Showing posts with label Catholic Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic Truth. Show all posts

Thursday, August 7, 2025

I think an actual Inquisitor actually represents the Catholic Church


In other words the layman's club called Catholic Truth (not sure if affiliated to Sheed and Ward's Catholic truth guild) here did some overkill. It's true he wasn't executed for translating the Bible, in Vilvoorde an English Bible was practically irrelevant, English wasn't as big a language yet, but he had a Church judge prior to being delivered to "the secular arm" (i e the State), so, the video got a like because Kate is pretty, not because Bryan Mercier is highly competent.


Did the Catholic Church Really Kill Tyndale?
Catholic Truth | 7 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFrkLLcB-0


1:24 Henry VIII never was a Protestant. He was in communion with Lutherans, but he never was one himself. He died as a Catholic believer (on most of not all accounts) in Schism against the Pope.

While he was the one opposing Tyndale's translation, Tyndale was actually burned by the Spanish Inquisition in the Netherlands, in Vilvoorde, modern Belgium, for an actual crime against the faith. He misinterpreted Romans 3. The Tyndale society carefully preserves and has translated the text of Jacobus Latomus, and his, I think third, refutation of Tyndale.* Had Tyndale recanted, he could have lived.

Vince Giangiacomo
Verge63
Henry VIII burned Tyndale for denouncing his divorce

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@Verge63 No ... even a quick wikipedia check would find you he was burned in Vilvoorde, where Henry VIII had absolutely no authority and where his divorce was not a very well looked on event.

Charles V had absolutely no motive to take revenge on a man for dissing the divorce of Henry VIII, of which his relative Catherine of Aragon was a victim.


2:20 His Inquisitor actually gave him opportunity to continue translation efforts. I think it's Trent Horn I have that from.

According to CSL (who considered him a saint, a martyr, paradoxically along with St. Thomas More, in his Latin correspondence with an Italian priest, I think), Douay Rheims actually took hints from Tyndale, no less than King James took some from Douay Rheims. The most egregious mistranslation in KJV, Matthew 6:7, is not from the Tyndale Bible, but from the Geneva Bible via the Bishops' Bible. Calvin had a bee in the bonnet against repetitive prayers.

4:52 It would be fairer to say that Charles V took a tip from Henry VIII, and had him arrested.

James Latomus was his judge, and he was an Inquisitor in full communion with Rome. I know, technically it isn't the Inquisitor who pronounces the death penalty, he functions as a coroner, a judge of enquiry finding guilty or not guilty, while a judge of the state pronounces the death penalty after he was found guilty.

The real irony is when some Protestants who believe in Lordship Salvation uphold Tyndale, since his heresy specifically was a free grace message, a total denial of Lordship Salvation.

Obviously, Lordship Salvation looks differently in Catholics and those Evangelicals who believe it, but nonetheless ...

Note:

* My bad, actually first of the three. I cite it in this article, in a fact box below an intro with bold:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Good Video on Inquisition, with Some Quibbles of Mine
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-good-video-on-inquisition-with-some.html


The Tyndale Society still has a page with Latomus' text:

Jacob Latomus His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517104730/http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/latomus1.html

Monday, August 26, 2024

Good Conversion Story


From Evangelical to CATHOLIC! (Anti-Catholic joins Catholic Church!)
Catholic Truth | 1 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SmiSmP6u-o


9:35 I paused the video for a moment while looking up Dave Hunt.

Now, his book came in 1994, when there was already an Antipope Wojtyla in place, but his arguments are atrocious.

I found no detailed preview on Amazon, but on Chick dot com I found one.

Now, let's take the last charge.

Pope Nicholas I (858-67) declared: "We [popes] alone have the power to bind and to loose, to absolve Nero and to condemn him; and Christians cannot, under penalty of excommunication, execute other judgment than ours, which alone is infallible." In commanding one king to destroy another, Nicholas wrote:

We order you, in the name of religion, to invade his states, burn his cities, and massacre his people....27


Now I look up footnote 27.

Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243, as cited in R.W. Thompson, op. cit., p. 368.


I look up Cormenin. While I do, I also look up Nicholas I. He's a saint. If the charge is true, this looks bad. I find Cormenin on wiki.

