are passages that God literally dictates, it says so in the text, "God spoke to Moses and said" ...

But for other passages, like Moses on most of Genesis or Luke on his Gospel and Acts, I had taken the view that:

• they took human initiatives and these were not specifically directed by God in such a manner as to constitute the equivalent of dictation
• BUT God providentially preserved them from making a single mistake (theological or even merely factual), like God preserves a Pope from making a (theological only) mistake when he pronounces ex cathedra. This was the opinion of one Bonfrère, and it was condemned, and Father Fulcran Vigouroux (Sulpician), who is sloppy when it comes to interpreting the creation days and the Flood is really very good when it comes to the general principle: in the writing of a Bible book, every initiative comes from God.

There is a further debate whether this means "verbal inspiration" strictu sensu or "real inspiration + verbal providence", he and Franzelin take the latter view, but he admits lots of older authors are literally saying what most directly and obviously means the former one. St. Thomas Aquinas, I've read him state that himself "with the Holy Ghost dictating" (so the human author is a secretary for dictation).

Anyone who thinks "Moses or whoever wrote Genesis 1" (such people often disagree with Moses doing so, I do not disagree) "freely chose the six days as a literary form which in and of itself did not fall under divine inspiration" (view taken 1920 by Fr. Émile Mangenot, S.J.) should definitely look up the exact terms in the Vatican Council once again.

15:26 Some believe the horrible heresy "he bore the wrath for me" or "on the Cross, God poured out His wrath on Jesus" ... that's pretty much agreeing with the actual scoffers at Calvary and the scoffers prophecied in Isaias 53. I'm very glad to have got out of the Protestant world before I was fully aware of this.

Not sure that I was totally unaware of it, back in Austria, but if "das Schlimmst wo paschiert isch un das Schönst wor paschirt isch" affirmed it (I don't have that recording and haven't had it for years), I know Catholic iconography of the Crucifixion clearly mirrored Matthew 3:17 (and Romans 6:4 suggests it should). I know I loved those baroque Church paintings even back then.

19:13 They would typically quote Pope Gregory XVI.

Now, it may be important in this context to note, I hope it is, that Gregory XVI mainly had experience with European Protestant confessions which in his day were:

• not excommunicating Freemasons
• not believing the Bible (Cuvier's denial of Biblical chronology was not a French Catholic thing, he was a Protestant, and in Napoleon's time part of the Protestant consistory)
• not fasting
• uniformly cessationist (if they even believed the Biblical miracles had happened at all back then)
• clearly prior to for instance Asuza Street revival and similar.

In other words, he would have been speaking of the things that this still-Fundie Exvangelical gone Lutheran found shocking in Swedish Lutherans (by now that includes acceptance of female clergy, because following the example of Jesus chosing only men is not that important, not believing in Hell, not thinking abortion should be banned, not thinking contraceptives are sinful to use ...).

Also, most Protestants in his day were not Abolitionists against slavery, Wilberforce was Evangelical, a minority within Anglicans, his most famous son who took a debate with Huxley was a High Church Anglican (somewhat Catholicising, that was after Gregory XVI), two other of his sons converted to Catholicism. Gregory XVI was basically an abolitionist, though he did not formally deny Southrons had a right to keep the slaves they already had, as long as slavery was not abolished in due legal process.

It may also be noted that these guys who do quote Gregory XVI are often replying to Protestants in the Latin American world, which are in near total unanimity that Catholics are not Christians. You see, they involve Brazilians.

As this video of yours is over a year old, did you make that video?

19:37 "cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation"

At birth, obviously not.

Once they grow up, they may get to know sufficient to convert and then proceed to convert, as I did, or they may not get to know sufficient and not convert, and in both cases they are not liable to such an accusation. B U T some may actually learn sufficient to convert, yet not convert, and indeed dig into very bad theology ("he bore the wrath for me"—"Catholics are superstitious for having exorcists, Jesus didn't really drive out demons, but adapted himself to superstitions of his time"—"Paulicians were true Christians and the risen body is not physical, so cannot be present in heaven and bilocated in the Eucharist, and no longer has Mary for mother" and so on) and very bad history ("death cookie"—"the Vatican founded Islam"—"the Vatican told Ustashi to kill Serbs"—"Pope St. Gregory the Great in his letters told Frankish monarchs the efficacy of relics depended on their paying them well" ... the latter two found in works by Avro Manhattan—of Jewish extraction—and believed not just by Protestant Jack Chick fans, but also by some Serbian Orthodox) or contemporary news ("the Illuminati are run by the Vatican") in order to motivate the refusal to convert, and in those cases, they kind of do take on guilt as the original Reformers had.

I do not share the opinion of the supposed Council Fathers that grave guilt on the Catholic side played a major role actually. Read Belloc on how he explained the English Reformation (he wrote several volumes of English history, volume I involves Rome, Anglo-Saxons and I think Medieval England, so probably volume II).