"Protestants Are Their Own Popes, Hans Georg is His Own Pope, Therefore Hans Georg is a Protestant" (Refellitur)

Everyone is their own Pope even Catholics
Faith Alone Saves | 3 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5retjlOOE

"now you can 0:30 come to the decision that you should 0:32 subject your judgment to whatever 0:33 somebody else says"

This is actually traditionally not what Catholics mean by submitting to the Pope.

Proof? St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis of Sales discuss what would happen if a Pope fell into heresy and started preaching heresy.

They do not agree whether this could happen for someone already validly a Pope (St. Robert said, this could probably not happen "Peter, I have prayed for you"), but they do agree that if this happened, he would lose his papacy.

It would in that case not be a Catholic thing to submit to him as to a Pope.

Heresy would in this context be defined as conflicting with the body of previous doctrine.

Trent Session IV and Vatican (1870) agreeing we are bound to the interpretation or position:

"quam tenuit atque tenet Ecclesia"

It is not enough it is the current proposal from the magisterium, it has to be traditional as well as current.

"if I 0:51 think that I can think better than that 0:52 person that is equally a decision of my 0:54 own"

A Pope is not a kind of superexpert, who is "able to think better" but rather the appointed guardian of tradition and umpire between positions claiming (ideally) to be traditional, or at least minimally and sufficiently traditional.

He may be a jerk, he may be narrowminded, he may be a person you need to be on your lookout for, but this does not change, unless one can stamp him as either heretic having lost his papacy, or having gained it in a wrong way so he never held it, when he speaks up big you need to submit.

"rather than to 1:03 think for yourself"

No one does think entirely for himself, rather each man choses what topics he wants to think for himself on. It's impossible to think for oneself on every topic, and usually not all that practical to cut out all topics you don't know how to think for yourself in or you know you lack the means for thinking for yourself in them.

But as said, a Pope is not a substitute for thinking for oneself, it is an umpire between Catholic often enough theologians who often enough think for themselves quite a lot.

1:23 Heidegger is wrong.

It is wrong to say only the average person lets others think for them. Everyone has to.

It is therefore also wrong to say allowing others to think for you in and of itself makes your life inauthentic. Unless the meaning in his jargon is a very technical one, pretty divorced from the common sense percenption of the adjective and adverb.

"and 2:01 even if you know they they do so because 2:04 of the testimony of the church so to 2:06 speak on behalf of itself"

I actually didn't need to. While I used it, the decisive proof is not so much that "the Catholic Church thinks it is the original Church in straight continuation" (which Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Syriacs and Assyrians also do, whether they claim to be all or part of it), the decisive proof is "any Protestant denomination" (except Ruckmanism) "doesn't even think it is the original Church in straight continuation."

The point is, what the Protestant is typically at his most polemic saying against the Catholic Church and for his own is impossible, Biblically speaking. It is against the words "all days" in Matthew 28:20.

It is against the Bible.

Again, if we want to take up a Heidegger dichotomy between two kinds of people (though actually every man is both kinds in different areas of his life), when I was forced to think authentically about believing the Bible, I could not motivate preferring the Reformers over the Church they got the Bible from. My reasons for Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy were back then more impressionistic, I have later gone one turn forth and back to and from Eastern Orthodoxy. I just had the pleasure to defend azymes before one former coreligionist.

And when I did that, back then it was actually a Russian Orthodox / Finnish Orthodox who taught me why Protestantism is un-Christian. But Chesterton put it better.

And Matthew confirms it. Christ's promise is incompatible with a Luther scenario, in which a Church originally Christian and indeed the only Christian one over time accumulates so many corruptions that someone has to scrap all the latest centuries and hypothesise over what different words in earlier ones meant to set it straight. It's also incompatible with a Joseph Smith scenario, in which a Great Apostasy has already happened, and many centuries later, just some last century or two before the end times, someone is tasked with setting it straight and reestablishing the Church of Christ.

3:00 Being one's own pope actually, as mentioned, does not mean "think for oneself" it means setting oneself up as the judge of orthodoxy.

And here I don't mean "judge" in the sense of doing judgement, I mean judge in the sense of pronouncing the obligations. Obligations that come into existence because you pronounce them.

Not simply observing that an obligation is inherent in Bible (as rejecting Protestantism per Matthew 28:20) or previous Magisterium (as believing the Bible on Genesis 1 to 11).