Louis Marie de la Haye, Vicomte de Cormenin (January 6, 1788 in Paris – May 6, 1868 in Paris) was a French jurist and political pamphleteer.


What does his political carreere tell us of his reliability?

In 1828 Cormenin entered the Chamber of Deputies as member for Orléans, took his seat in the Left Center, and began a vigorous opposition to the government of Charles X. As he was not gifted with the qualifications of the orator, he seldom appeared at the tribune; but in the various committees he defended all forms of popular liberties, and at the same time delivered, in a series of powerful pamphlets, under the pseudonym of Timon, the most formidable blows against tyranny and all political and administrative abuses. After the revolution of July 1830, Cormenin was one of the 221 who signed the protest against the elevation of the Orléans dynasty to the throne; and he resigned both his office in the council of state and his seat in the chamber. He was, however, soon re-elected deputy, and now voted with the extreme Left.


Yes, that's the kind of guy Dave Hunt was relying on ...

10:15 Dave Hunt, James Milton Carroll, Ruckman ... I think Alexander Hislop takes the cake, though.

1) He pretended to be well informed about Old Babylonian paganism, but this claim he made while cuneiform was not yet completely deciphered yet (perhaps ideas are still being corrected, I think I have seen one and the same guy described as Aram-Sin, Naram-Sin and Naram-Lin in a few years on wikipedia);
2) His parallels between Catholicism and Paganism are just so like Zeitgeist the Movie! Probably he boosted Atheism a lot by people generalising the approach.

12:51 Just in case anyone has spread the story of me on St. John's Feast 2001, I burned a lot of (maybe ten) booklets of the Litany to the Sacred Heart.

It was not and will never be I'm against that devotion, but when I fondly had opened one, I found how the man I considered my bishop had translated "God Holy Ghost" and I don't fancy feminist theology.

In correct Swedish it's Gud, Helige Ande.

He had translated "Heliga" ... an adjectival form used for non-masculines (feminines, mascu-feminine inanimates, neutres).

I never sent him the letter explaining my gesture, but the same evening I prayed the Litany in Latin or German or both, in reparation for his bad translation.

(and for any kind of sin I could have incurred in the burning)

14:25 That's a probable way in which I'm NOT getting a wife.

14:48 I'm noting the fine shade in JHN.

He didn't say "is to become Catholic". Some become Modernist "Protestants" ... I'm sure Gretta Vosper is not what he meant by Protestants. Lots of those in the Church of Sweden.

Some become Atheists, maybe Jews or Muslims.

Ceasing to be Protestant is not exactly the same as becoming Catholic, but to me it was. Modernism and Apostasy were not on my Smorgasbord.

At 14 I was basically Evangelical, also still unbaptised. Between Christmas and New Year after I was 16, when reading Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, I was decided to be Catholic.

Between that, I had read lots of other history, but it was Eco who convinced me, the Inquisition was not targetting mainly Evangelicals (the Waldensians have kind of an affinity, but they were never the main target).

20:14 Gavin Ortlund is pretty close to very conservative Church of Sweden.

I could feel the bad faith in anti-Catholic comments from such people, well read, but always finding some little reason to "Re-nay" against Catholicism (like unfortunately René Goscinny did).

21:23 Hope she uses a good Catechism.

St. Pius X. Baltimore. If she knows German Konvertitenkatechismus Paderborn 1950 (I think it has some eugenics when it comes to prudence about marriage, though, so less totally recommending of that one).

22:21 If he's in Church History, will he remain content where he is at?

I am since about a decade the online friend of one Stephan Borgehammar I just heard of when studying in Lund. He's retired from a position of Professor in Church History and in Pastoral Theology, and all the time we knew each other, he had already converted to Catholicism.

He's the son of a now deceased Lutheran clergyman.

22:38 St. Augustine actually was part time in his life Pagan.

I've heard a Baptist pretend that St. Augustine's "theology of the body" (or lack of it) came from remaining somewhat of a Pagan Dualist (somewhere between Platonic and Manichaean) ...

That charge actually really exists. One reason why I give Kent Hovind lots worse grades in Church History than in Creation Science (where he's a decent amateur) is, well, he believed Alberto Rivera, but apart from that, he also made that charge in his dissertation.

