No, I'm NOT Protestant

Ruslan Thought He Dunked on Catholics
Sips with Serra | 5 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqWOZtnmRD8

2:36 Maybe this will be upcoming, but historically up to a certain date or person ... could be Billy Graham, not sure ... Evangelicals have been pro-choice and pro-contraceptives.

Some have clearly shared more mainline Protestant denominations' stand on being back then pro-sterilisation.

In Canada, a certain time, Amerindians were sterilised, and the hospitals that did that were owned by Calvinists or Methodists, but not the ones owned by Catholics.

And Billy Graham was friends with Fulton Sheen.

10:55 Evangelicals are a late-comer to Protestantism, and excessively Puritan and (to my taste back then, at least) emortional. You know, Dostoyevski vibes.

Back in 1983, I therefore went from non-practising Evangelical to Lutheran, my baptism was in 1984.

But I retained pro-life and creationist views that clearly weren't welcome among those Lutherans.

I converted to Catholicism and could have both. Historical and non-Puritan faith, sobriety about the need to conversion, not hysteria. AND. Pro-life and YEC. Plus, which I hadn't been aware of originally, this was the safest place to believe the Real Presence and the possibility of Absolution, and I converted to believing the Sacrifice of the Mass.

My conversion was to what I would now call the Vatican II sect, but the priest I converted before was a true priest, ordained 1958, well before the new Pontificale.

Among Catholics opposed to Vatican II, of which I'm one, or especially to some post-Vatican II "popes", it is also still perfectly OK (or even required) to be YEC.

JJ1789

@JJ-ki6sv

It is not okay for you to deny the legitimacy and authority of the Pope though. That is not Catholic. Vatican 2 is not a sect it is an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

To deny the Pope is Protestant, please don't do that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@JJ-ki6sv Protestantism is not a synonym for "heresy" or "schism", however so much you may find my position either heretical or schismatic.

Protestantism is a specific schism, other than that of Nestorians or that of Caerularius, it is a specific set of errors often combined with those of the Jansenists, but unlike Jansenism also redefining sacraments.

You are either ill-informed (other than about Trads' sensibilities) or ill-willed if you mischaracterise any part of the Trad movement as "Protestantism".

JJ1789

@hglundahl Brother, call it what you like, but please don't call it Catholic. To bash and denigrate the Pope is in league with some of the most anti-Catholic of Protestant brothers and sisters. Like them, I hope you come to realize there is nothing good down that path. Schism is grave, and picking out things to judge the Church by that are not central to the faith is a way to end up there. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.

Your "true priest" I hope was not teaching this disobedience of his superiors to whom he owes his obedience. If so, like another priest ordained in 1958, Theodor McCarrick, is doing much damage to the faith of many. Lastly, YEC has NEVER been required belief in the Church. Of the things not required, we should not make idols of them. YEC is not central to the gospel in much of any way. We are required to believe that God created each unique human soul, and in his provident hand in all of creation. The specifics do not have to be literal to be true.

It is "Trad" to be with the Church, like my brother Adrian, running this channel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JJ-ki6sv "Your "true priest" I hope was not teaching this disobedience of his superiors to whom he owes his obedience."

On the contrary, he degraded from obedience, and I watched it.

He had in Spain celebrated Mass on a beach in beach clothing at a volleyball party, because that was what his superiors ordered.

"To bash and denigrate the Pope"

Like I've seen what you'd call "Catholics" call Pope Michael I a mental case. That's denigrating the Pope.

"Schism is grave,"

So, stop going in schism with past Popes, then!

"If so, like another priest ordained in 1958, Theodor McCarrick, is doing much damage to the faith of many."

The victims of McCarrick, certainly a Theistic Evolutionist, are a geat argument against obeying the Vatican II sect. You might recall he had a fairly high position. Wasn't it one Wojtyla who handed it over to him?

"Lastly, YEC has NEVER been required belief in the Church."

Thank you for showing how the loyalty of the Vatican II Sect is based on ignorance in laity and deception from clergy ... or ignorance there too, and therefore sloppiness. A bishop is required to know all of the faith, and so is in breach with his duties if he's that sloppy.

Every Christmas, the Church has been saying in the Latin rite, for centuries, Christ was born 5199 after the Creation, 2957 after the Flood and a few more items, but these two most closely related to a young earth.

There have been certain decades from 1830 to 1920 in which, without any apostasy, two other theories were taught, namely what's called "day-age" and "gap theory" which are today basically only believed by Fundies, but in such a way that they respected the Biblical timeline from Adam and him being the first man.

In 1941, Pius XII gives a half-and-half indirect and therefore not fully magisterial (as in 1950 Humani Generis) free pass for believing Adam had a biological pedigree. That's around the time when the MacCarrick type abuses start, I'd put it down to clergy using that abusive licence no longer worshipping the true God and their passions being a punishment as in Romans 1. These then led to Vatican II, the episcopates who hijacked the council (see Wiltgen) being the same where you had big support for Theistic Evolutionism and were more likely to have problems with the Teddy types you mention.

JJ1789

I'm sorry it even needs to be to said: David Bawden was not ever a Pope. Please return to the true Church. Don't be outside. Ask Jesus is a fractured tiny schism what he really intended, or is our family with Pope Leo where we need to be together.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JJ-ki6sv Did Christianity look like a fractured tiny schism on Pentecost?

Or, if you want to argue, Wojtyla was actually Pope, did Assisi 1986 and CCC § 283 never happen?

Here

I had an answer comment, then answered it, then saw my answer disappear. I'm giving you the answer I do a second time over.

JJ1789

@hglundahl no, the church was decidedly not in schism at Pentecost. Quite the opposite actually. It was small because it had not grown yet. You might say it was like a mustard seed, that could grow into the greatest of trees. Yes that's a good metaphor. Because trees don't turn back into seeds. And the Christ guaranteed the Church's protection

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JJ-ki6sv "the church was decidedly not in schism at Pentecost."

From the POV of the Temple? A little more than seven weeks earlier, Caiaphas was God's own last "Pope" for the OT, just as Cephas was now on Pentecost God's own first Pope for the NT.

"It was small because it had not grown yet. ... Because trees don't turn back into seeds."

They are however sometimes reduced to bonsai trees.

Christ asked about the end times "will the Son of Man find faith when He returns?" indicating that the actual Catholics of the end times would be few.

"And the Christ guaranteed the Church's protection"

From a total apostasy or distortion, yes, from a reduction to a few, no.

@JJ-ki6sv You deflected from not just one, but two questions.

A) Did Assisi 1986 and CCC § 283 not happen; B) Did the Church at Pentecost look like a schism? You deflected from the latter by answering it was in fact not in schism, which I agree on.

10:55 bis While he hasn't debunked Catholicism, he has however shown Evangelicals are on some key issues more Catholic than classic Protestant denominations.

I'd count YEC as one of these issues, Pope Michael II would probably agree, Pope Michael I did.