25:41 I'm reminded of how Militant Thomist on Scholastic Answers twists St. Thomas Aquinas these days to avoid the conclusion that the Angelic Doctor did teach that a marriage both ratum AND consummatum is OK from the 14 / 12 limit.

Or how some 40 years ago, it was fashionable to claim St. Augustine would have been OK with Old Earth and Theistic Evolutionism, based (very loosely) on:

  • One Moment Creationism being other than Six Day Creationism
  • and he was open to God creating basically embrya of most species and then allowing them to grow up over basically gestation time or accelerated such.


That kind of thing attributed to Church Fathers was probably why my own conversion owes more to the Middle Ages than to the Church Fathers.

33:13 Various reasons not to be satisfied with Lutherans. As theologians.

Often delightful people, but theologians ... the most satisfying ones rely least on Luther.

35:30 I wish I could say the same for Jimmy Akin proposing other scenarios than Adam created as an individual 6000 to 7500 years ago, and no men before him.

I wish I could say the same for Militant Thomist pushing against teen marriages, not just in modern times (bad enough, leads to more abortions, more homosexuality, more trasngenderism when teens are forbidden to marry) but even restrospectively to St. Thomas' time.

36:20 As said, hope she has a good Catechism.

Like not the CCC.

37:30 "we never ever, ever even bring up a Protestant"

Do you celebrate Sts Fidelis of Sigmaringen and Thomas More?

I can find them on 24 April and 6 July in Martyrologium Romanum, trad version, but perhaps they are missing from your calendar?

It would be somewhat difficult to speak of the one without Henry VIII and the other without fanatical Calvinists ...

39:18 Not even the first few years of the Deformation.

Luther wasn't there in 1517, but he was by 1525.

On the other hand, in 1517, Luther was closer to Jansenism than to Lutheranism.

Reading Luther was part of why I would not be exactly strict Lutheran, even before I decided to be Catholic.

39:30 The spiritual ancestor of Dave Hunt was something like everyone or every second one on the Mayflower.

They had gone that way back in England, were protesting Anglicanism because it was too close to Catholicism, and on setting foot in the New World, some recovered, some didn't.

40:16 In fact, Bucer tried to bridge between Luther and Zwingli.

He's ancestor to both Anglicanism and Calvinism.

Obviously, trying to bridge between Luther (who believed the Real Presence) and Zwingli (who very much didn't) involved downplaying either the clarity or the importance or both of Eucharistic doctrine.

41:22 I have a problem with Karl Keating.

That book convinced a former Dominican in Paris that Young Earth Creationism comes from a particular kind of Anti-Catholic Protestantism.

At the time when there was this schism between Calvinists he alludes to, it was still very common for Roman Catholics to be Young Earth Creationist, and those who weren't were typically Day Age or Gap Theory.

42:07 Recommendation.

Ditch Karl Keating and reread Brant James Pitre instead!

If somehow you don't ditch Karl Keating, bring a dish of salt along to it ....

Catholic Truth
@CatholicTruthOfficial
Brant Pitre is amazing. As is Scott Hahn. John Bergsma. Steve Ray.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@CatholicTruthOfficial John Bergsma was interviewed by ... Matt Fradd (Pints with Aquinas being obviously the channel's name, not his own).

I find Bergsma decent, but doesn't go far enough in ditching Evolution.

Brant Pitre and Patrick Madrid are obviously "da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos" people.

Scott, I know the conversion story, but not all that much more. Steve Ray ... where can I find his material? Have missed him so far.


44:17 If anyone was "my Pope" while I was Lutheran, it was C. S. Lewis.

Explains why I needed an update on what the Inquisition actually was (I think he's typical for the kind of Mid to High Church Anglican or Lutheran whose main argument for remaining Protestant was the Inquisition), and also why I came late to being strict about Young Earth Creationism (reading St. Augustine's City of God after thirty), since he wasn't one.

But also explains why I have trouble taking some things from John MacArthur and his likes even seriously. Sure, on some level it is serious. It's lies and destroying at least part of the souls believing it, but still ...

49:42 I just had someone pretend nowhere in the Bible is anyone expected to go (in any way, shape or form) through anyone except Jesus, and obviously St. Paul actually did so in both Thessalonians and in Hebrews.

Having grown up in Austria, well, up to age 11, I never had a big problem with either Mariology or Hagiology.

50:35 Unfortunately, he objected to the translation "full of grace" and opted for "highly graced" ...

He did accuse "Papists" (as he called us in 1530, Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen) of pushing supersttition or idolatry.

Probably one of the first warning signals not to stay his admirer.

53:53 It was New England that was very anti-Church and anti-God?

Well, what was I saying about Hislop a few hours ago? He paved the road for Zeitgeist the Movie.

Some hate Catholicism more than they love Christ. Some love Catholicism more than they hate (if at all) Catholicism. Protestantism has two outputs, Catholicism and Apostasy.

Sorry, love Christ more than they hate (if at all) Catholicism ...

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Catholic Opponent of Jack Chick Sinks to Levels of Comparable Incoherence ....


I'm obviously not in the least endorsing the theory that Jack Chick believed the fraud Alberto Rivera on. But some ways of opposing it are less coherent than others, and this Novus Ordo* guy who thinks he's better at Catholic Apologetics than I am just did it, showed a low record:

The Catholic Church did not start Islam (Sad Anti-Catholics!)
Catholic Truth | 5 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT8-Hdo6klc


He starts out by portraying Kent Hovind in a very major glitch and incoherence, I can obviously only agree that is ridiculous of Kent Hovind.

0:27 "find a promising Muslim" It's like the French agent sent to the 13 Colonies in 1760 to find a promising US Citizen to raise a rebellion against England, what was her name again? Oh, wait, she didn't exist .... nor could she have found promosing US Citizens, had she existed ...

1:02 It would be more interesting to investigate how much Catholics, via Crusaders, were responsible for Protestantism.

I mean, more than one prominent Protestant power either was a country having made a participation in Crusades, or came from a Crusader state.

1) England (Richard Coeur de Lion was in the III Crusade)
2) Sweden (King St. Eric and Yarl Birger Crusaded in Finland, thereby helping to unify most of the territory by the latter)
3) Livonia and Curonia (Sword Bearers had grand masters who secularised during the Reformation, their territory didn't remain independent but came to Sweden, in Catholic times basically all of Livonia was Crusader ground, except the Arch Episcopal enclave Riga)
4) Prussia (a Grand Master of the Teutonic order secularised the territories of that order that were enclaves in Poland, and did so by accepting in 1525 the Polish King as liege lord)
5) Orange-Nassau has some history of Protestantising both Netherlands and British Isles, and there was a count of Orange in one of the early Crusades -- however, it seems he was not direct patrilinear ancestor of for instance William of Orange).

You may know there are Orthodox who taunt us with "being the first Protestantism" and when I was away among those guys, this was a thing I pondered.

But this could never come to a wholesale accusation against the Church, realistically, because other Crusaders betrayed the Church too and were opposed in time : Templars, and actually the Teutonic Order had tried to invade Poland in a pseudo-crusade, pretending the tolerance of Samogitians remaining pagans proved the head of state were never real Catholics. And then they were soundly beaten, mostly by Catholics (some of the Czechs may have been Hussites, though).

1:37 "Jack Chick is mentally delusional"

While Protestantism has a huge responsibility for the rise of the evils of Psychiatry, I'd prefer to have fewer Catholics among their accomplices. So, "delusion" being about belief, and madness being about a mismatch between passions and reasons, I think the word, concept of a symptom etc "delusional" and the noun "delusion" should be dropped.

Other point: are you pointing to every spirit angelic or soul in Hell being an ex-person or did you simply not know that Jack Chick had met his maker, even if that could have been somewhat briefly and on not so friendly terms?

Born Jack Thomas Chick
April 13, 1924 Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Died October 23, 2016 (aged 92)
Alhambra, California, U.S.


He died a few months after Sister Clare Crockett, whom I am not praying for, but to.

Catholic Truth
@CatholicTruthOfficial
Thank you for the comment. Yes, we know that he died. We have prayed for him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
OK, @CatholicTruthOfficial ... was your "he is etc" a glitch, then?


2:10 You might be missing two more points.
1) Catholic Palestinians actually living there all year round;
2) The story is arguably about the time when the Persian King Chosroes II briefly helped Jews persecute Christians.

Toward the beginning of his reign, Khosrow II had good relations with the Byzantines. However, when in 602 Emperor Maurice was murdered by his General Phocas (602–610), who usurped the Roman (Byzantine) throne, Khosrow launched an offensive against Constantinople: ostensibly to avenge Maurice's death, but his aim clearly included the annexation of as much Byzantine territory as was feasible.[1] Khosrow II, along with Shahrbaraz and his other best generals, quickly captured Dara and Edessa in 604, and recaptured lost territory in the north, which made the Sasanian–Byzantine borders go back to the pre-591 frontier before Khosrow gave Maurice territory in return for military aid against Bahram Chobin. After having reclaimed lost territory, Khosrow withdrew from the battlefield and handed military operations to Shahrbaraz and Shahin Vahmanzadegan. The Sasanian armies then invaded and plundered Syria and Asia Minor, and in 608 advanced into Chalcedon.

In 610, Heraclius revolted against Phocas and killed him, crowning himself as Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He then tried to negotiate peace with Khosrow II by sending diplomats to his court. Khosrow, however, rejected their offer and said: "That kingdom belongs to me, and I shall enthrone Maurice's son, Theodosius, as emperor. [As for Heraclius], he went and took the rule without our order and now offers us our own treasure as gifts. But I shall not stop until I have him in my hands." Khosrow then had the diplomats executed.[31]

In 613 and 614, General Shahrbaraz besieged and captured Damascus and Jerusalem, and the True Cross was carried away in triumph. Soon afterwards, Shahin marched through Anatolia, defeating the Byzantines numerous times; he conquered Egypt in 618. The Byzantines could offer but little resistance, as they were torn apart by internal dissensions, and pressed by the Avars and Slavs, who were invading the Empire from across the Danube River.[32] In 622/3, Rhodes and several other islands in the eastern Aegean fell to the Sasanians, threatening a naval assault on Constantinople.[33][34][35][36] Such was the despair in Constantinople that Heraclius considered moving the government to Carthage in Africa.[37]


A little later:

"Following the Third Perso-Turkic War in 627, Heraclius defeated the Iranian army at the Battle of Nineveh and advanced towards Ctesiphon. Khosrow II fled from his favorite residence, Dastagird (near Ctesiphon), without offering resistance.[32] Heraclius then captured Dastagird and plundered it."


So, Jerusalem having been captured by this crook well before the Hegira, and Catholics being allied to a people who later became Muslims, and Mohammed actually appreciating the Catholic Emperor Heraclius (that's a fact, not a Jack Chick theory), could be the kind of things that Alberto Rivera (whoever he really was, his past as a Jesuit seems to have been invented) or the guys he was frontman for were spinning on.

2:21 Thank you for mentioning the Seldjuk Turks, but the question of the origins of Islam obviously predates the time when they, in the name of Islam, had already become our allies. You comment on a story set in early 600's by mentioning very different circumstances in the decades or years or months leading up to 1099 ... obviously, just a little glitch on your part, right?

Catholic Truth
I'm not sure what this comment means. The Seljuk Turks came long after Islam was started, but was one of the reasons the Crusades were called. They were also one of the reasons the Byzantine Empire called for the Pope to help them, and the church getting involved in the Crusades in the first place. This was the first and main reason of the 3 reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure, @CatholicTruthOfficial . I dispute nothing of that.

But it's totally irrelevant to the situation back in early 600's when Mohammed was actually if not an active ally, at least a sympathiser with the Proto-Crusader Heraclius, who was fighting another type of infidel, namely Chosroes II.

And THAT is the time period Alberto Rivera's and Jack Chick's and Kent Hovind's misinformation of the matter is relevant to.

A bit like you cannot explain the beginning of Protestantism by appealing to a situation in which a Catholic Young Earth Creationist is suspected of being a "dupe of Kent Hovind" and hence a Protestant.


* Correcting myself, he actually goes to Latin Mass, but he's against Rad Trads:

Latin Mass Catholics vs. Rad Trads
Catholic Truth | 14 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK5b2d6j984


The phrase "Novus Ordo" still appears in the URL, but I removed it from the title.

Friday, October 8, 2021

Catholic Truth on Faith of Mary


The Amazing Faith of Mary (And what we can learn from Mary!)
9.IX.2021 | Catholic Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK_6GKtJ950


I
dialogued!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5:12 While Zachary did ask "whereby shall I know this" to someone he would have been able to recognise as an angel, Mary was given a means of knowing - going to Elizabeth and looking for her pregnancy.

Catholic Truth
Mary believed the long before she went to Elizabeth. She believed the angel immediately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Catholic Truth Is this a Catholic dogma, and is this in all Catholic authors, and what does believing in the context mean?

she was troubled at being compared to Jael and Judith suggests a somewhat other story than immediate, complete, unreserved acceptance to me, but I have not yet looked up Catena Aurea ...

We know Elisabeth said "blessed art thou who believed" but that is obviously compared to the somewhat silly remarks by Zacharias : first, if he was a Cohen, he was able to recognise an angel of the one true God, so it was just impertinent to ask for verification, and second, if against all odds the apparition had been diabolical, asking the Devil "how will I know" is just as silly.

St. Elisabeth Cohen did not state that she was not giving the verification that the Blessed Virgin had wanted.

Btw syntax - "Mary believed the" - believed the what?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now I have [looked on Catena Aurea]:

"GREEK EX. But as she might be accustomed to these visions, the Evangelist ascribes her agitation not to the vision, but to the things told her, saying, she was troubled at his words. Now observe both the modesty and wisdom of the Virgin; the soul, and at the same time the voice. When she heard the joyful words, she pondered them in her mind, and neither openly resisted through unbelief, nor forthwith lightly complied; avoiding equally the inconstancy of Eve, and the insensibility of Zacharias. Hence it is said, And she cast in her mind what manner of salutation this was, it is not said conception for as yet she knew not the vastness of the mystery. But the salutation, was there aught of passion in it as from a man to a virgin? or was it not of God, seeing that he makes mention of God, saying, The Lord is with you. AMBROSE; She wondered also at the new form of blessing, unheard of before, reserved for Mary alone. ORIGEN; For if Mary had known that similar words had been addressed to others, such a salutation would never have appeared to her so strange and alarming."

Origen and Ambrose are right about "the Lord is with you", but the words "blessed among women" had been adressed with some modification to Jael and to Judith.

Note also that the source signed as "Greek Ex." states She was not just avoiding the insensitivity of Zacharias, but also the inconsistence of Eve. Exactly as I had imagined She would.

II
6:39 Are you sure you are describing the Blessed Virgin's tactic of verification or making it to make sense correctly?

When exactly does it say She would retreat into Herself to pray and reflect to make things make sense to Her?

6:51 it seems you confuse "was troubled" with "pondered all these things".

There are different moments between the salutation of the angel and some more:

  • 1) She doesn't understand what it is, She is troubled, doesn't say She pondered anything right then
  • 2) She ponders things in Her heart in Luke 2:19 and 2:51.


III
7:27 I don't find Her going alone, without company or caravan, either in Luke or in Catena Aurea to Luke.

The haste doesn't necessarily mean She went alone, She could have taken servants in sufficient number, the haste does mean, She wanted to see the cousin's pregnancy at least confirm the words of the angel, if you ask me.

And She got confirmation way beyond just that.

7:33 She left Joseph at home ... but She had not yet entered into his household!

They were fiancés, not yet living together.

No reason why he could not be left out of a caravan, especially as She was on distinct women's business (helping someone to get the child delivered).

IV
7:39 "and then, right after that, she comes home"

Ooops ...

And Mary abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house.

Luke 1:56. I am not sure this means She was left out of the delivery or whether there is a break in the chronological order, but I am sure that it means She did not go home right after that and it's time to deliver Our Lord. After the birth of St. John the Baptist, there are six months more to the birth of Our Lord.


After this, "Catholic Truth" makes many good points in a way I find somewhat overdramatic, but which seems still good. I did not so far watch to the end.

Saturday, September 11, 2021

Catholic Truth Channel Takes on Ray Comfort about Reformation


A Catholic DEBUNKS Ray Comfort and Living Waters (Their False Catholic History)
1 sept. 2021 | Catholic Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwX2yQN42K8


I
before watching, dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah ... their false Catholic history ... when will you do one about yours, when you still pretend, some of you, a Fundamentalist reading of the Bible is Protestant, while both Trent (a real council) and "Vatican II" (a fake one but with remaining nuggets of Catholicity) in Session V on original sin and in paragraph 3 of Dei Verbum argue the history from Adam to Abraham is real?

Catholic Truth
If you don't accept Vatican II you are not even a Catholic, but a schismatic. We will pray for you, and that's not what this video is about. We will have videos on this topic soon though. If you would like to make an actual comment on the video and what we discussed, feel free, and your comment will stay. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Catholic Truth If you accept either Trent or Vatican II or both, you are either a Young Earth Creationist or a Heretic according to the councils you accept.

I was thrown out from Catholic answers for defending that and Geocentrism.

That said, you tell me when a new video adresses that - as for the topic, I have done several answers on it myself.

II
3:58 It can be noted, in 1517, 95 theses, he was more like Jansenist than properly speaking Protestant.

III
4:45 Zwingli and Oecolampadius disagreed with Luther right away.

Bucer and his continuators Calvin and Cranmer after Bucer tried to mediate between Zwingli and Luther.

Calvin got denial of Real Presence from Zwingli and Predestination by going just a little bit stronger than Luther did in De Servo Arbitrio. He and Zwingli agreed on Presbyterian organisation, while Anglicans went with continuing to have - but with no true apostolic succession, soon - "bishops". Luther considered than an adiaphoron.

But yes, Protestants disagreeing with each other is fairly much Protestantism in a nutshell.

IV
7:44 My bottom line - if you have a link to an online text of Tetzel's theses, I'd definitely like to share it.

Btw, the Comfort video stated the 95 theses started the split, not that they immediately consumed it.

V
8:06 Luther didn't launch any Reformation in 1517, but he certainly did so with his new liturgy in Wittenberg which left out the canon prayer from what he still considered as Mass (except for words of institution) and when he reduced the sacraments to three. See what happens after his return to Wittenburg March 6 1522:

"Luther next set about reversing or modifying the new church practices. By working alongside the authorities to restore public order, he signalled his reinvention as a conservative force within the Reformation.[94] After banishing the Zwickau prophets, he faced a battle against both the established Church and the radical reformers who threatened the new order by fomenting social unrest and violence.[95]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Return_to_Wittenberg_and_Peasants'_War

If you scroll up to previous paragraphs, you'll find:

"In the summer of 1521, Luther widened his target from individual pieties like indulgences and pilgrimages to doctrines at the heart of Church practice. In On the Abrogation of the Private Mass, he condemned as idolatry the idea that the mass is a sacrifice, asserting instead that it is a gift, to be received with thanksgiving by the whole congregation.[84] His essay On Confession, Whether the Pope has the Power to Require It rejected compulsory confession and encouraged private confession and absolution, since "every Christian is a confessor."[85] In November, Luther wrote The Judgement of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows. He assured monks and nuns that they could break their vows without sin, because vows were an illegitimate and vain attempt to win salvation.[86]"

So, by 1521, Luther most certainly was launching a reformation, though not the same as that of Ray Comfort.

8:20 While I agree he made things worse, I don't agree with the implication they were bad before, and he did not content himself (or for that matter consider he was doing so) with dividing, he set out to eradicate practises he thought erroneous, and which we hold to be dogmatically obligatory.

It's a bad play on words to say he didn't launch what is known as the Reformation, just because he didn't actually reform things correctly. Unlike, for instance, St. Ignatius of Loyola.

VI
9:03 "schism is one of the biggest condemnations in the Bible"

Yeah, second to heresy, like when Our Lord condemned Sadducees for not believing the Resurrection or an afterlife while waiting even, or when both St. Paul writing to Timothy and St. John state that the last days will see an upsurge of errors.

N O T
TO
M E N T I O N

how St. Peter prophecies errors against Creation and Flood.

VII
12:54 Unfortunately, Jacobus Latomus was contradicted by Luther.

Jacobus Latomus insists that Abraham was justified for no previous works, in the instant he believed what God was telling him. But he also insists, this does not mean one can live as sinfully as one likes after being saved. Or that one need never do external works of penance. Luther contradicted this.

VIII
19:59 Thank you for the editing, Kate!